KVR Audio

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:08 am

After spending the weekend contemplating the topic I have come to a few decisions. Whether you like it or not, I shall elaborate.

When the new rules about reviews were implemented I had grave misgivings. For a while I thought about removing all my reviews but after I cooled down I suppose I got over it. However it has now hit me in an entirely new way which may not sound like much but is really important to me. Because I use SynthEdit and deign to share the results of my noodling, I am considered a developer and therefore excluded from reviewing anything. Even reviews made when I was just like the rest of you somehow became invalid.

I think the Reviews section is the most important part of KVR and to see it become so corrupted is extremely disappointing. To be gagged in the manner in which I have is infuriating.

My inital response was to cease being a developer by removing all our synths, so strong are my feelings on the subject. On reflection however, I can see no reason to to do something so drastic just so that I am free to participate in a corrupt process.

So on this front I have asked Ben to remove all of my little killerz from the database, even though the process for freeware synths is much fairer. Call it my pathetic little protest but it should also provide a measure of remedy to the other problem I am facing - bandwidth.

To address this problem I have decided to remove all but the latest synths. Without asking, it seems that my bandwidth has been reset again so I will make the changes in the next day or so. From then on only the Generation 4 synths and the k1 basic synth will be available.

In the longer term I will look at having the older synths hosted elsewhere but it is not a big priority for me at the moment so it may take some time. Meanwhile, I am happy to email anything to anyone who loses a synth or two due to a HDD crash or system reinstall or whatever.

On the bright side, I am making great progress on kARMAkILLER II which currently has a 6 x 6 Mod Matrix and a few other new features. I am also working on a synth using a 3rd party oscillator with lots of different waveforms. The only thing holding it up is that the oscillator is in beta and won't work in a VSTi yet and the developer doesn't reply to my emails.

Post by **Ben [KVR]** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:23 am

Sadly disallowing developers the chance to review other developers products is to help PREVENT corruption. As I've stated before, I wish we didn't have to have so many restrictions on who can and can't write reviews, and what can and can't be reviewed (demos, etc.) but abuse by the few means restrictions for the many.

If we allow some devs to review but disallow others we are being unfair.

If a dev A writes a critical review of dev B's products and dev B disputes the criticisms (see the aliasing threads for matters where devs really can't agree) what are we supposed to do? Who do we believe?

We delete the review because dev B insists it is full of incorrect facts, dev A is furious and screams censorship, bias, conspiracy, etc. and we have several threads decrying the state of the reviews system....

Rock - Us - Hard place.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:44 am

As long as a reviewer states his position up front, why can you not trust those who read to judge for themselves? I can understand exclusion from ratings but not from a written review. One of the first things I do when I read a review from someone I don't know too well is to follow the link to the reviewer's other reviews to get an idea of where he/she is coming from.

You had a really good system in place to allow anyone to make up their own mind but you didn't trust us enough to let us use it. Sure, you may have had a few problems but, for the sake of the integrity of the process, isn't it easy enough to deal with the occassional bit of bleating and remove blatantly unreasonable reviews?

autloc · Post by **autloc** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:16 am

Is this rule in place for freeware/donationware devs as well? Although I understand the complexity of KVR's position and generally agree with it, something else that I think was well illustrated by the aliasing thread was that non-devs tend to "play favourites" just as much as devs. I think Bones' suggestion of devs stating their affiliations up-front (and excluding them from the ratings, sure) makes a lot of sense. There is no unbiased reviewer, but so long as we know the ethical minimum about who's writing the review...

2windy · Post by **2windy** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:19 pm

I'm with Bones on this as well. I read every review, (including synths I own as I sometimes find out stuff I never realised) and like Bones often check reviewers other posts.

I I feel that Dev's should be able to post reviews as long as they (like Beta Testers should) are upfront about it. Could there be a checkbox on the review form to highlight this? It is pretty obvious if a Dev is having a cheap shot at a competitor.

For me there are too many 10/10, 'this Synth is the the dogs...' reviews by people like myself who are blinded by what these things can do. I've fired a synth up for the first time and thought WOW this is awesome only to realised at a later date it was quite average compared to similar synths.

Not everyone may like what Bones, sickle and others have to say but I find their honest view refreshing. Especially when it comes from someone who knows what they are talking about as quite frankly I wouldn't recognise aliasing if it smacked me in the face with a wet mackeral.

I hope a compramise can be found that suits all as I'd hate for the reviews to be devalued or even stopped.

Cheers

Andy

Sicklecell666 · Post by **Sicklecell666** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:45 pm

Something bieng overlooked here is that registered license only reviews ALSO prevent shitheads using cracks from giving nasty reviews to a product they don't even have a manual for..This obviously does not apply to freeware, but you get my point.

Also, I think that reviews should be considered re-inforcement instead of a Devining Rod to validate a purpose..

The fact that someone has the right to negatively criticize a product after purchase tends to lend solid wieght to thier review, but ultimately it boils down to:

A - Bad review? I'm gonna try it & see what makes it so stinky. Maybe I can see a route clear to helping the Dev make a better instrument/fx (which I have, thanks).

B - Good review? I'm gonna try it & see what the buzz is about..I might not like it all..

What I'm saying is that these reviews do NOT color my objectivity aside from piqueing my intrest, IF that.

Your opinion is your own & I stand on my own two feet as well.

This is NOT directed at BONES, but whoever, whereever in general.

Free thinking is at a deficit if it needs to be weighed upon other ppl's considerations of your target.

