Wanted to mention a few ideas for the site and solicit your feedback.
1 - A post for every show, reviewed or not. As you can see, for the last few weeks I have been attempting to create a placeholder thread for every show that is on whether or not there is a followspot review. My hope is this will allow discussion of every show. In the past, only reviewed shows received a post. What do you think? After the show closes, if there is no review and no comments, the thread will be deleted.
2 - Anonymity of reviewers. Some level of anonymity is proving necessary to attract other contributors. Ideally I would like to identify these reviews like "Guest Review by Kilroy" etc. using some sort of handle. But some contributors don't even want that. My feeling is that attracting more reviews, even if they are not attributed (i.e., identified just as "Guest Review"), is preferable to fewer reviews. Do you agree?
3 - Anonymity of posters. I have tried a few periods while away of setting blog to require a login, i.e., no anonymous posting. Anyone can create a login and use it, so it's still pretty anonymous. However, having some sort of handle for posters (like reviewers) seems like a good idea. Without that, during periods of high vitriol, which threaten to destroy the dialogue, the only other option is to require comment moderation, which I really don't want to do. Overall, would it be a good or bad idea to move to requiring logins to post, i.e., no anonymous posting? Do we gain more from the balanced anonymous posting than we lose from the personal attacks, axe grinding etc.?
4 - Advance notice of shows. You can help ensure your show will be covered by including followspot on your press release distribution list. If you do not see a post for your show, that means it is not on the radar, so please email if that is the case and let me know. Also, please send a photo to include in the post, if you would like. Make sure to include a photo credit. Please send materials to followspot at hotmail dot com.
5 - Additional followspot contributors wanted. Do you see a lot of theatre? Do you want to help ensure that more shows receive a review? Then consider becoming a contributor. The trick here is that the best way to make sure your show gets a review is to review someone else's. We need more contributors in the pool to maintain consistent coverage. The ultimate goal is to provide a review of every show in the greater Portland area on opening night, but that will only be possible with a crew of 10-20 people. Right now we are four.
If there is anything else on your mind, fire away!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
1 - i like the post for every show, since it allows folks room to comment on shows that might not get a chance to get followspotted.
2 - i'm not such a fan on this one. though i don't need a real name, i appreciate knowing something about where a particular reviewer is coming from. a reviewer's tastes help put their reviews in context. again, i don't need a real name, just something that ties a reviewer to other shows that person has reviewed.
3 - same thing here, really. i lose patience trying to figure out which anonymous post is being referred to when someone (usually anonymous) says "i totally disagree with anonymous' review!" i like cross-referencing...if Dan doesn't like Musicals as a general rule, i'm going to take his review of 'Cabaret' with a grain of salt. for example. even if Dan's name is textile_spring_004. also, i tire of the anonymous praises and hates. i just can't put as much stock in them if there isn't some identifier there. i'd rather people owned up to what they felt, even if it was under an odd log-in name. but perhaps that's just me...
1. Post for every show is a good idea, but the current layout means that all the "empty" uncommented/unreviewed productions overwhelm the ones that are reviewed.
2. Like jam.es said, some form of tracking reviewers is very handy. Beyond that, holding your guest reviewers to your word limit would be a good idea too. The way I read this blog is that the followspot post offers a cogent summary of whether or not I should go, with the comments providing more in-depth discussion and response. August, Osage County review a perfect example of a useless review: over-written, tangential, and self-absorbed.
3. I think most axe-grinding posts are easily recognizable as such, and anonymous posts in general do a good job of making honest criticism easier. For some reason there's no real discussion of theatrical styles/goals in Portland, so a lot of bad criticism occurs on a "You didn't like it? I loved it!" level. Just look at NWCT. Names won't make a difference on that.
Im not entirely sure why we need all the posts from out-of-area shows.
Ashland is one thing, but why New York? Just cause someone went there?
Some of us like the posts about shows in other parts of world, okay? You don't appreciate them, fine, don't read them.
1.) I like the 'spot holding" for shows. It might inspire someone to comment on it...or even go see it, since it's in a prominent position.
2.) I think a handle for reviewers is nice. Everyone has their own preferences and styles, and some jive well with certain individuals, while others don't. Just a good point of context.
3.) I think the anonymous thing is tricky. But if you have to use some type of name, even a handle, it might make people think more before they post.
Thank you for the questions!
Jill Westerby
I mostly lurk on this blog... my knives aren't sharp enough these days to jump down into the pit and do battle with the likes of Annonymous 10/13 (Sounds like I'm quoting a Bible verse or something).
