When I go to my reviews page on my profile, I notice that a few of them are gone from that page, including my reviews for Horseback's "Half Blood," The Contortionist's "Intrinsic," and Meshuggah's "Koloss." I'm not sure if this is just normal or if something is seriously wrong. If somebody could explain and help me out with this, it would be very appreciated.

---

I remember you gave The Contortionist one a 20/20 and Koloss 19/20....HEY, I just checked them, and they were changed from "review" to "comment". My best guess is because you gave them such high scores. But then again, I could be wrong, so don't hold it against me if I am, but I know (from obvious past experiences on here) that could be a possible reason. That's hella weird. Your reviews are awesome, they surpass ANY "comment" that I'VE read on here!

---

"Your GOD died on a cross. Mine holds a hammer in his hand. Make your own conclusions." --Nergal (Behemoth)

The best person to contact would be desse_de_la_nuit she is the person in charge of the reviews n she's awesome. And it seems that it's more than just those three reviews that got changed to comments. And it's even weirder that they got changed without you knowing, that's just fucking retarded.

---

"Your GOD died on a cross. Mine holds a hammer in his hand. Make your own conclusions." --Nergal (Behemoth)

Thank you, Crinn!

I don't think it's the high ratings. In my reviews, I gave The HAARP Machine's "Disclosure" a 20/20, Memphis May Fire's "Challenger" an 18/20, Swallow The Sun's "Emerald Forest and the Blackbird" a 20/20, and so on, but NoNe of them were converted into comments.

Honestly, though, this is pretty ridiculous and outrageous. It seriously would have been nice if the administrators had at least NOTIFIED to me about turning my reviews into comments before doing this. Sadly, this wasn't the case. As the ones in charge of this website, they should know better than to forcefully modify people's works without proper notification.

---

Yeah, im kind of Fed Up with the abuse of administrative Power on this site. Its ridiculous

---

"Your GOD died on a cross. Mine holds a hammer in his hand. Make your own conclusions." --Nergal (Behemoth)

Hey VesselsOfBlood

After reading your review on The Contortionist's Intrinsic, I can see that it follows a kind of track-by-track analysis of the album. The frenchies are really strict when it comes to the rules of the site including the reviews. As soon as you follow a track by track layout, they immediately class it as a track by track review and turn it into a comment. But I don't think they even read the reviews sometimes. They probably just see all the quotation marks and assume, next time you write a review, don't use any quotation marks and see how it goes

---

I remember having fun once, it was terrible...

Ok, well it seems like they don't like the quality of your reviews. I know for Fact that both of you have reviews converted into reviews due to their poor quality. Specifically, the content (if it was grammar, I would have no reviews ) they don't agree with. Crinn, I think they've banned you from having reviewers status, because of the poor quality of the reviews.

For example:
The Black Dahlia Murder...tech death? I hardly think so
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-The_Black_Dahlia_Murder-nom_album-Nocturnal-l-en.html
*downgraded*
and sometimes, you have a lot of "fluff" in your reviews ie. useless information or stuff that doesn't need to be there.
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-Slayer-nom_album-God_Hates_Us_All-l-en.html

I could erase 70% of that review, and it would still give the same amount of information about the album to the reader.

Here is one of my reviews

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-In_Dying_Arms-nom_album-Boundaries-l-en.html
I try and have a nice muscle to body fat ratio in my writings. Sure, it's not the best review in the world... but hey, the frenchies didn't downgrade it

Try and get to the point, explain the point (wondering a bit is ok, but not too much) and then justify the point using evidence then re-introduce the point. At the moment, you might have a few words here and there which get to the point, but you know... the Rest is "fluff". I'm sorry but we don't need to read a detailed recollection on how you first were introduced into this band or how a band sounds live. We don't need that information...we don't care about that information. Just pick a few points, and stick to the music.

...I've gotta do more detective work to see what's going on here though, I shall report back

EDIT: also, both of you are definately being too lenient with your scores. I mean 20/20s and 19/20s shouldn't be used so often (you need proper justification too). A reviewer should never over-hyperbolize any material. In my opinion, a 17/20 is a perfect release anything over Means they've gone Beyond perfect. Also, using higher scores dilutes it's affect, not only to your reviews, but other reviewers as well. Harden up boys 

---

I remember having fun once, it was terrible...

