The Star Rating System

Hi all,


It was brought to my attention last night that I had apparently given Playlover's JCS two stars in the review I wrote about it.

Not true at all. I have no idea what the stars mean. What do they mean Grant?


The Review Master

The Review Master wrote:
>
>
> It was brought to my attention last night that I had
> apparently given Playlover's JCS two stars in the review I
> wrote about it.
>
> Not true at all. I have no idea what the stars mean. What do
> they mean Grant?
>


The two star review is actually the readers' review of YOUR review, Review.


A bit less than the perfect five expected of a "Master", but as I noted earlier, perhaps you're a bit out of practise?

Cheers,
Crg

<8>-/====/--------

Thanks again for the observations crgwllms,

As always I will take your comments into consideration.


The Review Master

Hi Craig

crgwllms wrote:
> The two star review is actually the readers' review of YOUR
> review, Review.

Thanks, Craig. Entirely correct, of course.

:-)

> A bit less than the perfect five expected of a "Master", but
> as I noted earlier, perhaps you're a bit out of practise?

or perhaps it was that, apparently believing that quantity is a fair equivalent for quality, RM not only posts extremely lengthy reviews, but chooses to copy and paste them across a couple of message boards?

:-)

I think, re-posting the same message on multiple boards is generally regarded as poor netiquette. It's commonly referred to as flooding, as it tends to fill message channels with repeats of the same item. It is at the very least a mild annoyance for everyone on the mailing list as they receive a copy of every duplicate message posted.

I know that i've given poor star ratings to people deliberately flooding the message boards, somehow RM missed out this time - perhaps because i appreciated the lengths he's gone to in order to provide a comprehensive review?

Cheers
Grant

Thou mammering toad-spotted moldwarp!

[%sig%]

I appreciate your cutting me some slack "this time" round Grant. I will remember not to flood again. I just wanted to make sure I was heard one way or another.


The Review Master

Heh Grant,

Perhaps Review Master's day job is advertising and marketing.
He's certainly marketing JCS. He may even be in it!
He may be the third mammering toad-spotted moldwarp from the left (stage left) in the second chorus!


Thou surly swag-bellied haggard!

Still doesn't answer the RM's good question: What the oven-ready hell is with the stars?? Is it to denote the number of responses attached to a post? Does it indicate the new-ness (no such word, I know) of the postings? Does it mean "this post is a good'un"?

And my only gripe abuot the RM's review of JC was he didn't worship the band enough. Yes, he gave Simon a deservedly good wrap, but what about The Band???

But you get that...

Eliot

Yeh, tell me more about this star stuff.

How can we rate a post? By reading it? Or by clicking a button? Jedi mind tricks? Spontaneous combustion? AH, flawless link to the band!

Alan!

I understood that the band was over rated. Or was it they were over loud and I'm getting confused with this rating thing? 8-)

And on the Star System ("Here's a guy who BUYS star systems!") Grant, if I may...

The rating system is very simple. Who ever slips the most readies into the Grant Malcolm Retirement and Slush Fund gets the most stars.



Thou fawning rude-growing haggard!

[%sig%]

Hey....how rude !!!!!
The Review Master I am assured is not a member of Playlovers, nor I'm also assured is he in the cast, and I should know, as I'm in the cast myself !!!
Maybe, his review is sound, and very accurate.....Have you ever thought of that ?
I myself, was in no doubt half way through the rehearsals that we were onto a winner !!!!!

Yes Michael,


I was in the show, how did you find out? Only, you didn't mention that I am an "extremely" talented individual. It is, after all, difficult reviewing a show from on stage. ;)

The show was spectacular; anybody who knows anything or has a passion for theatre could see that. (well with the exception of those who do take to JCS at all)


The Review Master

I apologise,

I've just spotted an error in my post above, I meant:

The show was spectacular; anybody who knows anything or has a passion for theatre could see that. (well with the exception of those who do "not" take to JCS at all)


The Review Master

THE BAND ROCKS!!!!!!!!! :-)

I lurve youse!

hehehehe

Alida wrote:
>
> The Review Master I am assured is not a member of Playlovers,
> nor I'm also assured is he in the cast, and I should know, as
> I'm in the cast myself !!!
> Maybe, his review is sound, and very accurate.....Have you
> ever thought of that ?



