Article #16 – The Motherload List of Reviewers

You’ve read our article on how to get reviews (#4), now you need to know who to ask for one.

The following list contains 50+ reviewers, all relevant to you, that…

1. …review prototype-level Kickstarter-level games. (If they only review published games, they’re not listed.  Sorry, Rodney.)
2. …are currently active reviewing these games.
3. …I myself have directly communicated with, either by having had a review with or by chatting with about such things (to verify the above and pseudo-rate my experience with them for you).
   
4. …I would not rate as “Horrible”.  I left those two off.  : P
   

If you contact any of these folks, please tell them that I sent you.  I don’t get anything out of it, but it’s always nice to hear a referral mentioned.  Thanks.

Chart notes below.  Scroll the chart to the right for ranking stats.

Chart Notes.

• Reviewers with a blank or “n/a” stat simply don’t function in regard to that stat. ie: No Youtube stats = no Youtube presence, No MeepleMechanic stats = No MM profile, etc.
• Some Youtube stats may show critically low numbers for certain reviewers.  Don’t be scared, they may just be written reviewers.  Use Youtube stats as a guide for ones with worthwhile numbers.  But if they had a Youtube channel I wanted to list it.
  

“GKG’s Experience” Rating Chart

• “Love” – Top of the line reviewer.  Friendly, fast, knowledgeable, fair, reliable, AND I personally hit it off with.  A++
• “Great” – Excellent in all professional regards you could hope for.  Possible above average offerings.
• “Good” – Above average experience.
• “Ok” – Average experience.  Didn’t make a publisher feel super welcome, but didn’t feel pushed away either.  Review, if done, was fine.
  
• “Meh” – Below average experience.  I didn’t like something about they way they interacted with me or another person I know.
• “Poor” – Review done, but I didn’t approve of the manner or mistakes were made and not properly corrected.
• “Terrible” – To be avoided. Disrespectful and/or wasted time with a prototype without ever doing the review for poor reasons.  (Akin to Horrible below, but were on the list as prior to rating.  See note below about non-removal.)
  
• “Horrible” – Not listed; but there really are two of these.
  
• Note: -Non-Removal- Once a reviewer gets on the list, I won’t remove them, even if an experience becomes “Horrible”; rather I’ll mark it “Terrible” and communicate to you why.  Please know: My desire and intent with this chart is positively promote fair to great reviewers, but my loyalties are with you the reader coming to me for advice.  I don’t care to let you to suffer the same mistakes I did in other areas, so I don’t want to here either.
  
• Note: “…in progress…” – Means they have, or are being sent, a copy of one or more of our games for current review.  As the reviews come in, we’ll update these ratings.
• Note: “Chat Only” – Means no review was done, but we communicated in one regard or another.  Followed by approximate rating of that experience.

Are YOU a reviewer?  Wanna be listed?  I’d be happy to!  But first read this, then shoot me an email and we’ll at least “Chat Only” about adding your organization. : )

Did I miss anyone that you’d like to see on the list? Please let me know in the comments.
Since I’m only listing those I’ve personally interacted with, let me know who, and I’ll email them to chat or to review one of our games.