Editor's Note: This e-mail was sent to be by a VGO reader who wishes to remain anonymous. His comments are presented unedited and with no endorsement of their validity or the claimed identity of the writer. Consider them further anonymous comment on the issue.
Update (4/16/05): Much of what is contained in this comment has been called into question by a senior editor at GameFAQs. Make of it what you will.
For context, see these VGO posts:
Chris Buzan's GameFAQs PSP Review
Interview: Chris Buzan on GameFAQs Reader Reviews
Editorial: Reader Reviews Should be Untouched
"Kyle Orland,
In response to your recent interview with Chris Orland [sic] (aka Typhon_Sentra, once banned), the PSP review in question was removed by yours truly. The review contains blatantly false information, and is on the verge of being a joke review, obviously making it at a minimum a troll review. Being one of the people who regularly review the reviews, Buzan's PSP review is among the worst.
I'd like to preface the rest of this email by saying there is a very strict review submission process in place. The back log of reviews automatically accepts reviews that meet the word limit, and at least abide by proper line breaks and spacing parameters. The administrator known as Sailor Bacon, is the only deciding official when it comes to removing and posting controversial reviews. His job is to skim over reviews being processed for submission, however it is not his job to read all 100+ reviews that get posted daily. He also overlooks FAQ submissions among other things. If a review slips by that should not be posted, a problem report can be filled out, and Sailor Bacon will personally evaluate the review in the question. He is the deciding factor on every occasion. He decided whether your review stays up or not.
On to Mr. Buzan's review:
Rarely are his cases supported, attempting merely to say something along the lines of "The screen is great", or "It looks bad", without giving any supporting information. Aside from just barely meeting the 400 word limit placed on reader reviews, his review is really not long enough for any sort substantial information to be given. While game reviews are given a more lenient grading scale, hardware reviews are graded on a strict curve. Since hardware is such a definite thing, the review needs to do something other than just state a bullet point on the box, or make random assertions. The review needs to contain examples (not necessarily undeniable proof thereof) for the claims you make, and a few (vivid) descriptions are needed when discussing the aesthetics of the machinery.
Now, while the PSP is an Mp3 player, it isn't comparable to the iPod. Just like comparing the Ps2 or Xbox to a Toshiba or Panasonic DVD player is taboo, applying the same to the PSP via the iPod is forbidden in the same degree. For starters, this is the first and foremost reason why the review was removed.
Moving on, the original copy (and even still the copy posted in your blog) contain false information. In the version posted on GameFAQs, Mr. Buzan cites a price point of 300 dollars for the PSP. That price is entirely inaccurate, as he later cites the accurate price of 250 dollars. This was originally mentioned upon the first removal, and was still unaltered in the second iteration. Secondarily, there are no 2GB or 4GB Pro DUO memory sticks available for the PSP, so weighing the PSP down with the costs of these larger size (and imagined) sticks is inappropriate. A better comparison would have been a 1 GB stick, or 512 MB, though one would still be cautioned against such things in a review, as extra costs that are optional generally are not looked upon too kindly in hardware reviews. If it isn't a standard feature, or is something that is purchased entirely by the free will of the consumer, it does not belong in a hardware review.
As a small side note, the mention of slim pickings for movies available is laughable at best. Did people blame the Ps2 when DVDs were a new breed of entertainment? No, they blame the movie studios and DVD release corporations. While it's easily understandable why it was included in the review, it isn't necessary. As part of the GameFAQs review community, I can tell you with no ego, and with no doubt, that Mr.Buzan's review was removed twice for these exact reasons. Merely adding filler to increase the word count does nothing when someone puts your review up for close analysis by the review administrator. There is a quality bar that must be met if you want your review to pass the analytical stages of problem report submission. Chris Buzan's review was not removed for it's low scoring and negativity, as there are already a fair share of low scoring reviews that are posted and remain posted to this day. He is perfectly entitled to give the PSP which ever score he can justify. He was unable to justify the score he gave it, and littered the piece with false information and down right asinine comparisons.
To ice the cake, using future releases as a means to judge the quality of a piece of hardware is just downright wrong. No person in their right mind can justify judging the quality of future releases, and the number of future releases of unreleased and unknown software, and pretend like it gravitates the pieces of the review together. It just doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
As a follow up, I believe you should make this information clear to the readers of your blog. You lead an interesting experiment, however this bias against DS and for PSP is non-existent. Continue the good work, and I hope to hear your response soon.
