I would have to say that your second example of a "review", a factual description without opinion, isn't really a review. If I want product descriptions I'll go to a manufacturers website, but what I, and many others, want is the opinion of an experienced listener.That's a review, and though all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, I find many of them to be quite helpful.
what are your views regarding reviewing styles ?
at the risk of being simplistic, i would say there are two broad categories of reviewing--criticism and reporting and the connotations of subjectivity and objectivity.
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?