At 5/10/09 01:10 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote:
Is there a line between being reasonable and unreasonable with the score of a review when it comes to the audio tracks in the flash?
Not at all. There would be multiple criteria to look at, and it would depend on the review as a whole, as well as other factors (what Flash the review is for, the user's other reviews, etc).
I'm thinking mainly of those reviews that give garbage flashes high scores simply because the reviewer liked the music used in it, and conversely, reviews that give a perfectly fine flash a low score simply because they didn't.
Short, positive reviews are generally not abusive, so short reviews for the Flash that praise a specific part as well (such as the music) would probably be even safer, and therefore not abusive. Likewise, the submission's audio track or lack thereof is a perfectly viable reason to give a Flash a lower or higher score.
But in either case, judging whether someone's criticisms and scores are valid is extremely subjective, and you'd be better off flagging reviews that are clearly abusive, rather than reviews you feel gave too low a score for the reasons stated; flag reviews that give low scores and give no reasons for doing so at all.
Does basing the review mainly on the audio (or the lack of it) ever constitute an abusive review? I suppose it depends on exactly how much the flash itself relies on the audio used, but are there any general rules and/or suggestions for this?
It would probably be easier to answer your question through examples, as there aren't really any general rules for such subjective reasons to delete a review.
REVIEW 1 (for a high scoring Flash): "Sucked"
"Yeah the graphics were good but the audio really sucked sorry 0/10"
I would probably clear the flags on this review without any penalty. Depending on this user's other reviews, I may delete the review. By itself, I don't see it as very abusive to warrant an automatic deletion.
REVIEW 2 (for a spam Flash): "Awesome"
"lol the graphics sux but that song you used was tight nice work. 10/10"
I would probably clear the flags on this review with penalty. However, if I realized, or it was brought to my attention, that the review was written by a confederate of the author of the submission trying to win a reward, the review would probably be deleted.
At 5/10/09 04:05 PM, Jagos wrote:
I mainly try to flag reviews that:
A) Go into "This should be blammed" territory
B) Generally abusive to the author (even if I don't agree)
Not that it's a major issue, but how exactly can I avoid negative points if I flag a review that's supposedly abusive by the rules but I in the end continue to receive negative points for such a thing?
This depends on what you define as the "this should be blammed" territory and what you feel is "generally abusive to the author." There is a good chance, if you have received a garbage whistle, that you are either being too harsh in your judgment of reviews and are flagging reviews which are actually fine, or have flagged clearly non-abusive reviews or submissions in the past which only now have had the flags cleared on them.
I really can only answer your question without any examples, so if you can provide examples of reviews you have flagged, or examples of reviews you would consider abusive (which aren't completely obvious), then it would be possible to help.
