Written by: Ian Wolf
Published: Monday 3rd September 2012

The 2012 Edinburgh Fringe Festival has been an interesting experience for me, in the sense that I haven't been able to see any of it. It's the first time I've missed the Fringe in years!

Instead, rather than making my own opinions empirically, I've only been able to read the reviews. These past few weeks have been full of data, as I've been sifting through information for British Comedy Guide. For those who don't know and may be wondering, yes, I do suffer from a form of autism. Still, this work has been entertaining in its own way. The composer Sibelius said: "Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honour of a critic." Having gone through all these reviews you can see why, and I speak as a critic myself.

When you have looked at as many reviews as I have (over 3,000) you begin to spot all the regular patterns, and these in turn raise interesting questions. Questions like: "Why is Brian Logan from The Guardian so loathed to give anything but 3 stars?", "Is it possible for the people at The New Current website to see a show that they think is less than 4 stars?" and "Why did The Independent and The Arts Desk fail to review the Edinburgh Comedy Award nominees until the very last minute?"

There are some things that do annoy me concerning reviews. For example, certain websites don't publish ratings of less than 2 stars (see: FringeReviews.co.uk), whilst other sites' reviews consist of just one sentence (see: Fringe Biscuit) and some sites stick their reviews behind pay-walls (see: The Times). There's also a lack of coverage given to lesser known acts (see: well, almost all the newspapers and websites, with only minor exceptions). For further insight into what can go wrong in reviews, I suggest reading Liam Mullone's rather wonderful "Lexicon of Loss" on The Huffington Post

We haven't even touched on the concept of ratings yet. For some people the whole idea of stars has become a point of controversy. A veteran Fringe theatre producer, Guy Masterson, is helping launch a campaign to get rid of star ratings, complaining that "inexperienced writers and a growing number of Fringe blogs wielded too much influence at the festival." (The Scotsman)

I would say that there are parts of Masterson's argument that I do agree with. Some of the websites are almost sycophantic in terms of the number of 5 star reviews they give out. This year the BCG brief was to be as comprehensive as possible in terms of recording reviews, but next year there's a debate to be had about whether to include some publications.

I don't mind if a review has stars or not. The point of collecting these reviews should not be to just to look at the number of stars, but to read what people also think. If you just look at the stars, you are doing the reviewers a disservice.

Anyway, back to the reviews themselves. There were certainly some surprises with regards to scores and award nominations. Judging by star ratings, for example, Doctor Brown, the winner of the Foster's Edinburgh Comedy Award, was not quite favourite to win. Pappy's (pictured) was leading all the way. However, The Boy with Tape on His Face, winner of the Panel Prize, had even higher ratings.

The Newcomer nominations for the Foster's Edinburgh Comedy Award have also been worth looking at. Review ratings suggest a very close race between Daniel Simonsen and Ben Target; Ben was just ahead as he was the only newcomer nominee to have picked up a 5 star review, and was in fact leading until the day the awards were announced. However, both acts were then covered by The Arts Desk. Simonsen picked up a typical 3 star review, and Target a mere 2. This, in the end, meant that their averages were exactly the same when the awards were announced, at 3.5 each. (It is worth noting, however, that late reviews have pushed Simonsen to come out on top in the averages - just.)

So, to summarise: critics and reviewers should cover a wider range of shows, should not suck up to people, and everyone else should take the time to actually read what is said, not just look at some five-pointed shapes.

If you haven't already seen, now would be a good time to check out who the reviewers thought actually came out top: Top Reviewed Shows