Recruiting reviewers: what we’re looking for

Back when I started this blog, I invited you to post suggestions for topics I might cover over the next few weeks.  One suggestion came from an anonymous performer, who asked – if I may paraphrase it – how websites like ours can be sure that our reviewers know what they’re talking about.  It’s a very fair question, but I don’t have a general-purpose answer; all I can tell you is what we do, as we seek to maintain our quality.

Advertisement

The famous five

Earlier today, I published my first five-star review from this year’s Fringe.  It’s not the first across the whole of FringeGuru – but it’s the first show that I, personally, have given the top accolade.  And that ties nicely into some discussions I’ve been having over the last few days, about the special function of a five-star review and just how many of them we ought to allow.

Dealing with favourites

I started this blog saying that I’d discuss the “ethics and practice” of reviewing, but it’s occurred to me today that I’ve barely mentioned ethics at all.  So to ease us gently into those potentially murky waters, here’s the first of a couple of posts about the relationships reviewers have with the rest of the Fringe community.  Today’s question: must reviewers treat everyone equally, or is past experience a valid input into how we behave?  In short, is it OK to have favourites?

Publish and be damned?

Earlier today I took part in an event called “Selling Your Show At The Fringe” – though given the preponderance of media types on the panel, it did degenerate at times into “Selling Your Show To Journalists”.  There was a lot of interesting discussion on a range of points, and the good folks of Fringe Central live tweeted the whole thing.  If you weren’t there and you haven’t already seen it, it’s well worth a read.

One of the questions which came up was, paraphrasing it slightly, the circumstances under which we’d spike a review.  That’s worth a quick blog post, I think – in fact, we’ve already touched on it in the comments a couple of times so far.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda

Today, I published this review of a play called Splatter.  I was arm-twisted into reviewing Splatter as a result of an unwise comment on Twitter, and I have to admit I wasn’t expecting much from it – but in that regard, I was completely wrong.  It’s an excellent play for a student production, with some compelling performances and a nicely-balanced script.  And so it hurt a little bit to have to write that last-but-one paragraph – the one which says that the good work’s undermined by a completely unsuitable performance space.

Wielding the blue pencil

A very quick blog post from me today, because the Fringe has finally caught up with me and I’m feeling the urgent need for some quality shut-eye. I’ve spent the greater part of today wearing my editor’s hat, publishing the first batch of reviews from the rest of my team; and that, while I think of it, is something that’s worth briefly talking about.

Now we are seven: the star-rating debate rumbles on

So there’s really only one thing I can write about today: the surprise announcement from the Edinburgh Evening News that they’ll be awarding stars out of seven this Fringe. I think it’s fair to say that the news has been received with a certain amount of derision, but if you’re expecting me to join the piling-on, then you’re going to be disappointed. I have my doubts about whether they can make it stick – at least without the support of their stable-mate the Scotsman – but I do think there’s quite a lot of sense in what they’re aiming to do.

Dude, where’s my review?

I’m writing this post at the very end of a very busy Sunday – the opening Sunday of the Fringe.  I don’t know how it works for everyone else, but for me this marks a point of transition: the moment when I emerge from a whirligig of press events, and begin to get into a pattern of publishing reviews.  So right now, when relative calm prevails, it’s a good time to talk about one of the big administrative challenges of running an organisation like ours.

How much learning is a dangerous thing?

My first review is up today – which is, by the way, a source of considerable triumph for me.  Last year, I managed a paltry six reviews for the whole of the festival, and this year I promised myself I’d jolly well get out there and do some more.  At the current rate, I’ll have exceeded last year’s total by the opening Sunday; I’ve completely re-assessed my priorities, and I have to tell you it’s feeling good to be back at the sharp end again.

Anyway, my first show this year was Six Characters In Search Of An Author, a play which is apparently quite famous but which – well – I’d never actually heard of before.  I’ve no idea how embarrassed I should be about that (if the answer is “very”, then do feel free to mock me in the comments).  But there is, I think, an interesting general question here, about just how knowledgeable it’s good for a reviewer to be.

What’s the point of it all?

There’s been a lot of good discussion posted this week on my earlier article about star ratings, and one comment in particular has opened my eyes to something I’d forgotten. It’s something fundamental – something so basic it’s easy to overlook. What’s the purpose of reviewing, anyway? We might assume we all agree on the answer, but you don’t have to look far to find a vast range of quite divergent views.