If you knew how we are tired of your thoughts...

To VOB :  I'm not part of the team that manages the reviews but I think like you that it is not a good thing that people don’t receive warnings about the changes of the status of their reviews. I will see that with the others today.
I think that if Nothing was done about that, It’s because most of the people who wrote these reviews are no longer on Spirit Of Metal.
And as I read it before, Tracks by tracks are not allowed here as a real review. And regarding rates, it might be better not to give too much 20/20 or 19/20 to the albums you reviewed.

---

Chtulhu for President. Why Choose the Lesser Evil?

A huge thanks to miniradman and Hellsheimer!

However, as I stated earlier, I do not think it is the high ratings. Albums such as "Cauldron of the Wild" by Witch Mountain (18/20), "Speed of Light" by Fail Emotions (18/20), and "Towards the Megalith" by Disma (19/20) got very high ratings, and NoNe of those were lowered to comments. Also, I know that the ratings seem too lenient and high, but that's honestly what I think the album deserves. I really do believe that albums such as "Intrinsic" by The Contortionist (20/20) and "Koloss" by Meshuggah (19/20) are incredible, groundbreaking, and powerful records, and my reviews reflect on that. I don't want to be that jaded critic who shoots Down an album with minor flaws with a 9/20 or a 10/20, even though I'm sure there will come a time where I will write a review for a not-so-good record. Right now, I want to write reviews that show metal and Hardcore fans how worthwhile, if not just great, these albums I review are, no matter what how big and how many flaws there are, and how they should check them out and give them a listen.

Speaking of "Intrinsic," I read over the review for that album, and I don't really see how it lines up as a track-by-track review! Sure, I do describe the songs I mention, but at the same time, I do so to back up whatever I'm trying to prove. Other circumstances include that I only mentioned 4 of the 10 songs (40%) of the tracklist (Holomovement, Geocentric Confusion, Solipsis, and Parallel Trance), when the track-by-track standards are more than 50%. In addition to that, I don't even break Down those particular songs and write descriptions for each and every one of them, because that would definitely be boring (And Lazy, too, if you think about it). I usually divide my reviews into sections that describe each aspect of the album, while the segments transition well with each other, like a formal essay. However, there are times where I feel like tweeking this formula a bit (Introduction/Band's history, Musicianship/Production, Sound/Quality, Lyrics/Artwork, Flaws, Conclusion). It's good for variety, too, because really, who wants to read reviews from a single author with the same exact structure and breakdown over and over and over and over again? Not me, that's for sure.

Plus, I already learned my lesson about these types of reviews, thanks to Hack. My review for "Angels of Darkness, Demons of Light II" by Earth (USA) was downgraded into a comment, and at first I was scratching my Head wondering what happened. Luckily, Hack commented on the article, saying that I am not supposed to mention more than 50% of the tracklist by title if I want my work to be published as a legitimate review. I learned my lesson already, so that shouldn't be an issue right now. If you're just so happening to be reading this, Hack, thanks for that.

Meshuggah's "Koloss" also follows the same standards. My review for that album mentioned 50% of the tracks by name. Maybe that is what qualifies reviews as track-by-track analyses, but once again, couldn't the modifiers have at least TOLD me about that? Because that's why I'm so bothered by this in the first place. It is also not a track-by-track review, because, like in all of my reviews, I use the songs as examples to back up the point I'm making in a review. The same can be said for Horseback's "Half Blood," where I only mentioned 3 of the 7 tracks (About 43%) by name, and it, once again, does NOT follow the track-by-track format. So I'm still completely left in the dark with this whole thing.

