This is sad...Author angry over review spams blog

TheDukester wrote:

Ryan B. wrote:

That's courage.

Horse_____.

That's a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about the people willing to take a stand to say "enough is enough" with the piling on.

The author is GREAT! The internet has spawned thousands of reviewers who have no business reviewing. (Look at me! hahaha)

It is a real problem. A piece of work can be destroyed by a reviewer that has zero credibility. Reviewers have always been a problem even before the internet. Many have said the reviewer is a bitter person with no talent that is out to destroy the work of others and I believe there is a lot of truth in that statement.

My favorite story is one with Dean Martin. This comes from the book "Backstage with Dean Martin". Dean read of review of his television show in the paper that said his producer Greg Garrison deserved all the credit for the shows success based on the fact that Dean never rehearsed and only showed up one day a week. The story has it that Dean called the lady reviewer up and used language that would make Mr. Skeletor blush! HAHAHA.

I'm all for calling these reviewers out on the carpet. Bravo to the lady author!

Your larger point is interesting, Weeks, but how do you know it applies to this situation? Have you read the book? Do you agree with the author that the snippet "Don and Katy watched hypnotically Gino place more coffees out at another table with supreme balance." is perfectly fine writing?

He Fucking Dick then Bullshit.

Black Barney wrote:

i don't think there is such thing as bad publicity tho. I mean everyone is talking about her and this blog.

Umm, remember a story about MayDay. That was definitely bad publicity.

That woman can't write. Maybe the story is fine, but with sentences like those illustrated by the blogger in his initial response, seriously....she can't write. Even her rants were terribly misspelled. Jackie is just a sad, sad woman.

I'm with JJ though, I'd bet she's a firecracker in the sack.

On the other hand, if she tried to talk dirty, I think it would just be confusing.

Angry Weeks wrote:

The author is GREAT! The internet has spawned thousands of reviewers who have no business reviewing. (Look at me! hahaha)

It's truth, brother. Just go to TOS and see all the cunts that have no business writing their name, let alone trying to form a cognitive, well thought out, and balanced review.

It is a real problem. A piece of work can be destroyed by a reviewer that has zero credibility.

This is where you lose me, though. A piece of work can be destroyed only by a credible reviewer because of readership and the overall body of work of the reviewer. Some random schlep is not going to get the hits, the interest, or have people take them seriously, and ironically (or coincidentally...), it's because of the internet. There are so many opinions on a subject, and when it comes down to it, the consensus is where the truth seems to lie. If 20 reviewers say something is good, and many of them are reasonably well respected by the target consumers, then that one lone flyer is going to be ignored, by and large, unless a shitstorm ensues to bring attention to that reviewer.

I think the real problem with reviewers are the shills. There's a few people that I won't watch anymore simply because they come off like the Billy Mays of boardgames where all they do is tell everyone that every product they review is amazing, followed by a 10 minute rules overview. That's where the problem really lies.

Reviewers have always been a problem even before the internet. Many have said the reviewer is a bitter person with no talent that is out to destroy the work of others and I believe there is a lot of truth in that statement.

I don't buy it. Look at Endersgame, Barnes, Ken, Drake, UvulaBob, Josh Look, and Matt Thrower. None are talentless or malicious. Sure, there's going to be some fucks that just hate everything, but people will read two or three reviews of that ilk from a single reviewer and realize that they're just bitter, jealous people that have the innate feeling that they are better than everyone, at which point their voice becomes pretty much useless banter. Sure some unknowing people will stumble onto their reviews and even fewer will take action on it, but by and large the internet is pretty self regulating due to the overwhelming amount of opinion out there.

I'm all for calling these reviewers out on the carpet. Bravo to the lady author!

When you take all of the "Billy Mays" out there to task, then I'll believe you.

Notahandle wrote:

He Fucking Dick then Bullshit.

Checkmate!

The original review is pretty rubbish. The book may suck, but that guy wouldn't have spent more than 5 minutes writing the review. I've seem back-of-book synopsis (sp?) that were longer than that.

Agreed. 3 sentences do not a review make.

My review of this thread is He Fucking Dick then Bullshit.

This is where you lose me, though. A piece of work can be destroyed only by a credible reviewer because of readership and the overall body of work of the reviewer. Some random schlep is not going to get the hits, the interest, or have people take them seriously, and ironically (or coincidentally...), it's because of the internet. There are so many opinions on a subject, and when it comes down to it, the consensus is where the truth seems to lie. If 20 reviewers say something is good, and many of them are reasonably well respected by the target consumers, then that one lone flyer is going to be ignored, by and large, unless a shitstorm ensues to bring attention to that reviewer.

I think the real problem with reviewers are the shills. There's a few people that I won't watch anymore simply because they come off like the Billy Mays of boardgames where all they do is tell everyone that every product they review is amazing, followed by a 10 minute rules overview. That's where the problem really lies.

I agree with you about the shills but random schleps get many hits everyday. Go to BGG and see their reviews on the front page. You are assuming that credible reviewers have more hits than one that it is not credible. This is not true. The fact is a random schlep that posts on BGG gets more hits than Barnes and Thrower combined due to the domination of Mama Geek. I also disagree that the consensus is where the truth lies. I got two words for you, "Puerto Rico". I have played "Puerto Rico" and seen the reaction from gamers and non-gamers and I can tell you that in no way the consensus is correct. You also realize that the consensus says that "Munchkin" is a great game. Not here on this site or maybe not on BGG but overall in the gaming world Munchkin is highly regarded.

When you look at the consensus you also have the possibility of "Hive Mind Mentality" at work. This is something I have spoken about many times and it is a bad indicator of quality. remember the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes?

I have often wondered how many people have logged onto BGG and wanted to get into boardgaming and were looking for a great game and selected Puerto Rico as their choice due to the consensus. They purchase the game and play it and like me find it to be so bland and boring that they give up the impulse to pursue boardgaming any further. Of course, this is impossible to find out how many times this has happened but I think we would all be shocked if we knew the actual number.

In the end the value of reviewers is debateable. The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the reviewer is worthless. I have been reading William Shatner's book "Up Till Now" and look what he says about critics or reviewers in talking about the first reviews of Star Trek:

"I wasn't at all concerned about our reviews. The many excellent reviews I'd received during my career had not made me a star. So what damage could a poor review do to me?"

I think the same can be applied to games. Barnes and Thrower have no power to make a game a star and likewise have no power to ruin a games sales. Like I said, look at "Munchkin"

superflytnt wrote:
" Agreed. 3 sentences do not a review make."
Depends which website you're on. You know the one I mean...

So if it wasn't a legit review, why'd the author get so pissed?

clockwirk wrote:

So if it wasn't a legit review, why'd the author get so pissed?

Cause she is derranged.