However...
1. I've LOVED the new format with the empty posts for area shows - it reflects the amount of theatre going on in the area, and lets people throw their own review out there whether Followspot gets the chance to get to that particular theatre or not. I also think that the removal of said posts if they stay empty is cool - no need to keep an empty thread for posterity.
2) Like the other respondants, I don't need a real name for the guest reviewers, but I would like to have a handle. That way I can cross-reference previous reviews with new reviews, and get a picture of the reviewer him/herself (a bio is nice, but you can usually tell what general position a reviewer takes from his/her writing).
2a) I'd agree with Syria; while the 50 word limit is a constraint, prompting brevity in the guest reviews would be a good thing. Out of town reviews don't matter to me much; I usually scroll past them. If the out of town reviews are too long, though, I might not bother going down to the local stuff... which is why I visit the site to begin with.
3)Again, I'd advocate people picking a handle when the post responses. Yes, annonymity lets people speak freely without fear of reprecussion (and, it might be argued, often irresponsibly... but that's a judgement I'll leave to the poster him/herself). It's helpful to the readers and responders, however, if posters will just pick an "Other" identity for posting on the site - it clarifies the conversation to know that respondant A is the same person who posted in response 2,8, 12 and 15.
4)This is wonderful... but where do people send their materials to? You didn't post an email address :)
Off topic, only a little: I love the photos, but sometimes they play havoc with formatting on my screen, completely obscuring the title of the show. I don't know what you can do to fix that, but just thought I'd mention it in case you can.
i believe the email is given: followspot@hotmail.com, but it's all spelled out...for reasons i'll probably find out when i try to post this.
I agree that it's interesting and useful to have reviews and responses identified at least by a pseudonym, if not by the writer's real name. As other readers have noted, one can then start to get a sense of whether one generally agrees with that reviewer or not. Plus, I think some sense of ownership of a review is a good thing.
As for the issue of out-of-town (and longer-than-50-word) reviews--it as "focusing on the Portland Oregon theatre scene in precisely 50 word increments". Things evolve, of course, but I agree that the longer and/or out-of-town entries make the local content harder to find. If included, maybe they could be accessed by a caption and a link rather than taking up lots of main-page space.
Hmm-- half of a sentence in the above post disappeared. Should say:
As for the issue of out-of-town (and longer-than-50-word) reviews-- the blog's heading describes it as "focusing on the Portland Oregon theatre scene in precisely 50 word increments".
I say get rid of the out-of-town reviews. There are other sites for that. This one is (or has been, anyway) Portland-specific and useful in that sense. I can read the NYTimes if I want to know what's going on in NYC, right?
1. I would rather have fewer reviewers but feel I know them in some way, than have lots of reviewers who are a nebulous cloud. Right now I have no idea who is writing what -- it could be 2 reviewers, it could be 20. I like having some sort of association I can make with the person writing the review, whether it's their real name or a consistent pseudonymn. That context is what makes this blog feel like a community and not a random website with random reviews.
2. I like out of town reviews, but the lack of word limit on those reviews is throwing me off. The 50 word limit lends some order to a sprawling enterprise and has an air of precise democracy which is lost if some shows are not held to this limit. If you wanted to up the limit to 100 words for every show, that would be okay with me --but I am a big fan of a limit of some kind. It stands out as a smart choice against the overblown bloviation of most blogs.
3. I don't mind anonymity for commenters because, as someone said above, you can tell who the axe-grinders are by their tone, and I'd rather see the full breadth of comments than limit them. Then again, having them log in might make it a bit more of a civil, thoughtful discussion.
Thanks for the feedback, people. Extremely helpful, and I really appreciate it.
There does seem to be a fair amount of consensus, and I am (mostly) in agreement with what you say.
So here is what I am hearing on the above points.
1 - Every show in the area will continue to receive its own thread, whether or not there is a followspot review.
After a show closes and an additional period of time passes (a week?), if a show has no review and no comments, that thread will be deleted and the show will not appear on the season menu along the left border.
2 - Reviewers will start using handles to help identify their voices.
3 - I'm tending toward NOT allowing anonymous posts, i.e., you will need a blogger login to post.
Of course anyone can instantly create a login named whatever you want, so this shouldn't be a real problem. You can still be mysterious and unknown, but you will have a handle. A quick survey of some other blogs reveals they do not allow anonymous posting.
The switch is not going to be flipped immediately, but sometime soon. I see many positives from going this way, and no negatives.
4 - Please email advance notice of your show and a photo if you want one used to followspot at hotmail dot com. You will know I got it when a post goes up.