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:54 pm

I think devloper's reviews can be useful - often developers have a much better understanding of the underlying processes than "common folk" (

). I think developers should be able to review a product, but perhaps have a link to their own work to show that the review was written by a developer.

... and yeah, crackheads shouldn't be allowed to write reviews.

Forever,

Kim.

Caleb · Post by **Caleb** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:10 pm

Well Bones - as your music is your top priority I can totally understand you removing synths for bandwidth reasons. Priorities are priorities.

Caleb

Sicklecell666 · Post by **Sicklecell666** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:13 pm

Caleb wrote:Well Bones - as your music is your top priority I can totally understand you removing synths for bandwidth reasons. Priorities are priorities.

Caleb

The fat gets trimmed. Good focal point.

And BONES, don't hesitate to let me know if you ever require assitance with that in the future. We may have cooled towards one another, but as you're well aware, I never took down your demo tune from my site. It's still there accessable to everyone.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:05 pm

Ben | KvR wrote:Rock - Us - Hard place.

I've tried to stay out of this, as it's your site, Ben, and I think you do a great job with it.

But as this seems to be a recurring motif around here, and since you seem open at least to discussions about the subject, I thought I would offer some suggestions (to be taken with a grain of salt of course).

I've looked over the review rules at Amazon as a benchmark. There's a lot of crap in Amazon's reviews section, but there are also many easy to find good ones.

They have a few rules that are fairly useful. Readers, authors and publishers are all sorted out into seperate review categories. Perhaps a simple check box here could resolve that.

Three rules I find very good are:

* Do not comment on other reviews visible on the page.
* Do not use profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks.
* No single-word reviews. We want to know why you liked or disliked the item.

The first rule seems to be broken here too much. I've seen many reviews that start off with "contrary to the other reviewers here" or similar remarks, which seems to do nothing more than fuel a pissing match.

The third rule should go one further, there should be a minimum word count. How many "This synth rocks" do we need?

I'm in favour of doing away with star ratings entirely. I don't think 90% of reviewers understand how to use an effective criterium for grading on a scale, so why bother.

I'd rather see the option to review demo products existed, perhaps another checkbox. As a user and synth buyer, I'll often check out reviews after I've used the demo, just to see if I've missed something. It's good to hear other peoples experience with the demo, which could be countered with second reviews by people who then went on to buy it. I just think that getting as many reviews as possible in the database is the way to go.

But I can understand the reasons for not doing so, and I gather that decision is final.

As for general developer carping (how dare somebody put up an inaccurate reveiw, yada), well, such is the nature of reviews. I would think with fewer restrictions on who can review that the wingnuts would be averaged out. Perhaps have an option for developers to rebut any mistakes in a review, so that at the bottom of the review, the reader would see a link that says "the publisher of this software has posted a reply to this review, click here to read."

As I said, I like KVR as it is, but I do think that review section is a valuable asset that in its current state has limited use. I've stopped reading them mostly since there are so few reviews overall and far too many are of the gushing variety.

Cheers,
Steve

WhiteNoise · Post by **WhiteNoise** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:19 pm

I'd just like to chime in and say I support your decision Ben, and I think it's the most fair way to go. Let the reviews be user reviews. I think it's best if we avoid "His synth sucks, mine is better" in the review areas. If someone wants to do that, do it on the message boards where at least the other developer can post a reply.

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:06 pm

sicklecell666 wrote:Something bieng overlooked here is that registered license only reviews ALSO prevent shitheads using cracks from giving nasty reviews to a product they don't even have a manual for..This obviously does not apply to freeware, but you get my point.

How can you prove if someone has the full version or a crack or demo or whatever?

Does anyone actually read the reviews anyway? Surely they try the demos instead.

meister eder · Post by **meister eder** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:22 pm

The two edged thing here is, that on the one hand Synth Edit synths are not supported in the same way as "hardcoded" synths (i.e. not in the main news section, being 'separated' in the instruments section on demand, etc.),
but on the other hand in regard to reviews they (and hence their 'developers', even if non-commercial) are considered to be in the same league.

From a logical point of view (AFAICS), you can't do both at the same time.

It would make more sense, if (non-commercial) Synth Edit developers are not allowed to review other Synth Edit creations, and also developers of "hardcoded" synths are not to do so. But (let's call them) "Hobby Synth Edit developers" should be allowed to review "hardcoded" synths. Their experience should even be seen as a positive advantage for their reviews.

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:30 pm

Kriminal wrote:
sicklecell666 wrote:Something bieng overlooked here is that registered license only reviews ALSO prevent shitheads using cracks from giving nasty reviews to a product they don't even have a manual for..This obviously does not apply to freeware, but you get my point.
How can you prove if someone has the full version or a crack or demo or whatever?

exactly - the honest man gets a kick in the butt once again

- I think the rules only promote deception

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:09 pm

I agree with BONES on this issue. It is surely a matter of trust as to whether a reviewer has a licensed copy or not and similarly as long as it is stated up front that the reviewer is a dev then this should be a matter of the reviewer's integrity and the judgement of the readers. If there is a clear case of bias in a review then sure, take it up with the reviewer and if needed take it out, but as a blanket rule this seems to me to be too sweeping and rather patronising.

Another problem is that with tools like Synthedit around these days a lot of serious musicians and soft synth users can and have become "developers" - that surely is the point of such tools; to empower the musical community. If that is the case such a rule potentially excludes far too many people here with valuable expertise and experience to share.

The Future of My Little killerz