All I can say is that they are possible the most shallow minded people ever allowed (though they shouldent be) to write a review over a show 
What he (or she) says is completley uncorrect, even for a review from someone who would hate the show. Reviews are supposed to be fair. Not putting a rude and inncorrect phrase after the description of every episode. Though I doubt they will see this, I hope they do TAoStH is the best and only good sonic cartoon to date (Well, not really, Sonic X is alright subbed). Its cartoonish action and style had a great 90's feel, and it was plain halarious. So I say let the reviewer of the show read this, (s)he is overlooking the privalge to see every episode. Congrats, silly person 
Quote:
Reviews are supposed to be fair.
You may like them to be that way, but they don't have to be. Reviews are nothing more than a person's opinion--and an opinion doesn't have to be fair.
True, I appreciate your commentary. I may be jumping to conclusions, Perfesional commentary is usualy giving up and down points, but I forgot this isnt perfessional, so, in turn, they can write just about anything they want. Still, it seems a little unfair, the animation was supposed to be like that for example...oh well
Which review are you referring to, anyway?
If you're referring to the summaries at SHQ, some of them were by Jon Gray, but they're mostly mine.
You're entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to theirs, too. Not agreeing with your tastes does not necessarily make someone "shallow minded".
I don't even know if you're talking about me or not, but it's still a bit of a cheek to use your first post on a board to criticise someone's personality in the strength of one thing they wrote, over something as trivial as a cartoon series and when you neither know nor've made an efort to get to know them first.
And of course reviews're partly down to taste - if they weren't, there'd be no market for multiple reviewers of anything in the first place.
I still don't know if you're actually talking about me, but: as anyone who knows me on this board will tell you, I do not "hate" AoStH.
I'm fine with judging any Sonic media on its own merits - but if I still think that something has flaws, I'm not going to avoid saying that just because someone might take it personally.
Oooo, better be careful. If you were yelping at one of Sam's reviews she'll just stab you. But if you hit on one of Dubs... Well, they say wetbread comes for you in your dreams.
>>
With eggnog.
<<
And pudding.
*dragged off*
~reekO
If you were yelping at one of Sam's reviews she'll just stab you.
Now, now, Rick! There's no proof of that...
*coughotherthanafewincriminatingletterswrittenovertenyearsagocough*
Oh God, that would be horrible.
And also, your nightmares become filled with bad movies performed by Cleopatra Sexyhips and John Revolta! :O
*dives under a couch*
I didn't mention the letters DON'T HIT ME!
~ricO
I haven't been in this particular board of the Mobius Forum for a while. Today, however, I was a bit curious to see what the newest user's first post was...
As for the episode reviews, I'm not really inclined to go into the main site right now, especially since I've barely been there at all since I joined the forums, but also since I'm pretty sure my memory of what the reviews were like was correct. (Though it has been a couple years since I read them so I'm not sure I remember exactly) I remember from in my earlier days on this forum, I used to judge the opinions of people on this site based on those reviews...
I think when the thread starter calls them shallow minded he or she is referring to how they almost always pointed out flaws and mostly that rarely saying anything positive about the show... jumping at any opportunity to find something to use to call the show stupid, and while I would to some extent agree that it's kinda stupid (I haven't watched AoStH in years though) I think admins on a Sonic site so major as Sonic HQ should at least try a bit harder to do something like that more professionally.
By the way, I thought Ron Prower did the comics section so I assumed he wrote all the reviews for AoStH and SatAM, that's kinda why I associated like of SatAM with dislike of AoStH in the first place. But now reading that not all the reviews within an episode were done by the same person? Why couldn't they have said who did what review like is done with the comics page? I also didn't know Jon Gray posted here. o.o I haven't bought or read Sonic comics in a while either, but I remember reading somewhere that he does the penciling for Archie... interesting, someone posts here AND works for Archie...
...And someone at GS called me a "gullible fool" for believing them when they said they worked for SEGA...
[Fixed wording after posting]
Then it'll come as a shock to you to find out that another poster here is a writer for the Sonic Archie comic. =O
And BTW, to my knowledge, Jon Gray doesn't do any more artwork for Archie anymore. It was only for a short while.
Another poster? Who?
Anyway, as I said I haven't read or bought the Archie Sonic comics in a while, but I think I remember reading before that Jon Gray was one of the artists for Archie Sonic...
... and right now I'm typing this from the school computer, so I can't really look at an issue of Archie Sonic to see what he specifically DID...
