Can someone plz tell me who link and add certain reviews to gamerankings.com?

Apparently unknown sites like

netjak who looks like a 5 year old kid site has its reviews uploaded at gamerankings.com

They gave Mass effect 5.4

And Halo3 7.8

But Obviously ratchet and clank for ps3 got 9.6

Link me and I' ll help you flame. It doesn' t do me much good if I can' t see the kid in question' s site. Gamerankings has never been... erm... how do I say.... good?

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=906785

Dude,if they can have their bias ***ed up reviews uploaded and their site sucks monkey balls,why cant kikizo have theirs?


Gameplay: [6] Graphics: [5] Audio: [6] Replay: [4] Overall: [5.4]


Review of ME.

If Kikizo took user reviews, I' d write.

Well that wasnt my point,my point is that if retarded small sites bein made by fanboys and looks to be done by a 3 year oldie,then obviously kikizos reviews should land on gamerankings too.

Kikizo used to appear on Game Rankings but then they started removing a whole bunch of sites from Game Rankings long ago and Kikizo was unfortunately one of the ones that got removed. I was watching Game Rankings closely the week they pulled a bunch of our reviews one by one. I didn' t understand it and quite frankly I was pretty annoyed by that move. And I' ll admit, a part of me even entertained some conspiracy theories, lol..

I emailed them bitching about why Kikizo (a very active site) was removed but sites that were no longer around like GamerWeb and much smaller sites that weren' t updated that often were still being listed. I was basically told that Kikizo would have to reapply to get listed, or something like that... The whole thing is incredibly stupid.

Thanks for the input,I still wonder how a huge sonyfanboy site like that can still be on gamerankings and metacritic?

I mean lets put aside their fanboysih hateful xbox reviews,the site looks TERRIBLE.

Yes,TERRIBLE.
And Im not talking like,oh I dislike the design bla bla,it looks like a webpage bein made by a 10 year old kidde for 10 years ago.

I agree with the Halo 3 review, that game was fun for like 2 weeks than it got old.

The mass effect review sucked though.

Gamerankings.com apparently belongs to the CNET NETWORKS ENTERTAINMENT which is associated with Gamespot.
You can' t really blame them for not checking up on every single site they have. Logically, if enough reviews from sites are collected then all the non-representative review-sites wouldn' t make much of a difference.
The site itself cannot act as a controlling authority as there are too many sites and too much work to be done with.
The only thing that can make the rankings as reliable as possible is that as many of the major games sites as possible applies for recognition in the rankings.

EDIT: Hmm, checked the gamerankings FAQ and it actually seems they have some kind of criteria that must be met in order to be part of the rankings.

Site Inclusion Policy
Q. What does it take to get a site included in the composite score of Game Rankings?
A. This is the most commonly asked question. The things we look for when adding a new site are:

At Least 300 archived reviews if they review multiple systems or 100 reviews if they concentrate on only one system or genre.
The site does at least 15 reviews a month.
The site is visually appealing and looks professional.
The site reviews a variety of titles.
The site has it' s own domain name and is not hosted on GeoCities or another free server.
The reviews need to be well written.
The site conducts itself in a professional manner.

So it seems they ARE in fact controlling the sites. I guess they cannot simply choose to remove netjak (what a shitty ME review, thankfully there was a " second thought" review which gave a much better score) becuase of one inaccurate review. That would be personal bias from gamerankings' side as they need to remain neutral in their selection of sites in order to be reliable.

Kikizo met and surpassed all of their criteria and the site still got removed. I pointed that out to them and also pointed out the other sites that were still listed and weren' t even around anymore, along with the sites that didn' t even meet their criteria. Just doesn' t make sense.

That' s odd. Didn' t they give you an explanation or anything?
They should have some kind of minimum visitor criteria. To keep amateur sites away.

Ginjirou do you think natjek followed that criteria?

With enough reviews,looking proffesional etc?

Someone on that site is picking and choosing like a dumb fanboy.

And these retarded sites who give out lame scores to stick out win on it because people wanna see whats up with that site.

Isnt this the same site that gave Bioshock a 5 or so and said " This game has terrible graphics and texture pop ups and mediocre story and gameplay, just wait until its released on the PS3 and hopefully it will be fixed" ?

Internet reviews are pretty much all stupid. Gamerankings is an aggregation of internet reviews. Hence Gamerankings = fail.

ORIGINAL: UnluckyOne

Internet reviews are pretty much all stupid.

Bingo.

GameRankings and Kikizo has been an ongoing source of stress for me for about two years now.

They are re-auditing sites January 2008. You can bet that working with them to resolve this problem is high on my to-do list.

Good to hear.

And if you could Adam,plz ask them how a site like Netjak could land on gamerankins who apparently doesnt follow the criteria at all,and looks like a site bein made up by kids who could get their fanboy reviews uploaded.

Are there any other ranking sites that are easier to deal with, and with more reliable rankings, than gamerankings.com?