In Defense Of Future (And Current) Writers. Jun 24 '02    Write an essay on this topic. Tweet The Bottom Line There is no Bottom Line, there is only a sort of straightish curve somewhere below the middle. *** Any similarity between any view expressed here and any view expressed or supported by any 'movement' of any 'movement' is purely coincidental *** There are a lot of things Epinions has done in the past which have proved rather unpopular. In fact, it seems a bit difficult to find many things they have done which have been particularly popular, apart from generally existing. What Epinions has done that is seen by most as being rather a good thing, is to create (or allow/enable to exist) something of a sense of community. The general idea of interest for the moment being the rating system. Epinions has, in effect, left the rating system almost completely to us - the community. But, as someone famous once said about progress, it was probably a good idea once, but it's gone too far. I would have to estimate that the majority of those in the community who are rating reviews have ideas on rating things that are at least sufficiently similar to my own that I can't tell the difference. But, quite frankly, there are a large number of people in the community who have simply gone wonky. The general standards of some large portion of raters have reached ludicrous levels. When I run into someone new at the site, I try my best to get to most, if not all of their earlier reviews, and I am always surprised to find that as the reviews go back in time, the standards shift noticeably. Reviews that sit there, written a year or more ago, have all VH ratings, and they wouldn't stand a chance of a VH today. And here I sit (I'm actually laying...?... lieing?...I am currently horizontal), both Top Reviewer and Advisor in both Books and Movies, spouting this opinion. And some consider me a fairly harsh reviewer to boot (often dishing out the only H amid a sea of VH ratings). I admit, once I got past my first twenty or so reviews, I haven't run into many ratings that weren't VH (revenge silliness aside). Certainly, I make no complaint about ratings given me (because frankly, who cares?), rather the ratings I see, extremely frequently, given to others. The problem (as I like to think of it) is that there are many writers here who, like myself, receive virtually nothing but VH ratings. Most all the Top Reviewers and Advisors I'm sure, and many, many others. At any rate, the problem is that (taking myself for an example), because what I write gets a VH rating should in no way be seen as some sort of expression that something similar to what I write is what is required to get a VH rating. Rather often, what I write is closer to exposition than it is to a review, and there are many others here who are like me in that regard. This is not to say that whatever I may write is 'better' than what is necessary for a VH rating, because that would simply smack of perpetuating the problem. Why not make that level of 'goodness' what, in fact, is required for a VH, and there we are all over again. No, it is rather that what I write is longer than what is necessary. It is not better than what is necessary, simply more. Let's face it, I ramble. Lots of others do as well. The level of detail, discussion, and explanation to be found in many of the reviews that get all VH ratings, is far beyond what is (or should be) required. The result of the strange escalation in rating standards has made the task beyond most people, and not because most people couldn't write a VH review, but simply because most people wouldn't want to. I consider that a serious failure in the rating system as it now stands. What we have come to is a system where people have (apparently) huge and bizarre checklists that must be satisfied in order for someone to get a VH on their review. As an Advisor in Movies (and more importantly simply as someone who reads a lot of the reviews) I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it is far too difficult for a new person to get a VH here. It would, in fact, be difficult for a large number of professional movie critics working at major newspapers to get a VH here. This is, of course, only my opinion, but it seems to me (and has always seemed to me) that this should be the sort of site where an average person with an average ability to write the English language could, for a lark, tell the world their opinion of a movie. This is not really the case at this point. The person I have described is most likely to get at best an H, and more likely an SH. The site is instead the sort of place where a person has to have a serious interest in movies, if not movie critique, in order to have a chance at a VH. This just seems contrary to the whole idea to me. I thought the idea was something along the lines of 'real people giving their opinion', not 'some more movie critics writing reviews'. A VH movie review should not (of necessity) require that one go into detail about the direction, editing, lighting, cinematography, etc. A well-written, simple review that includes some manner of plot summary along with some detail as to the reviewer's thoughts on the movie should suffice. The same is true of book reviews. Not every reviewer needs to discuss pacing, mood, character development (in an in-depth way), etc. The general idea applies to many other categories in an even more serious way (to me). Not long ago I read a review of a toaster that would have left the maker of the toaster with his mouth hanging open. This review had everything I could possibly imagine anyone would want to know (not to mention a great deal of information that I could not care less about). Now, while the review was rated VH by many people, it received about 10 H ratings. What else, for the love of God, could anyone say about a bloody toaster? I mean, length of the power cord or something? I'm not exactly opposed to knowing the length of a power cord. I'm sure it is a helpful bit of information in its own way. But, is it really mandatory information? And what does all this get us in the end? Less new writers. Writers that I am in no way convinced I don't want to read. Imagine the new people that hear about this website where a person could make money just by offering their opinions (try to contain the laughter as much as possible). Imagine that they then come and look around. Now suppose they get pretty curious and interested, and start looking through all the Top Reviewers and Advisors and start checking out some of their reviews. Now let's suppose that they manage to avoid my reviews, and are thus pretty impressed by the reviews they see. Wow!, they think to themselves, there are some good writers here. Moving right along, they think maybe they could try this out, and just to see what's what on a more average sort of level, they check out the Just Ins (something recently more complicated), or they pick a product at random and read all the reviews. And what do they find as they poke about but a bunch of reviews that look pretty darn good to them, but have pretty low ratings. Egads, they think, no sense bothering with that. I was just going to whip something out there, I'm not altogether a slouch in the writing department, but didn't want to spend hours doing this, and look at the kind of ratings I'm going to get. A Very Helpful movie review does not necessarily mean a treatise on the thing that covers every possible aspect of the film. A Very Helpful movie review is one that tells me (to some extent) what the movie is about, and gives me some expression of the reviewer's experience of the movie. This may or may not include remarks on: the acting/actors, the direction, themes of the plot, etc. It does not have to be as lengthy and in-depth as that which most Top Reviewers put forward. A rating of VH is not a nomination for Top Reviewer status. Of course, getting a lot of VH ratings is part of what you need to become a Top Reviewer, but that shouldn't mean that when deciding on a rating one should be asking themselves if they think the person should be a Top Reviewer. This is a site (I hope) where a person can monkey around, voice their opinion, have that opinion read, and get ratings that are based on a fairly reasonable view of what it means to be a site where 'real people give their opinion'. Now, will the best writers 'rise to the top'? Of course they will. Will the ones who put even more effort into it get more reads, and eventually TR or Advisor status? Of course they will. But, are they the only ones who ought to be getting VH ratings? Not by a mile. And most importantly, is a review (movie, book, or otherwise) the sort of thing that should be approached with checklist in tow, where we count the score, and knock off points if the director (or whatever) isn't mentioned? Give me a break. There are rules we all feel pretty confident in of course (if a movie review is absolutely nothing but a plot summary, I'm going to give it a SH and that's really all there is to it), but when these pretty general ideas turn into a list of twenty or thirty things that any review in a certain area has to have, things have become silly and we have become obnoxiously self-important. As little offense to the powers that be as possible, but let's take a good look around us here. We don't work for a major magazine or newspaper here. This is a stupid, little website where people babble. We don't need to abandon standards altogether, but let's try and be a little less serious in our seriousness.

Read all comments (58)|Write your own comment

Write an essay on this topic.