> writes a stunning review about album > gives it a 6.7

>>74858936
because the entire staff decides the final score and not the individual writer

>>74858949
Interadasting

>>74858936
>still visit pitchfork dot com
>think about their reviewes constantly
>actually remember the score to dozens of their "reviews"
Why do people do this?

>>74859013
Because they review shit others don't, and give me a basis to go off of when checking out an artists discography.

Because they like to play with brainlets that love to express quality in numbers

>>74858949
Is that how it's always been?

>>74859200
or you can, I don't know, spend 5-15 minutes listening to previews/some full songs and decide if you wanna listen to the entire album yourself.

File: 37672845-Incorrect-grunge-rubber-stamp-on-white-background-vector-illustration-Stock-Vector.jpg (139KB, 1300x759px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1300x759px

>>74859200
> they review shit others don't

>>74858936
Who cares?

>>74858949
also individual reviewers tend to be more honest in their leanings when they're not reviewing, a flaw in their system. check out the type of albums each staff writer tends to stick to, it's consistent across the board