archive.org reviews need moderators

[VA $l!m]

bitch, bitch...complain, complain.  :-P  --RANT:

i don't know if anybody has the same problem as i do, but...

the reviews at the archive.org are a freakin' silly mess.

i sure hope that the way the Wikipaug site is set up for reviews is better managed.  though i realize it won't neccesarily be serving the same purpose.

Its just that the way the reviews are handled on the archive site is ridiculous, and anyone w/ half a brain cell should realize that its best to ignore all the individual show reviews altogether.

Which is truely a shame, in that it COULd serve as a wonderful resource , but besides the wide difference in opinion towards performances that is to be expected, one has to deal with a large overall ignorance towards the judgiing of the quality of recordings.

Bottom line is that it would be nice if there were some sort of moderation...not that a moderators opinion is gold neccesarily, but at least some 'weeding' out of useless or absurd missinformation  would be nice.

---Anything to keep it from becomming the jumbled mess that it is now.

Honestly there are only like two or so reviewers that i even bother w/ reading and are helpful.



just thought it would be nice to have something to whine about.   :roll:

slim.

[mattstick]

yeah, it's not very helpful is it?

The reviews should be categorized into opinons, and technical notes.

Most of the time I just want to know about dropouts/glitches/splices.

[VA $l!m]

yeah, it's not very helpful is it?

The reviews should be categorized into opinons, and technical notes.

Most of the time I just want to know about dropouts/glitches/splices.

i think that would be the best way to go.
I like tech and show notes, & both sides of the equation should be taken with a grain of salt when reading,
but your right, it would be so much more useful if there was just ONE section of reviews for the recording's quality, glitches, splices, tracking errors, etc...

& then another for an "editorial" free- for- all... i mean its allright  to listen to a bunch of half bogus stories about how such and such show was great --and yea i was ther in 67 in goldengate(--yeah, right!)
BUt it gets ridiculous, especially in the 80s and 90s w/ some random 86 or 95 show getting 20 different 5 star reviews , just because the acid was especially great that day or whatever.

it just gets bogged down    w/ inconsistency and unneccesary info., and kills any  value as a reference source
IMO.

I'm rambling.
but this is the bitch dept. so i figured this was as good as place as any to get this off my chest.
thx. slim. :mrgreen:

[rowjimmy]

But d00d.


The acid was great that day. We parked under a tree and sold sodas until the cans were too slippery to hold; then we threw everything back into the trunk and set off to the stadium. They soundchecked Aligator while were wandered near the stadium and mindmelded with some $1 grilled cheeses which were like rubber in your mouth but fun to throw against the wall in the drum tunnel. Remember that, man? You could get lost walking through that 20 foot tunnel with the wh00ping and hollerin and drums banging around and echoing. I remember some chick got naked and ran back to the lot, bumping into Manny. We think thats where he lost his stash. He thinks that where he lost his virginity. A lot of things can happen in the infinity it takes to fall to the ground when dosed but I'm pretty sure thats not one of them.

On the way home, we got puled over for speeding on the Parkway and the ranger was well within his rights to haul us all in but Manny, still convinced that he had become a man that day talked us out of getting searched and ticketed.

totally and awesome day. GET THIS SHOW!

[VA $l!m]

--excatly. :lol:

my favorite, i can't think of what show it is right now, there is a reviewer that goes on and on about a certain show, and says something like "---and THEN, they played Bertha(or something) and a huge storm cloud burst and it poured, and we all got soaked, but we didnt care..."etc, etc... BUT then the next reviewer is kind enough to note that the show was in an indoor venue.  :roll:  I gotta find that one again its really sorta sad.

[mopper_smurf]

 I check for the equipment the taper used. Last years SCI show in Amsterdam was taped by a friendly knowledgable guy and I used his name to find other shows he taped.
(that's how I came up with my current podcast - http://blogger.xs4all.nl/werksman/archive/2005/10/07/62214.aspx).

Some reviews are helpful, lots of them suck. Same goes for the internet as a whole, so why bother. You can spot the difference soon enough.

Wine, beer or any beverage spiced with alcohol were a lot better in the late seventies. I needed far less of it to get a buzz. :mrgreen: