I think there was a brief time when they had "featured" reviews, which were supposedly better written than the others. I don't know what's
happened in the meantime, but I'd guess that caused some controversy among some contributors. How do you "objectively" decide what should be
featured? Plus, it probably difficult to automate (unless certain reviewers' reviews were always featured).
Now they have "detailed", "full" and "quick" reviews.
I didn't see any description on Gamefaqs itself as to what those terms mean. My guess is that it's purely a word count issue (which is both "objective" and easy to automate).
Maybe that could be conceivably helpful for readers (some like long reviews, some don't). But I think it could be annoying for writers. If you wrote a short review that nevertheless said everything you thought needed to be said about a game, you might well feel it was a "full" review.
I guess it doesn't really matter..
Now they have "detailed", "full" and "quick" reviews.
I didn't see any description on Gamefaqs itself as to what those terms mean. My guess is that it's purely a word count issue (which is both "objective" and easy to automate).
Maybe that could be conceivably helpful for readers (some like long reviews, some don't). But I think it could be annoying for writers. If you wrote a short review that nevertheless said everything you thought needed to be said about a game, you might well feel it was a "full" review.
I guess it doesn't really matter..
