Maybe one in ten reviews around these parts is somebody ragging on the maufacturer for a lemon, or at least for a car that's coming apart. I don't feel that these reviews are all that helpful: they're lopsided as heck, and very bitter (especially when you notice that the review is written by member hates_isuzu or whatever).

When I see a rant, it rarely gets a VH from me unless the writer does a good job of reviewing the car and *then* launches into his rant.

Anybody else?

-- Rex Knepp (scmrak@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002

Answers

I agree that any rant really needs the basic info to back it up if it's going to be highly rated. Often, I will be lenient on a review that has a rant and skimps on other infi, if the rant is A:relevant B:interesting and C:important to the topic. What I am especially lenient on are negative opinions of things that widely get positive attention, or vice versa. If someone's going to point out some flaws in the latest, greatest car that everyone's raving about, I think that's important and I may rate it slightly higher than an equivalent review without those negative points.

However, as I said, if the basic info isn't there, it's not going to go anywhere. I think it all depends on how well written it is and how well it covers the topic in general.

-- Bennett Campbell (apparatus@juno.com), May 14, 2002.

Well, my view is this: there is a fine line between RANT and experience. I don't mind people writing about a bad experience (or more if it does so happens to them). However, when I go on that tangent, I always provide usability info, drivability info, etc. Then I'll get to the bad stuff. :)

I have read in some epinions that some people just go straight to ranting. That's a no no.

-- nad_masters (none@none.com), May 14, 2002.