5 - No one spoke directly to this one, but I encourage you to keep it in mind. You can do reviews, interviews, write on any subject you want, etc. The more different voices, the more interesting.
6 - Out of town shows.
I strongly believe that reviews of shows playing anywhere in Oregon or even the Northwest have a place here. Obviously the vast majority of posts will be about Portland, but I am also interested to hear about shows in Eugene, Ashland, Hood River etc.
The whole "Portland only" thing is problematic. Does that mean no Vancouver? No Forest Grove? No Milwaukie? I would much rather be inclusive, and again it all depends on someone actually sending in the material anyway, so it shouldn't be a huge problem. I'd like to think the site can help promote theatre all around the state.
On the out of area stuff (East COast etc.), I like hearing about shows on somewhere else, but if people feel it is degrading the core mission of the site, I'll cease. Again, there will only be a handful of these anyway.
You'll notice how I changed the recent New York posts so that all info is in a comment, so you can easily ignore if you are not interested.
This is a category where I encourage people to consider contributing. If you go to Humana, write in and tell us how it was. If you see a great show somewhere, anywhere and want to write something on it, send it in.
7 - Word limits. The 50 word limit established by the original followspotter is indeed a smart choice. I'll aim to stick with that on the top level. If there is more it will be included in a comment so as not to take up real estate on top level, i.e., like the interviews are published.
8 - Photo problems. I'm not sure what to say about that one. Can most people view the photos ok? I know that it makes dial-up slower. I'm not sure what to do about that.
Thanks again for your input!
One other technical comment ... The home page seems to still list posts back to the beginning of the season, which makes it time-consuming to load, even with a fast connection (given all the great photos).
Is that intentional?
I just switched it to "Show 50 Posts". It was 100.
See if that helps.
1. As ungainly as it makes the site, I'm all for a post for every show. As Harold says, it really gives you a sense of how much theater is going on in town, and provides an extra reminder to folks to get out and catch something they had been toying with seeing. I’d say you should leave them on at least two weeks past closing before deleting the ones that get no comments; some shows (and some followspot threads!) take a while to percolate before one is ready to respond to them. (I just posted about “Honk” yesterday, though that was mostly for want of having to register with the blog.)
2. Anonymity of reviewers is a good thing, I think -- because it fosters a sense that the entire community is chatting with the subject personality rather than encouraging readers to wonder about the interviewer’s possible hidden agendas. Having the interviewer choose a moniker would be better, in most ways, I guess. As with posting comments to the blog, it could help regular readers to develop a sense of that particular interviewer’s tastes and biases, although the ideal interviewer’s personality really shouldn’t show through at all. It also might encourage a game of trying to guess the person’s identity, if readers are so inclined. But definitely, more content -- more interviews, and more of tech specialists as well as actors and directors -- is better than less.
3. I liked the totally anonymous option. I had uses for it, though I certainly don’t mind choosing an alias-moniker for the purpose. Since a few folks seem determined to live down to the worst stereotypes of “theater people” here, however, forcing posters to adopt at least an alias identity seems to be the best compromise.
5. The problem here is that the vast majority of us want to see the same shows that everyone else does. I suspect it’ll be just as tough to get Followspot regulars to review the tiny and/or far suburban productions as it is for those outfits to get people in the seats. Fact o’ life, I guess.
Yes, I was just having that discussion the other day...being a working actor is great, it's just that you rarely get a chance to see other shows. Grrr.
I also vote for requiring an id of some kind. Ownership is good.
May I also say that, in my experience at least, theater people really appreciate when commentators own up to their words. I have theater people introduce themselves to me in theater lobbies solely because of well-balanced, but challenging comments or two I made here. I walk away from such encounters feeling that, on the one hand, I may have made a small positive contribution to the community, and, on the other hand, that I'm not as bad or silly a person I think I am. Daring to speak out under our own names (or nom de guarre, if need be) raises all boats.
It seems as though since the Anonymous option has been disabled, the amount of comments on shows has greatly decreased. Perhaps people do not like to own up to their comments as much as they said they did?
Also, it appears that many shows have gone un-reviewed, a result perhaps of the assigning of the reviewing of shows to other contributors?
agree. i have not been on the site for the last few weeks. come back and.... death. i like the anonymity. without the veil life is dull. bring it back.
But it is anonymous. You can sign in with a different nickname every time they you in, or just click the "anonymous" button and be done with it.
Well, whaddaya know?
This option seems to have been added within the last day! Perhaps a return in involvement on the site to follow?
Post a Comment