zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
On Reviews

Find reviewers who agree with your tastes, and who like the things you enjoy. Follow them. Ignore the metacritic-like sites.

This is especially useful for games. Which is why it boggles my mind when people get upset at reviewers. Reviewers are not reviewing for everyone. Rather, they are reviewing for their readers. It's okay to disagree. It just means this persons tastes are different for yours.

The problem is people forgot how to use reviewers, and instead, just see them as weapons in a the game of "highest metacritic score."

It's silly.

Find the reviewers you agree with most of the time. Find several, listen to all of them, and make your judgement from that. Ignore the masses.

>>jasonl+WY1
It's a lot of work to find them. It would be neat if there were a site where I could rate a number of movies and then it offers to me a critic or critics I could follow who generally share my tastes.

>>hcurti+U62
I'd love this. Recommendation algorithms felt magical in the beginning, but I feel they're getting worse each year. They're getting manipulated by private interests or outright bought, and even when they're successful at remaining impartial they often get stuck in feedback loops. I don't want to keep listening to music that sounds just like what I've been listening to - I want to hear new and different things.

Human curation seems to be the only way out, but it can be so unergonomic. I don't really want to watch no-name movie reviewers on YouTube for hours until I find some I agree with. I don't want to read rambling blog posts to figure out whether or not someone liked a film.

The ideal flow for me would be: rate a handful of films, then it provides a list of curators that I can choose to follow. Each curator has a list of films that they've endorsed ("you should check this out, for this reason").