Post by Samanfur, who cannot access her account right now:
I think admins on a Sonic site so major as Sonic HQ should at least try a bit harder to do something like that more professionally.
Again, I warn you against the dangers of assumptions, and speaking about things and people that you don't know about.
I wasn't an Admin back then - it was over almost two years before I got that far. I wasn't even staff when I wrote those.
Those summaries are eight years old now (and were written in a hurry whilst I was on heavy medication, too). They were written after I fell over SHQ on quite literally my first day online, noticed gaps in the archive and e-mailed WB Jon to ask if I could help to fill them. I had no idea about any sort of "house style" and I definitely wasn't thinking ahead to angle for a staff position.
If I was typing them now, I would write them differently - even though I was copying WB's style and, of course, had to run everything by him for approval, since he was the person who actually updatwd the Animation section.
But I still don't think that they're as bad as all that, and I still don't see where getting personal comes in. Like Red said: being "professional" has nothing to do with viewpoint.
I also didn't know Jon Gray posted here. o.o I haven't bought or read Sonic comics in a while either, but I remember reading somewhere that he does the penciling for Archie... interesting, someone posts here AND works for Archie...
Jon Gray not only used to update our Animation section - along with Vector, he was Co-webmaster when the original founder left. Red took his position when he left to concentrate on his art career.
Jeff Axer posts here occasionally. Dawn Best posts here occasionally. Ian Flynn posts here occasionally. As does Joe Edkin from Sonic X.
Jon Gray is the one known as WB.
Quote:
I haven't bought or read Sonic comics in a while either, but I remember reading somewhere that he does the penciling for Archie... interesting, someone posts here AND works for Archie...
...And someone at GS called me a "gullible fool" for believing them when they said they worked for SEGA...
Considering there are two current topics dedicated to different current Archie writers answering questions from fans about the comics along with what Sam (via Craig mentioned), the fact that people that work for Archie post here is not something new.
Of course, working for Archie and posting here is NOT the same thing as actually working on the site, which none have ever done save Dub (and he's been gone for 5+ years now). ;p
Oh, and your ability to identify people who work where is a bit shaky. Ron doesn't work on comics. 😉
dude...i havent touched those since like...what? my JUNIOR year of high school?
that was ages ago. i'd forgotten i'd even wrote those things. do you realize how long ago that was? i dont even remember the last time i took a look at this board. XD
hahahaha! man does this thread ever win the silly award for the day. **hands out chocolate chickens** 
good to see you back dub. 
Dubs, you know what your doctor said about reading the messages on this board. o.o
~Rico
Hmm... I skimmed over a few of the reviews and they weren't anywhere near as bad as I remember them being but some of the things I said apply either way.
If those reviews were made in those circumstances, why not make a new set of reviews? Or better yet, why not do what used to be done with the comics by giving different users a chance to make different reviews of certain episodes?
As for True Red's response:
Quote:
Oh, and your ability to identify people who work where is a bit shaky. Ron doesn't work on comics.
Oops, I meant to say the CARTOONS page. 
I figured you should have been able to tell that was a mistake though, especially seeing as how from what I remember people who liked the comics a lot tended to dislike the cartoons and vice versa...
Considering one person doesn't work for the site and the other has other priorities, they wouldn't do it. Anyway, making new reviews is not necessary because someone doesn't like them in any case. Nothing would stay up then and I don't care whether or not something is or isn't "professional" in anyone's eyes. This is not a professional site.
Comics only get reviews because they're still published, not something that occurred a decade ago--and even with comics, after a certain amount of time, I don't take reviews for them.
Your explanation for how I should see you made a mistake makes no sense. You should've learned by now that your generalizations almost never apply to anyone here despite your attempts to make them do so.
I guess I understand how it's unreasonable to ask for a new set of reviews. However, it's just that if someone typed them up on their first day online while on heavy medication in a hurry, I think it'd still be best that there were some newer reviews, or at least an explanation of when those reviews were typed on that page. The person who made this thread judged the reviewer based on those reviews; I used to judge this site based on those reviews. (Hey, the lack of comments on them made me wonder if people even disagreed with them what with me being used to a site where reviews get loads of comments and attention immediately upon being posted.)
