|
The point is that the perceived validity of a review can be affected by the prevalence of other reviews of the same or similar nature. If I, as a person reading reviews, see only one negative review among a slew of positive reviews, the one negative review affects my judgement less than a large collection of negative reviews would. That is the point. I don't buy the "you shouldn't pick on bad muds, because there are other bad muds too" line. That's a silly perspective that ends up getting you nowhere. You might as well also say that it's bad to post a positive review, because there are other good muds out there. The "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all" adage shouldn't ever be the form for writing reviews. If a reviewer sees something horribly wrong with a particular mud, then that person is probably right in voicing the opinion, if for no other reason than to allow the MUD implementor a chance to assess the claims.
No. At least, I hope not. Anyone who makes up his mind about a game that he's never played based on only two or three negative reviews is being rather foolish. If, however, he reads 50 negative reviews... You see my point? It all boils down to the perceived validity of the complaints.
So, should someone also not post a positive review if one has already been posted that day? What a ludicrous concept. The date on which a review is posted should not factor into your judgement of the review's content.
Purely speculation, though I'm inclined to agree that it is likely to have happened at least once and possibly more times. This is why it pays to think for yourself instead of being a zombie. You have to apply a bit of critical thinking to any review to judge the validity of the claims for yourself.
|