For the purposes of this email and to prevent the heckling and spamming of my mailbox, I would like to remain anonymous. If you're questioning the validity of this information, I can assure you that what I say is canon. These are the reasons why the review was removed, and how the system works. I have been submitting reviews to GameFAQs for well over 2 years now, and I know the ins and outs of the review submission process better than most.
Thanks for your time."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gee, I wonder who wrote this....
ReplyDeleteAnyway, sorting only through a few of your main "points":
1.) Interesting you should point out one of my accounts was banned. It was a simple dare that I lost, and the rule was that if I did, I would get arid of my account. Since GameFAQs doesn't allow a user to merely close an account, I had to make a censor bypass to have it deleted, and I don't regret it all all. If this post is from who I think it's from (And that's a safe bet), are you on an indefinite suspension from the site yourself?
2.) My review is over 800 words long but barely passes the 400 word minimum? That's some fuzzy math!
3.) I can't include information about upcoming products and software coming out for a new gaming/multimedia platform? News to me!
The rest has been covered numerous times in the past, and I refuse to argue with you about it any further. You've continued to harass me for months now and I think it's time for me to be the bigger man, walk away, and let this post speak for itself.
"Now, while the PSP is an Mp3 player, it isn't comparable to the iPod. Just like comparing the Ps2 or Xbox to a Toshiba or Panasonic DVD player is taboo, applying the same to the PSP via the iPod is forbidden in the same degree. For starters, this is the first and foremost reason why the review was removed."
ReplyDeleteI don't really know or care where I stand on the rest of this stuff, but that bit in bold there sounds like a review to me :) I don't quite see why it's off limits to draw comparisons between the PSP's music playback stuff and an iPod, considering a decently sizable chunk of the press dedicated to the PSP has at least touched on the fact that, with the PSP, Sony is trying to go after iPod marketspace.
Actually, that whole argument about not being able to compare a "Ps2 or Xbox to a Toshiba or Panasonic DVD player" seems a little bit odd. Magazines hyping those machines (not to mention the PR mouthpieces of the console manufacturers themselves) spent quite a bit of space blabbing about how these all-in-one consoles would edge out the Gamecube precisely because - in addition to games - they would perform the same function as your former Toshiba or Panasonic DVD player. Wouldn't a consumer want to know how well these systems would be able to allegedly replace these other home electronic gizmos? Without knowing that, the amount of added value you gain is a big mystery.
Will I need to get rid of my iPod and free up some much needed pocketspace once I've got a PSP? Will I want to get rid of my iPod? Well, apparently not, because "while the PSP is an Mp3 player, it isn't comparable to the iPod."
If this is the really principal reason you removed the review, I suggest reevaluating your review guidelines. If that excuse was just a bag of hot air, by all means carry on. :)
Kinda sounds like Mr Ombudsman got in a hurry to be the first to break the news, while not actually bothering to perform one's journalistic duties, such as contacting both or all sides of a story before publishing, or chasing the (electronic?) paper trail.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I do enjoy and contribute to gameFAQs myself, and I find the user reviews a welcome respite from the mainstream "its the best 500 dollars I didn't spend!" media reviews. But I don't like trolls and other forms of blatant misinformation either. This story certainly appears deeper than first glance, and may have indeed been a case of fanboyism gone bad. Either way, the case highlights an aspect of user reviews, and how censorship can be percieved as good or bad. Ultimately, I think this boils down to the simple fact that people view their hardware as an investment; nobody wants to see that investment pull a Dreamcast. I mean, if everyone could afford both, there would be little incentive to slander one over another, and "console identity" would dissapear. There's a topic for you "like games but blessed with the mere ability of the written word" types, 'console identity.'
As far as not being allowed to compare the PSP to a iPod, that's outright BS. Of the reviews currently published on Gamefaqs, five make comparisons to the ipod, direct or indirect. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing some DS reviews comparing its functionality to a PDA as well. Given that Sony has been pushing the device as more than a game machine, I think it's fair to consider it against the PSP device's capabilities, if only for a point of reference. Furthermore, two reviews (among the first posted) mention a price of 300 or above, as a result of importing. Finally, people didn't bitch about how few DVDs were released, because they were too busy bitching at how poorly the first batch of PS2s played The Matrix. Or me bitching at my friend for kicking the controller and switching French subtitles on (but that came far after The Matrix and is nearly totally unrelated to the products).