Also, about the quotation marks miniradman had mentioned, I really hope that isn't the case. I really, really don't. Because if it was, then that would be Lazy, unreasonable, and very irresponsible on the administrators' part. I use quotation marks for song titles, the album title, and lyric citations, so I would understand the confusion. However, if they would Degrade my reviews into comments because they assumed they were song track names, that's just not right. I mean, think about it! Somebody could write an awesome, intelligent, consistent, and intriguing review on an album, and they'd shoot it Down because of some QUOTATION MARKS?!? I hope to GOD not, that would be pretty terrible! They might as well NOT modify and oversee people's reviews on this website, it'd be totally unfair and just wrong! As administrators of this website, they should NEVER assume about things like that.

Nonetheless, thanks miniradman, for offering me some nice advice for improving my reviews. And Hellsheimer, thank you so much for taking your time for this issue, I really do appreciate it.

---

The 20/20 and the 19/20 (and even the 18/20) scores are highly Abused on this site. Although I do get where you’re coming from, it’s much easier to review a good album than a bad one. And I find myself sometimes being too lenient  with my score, I might hear an album once and think “oh fuck yeah 18/20” then after a few more listens I might think “errr… over it, 15/20”. That’s what I think is going on when I see people consistently giving out the >17/20 scores. But on the other Hand, I have found myself warming up to something, the more I listen to it. Then again, I agree, there are a lot of reviewers out there who give extremely low ratings for something that’s insignificant. They’re equally as bad as those who are too lenient.

Having just listened to Intrinsic myself, I can hear the atmosphere and see how they’ve experimented further than their previous works (and they’re highly enjoyable). But, I can’t really pick up on the technicality. In Fact, the Brutal parts are extremely loose and incoherent. These sections tend to make the music feel rather confusing and claustrophobic. And I’m guessing that claustrophobia isn’t the Impact that the band intends. Also the transitions between Brutal and atmosphere are Abrasive which kind of wreaks the whole sensual atmosphere that the ambient passages try to empathize with us. The song writing just seems copied and pasted randomly all over the shop, alternating between atmospheric/progy and Brutality, it doesn’t flow at all. Also, the atmosphere itself has been thrown back, behind the vocals, whereas in their previous works, the atmosphere was out in front and the individual instruments have weaved themselves throughout it. But in, Intrinsic, each instrument tends to distinguish themselves and single out, rather than part of the atmosphere or the music as whole. These are what I think are the flaws (the major Flaw is how consistently the music is loose and unstructured) in Intrinsic.

Before anyone flips their shit, this is my opinion, and you obviously have a different one. I’m just justifying why I don’t think Intrinsic is worth a 20/20, I’d give it a 14-15/20. Try and think of the scores out of 100. A 20/20 is 100% and 19/20 is 95%. It seems really high in that respect.

Here is an example of a 20/20 I've crafted
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-Amia_Venera_Landscape-nom_album-The_Long_Procession-l-en.html
I might refer to a few tracks here and there, but I try and justify their importance rather than simply stating that "evidence of atmosphere is in track *insert name*"


I think the 50% thing is silly, not because it's the borderline between track-by-track and non-track-by-track, but it's all about the context in which each track is mentioned. If you consistently mention specific tracks paragraph, by paragraph, I count that as track by track. But if you've stuffed it all into a single paragraph (or even two paragraphs), and the bulk of the review has little to no mention of any individual track, I think it's ok. Then again, I'm not an expert.


The english speaking side isn't important enough to get attention


I don't think it was the quotation marks (I was just
throwing darts in the dark there). But you do refer to tracks very often, more
often than needed. If we go back to your review of Intrinsic, you referred to
Hollowmovement in pretty much every paragraph as justification. Ok, sure that
song must be awesome, but instead of using it as justification try and
generalize it. Perhaps at the end, when you’re wrapping up the review, do
something like “Hollowmovement displays all the magnificent qualities of
Intrinsic I’ve mentioned, highly recommend” or something along those lines.

I don't think they're lazy, I think they're too concise however


I'm not trying to be a dick or telling you how you should write (you can turn around and give me the finger, I don't care ). Just giving advice to how to bypass your reviews from being turned

You don't have to worry about it though, you've only got a few reviews under your belt. It's when you've got 200+ reviews and still making the same mistakes without changing is when the admin gets angry

---

I remember having fun once, it was terrible...