Hi Alida

My guess is that he (or she) is not listed in your programme as "The Review Master", so I'm not sure how you can make this assured assumption about our anonymous friend. Anyhow, it appears in the post below that he IS in your cast after all.

This raises one or two issues.

Is it ethical for someone to review their own show so enthusiastically without declaring their own interest in the production? How does this influence the integrity of the review?

Is it not a bit presumptuous for someone to proclaim themself a "Master"? My initial concern was that this master seemed to write far too few reviews to warrent the title, but now I wonder more about just how they are graded to be "masterful"?

This is not to denigrate your production, which by all accounts does seem to be excellent. Just that the oozing enthusing of the reporting did not convince me of the messenger's credentials.


crgwllms


<8>-/====/-------

To all who have followed up on my posts and related posts written by others,

There seems to be an extremely strong suspicion after my exhaustive review of "Jesus Christ Superstar", that I may have been involved in either the production or as a member of Playlovers Inc. I'm not sure how this idea came aroused but I can assure you that it is just an attempt made by some, who obviously have time on their hands to stir the pot more than a couple of times.

Not only are making such astute assumptions unfair to me, who did take the time to review what I have deemed and still deem a
"brilliant" show, it is also unfair to the director and everybody else involved, for what it translates as, is that the show is not worthy of such praise. So those thinking I am any way involved with JCS,
had better find something better to do than play amateur detective.

To crgwllms, who preaches about ethics when he appears to be a highly "unethical" individual, I refer to myself as a "master" because I have been reviewing for a while; to earn "part" of my living I am involved in fields which require indepth writing. I have been reviewing for a while, but have not always introduced myself as "The Review Master". This is obviously just a noveltly which I conduct on these posts. I am not ready to disclose my identity just yet and am very trustworthy of those people who do know it.

I myself am in great admiration of Lloyd Weber's work and know Jesus Christ Superstar very well, which I hope was displayed in my review. And I hope that it was enjoyed by some of you out there, including the cast and crew of the Playlover's Production.

I wasn't going to bother with a post about this matter but I felt it was becoming a little too far fetched and creeping too much towards the silly side.

If any one has anything else to input on this matter, by all means feel free to email me and I will be gladly discuss it; but do not insult me or the show by publishing such accusations. That is all I'm going to say on this matter.



The Review Master

Dear R.M.,

Sorry, I appear to have completely missed what I now guess to be irony in your post "The talented Review Master". You appeared to me to be admitting you WERE in the show, which spurred me to make the comments I made.

I'm sorry I appear to have insulted you with my cynical comments about your "review mastery". It was probably uncalled for, so I accept that you feel I ought to be taken to task.

I was completely unaware that you write reviews elsewhere, and you must admit you write very few here. In the 9 months I have been perusing this board, you have only posted reviews for Les Mis, Buddy, and JCSS. The fact that I have stricter criteria for defining a "master" was not meant to be a slur on your ability, just your output. Sorry you find me "highly unethical". I merely consider myself "highly opinionated".

Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

Thank you crgwllms,


For the apology. I will continue to write, preferably more reviews in future and expect nothing but the upmost honesty from you and anyone else who does read them.



The Review Master

The comment I made about you being unethical was shrewd and inaccurate. You may be highly opinionated but you are not unethical.



The Review Master

The Review Master wrote:
> The comment I made about you being unethical was shrewd and
> inaccurate. You may be highly opinionated but you are not
> unethical.

Nor is he a pompous ass.

:-)

Cheers
Grant

Thou errant idle-headed haggard!

[%sig%]