They are insinuating that an interesting perspective is worth more words than boiling down a perspective into fewer words. If you're drawing that line, then you are over-reaching on the basis that you believe you may not have the potential to do such a thing. If you are, then you could very easily prove them wrong and you wouldn't have misinterpreted it in such a way by having such confidence in your abilities. There is nothing snide about making such a remark. In fact, every professional writer I know of has quoted something similar in that if an idea can't be expanded on thoroughly, it likely wasn't interesting to begin with. The more you feel the need to reduce stances into fewer words or perhaps into labels, then yes, you aren't doing a very good job at reviewing work. That's why it is a skill. You have to keep in mind, you are not writing about a perspective but "reviewing" a show in its entirety within one. More words mean more ideas and concepts are communicated.

By definition, the idea of a review would, yes, technically, encompass no restriction to a word count. However, being able to review a show in 100 words is hardly interesting, insightful, or in my opinion, worthwhile. If anything, that would reduce the amount of intellectual discussion to be had on something, for if someone touches on the entirety of a show in detail, literally as the definition of review would imply, they would be able to do so. I have never seen a "review" of a show made in less than 500 words, because it's just less engaging to read. This by no means make their perspective invalid, but it does make it less informed, believable and, as stated above, interesting. The purpose of the review is to engage the reader on your stance on whether it's something worth watching or not. Reviews aren't interesting on this website for a number of personal reasons; the one that comes to my mind is that very few of them choose to share an interesting perspective on a show and directly mimic what either a more valued opinion believes or what the consensus believes. However, that is an entirely subjective lens to view it from, as what is interesting to me may or may not be interesting to someone else. If you're going to get overly semantic about the kind of language people are using in their responses by "misinterpreting you", does that not insinuate that you may have, perhaps, communicated it poorly? Because it's one thing if some are misunderstanding your point and you are to correct them, but if most if not all according to this thread are, that may suggest there is an issue elsewhere and not within the reader's comprehension. This is not an attempt to spitefully rebut you but to illustrate there may be a clear gap between what you have communicated and what others have interpreted, and I don’t believe it is the reader’s fault if the statistical majority “misinterpret” what you have sought to communicate. That would lie in the responsibility of the writer. If you're looking for a website to reduce the word count severely, you may want to look into websites like Letterboxd, for this website is not of that and has far stricter in comparison but also very accessible guidelines that very, very few people protest against. And while it is perfectly within your own right to want shorter reviews, most who choose to read reviews do so knowing what they're getting into, so you should be arguing in favor of why it’s a good idea to reviewers and readers and not just yourself, as moderators aren’t going to change the website merely on one person’s preference.

And because I know you will persist on it, no, I am not insinuating you are a bad writer or incapable of mustering at least 500 words, but rather the practice of not being able to do so in detail is a symptom of being one. Again, if you are able to do so, then you will not have found offense in my remarks speaking figuratively. But if you do take offense to it however by drawing that non-existent line, that is your own doing, not my own, for I am talking conceptually, not exclusively.

And I mean not to say this with haste; this response is roughly less than 800 words, giving you a rough indicator of AniList’s guidelines and what they expect. It, truthfully, isn’t much. Please do not misinterpret my tone as being “spiteful”. Blunt and candid it may be, however like everyone I talk to, I give nothing to my utmost respect when approaching their discussion. This includes you.

My point is that there are almost no reviews here, and that their standards are low because there are so few of them. And because of that I do have to go to other sites, which i won't advertise without the mods permission, that have dozens of well written reviews on this same show, but also have "this anime sucks because it's bad" like you said. That's why i interpreted what you said literally. The bad/short reviews just don't get as many upvotes as the well-written longer ones. You don't have to read the bad ones even though they exist. So people are encouraged to write exactly what they feel at the optimal-length for that anime, and overtime the most descriptive ones are upvoted, and the quality increases. A barrier to entry only limits the number of participants in the review competition, leading to slower growth & potentially stagnation if there are better alternatives elsewhere. Without this barrier there is much less chance of finding too few reviews and learning to go elsewhere. After a short time, the bad/short reviews still won't even have to get seen since they'll be at the bottom of the list. So as it stands there are good reasons to remove the limit, and seemingly no real defense for it other than "well the reviews here are already terrible, so we can't lower the limit" when my whole point is that the limit is what causes the bad reviews.

Why would you expect to learn anything about it in that sense? You’re not supposed to read reviews until after watching the title. Do you often enjoy spoiling yourself?