Now, I'd rather use Wikipedia, which has more comprehensive information without the advertising overkill. Your website is dying, and only the website managers can save it. Limit advertising, update information, or your supporters will abandon you.

Or find a way to display ads of a certain size so the page doesn't have to continually adjust. 

Your site is completely blanketed in ads--and its not that your selling ad space, you're deliberately making the site difficult to use.  I came today and ads kept popping up, moving around, randomly playing loud video. I would attempt to click a link and an ad would have slid on in under my cursor. I couldn't read the contents of the page.  You made the site non-functional.  On the page where you can pay the ransom to have the site freed, you advertise much greater speed as a benefit because you've so completely glutted the free one under ads.  

So, what I get out of all that, is you think I'm stupid, you feel manipulating me is good business. You are fraudulently claiming to have a free basic tier, but what you provide is an unusable site designed to be frustrating and distressing.  I am autistic and ADHD and your website makes my heart race with confusion and panic.  There is a distinct difference, well familiar and recognisable by now, between websites with advertising and sites employing the ad bomb strategy in attempt to compel us to pay so we will actually be able to use the site.  This is not tiers.  The free tier is a slap in the face.  It tells me you don't respect me at all and your happy to mess with me and manipulate my money out of me.  What makes you think I would want to do business with people who treat me like this?

(Feel free to reach out if you want the specific username, but I'm sure you're already aware of this person. Hint: they review a lot of metal acts.)

---

A certain AllMusic user has posted over 41200 reviews since November 9, 2019—that is, nearly 30 reviews a day for 3.8 years. With few exceptions, the reviews are content-free and negative/dismissive. Almost none of them demonstrate even a cursory engagement with the album they're supposed to be reviewing. Instead, they generally follow one of a set of obvious templates, coupled with a seemingly arbitrary rating. Some of the most common templates include:

The band's [YEAR] album, [ALBUM_NAME],
- isn't any different from the rest of their discography.
- is continuation of their usual style.
- is a (rehash|replica) of their (past|previous) (works|discography).
- is a (rehash|replica) of the (past|previous) (one|two|three|...).
- is a replica of their debut.
- is indistinguishable from their previous efforts.
- (continues|shows) the band's compositional stubbornness.
- shows their little relevance among their niche.

Roughly 13300 (>30%) of their reviews follow the above pattern.

[COUNTRY]'s [ARTIST_NAME] are a clone of [ARTIST_1], [ARTIST_2], ..., and [ARTIST_N], as shown by their [YYYY] (album|debut|EP), [ALBUM_NAME].

About 4200 (>10%) of their reviews follow that pattern.

In several thousand other cases, this user's reviews dispense entirely with the pretense of being a review. A random sampling from a few pages of the "Album Reviews" section of their profile, with accompanying star ratings:

- "Their first EP." (1 star)
- "Their second EP." (1 star)
- "A stop-gap EP." (1 star)
- "Their only album before disbanding." (1.5 stars)
- "One of its albums." (3 stars)
- "Self-explanatory." (1 star)
- "Fourth EP" (1 star)
- "A cash-in compilation." (1 star)
- "An early-years compilation." (1.5 stars)

Please notice those star ratings. Over 37000 (~90%) of this user's 41200+ reviews are rated two stars or fewer. Often this user makes their way through a band's whole catalog, burdening each release with an excessively negative rating that, as I've hope I've managed to establish, is based on nothing. 

I'm not sure what this user's deal is, but whatever their intent, the result is that they're making your site a less useful, less welcoming place to visit. Their valueless, mean-spirited reviews show up as the highlighted review in User Reviews sections across your site, sitting right alongside AllMusic's official (and generally far more thoughtful) reviews—and in cases where AllMusic hasn't supplied an official review, the reviews stand as the only review of a given release.

I've used and enjoyed the AllMusic Guide for something like twenty years at this point. I (and I'm sure many AllMusic users) would really appreciate it if you could do something about this issue. I have to believe this kind of low-quality, artist-bashing spam cannot be what AllMusic had in mind when they implemented user reviews.

