I`m not arsed about the numbers game, i`m more concerned about the negatives/warnings and how they come across when I speak to them on the phone.
Warnings written by sound, longer-standing reviewers, who can write a useful positive or neutral, do get primacy. But we need both wings to fly- so I welcome any well-written, informative contribution. I've observed that
neutrals get very little attention compared to others - registering far fewer reads, which I believe is our loss, as they're possibly a more frequent reflection of the punters commonly ambivalent experience. However, when it comes to reviews from very new members with little posting history and/or an oversimplified style - I'm with you... I pay them little-to-no-heed.
I've often wondered if it wouldn't, on balance, benefit us all to have a minimum post count before allowing any reviews. A low-ish hurdle, say 10 or 20 posts before we can qualify. We would occasionally miss out on type of warnings where a fellow punter has encountered a threat of violence - but these are mercifully rare (if very valuable to be aware of) -
Dark Gable's episode springs to mind:
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=221496.0 - if memory serves, it was a first post. Or am I thinking of another one, but in Scotland?