That’s absolutely right, and it’s a real problem. The reviewer’s credibility is immaterial when scores are aggregated. Scores should be weighted by number of readers.
Having your site listed in gamerankings gives an instant veneer of legitimacy. In other words, it helps you get free shit to review. After all, smaller sites are more likely to sell reviews for free games, and apusgaminghut.net’s review counts just as much as Gamespot’s.
People who go to business school aren’t “finance majors”, that’s an undergraduate sounding term, and unless he’s like a million times smarter than I remember him being there’s no way he graduated from undergrad yet. What a moron.
He’s an undergrad at penn majoring in finance, what’s so confusing about that? I got a BS in Management Information Systems from the Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration at the University of Alabama.
Am I misrepresenting my first degree in some way that makes me a tool in Ben-world?
But where would that put IGN’s reviews compared to Insert Credit’s or Action Button’s reviews? I think the likelihood of selling reviews depends on the persons involved, not the size of the site.
Publishers can prevent someone from printing before a certain date through embargos. They cannot pressure someone to rush a review. Or at least they shouldn’t. The moment the publishers’ deadlines become your deadlines you have to step back and ask what the hell you are doing.
Not that I believe Activision would be all hot and bothered about getting a review up on PGNx first. Unless they felt they needed an easy 9.0 to cover what a dog the game has turned out to be for many critics.