If let's say you could set aside a space on that page for user reviews, and let people know that if they wanted to express their opinions on certain episodes they could send some and, let's say (after perhaps proofreading the review and/or asking the reviewer some questions first just in case) posting those reviews and distancing the outdated ones from the updated ones... I guess that wouldn't be very convenient but I don't think most other stuff this site would be convenient to make either. (though I guess since I'm not running this site I'm not quite the one to say how one thing compares to the other)
Sure, the cartoons may be a decade old. A lot of users on GS, though I'm not saying we should necessarily make our site more like theirs, review games that are older than that and some people like myself read those reviews. Also, people like the creator of this topic would surely read those reviews were they done on this site, and remember that was only a sample of people who read those reviews AND post here about them.
As for your last comment, like I said I haven't posted in the KVF in a while so my memory of it isn't that good, but if I remember correctly most people who really tended to like the cartoons (or even particularily like one cartoon) strongly enough, seemed to dislike the comics. I think I worded my comment backwards.
I'm fairly sure that my view is based from this site. The only other sites I posted on where people mentioned Archie Sonic were GS (within a user created board not listed on the main page, said UCB I didn't even post in much and haven't since last summer) and SeGa's board (which I haven't posted on since the summer before last summer and didn't post much there either) and I really doubt I would've drawn conclusions from the rare mentions of it on those sites. I'm FAIRLY sure it's from this site, but to be honest, at this point I'm too lazy to look around in this particular board seeing as how the only reason I posted in it in the first place was when seeing a newbie's first post.
Reviews don't need an explanation. They've been seen thousands of times and the number of complaints don't even come close to 20.
I don't care how anyone judges a site. That's their own choice and doesn't affect what is done here. Things are not done to attempt to please every single person--only what makes sense to those of us who work here.
As for your generalizations, you started making them from your very first post here. You didn't base them on anyone that posted here. Of course, if you still haven't realized that those who visit the website aren't the same people who post at this board in somewhere around 85% (and possibly higher) of the cases, then you still don't know much about this place at all.
T.R, I want to distance some of the generalizations I've made from outside this site from the ones I've made from within this site. Some I've made because I was so used to other sites, some I observed only on this site. I don't remember how well those generalizations applied, though I do remember that many people who strongly liked the cartoons, even if just one cartoon, tended to dislike the comics more so than most people who only liked the cartoons a bit. Anyway, sorry about that, I'll go back on topic:
I know they're not done to please every single person, I figured it was kinda obvious that I knew that. But let's combine that with your point of not everyone on this site posting on this board and look at it this way: If people who post on the boards still read those reviews, imagine how many people who DON'T post on these boards read those reviews! Now maybe it still isn't worth your time to post those reviews OR an explanation but I'm just saying reviews done under those circumstances it would be best to clarify that as it would explain it to people who wondered why the reviews were the way they were.
This is called "matt doesn't understand what he's been told."
When I said that the reviews have been read thousands of times, I'm talking about people who don't post here. Only some die-hard fanboys get upset over reviews that they don't like. If someone doesn't like something that doesn't post here, I end up hearing about it in my email (or seeing it on places people don't think I visit) anyway. There's more than one way to complain about something and I get plenty of it monthly (and at times daily). Reviews don't need explanations because the only explanation needed is provided in the definition for a review, which is nothing more than someone(s) opinion on something. If a reader doesn't like it, it's not anyone's problem except the reader. Obviously, you've never read reviews written by certain people because the only difference that would exist in the current reviews under "different circumstances" is just the sentence/grammatical structure. It would still be just as unflattering toward the series as they are now. ;p
Actually LianneKa, I think I do understand what I've been told. I think you might misunderstand what I'm saying here.
I wasn't saying to make a new set of reviews, I already admitted that was unreasonable. I was just suggesting that if someone had a side-note there (Eg. "many of the reviews written here were written by someone who was on in a hurry when typing them") in case anyone wonders about why they would be done so unprofessionally... though I do take back my earlier comments about them because as I said, they were not as bad as I remember.
As for your comments about reviews, I know that was explained to me more than a year ago in the GS Sonic review thread, but in that thread people also mentioned that different reviewers would mean different reviews... so if certain users could submit their own reviews, though I guess it'd be too inconvenient, it'd kill two birds with one stone in that it gives people who disagree strongly enough a chance to voice their opinions onto the main site and it'd double in making it more obvious from the start that the reviews don't necessarily reflect the opinions of Sonic HQers. Though I guess you're right... it's not really necessary.
Quote:
I was just suggesting that if someone had a side-note there
That's called "explaining a review." There's no need to explain a review. That's what you're not getting. If you got my point, then you wouldn't keep making your "suggestion." ;p
Actually, I wasn't saying that you NEEDED to explain a review, I was just saying that it wouldn't hurt to do so.
But yeah, I'll stop now.
