Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
- Posts: 2806
- Thank you received: 130
Forum Login
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
This is sad...Author angry over review spams blog
03 Apr 2011 11:58 #93010
by tin0men
Replied by tin0men on topic Re:This is sad...Author angry over review spams blog
Angry Weeks wrote:
Context and Community is key.
I'd qualify the above to say, "A reviewer without a solid context & history to the reader, is largely worthless.".
Yea, the vast majority of thumbs-up-for-all "reviews" at BGG tend to be substantially worthless, in the face of the reflexive thumbing that goes on and feedback-loops the popular but worthless above the useful. BGG is a context-less vacuum when it comes to the bulk of reviews. Your comment about Puerto Rico is a perfect case in point. That's how I got my copy.
But given a reviewer - be it movie, music, video or board-game - that the reader *knows* tends to frequently match their preferences, and deliver consistently _useful_ buy recommendations, that reviewer can save the reader a lot of time & money wasted on worthless high-thumb dreck, and let them get right to the FUN.
And a good *familiar* reviewer that's not too close to your preferences can also drag your tastes into new territory that you'd normally never consider.
I'm not going to buy everything Matt or Michael or Pete or Ken B etc etc likes or recommends. But I'm going to know from my prior history that something they're strong on may be worth a close look and investing some time comparing across reviews from other familiar reviewers and the *local* Community.
And when I see an unfamiliar reviewer here, I can also better gauge their BS factor based on the comments and responses they draw from a more 'known' pool of opinions.
Not to mention that *every* review here is fundamentally assisted by the uncensored discussions that accompany it. That community response helps you differentiate when a given 'trusted' reviewer is getting way off into the weeds. And help you tell when that game he just slammed is a product of his just having a blind spot and still could be worth a shot.
And this all comes back to the solid value-loss when you convert communities like Boardgamenews into a Press Release stream. You want those reviewers you prefer elevated out of the morass. A community often tends to do that. What you do not want for reviews is a strict democracy.
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
Context and Community is key.
I'd qualify the above to say, "A reviewer without a solid context & history to the reader, is largely worthless.".
Yea, the vast majority of thumbs-up-for-all "reviews" at BGG tend to be substantially worthless, in the face of the reflexive thumbing that goes on and feedback-loops the popular but worthless above the useful. BGG is a context-less vacuum when it comes to the bulk of reviews. Your comment about Puerto Rico is a perfect case in point. That's how I got my copy.
But given a reviewer - be it movie, music, video or board-game - that the reader *knows* tends to frequently match their preferences, and deliver consistently _useful_ buy recommendations, that reviewer can save the reader a lot of time & money wasted on worthless high-thumb dreck, and let them get right to the FUN.
And a good *familiar* reviewer that's not too close to your preferences can also drag your tastes into new territory that you'd normally never consider.
I'm not going to buy everything Matt or Michael or Pete or Ken B etc etc likes or recommends. But I'm going to know from my prior history that something they're strong on may be worth a close look and investing some time comparing across reviews from other familiar reviewers and the *local* Community.
And when I see an unfamiliar reviewer here, I can also better gauge their BS factor based on the comments and responses they draw from a more 'known' pool of opinions.
Not to mention that *every* review here is fundamentally assisted by the uncensored discussions that accompany it. That community response helps you differentiate when a given 'trusted' reviewer is getting way off into the weeds. And help you tell when that game he just slammed is a product of his just having a blind spot and still could be worth a shot.
And this all comes back to the solid value-loss when you convert communities like Boardgamenews into a Press Release stream. You want those reviewers you prefer elevated out of the morass. A community often tends to do that. What you do not want for reviews is a strict democracy.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.197 seconds