2 gig Pro DUO sticks exist (hit SonyStyle if you don't believe me), and, when a system is being sold on the merits of its multimedia abilities, the additional costs involved in taking advantage of them are certainly relevant.
ReplyDeleteFuture prospects, at a launch, are crucial. It's a bit of weak argument, but there's a difference between a mediocre argument and a troll made in bad faith.
The only "false information" here is the bit about 4 gig memory sticks (which, in context, may be referring to future memory sticks). The only "asinine comparison" is one Sony themselves has made.
I think the story here isn't one of bias, but of a sad admin holding petty power over someone in a penny-ante feud.
So if I understand correctly, GameFAQs' policy is that hardware reviews are forbidden from evaluating obvious comparisions to other devices, including those for which the manufacturer encouraged comparisons? The PSP is clearly be marketted as an MP3 player; thus comparisons to other MP3 players (like the iPod) are appropriate. The PSP is also being marketted as a way to watch movies. That would be direct competition for DVD players; a comparision seems useful.
ReplyDeleteThis and the rest of the claims your anonymous author are making lead me to one of three conclusions: 1. The person isn't actually someone of note at GameFAQs and is just hoaxing you, 2. GameFAQs has a series of policies regarding reviews that range from stupid to insane. 3. The anonymous author had some external reason (personal grudge?) to remove the review and now feels the need to justify it.
While anonymous statements can be useful, especially if the journalist knows the identity of the writer. However in this case I don't think it adds anything to the discussion.
I give this entry a 0/10. You are full of crap. (*This* is an unbiased review!)
ReplyDeleteThe person's review was the best there, and if you don't agree with it, post your own, don't censor theirs. The purpose of the system is to let people see what others think.
Anyone else think the 400 word minimum limit on a review is absurd? 400 words is a great deal to someone who knows how to use them well. Why should GameFAQs endorse crappy, endless reviews ala ign? I'd say 1000 maximum, not 400 minimum.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the case this individual makes in favor of the censorship is quite weak. In reality, it reinforces the contention that GameFAQs is using censorship to promote a pro-PSP bias.
While I can see the need to make sure a review is of reasonable length and doesn't just say "It sux" or isn't obscene, I don't see the need for censoring poor reviews. If a review is really so bad as to use numerous unsupported elements, the reader will not be convinced by it. In this way it is self-defeating and censorship is completely unnecessary.
This whole story strikes me as kind of odd because it seems to indicate that the GameFAQs review section does, in fact, have an editorial process, which is the first I've ever heard of it.
ReplyDeleteThere are reviews at GameFAQs for all manner of games. Many of them (the reviews, and the games) are of questionable quality. There are so many of these reviews that I don't think that anyone will go through them and delete them. Most people just don't care about, I'd venture to say. I barely read find myself interested enough to read GameFAQs reviews, mostly because of this factor.
But PSP reviews are getting different treatment because people DO care about the PSP, which means there are more eyeballs watching and more mouths to complain, and thus selective enforcement of editorial standards. (I'd imagine that DS reviews would get something of the same treatment.)
I don't agree that this review should have been deleted, especially in the light shown by the comments above. Comparing the PSP with the iPod is quite definitely a valid comparasion. Mentioning the PSP's lack of movies compared to a DVD player is also a valid comparasion, especially since you can get portable DVD players with a built-in screen for considerably cheaper than a PSP. The Memory Stick issue is a better point, but this would be far from the first GameFAQs review to feature such an inaccuracy. (Irrelecant aside: it is actually possible to use those sticks in a PSP with an adaptor, though it's rather a clunky solution.)
Also... GameFAQs has a system by which readers can "rate" reviews as helpful or unhelpful, which assigns them a score from zero to ten. I can only assume this community grading system was added in order to warn other readers as to how useful a review is without requiring the interference of an editor, which make this review's deletion a bit more puzzling -- why not just leave it up and wait for its score to plummet? Such measure are rendered moot by an active editorial process -- it'd be like Slashdot deleting a comment.