First off, a word of warning: this is without a doubt one of the dorkiest things ever written, but that's why we're here, right? I'm not going to review the show, but I did want to add my opinion to what ivebeentheretoo wrote, and put forward a theory, about how these shows are rated.

ivebeentheretoo wrote "I'll also preface this by saying that 7/15 is probably the most laughably overrated show I've seen on .net." I've felt that reviews on this site are not always a good indicator of which missed shows I should check out. The older show reviews (i.e. from 1.0 and 2.0) are much more reliable because people have had time to digest the shows and see them for what they are. The ratings for newer shows, and especially those from the current tours, tend to be poor measures, especially on the higher scores, for 3 reasons: 1) phans by and large are kind, and truly appreciate this band; 2) phans often vote on how a setlist looks on paper; and 3) after a string of poor to average shows, a good show becomes a great show. Occasionally, you get a show like last night's which was well played, but had the unfortunate circumstance of following one of the shows that benefitted heavily from reasons 1 and 2 from above.

I think the rating system on .net is generally great, and I often use it to inform me about which shows on the current tour I should find on Youtube. It'd be fantastic if we could use a weighting system modeled on the factors listed above (or using others that you all think are worthy) to normalize these reviews that are otherwise subject to a high degree of bias. I bet many of us get frustrated when well-played shows that we've either couch-toured or attended get screwed in the ratings due to these biases.

Obviously, on the list of important things that need to get done in the world, this is probably last. But this is also the kind of thing that .net dorks like us love to think about. Let's help rescue good shows from a lifetime of being ignored!