A very reasoned response. It is arbitrary, but it's also not without logic. It has been thought out, and I'm sure the idea was to make it reflect consensus as accurately as possible. For MC's purposes it is only as flawed we think it is. Personally, I think it would be less flawed if the minimum review requirement were raised and a "Special Mention" section created as a complement to main list & the sidebar notifications. Eventually, the industy will catch up with the forward-thinking MC and pump out a few more reviews for albums that deserve it.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Ishmaels Coffin:
No. I repeat; NO!

I couldn't care less if an album has 2 reviews. I read Metacritic review compilations for the convenience of having many reviews in one place, not to be told that 31 critics thought something was good.
Point in fact, I find The National, Arcade Fire, Spoon and Iron & Wine albums bloody rubbish, so a large consensus is neither here nor there.

One single well written review is enough for me.
I find it nonsense to be shutting out amazing art from what is essentially an information resource (M/C) due to some arbitary number.

Seriously, who cares where an album sits in some fucking list?
Burial's Untrue is a far superior album to say, Spoon, but I couldn't give a fuck if it was bottom ranked.
Its enough to know that I know its excellent.


Posted by goathouse
By this logic you should be for lowering the minimum review cutoff to 4 or 5 reviews, or less. It's arbitrary as well.

Yes. Exactly. Thats what I wrote. 1, 2 reviews. It doesn't matter.

However.....

quote:

Posted by EricG75
I'm not positive, but it seems like there might be some confusion as to what Mark is actually proposing.

Albums with less than 15 reviews would still show up on the site (I believe anything with 5 reviews does), they just wouldn't show up in the "Best of 20XX" section. That section already has additional criteria such as no reissues or greatest hits albums.

So, no one's getting short changed out of any information, the only thing that would change is that the "Best of 20XX" would more accurately reflect critical consensus.

Now I get it. I was confused. As long as albums with a handful of reviews are showing up, nothing else matters to me.
I don't give a stuff about who wins the beauty contest, so thanks for clearing that up Eric!

quote:

Originally posted by unKeMPt:
That's why I think it's best to let the critics' end-of-year lists speak for themselves to determine the overall recipient of the most accolades and allow the very flawed list to occasionally send us to some lesser-known artists who remain outside the mainstream tunnel vision.

Amen.

I voted "Yes, but 10 would probably more appropriate," don't get me wrong there are at least three albums in my top ten alone, that haven't recieved much attention by critics.

I will say that I find From Here We Go Sublime a bore, but you guys can feel free to love it as I'm sure I love things this year you don't care for either.

Here's the thing, I would say that it is more correct to represent the views of many, than it is he views of few. Although I love Thes One's Lifestyle Marketing, I don't expect to see it represented on Metacritic's overall top twenty.

The fact is that the majority of the review sources that Metacritic users lean towards the Indie, so I would expect those views to be presented.

It's a dead heat, 16 to 16, as I type this. That's pretty interesting.

First, a big turnout, and second, a big divide, although it seems to me many would like a modest increase. 10, 11, 12.

Crazy Theory:

Everybody who wants the minimum changed to 15 just wants In Rainbows to be #1.

Because 15 just so happens to be the exact number needed to knock both The Field and Burial off.

Why didn't mark f. think to suggest what everyone else seems to think is a far more reasonable number (10 & 12) and just Immediately jump to more than double the current number?

And for that matter, 15 is just a few numbers shy of being half the number of reviewers of In Rainbows.

15 definently doesn't seem like a very fair number to me.

See? Radiohead fandom strikes again...

EDIT: I don't want to offend anyone with this, but seeing as it's a dead heat, I felt it needs to be said to prevent some people from making judgment out of something selfish like just to see their (and everyone else's, for that matter) favorite band's new CD as #1 on one of the only lists on the net that shows something different than everyone else's "top-10's."

Also, doesn't it look more impressive having a 90 or a 91 that no one has heard of on the top of the year instead of an 88 that everyone knows will be every critic's #1 on their year-end list? I come to Metacritic to find something different, because popular music often doesn't satisfy me. I like things the way they are. So what if there are weird titles sitting above albums that you like? I personally hate that SMiLE is #1 of all time and every Bob Dylan album scores high just because most reviewers are older people. But do I throw a fit and try to change the rules to my favor?

No, I just scroll down.

Come on people.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ScotttheStorm,

I'd have to agree that 15 is probably a shy too high. 10, 11, or 12 sound like good numbers to me. It's still a big difference, even if it doesn't change much right at this moment.

quote:

Originally posted by ScotttheStorm:
See? Radiohead fandom strikes again...

It isn’t “Radiohead fandom” (is that a word?) that is going on here. Some people just want the album with the highest score, that is also the most credible, to be on top. Heck, I wouldn’t care if Kala was number one, as long as it had a whole lot reviews for it—and it does.

Just look at the five albums that all have an 87. Not only do I prefer Neon Bible over all of them but it also has 46 freaking reviews, which stand out more than LSF’s 23 reviews or Griffin’s measly 13 reviews. Personally, I just feel that if 46 people’s weighted scores average to an 87 it's definitely more notable than 14 people scoring something a 90—for me at least.

