http://www.metal-archives.com/

I was recently surprised to see this popular website described as "ultra elitist" and the review system criticized for some rather odd reasons. I'm sure most are familiar with the site.

"Elitist" gets thrown around negatively a lot, and I don't quite see how the site qualifies as being this (in any negative way). I suppose this stems from the nature of discourse surrounding the site - intelligent arguments are given more weight than popular opinion in many cases. I suppose this could alienate some but it is this attitude that has made the site the success it is today.

They also seem to have a big advantage over other sites in the review department: they aren't a webzine, they don't advertise labels, they aren't in the business of promoting bands or metal in general. So all opinions are welcome (as long as the review meets a certain minimal standard of written quality).

Plenty of room for improvement of course...


-----

Written by Guest on 04.09.2008 at 02:28
Calm down, stop being so sensitive and making baseless accusations and whining about freedom of speech. You're taking my words way too seriously. I'm not talking about restricting opinions at all, just the manner in which they are presented - the standard of quality you just mentioned and what I keep having to repeat.

If that's what you're talking about why did you bring up the number of x% scores a certain reviewer had given out? What does that have to do with quality? Show me some examples of this shoddy quality you're talking about (I'm really just trying to see your point of view, but so far it seems your main complaint is that there are too many negative reviews).

Written by Guest on 04.09.2008 at 02:28
All you've done is bleat on about MA's golden rules, which you clearly have a major hard-on for, you've given no evidence whatsoever that the website offers any kind of consistent level of quality in its reviews, instead repeatedly misunderstood what I've been saying. I don't think adjusting a few guidelines here and there amount to an attack on people's freedom btw and my argument about the idea over using 0 and 10 to quantify an album is a pretty solid view as far as I'm concerned.

It's not solid, it's arbitrary and useless. You're asking the mods to reject certain opinions:

Mod: "What do you think of this album?"
Reviewer: "It's awful, I gave it 0%"
Mod: "Wrong!!! Review rejected."

This is the sort of insanity I am extrapolating from your viewpoint. If I have been unfair please clarify, but I cannot under any circumstances understand how limiting user opinions would improve the site.

Written by Guest on 04.09.2008 at 02:28
Anyway I really don't care enough about MA to warrant any further imput on this subject, especially when you're so blindly adamant about its superiority despite the blatant lack of quality all over the site, not to mention your flair for the dramatic. Maybe you should start a thread on it yourself seeing as this was a thread about Earth. Before you do I strongly suggest you take a stroll through some of the reviews on there and see for yourself what I'm talking about, unless of course you work for them which would explain your fanboyish attitude toward MA.

Again, an example of the sort of review you're talking about would help. Sure there are poor reviews on the site, but there are poor reviews on every metal site. It's the freedom of MA where all opinions are accepted that gives it an advantage over webzines that need advertising dollars.