NanoG@zzolo

Goodness! The DeBaser statute states (art. 1) that when someone would have reviewed the water flea, we would close. We were sure that no one would ever do it. Instead. Farewell, it was nice.

Finally: honestly, I don’t know if in this specific case the bold text is the work of the author or the editor, but in any case, it plays a valuable role: they are the first (and often the only) things you read when you land on this page. From those highlighted words, you immediately understand whether the review might interest you or not. What you define as grotesque actually goes in the direction you've indicated (which you mistakenly call "accessibility": accessibility refers to the use of pages by people with disabilities. Perhaps you meant "usability".), it is indeed a way to filter through the mass and select what is "yours" best. Sorry for the insistence, but this time I felt like it.

The web is full of boring blogs with 12 reviews and 20 visits a day. If you're fine with being read by twenty people, why don’t you just start a blog instead of sending them here? Commercial television thrives on advertising, and so the "quality" it offers is the "quality" demanded by advertisers, who know who their audience is and act accordingly (maybe that's why I haven't had a TV for at least fifteen years?). There are no ads on DeBaser. So what do we do about it, eh, voiceface? The reason there are a thousand readable reviews on DeBaser is precisely because we've published 10,000. And the fact that you (and not just you) found them is somewhat contradictory to what you’re saying, don’t you think? And what's the problem if I find five reviews of the same album? I don’t understand the point of your argument. Do you want us to reveal how much money we make with DeBaser? Easy: less than zero, in the sense that it's a cost for us. Happy?

See voiceface, the fact that a casual user stumbles upon these pages means, almost always (data in hand), that they come here from Google. The fact that they arrive here from Google means that we are well indexed and, ultimately, that we know how to do our job. In other words, the choice to publish everything has proven to be, for now, the right one: visitors have been continuously increasing for years. DeBaser is many things and the fact that it has a decent level of success depends on many factors (not least the fact that I am telling you these things: how many other sites do that?). Since we set it up, we have been discussing whether or not to publish everything, and the fact that we have continued to do so is not coincidental but is the result of reflections, arguments, verifications, analyses, and, ultimately, (more or less) thoughtful choices. So, when you call the editors "ridiculous," which are part of the staff that works hard (and always for free, let’s remember), you make a double mistake: the first being that the choice to publish everything is not theirs but of those who created the site, the second because you speak without understanding when you say that the site as it is is absolutely useless for the casual visitor, given that there are many more (and much more satisfied) casual visitors than you evidently (but unjustifiably) think.
Aloha and thank you.

I didn't know that ivory was painful. You learn something new every day, and that's a good thing.

Wow, already published? I had checked the mine and figured it wouldn't be discussed before February. So I thought I might re-listen to the album and change the review. Instead... these editors are too good.
Anyway, I listened to it again (all of it), and I have to say that without headphones, it's a bit better (even though the look on the face of anyone who walked into the room while I was listening didn't exactly express gratitude or curiosity, just concern for my mental health).

'sti cazzi

Excuse me for a moment: you are advertising a service that you sell. Whether you charge a lot or a little, it doesn’t matter; that's your business. The reason you do it, whether for the music or the electricity consumed by the computer, is of little consequence. The fact is that you are using a structure that we paid for to sell your own product. It seems obvious to me that: 1. comments on reviews are not the appropriate space for this; 2. In any case, advertising costs money, even if there is no profit (and perhaps you should first ask if we are willing to host it).

DeBaser keeps Antonio on his own dime (that is, Antonio's) while he's in the UK precisely because this way he can review the albums before they hit the stores. Come on, we're not amateurs.