Forum - View topic

Survey: Should ANN Review its own Simulcasts?

So, reviews are just supposed to be for "discussion?" Then why bother having "reviews" just have someone rant about a series, if all you want is "discussion"? I thought a review was supposed to tell you if something was worthwhile to watch, or at the very least, to describe a series well enough so that someone could figure out if they'd like it or not. Would you be perfectly fine with ANN hosting a series your own reviewer said was garbage?

Where are you going with this, Sandstar? Do you trust the reviewers to be honest?

If yes, then vote yes. If not, then vote no.

They have said again and again that the decisions on what to stream and the decisions on what to review are not being made by the same parts of ANN and will not influence each other, so there's only so many ways they can say it.

*snip*

Zac wrote:

*snip*

I guess my point was that, by simulcasting a program you are, in effect, saying "This is worth watching." Or are you saying "We'll put up any old piece of crap that we can get a contract for." If the latter's the case, then I feel that hurts your reputation. I believe your reviewers will be honest, but I think that if you're just gonna post whatever you can get your hands on, you shouldn't let your reviwers review the shows, because of the disconnect between ANN hosting it, and a review saying it's not worth watching. Do you see my point? If not, I'll let it go.

Ok, I at least understand what you're getting at now, but I don't really think there's an issue, and even if there was then ANN is already screwed.

For one thing, ANN's reviewers disagree with each other all the time. Just because Carl likes a show doesn't mean Theron does as well. So in many cases, ANN has had different parts and/or formats of a particular show reviewed by several different staff members, and published drastically different opinions as a result.

It's generally been ANN's view that this is a good thing, as giving readers a "second opinion" of sorts on a show (or in some cases, a third opinion, or forth, etc) is of benefit to the readers. But if you want to talk about a disconnect between different parts of the site, isn't this the biggest disconnect right there? To have one reviewer say she can't even understand how someone could enjoy a show, and have another say that in his B+ review of the same show he might not have actually given it the full credit it deserves? And what I just said isn't some hypothetical example, it's exactly what happened with Erin and Theron recently. (Casshern Sins is the anime in question)

Also, ANN already streams a ton of stuff. Some of that stuff has been really thrashed by some of it's reviewers. Thus, even if you don't feel the previous example about different reviews represents a disconnect, the specific disconnect you were talking about already exists.

I guess my point was that, by simulcasting a program you are, in effect, saying "This is worth watching."

So, reviews are just supposed to be for "discussion?" Then why bother having "reviews" just have someone rant about a series, if all you want is "discussion"?

I thought a review was supposed to tell you if something was worthwhile to watch, ...

... or at the very least, to describe a series well enough so that someone could figure out if they'd like it or not.

Would you be perfectly fine with ANN hosting a series your own reviewer said was garbage?

Zac wrote:

*snip*

I guess my point was that, by simulcasting a program you are, in effect, saying "This is worth watching." Or are you saying "We'll put up any old piece of crap that we can get a contract for." If the latter's the case, then I feel that hurts your reputation.

Sandstar wrote:

I guess my point was that, by simulcasting a program you are, in effect, saying "This is worth watching."

I really don't see any reason it says that. Look, ANN is a business. They provide a service. One of these services is (or is going to be) providing access to anime via streaming. If they think there is a market for a show they may pick it up for streaming. There's no reason that is or should be a commentary on the quality of the show. All they are providing is access because they think this will be a useful service to people. If you're interested in judgments on quality then that is what reviews, another service ANN provides, are for. That doesn't by any means negate the value of providing the service of access to the show. I mean, if you've read ANNs forum at all it should be pretty clear that just because someone on the review staff says they think a show sucks, it by no means indicates there aren't still a legion of fans out there who disagree and will watch the show. This is why it is perfectly reasonable and not at all contradictory for a reviewer to pan a show and yet for ANN to stream it anyway. They provide two completely different services, both of which are useful to different groups of people.

Sorry, but regarding the quality part. If I recall correctly, on a previous ANNCast Justin Sevakis commented that he was offered a fanservice show to stream on ANN and he declined. Was that a commentary on the quality of the show or was it due to ANN wanting to be more... family friendly?

You should also keep in mind that ANN has often posted multiple reviews that contradict each other.