03 If the variety of music you can review is so open, why is the group moderated? (rec.music.reviews)
Description
This article is from the rec.music.reviews FAQ, by Al Crawford (awrc@access.digex.net) with numerous contributions by others.
03 If the variety of music you can review is so open, why is the group moderated? (rec.music.reviews)
There are two main reasons for the moderated nature of the group:
Lack of noise
The moderator screens out inappropriate material such as the
periodic outbreaks of chain letters, immigration lawyers and
cascades that can pollute other groups, misdirected postings and so
forth, thus rendering the group far more readable and ensuring a
good signal-noise ratio. Generally any postings of this nature that
turn up in my mailbox will vanish into the void, never to be seen
again.
Quality of reviews
Exactly what constitutes a review isn't precisely defined. At one
end of the scale we have unsupported opinions masquerading as
information, where the writer conveys no information about the music
being reviewed other than that he/she loves/hates it. At the other
end, we have detailed track by track descriptions of albums, with
the music lovingly described and the writer drawing careful
attention to the precise reasons why he/she loves/hates the album.
As rec.music.reviews moderator, I set a lower threshold on what is
or isn't considered acceptable for posting here. Reviews that fall
below this line will generally be returned to the poster with
suggestions as to how they might go about changing them so that
they'll be accepted if resubmitted. Remember that rec.music.reviews
isn't like a print magazine - there are no word limits, so you can
make the review as long as you want. Reviews of several thousand
words in length aren't unknown.
Continue to:
My Books
