Tom, I think credibility is going to have to be built individually. Most of the people who frequent this sight are/have developed a mental list of who they tend to agree with on different issues. I'm assuming the same would apply to reviewing. I have posted my humble (compared to many here) system so people can understand my point of reference. Whether or not they like what I have or agree with my conclusions as I post a review is speculation but as you suggest, the more open we are the more helpful we will be to readers. Sometimes it will just be a matter of time till ones reviews are accepted as being anything other than well or poorly written but all publications suffer through this curve too.
The suggestions made by Rives and Jadem6 are great. Even if they remained informal as opposed to required I would still try to conform my reviews to these guidelines.
I think this is headed in the right direction, whether Arnie or anyone else involved in AudiogoN would agree is yet to be seen. It's so easy for me to just show up and write but I'm sure there are untold hours of effort on the part of others that make my ramblings possible.
Thanks AudiogoN!
The suggestions made by Rives and Jadem6 are great. Even if they remained informal as opposed to required I would still try to conform my reviews to these guidelines.
I think this is headed in the right direction, whether Arnie or anyone else involved in AudiogoN would agree is yet to be seen. It's so easy for me to just show up and write but I'm sure there are untold hours of effort on the part of others that make my ramblings possible.
Thanks AudiogoN!