28 April 2008
Critique Ala Carte
Posted by Colin Mitchell under: ponderings .
So how would a user-generated theatre review site work for Los Angeles? I would think the first step would be to first gather as many reviews as possible for each play from the major publications in Los Angeles. That would give us a fair estimate of the quality of the show from the “professional” point of view, that could perhaps then be quantified in a similar manner as that of “Rotten Tomatoes“. Maybe a meter - based on the percentage of “good” vs. “bad” reviews (similar to the “fresh” and “rotten” tags on RT) - that goes from “bitter” to “bitter sweet” to “sweet”, bitter being not so good, and sweet being very good. Then, on top of that “professional” estimation, which has been quantified by the Bitter Lemons caretakers, we could then have a link for the regular theatre goer to add his or her own “review” of the same show which they have seen firsthand.
This formula might give us a truer idea of the quality of the show and would begin to not only challenge the opinions of our elite critics, but perhaps even wrest the power out of their hands.
One could imagine that an avid Los Angeles Theatre goer who became a regular contributor to the “common” Bitter Lemons critique section, could eventually become more reliable to some than the paid professional on the Times or Weekly staff.
Sounds awfully democratic to me. What say you?
13 Comments so far...
Martin Bedoian Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:16 pm.
Sounds interesting, I just have one small problem, the same problem I have with LA Times reader reviews. Ostensibly the “legit” published reviews are based on the show and somewhat objective (I know that is a topic for discussion in and of itself). An open and anonymous invitation to “review” often leads to shilling for friends, or for yourself. How do you imagine the reviews remain at least somewhat objective?
Colin Mitchell Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:18 pm.
Yup. That is definitely a concern, Martin. And one that always seems to pop up in this internent age where anonymity reigns - hard to hold people accountable when they can just make up a million monikers and post away. My intital thought is that the overall quantity of submissions will force the curve into its truest shape, it’s most honest “mean”, if you will; but that is probably a bit naive and - God forbid - overly optimistic.
Would be interested in hearing from others how this glitch might be solved. I’ll put my thinking cap on and see what I can come up with.
Martin Bedoian Says:
28 April 2008 at 4:14 pm.
I find the reviews on Goldstar interesting. Still a lot of room for friends posting, but only someone who bought a ticket from GS can review. All of the posts from Syzygy shows (as near as I can tell) came from strangers. Because of that, I pay more attention to them.
Colin Mitchell Says:
28 April 2008 at 6:47 pm.
So the key would be to somehow qualify the public reviewers through some sort of vetting process. I like the idea that not just ANYONE could post a review, there would need to be some sort of requirement, or sacrifice - although that may be a bit harsh of a word - for someone to be a public reviewer. Basically, we make posting a review on Bitter Lemons a privilege rather than a right. And your other point is good as well, drawing a distinction between a “post” and a “review” - be it a public review or a professional one. Now how do we do that without making people have to pay money?
Camille Brown Says:
29 April 2008 at 1:18 pm.
I think following the Rotten Tomatoes model would be just fine: the composite of critical reviews would be the main criteria for the sweet-bittersweet-bitter ratings, and a second click-through section just for user reviews. Imposing regulations on the user-generated reviews makes things more complicated than they need to be and wouldn’t encourage an unbiased user community. If you do want to maintain some sort of accountability, require users to create a profile prior to writing a review.
Martin Bedoian Says:
29 April 2008 at 10:50 pm.
Sorry if this is a repeat…exactlt posted and then it timed out
Yeah…this is a tough one. But important to try and tackle. I recently saw a show that was fairly terrible in a way that wasn’t a question of my taste versus someone else’s. Everyone I know who saw it HATED it. Go to the times reader reviews: four stars! Now, some innocent bystander sees four stars, sees the show and, guess what, another strike against LA theatre.
Maybe its as simple as a big ol’ disclaimer that says “CAUTION: Some reviews may have been submitted by highly biased parties. Proceed at you own risk, your mileage may vary and Caveat Emptor!”
Actually I think a good partial solution is to require a user account to submit a review and then keep track of the number of reviews submitted. If review comes from a user with only one review, read with caution. If someone has posted a hundred reviews this year, less likely that this review is overly biased.
M-
Colin Mitchell Says:
30 April 2008 at 10:59 am.
Excellent idea. A “contributor account” or “profile” would not only allow us to measure the amount of reviews coming from each person, but would allow for some accountability. Although I could see one person creating several accounts under different names and then writing favorable reviews from each one. I guess if someone’s going to go to all that effort, whaddaya gonna do?
Martin Bedoian Says:
2 May 2008 at 12:33 pm.
>>one person creating several accounts under different names and then writing favorable reviews from each one
Yes, but ostensibly each “reviewer” would only have one review to their name, and therefore be less likely to be unbiased
Colin Mitchell Says:
2 May 2008 at 2:23 pm.
True.
I’ve contacted Enci - our host - she likes the potential of this idea and is looking into it. She’s a bit busy at the moment though, but the more we can continue to refine - the better.
Martin Bedoian Says:
5 May 2008 at 1:21 pm.
Colin…I am actually a software developer with a great deal of experience in web applications (yeah I still have an “other” life”). If the “ebay” solution is something you want to pursue, and not possible via the current WordPress setup, let me know and I will be glad to assist.
M-
Colin Mitchell Says:
5 May 2008 at 2:52 pm.
Martin - definitely something that we want to pursue, except I’m not the actual host of this site. Enci is. I believe she’s monitoring all of this traffic, but let me send her a message and get her in contact with you. I know this “Rotten Tomatoes” / “E-bay” type of model is something she definitely wants to get going on this site - and I think it would be an incredibly valuable - and unique - tool for LA Theatre - both producers and consumers - so let me connect the both of you and see where it goes. I am, of course, available as well, how ever I can help please let me know.
C-
Colin Mitchell Says:
13 May 2008 at 2:14 pm.
Hey Martin! You out there? I think, Enci, the host would love for us all to sit down together and see if we could get this Rotten Tomatoes engine working on this site - with your masterly help of course. We should strike while the iron is hot! Thanks, Colin.