I have long been wary of our whole "review helpful" system, whereby we are allowed to rate player reviews with a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. I am wary because such a system allows those to simply rate without leaving a comment (therefore not allowing potential reviewers to improve at all) and secondly, because the phrase "did you find this review helpful" is such a vague and pointless term that few follow its criteria when assessing a review. Most of the time, a thumbs up rating will simply be given if the rating corresponds with the assessors view on a particular game-not the review itself.
Quality control is something that should hardly be enforced on the player review system-but I do find it frustrating that the "thumbs up" system rarely rewards actual good reviews. Too often do I see reviews barely over a paragraph long, with the effort put into them blatantly showing that they only took around twenty minutes to write. These reviews are ironically just as likely to get good "thumbs up" records as the more in depth ones, and if anything; their shortness and basic coverage make it easier for people to judge whether the reviewer is viewing the game in the same light as they are.
Perhaps a larger word count should be enforced (which would at least up the depth or range of issues that people go into) or maybe even a simple comment system that must accompany each rating-this would hopefully allow for the various "fanboyish" thumb ratings to be stemmed and would also let new reviewers gain advice. Maybe even have two separate systems-one for short "summary" reviews, another for longer "Page +" reviews would help. Though such a system is rather segregational I feel that something should really be done to sort the "writers" from the "raters" as it were.
The reason I have brought this issue up (and I hope that this will relate to other users so as to not make the following paragraph appear too rant like) is that I myself feel slightly annoyed at what has happened to some of my reviews. I generally check my recently posted reviews every day (just to see how they're doing) and I was saddened to see that my Super Mario Land review had been given its first rating, and that it had been negative. I was dejected because I know my reviews are good (reference 1 and reference 2) and even though the source of such praise may initially seem dubious, the critical response I received from many of the users there was both helpful and glowing. To then see my reviews negatively felt on a site where I have no means of knowing why such negativity occurred is something that I find very frustrating. I then proceeded to find out that three of my other reviews had all been negatively down-marked. Given the rarity that I get "thumb marks" in the first place I am naturally assuming that the negative feedback I got was all from the same person and whether it was through spite, arbitrary hurt or genuine criticism I will never know-because of this rating system.
The likelihood that I will get onto Gamespot's fabled "top community reviewers" list is miniscule-given the lack of time I have to consistently write them and the apparent luck you have to have in order for a mod or equivalent to happen upon your reviews. This is not a complaint mind, given the difficulty in achieving such a goal it is perhaps all the more rewarding and justified for those who eventually get it but I feel that there should at least be some middle ground, or at least a change to the foundations of the player a review system so that it can be a more rewarding and informative place for all of us.
