Talk:Metacritic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Why does this page largely consist of copies of Metacritic content in the form of "top X list"s? Seems dumb to me; if people want to see them they'll go to the metacritic site itself. Sourcejedi 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Metacritic also gives bias to the reviews of magazines such as Rolling Stone, and hence reviews from these publications have a marginally greater influence on the average." I don't get that: the system is suppossed to be based on an average score from all the reviews, without favors for certain magazines or reviewers. --Joanberenguer 13:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Metacritic does indeed weight its scores. The New York Times is obviously going to get more weight than the Podunk Review. -- Jason Jones 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not patently "obvious" that the reviews would be weighted, hence it's worth noting in the article. Pimlottc 14:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 About Metascore | emphasis added by me 2 Redirect 3 Why does this page exist? 4 Re: Why does this page exist? 5 1999 or 2001? 6 Criticism

[edit] About Metascore | emphasis added by me

The METASCORE is considered a weighted average because we assign more
significance, or weight, to some critics and publications than we do
to others, based on the overall stature and quality of those critics
and publications. In addition, for music and movies, we also normalize
the resulting scores (akin to "grading on a curve" in college), which
prevents scores from clumping together.

Rhe br 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last two days, metacritic seems to be down? Are they still in business?

[edit] Redirect

I redirected the Metascore page here. The article had no useful information, and it was covered adequately here already. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page exist?

The info is just a copy of what you can (easily) view on the Metacritic page... Sontra 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Why does this page exist?

While much of the content of this page probably does not belong on Wikipedia (someone delete it!), metacritic is well-known enough that a page for it is probably appropriate. It shows up quite frequently in reputable sources, though admittedly this is more often as a quick reference to an entity's metascore than as part of an article about the site itself (check out metacritic's news page to see this in action). Still, it's quite well known and has an alexa ranking in the 5,000s.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.139.187 (talk • contribs) 23:58, August 2, 2007

[edit] 1999 or 2001?

The Wall Street Journal says Metacritic was launched in January 2001[1], but the article says it was founded in 1999 (I should note that a WHOIS lookup says the domain name was created July 16, 1999). Perhaps the site was created in 1999 but didn't go commercial until 2001? --Pixelface (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I find the criticism against another review aggregation site largely baseless and to have it so directed at Rotten Tomatoes is odd, and the wording is probably subject to weasel words in that it fails to mention Metacritic tallies vastly fewer reviews overall versus Rotten Tomatoes. I'd like to change this, if anyone has suggestions I'd like to get a little less bias in the article. Revrant (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)