I vote for 10 minimum.

As long as reviews are still posted for more indie artists with 4 or more(so we can check em ALL out). Some really good artists can't get 15 reviews if they are in a pocket of the world where no one else reviews them.

PS: More bigger reviewers should be responsible enough to write reviews on ANYTHING that gets 80% or better on this site, even if they are 3-4 months off the mark. I'm sure most reviewers know of this site. Where is ARE AD CAMPAIGN!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Just look at the five albums that all have an 87. Not only do I prefer Neon Bible over all of them but it also has 46 freaking reviews, which stand out more than LSF’s 23 reviews or Griffin’s measly 13 reviews. Personally, I just feel that if 46 people’s weighted scores average to an 87 it's definitely more notable than 14 people scoring something a 90—for me at least.

Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
It isn’t “Radiohead fandom” (is that a word?)

Yup!

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Just look at the five albums that all have an 87... I prefer Neon Bible over all of them

You also like Some Loud Thunder.

BOOYAH!

But all kidding aside, I don't really care. I think our forum list speaks well enough for the site.. as long as that is easily accessed, I'm happy. But then again, I only go to MC for the forums.. I don't remember the last time I looked at the scoring of an album.

In addition to my original comment, and to simplify my argument, i would tend to agree with fellow users that have stated it would be unjust to exclude potentially exemplary records on the grounds that only a handful of specific sources have reviewed it.

Take Drowned in Sound for example; the website didn't review From Here We Go Sublime because employees only caught sight of the record months after the original release date and felt it wasn't appropriate to add comment so late on.

What i'm getting at here is that large scale bands such as Radiohead or Spoon already have a dedacted, cemented structure present within the music industry, therefore many sources are aware of a looming release perhaps months beforehand, whereas artists such as The Field don't have the luxury of such exposure.

If an artist hasn't experienced such mass advertisement upon release to then gain increased public devotion afterwards as word gets around it may be too late for many publications (digital or otherwise) to produce related opinions - therefore voiding any chance of an addition on Metacritic.

This is based upon the understanding that sites other than DiS may have experienced the same unawareness upon a release.

I hope some understand my viewpoint.

No to raising the minimum.

But yes to figuiring out a slight point adjustment scaled to number of reviews...and 86 at thirty-five reviews is simply far more impressive than a 91 with 10.

I don't agree that Radiohead fandom is behind this proposal. I believe the genesis of this proposal came from another thread in which someone (ahem!) suggested that the minimum be raised because he did not feel that having Burial, The Field, and Stars on the Lid at the top of the list accurately reflected critical consensus.

And, just for the record, I'm only a casual fan and I don't think that Radiohead is the record of the year. I have it as number 3 on my list behind the White Stripes and Okkervil River.

Also, a limit such as suggested would knock off Patty Griffin, which I think is a criminally underrated album. I don't think it's an injustice if this album is not on the best of list. I'm sure it will show up on a few critic's list. Despite Children Running Through not being on the Best of list, I still think the proposal would more accurately reflect critical consensus.

I vote I couldn't care less.

quote:

Originally posted by JP:
In addition to my original comment, and to simplify my argument, i would tend to agree with fellow users that have stated it would be unjust to exclude potentially exemplary records on the grounds that only a handful of specific sources have reviewed it.

Take Drowned in Sound for example; the website didn't review From Here We Go Sublime because employees only caught sight of the record months after the original release date and felt it wasn't appropriate to add comment so late on.

What i'm getting at here is that large scale bands such as Radiohead or Spoon already have a dedacted, cemented structure present within the music industry, therefore many sources are aware of a looming release perhaps months beforehand, whereas artists such as The Field don't have the luxury of such exposure.

If an artist hasn't experienced such mass advertisement upon release to then gain increased public devotion afterwards as word gets around it may be too late for many publications (digital or otherwise) to produce related opinions - therefore voiding any chance of an addition on Metacritic.

This is based upon the understanding that sites other than DiS may have experienced the same unawareness upon a release.

I hope some understand my viewpoint.

JP is totally and compleatly right.

I applaud you JP.

Well, it appears there's not sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the field anyway, so don't worry. Things aren't likely to change unless some bigwig decides on their own. I like MC the way it is just fine, so I'm not fretting exceedingly hard over this issue. (But boy was I ever when it was still fresh and getting lots of traffic. I'm a whore.)

I vote no to raising the minimum mainly because there are already quite a few very good albums each year that don't make MetaCritic, so doubling the minimum could conceivably cut the rated albums in half. 5 good albums that didn't make the MC cut this year:
- John Doe, A Year in the Wilderness
- Pela, Anytown Graffiti
- The Ike Reilly Assassination - We Belong to the Staggering Evening
- Parts & Labor - Mapmaker
- Bowerbirds - Hymns for a Dark Horse

Even if you don't consider them good, it's too bad they don't enough reviews to make MC.

quote:

Originally posted by JP:
....
I hope some understand my viewpoint.

Very well stated, JP. If I'd read your posts first, I wouldn't have bothered throwing in my 2 cents. 7 is more than enough for a minumum...