|
Ah okay Maggie. Like I said, I wasn't really sure, but the point that Bardon's comments weren't an actual review, but instead an informational correction of someone else's review still applied to your concern.
(edited to add: Also keep in mind that many people who write reviews don't read these forums at all. They post the reviews because their buddies tell them to, or because it's the first thing they see when their vote takes them to this website. Telling them here about the ettiquette involved in review writing is likely to be completely overlooked.)
Logos, if you don't buy a game based on a negative review, and later on that reviewer is "outted" as a disgruntled player who *intentionally misled you* then doesn't that make you rather gullible?
Personally, I'd rather see these clarifications and corrections, but I'd *also* like for reviews to be checked for accuracy before they're "sent" onto the review list.
Forgive me for using a real-world correlation here, but an editor of a reputable newspaper will always check, or have his people check, the accuracy of anything that gets written in his publication. Papers that don't do that are those nasty weeklies like National Enquirer and Weekly World Globe that are for pure entertainment value and taken seriously only by the easily deluded.
|