Boris - 'No' [Sources - Official Site | Bandcamp]
Chloe x Halle - 'Ungodly Hour' [Sources - Official Store | Soundcloud]
Nicolas Jaar - 'Telas' [Sources - Official Site | Bandcamp]
Owen Pallett - 'Island' [Sources - Official Label | Bandcamp]
R.A.P. Ferreira* – 'Purple Moonlight Pages' [Sources - Official Store | Bandcamp]

*R.A.P. Ferreira is the new moniker of Rory Ferreira. He has previously released music under the aliases Milo and Scallops Hotel. If a new profile is created then it would be helpful to link them all.

• Iris DeMent - Workin' on a World
• The Murder Capital - Gigi's Recovery
• Ryuichi Sakamoto - 12
• Sunny War - Anarchist Gospel

In addition, could you find out if their are plans to review these two albums? Both have already been released digitally, though the AllMusic website notes that they are still awaiting physical release. It would be reassuring to know that the editorial team have plans to review them when the physical release is available:

• SBTRKT - The Rat Road (physicaly released on 29th September)
• Sigur Rós - Átta (physicaly released on 1st September)

In response to the review of Ryan Adams new album in which the reviewer didn't actually discuss the merits of the record but instead focused on the controversy surrounding the artist, I wrote the following:

”Well, that is an embarrassing non-review by All Music. I get it: Ryan Adams is a creep. But you know what? Many if not most artists are creeps. Is All Music going to go back and down review records put out by Jerry Lee Lewis? Led Zepplin? Phil Spector?  

Wednesdays is a fascinating and very introspective collection of songs by an artist on the outs. Many of the songs are achingly beautiful both in their composition and performance. Is Ryan Adams capable of growth as a person? We might find out. But Wednesdays show him growing as an artist. Those who are interested in such things should check this album out.”

All Music deleted the first paragraph.

It was fair (and quite obvious) criticism. 

Do better All Music. And support the free exchange of ideas.

As another report presented (link below), here is how the reviews are patterned most of the time.

The band's [year] album, [title],
- isn't any different from the rest of their discography.
- is continuation of their usual style.
- is a (rehash|replica) of their (past|previous) (works|discography).
- is a (rehash|replica) of the (past|previous) (one|two|three|...).
- is a replica of their debut.
- is indistinguishable from their previous efforts.
- (continues|shows) the band's compositional stubbornness.
- shows their little relevance among their niche.- "Their first EP."  

and then a slight variation:
- "Their second EP." 
- "A stop-gap EP." 
- "Their only album before disbanding." 
- "One of its albums." 
- "Self-explanatory." 
- "Fourth EP" 
- "A cash-in compilation." 
- "An early-years compilation." 

very rarely have I ever seen a positive review from Appolini, and rarely do they deviate from this formula. When they do, it's still negative and stunted but goes a bit longer than these types they rely on. My main gist here is that this is spam, and it disrupts the reviewing process which is meant to express personal opinions and help passersby decide on what music to get into. Appolini is very clearly a bot, they have to be, and the rare authentic-looking reviews probably only exist to dispel any accusations of spamming (which has to be against policy, it just has to be). There is another report concerning this individual (see: A spammy reviewer is actively making your site worse), but the maintenance person Zac did a shoddy job addressing the situation. On that page, Zac said:

"I've had discussions with this person (who is a person and not a bot) and while I don't agree with their takes on music or how they choose to rate things, they're not violating any of the terms of service or our guidelines for reviews. The majority of the reviews are not helpful, and the low ratings are equally not useful, but they aren't selling anything, they aren't using hate speech, and they aren't using bots or mechanical methods of submitting."

He didn't get to the root of the problem. Sure, they're not selling anything or using hate speech or rhetoric, blah blah blah. But they are clearly using bots and mechanical methods of submitting, it's undeniable, the evidence is right there. He failed to take appropriate action against this bot and to ban the account, which is the action to take. And Simone Appolini continues to review bomb metal albums and other genres too with impunity and it's getting infuriating. No federal crime or anything is being committed by Appolini, but their intent is far from honorable and they're just making AllMusic a miserable place for readers of reviews; not because of the negativity but because of the mechanical repetitive nature of their useless reviews. Someone, please do the right thing and remove this account from AllMusic, they're obviously spamming and review bombing, which in other platforms is against policy. I don't know if AllMusic has such a policy, but they ought to.

I'm observing long pauses on loading band pages and discography pages. I'm a subscriber (have been for years), so it doesn't seem to be ad related. I took some network traces, and it seems to be samples.json that is taking a while to load. On three pages I loaded (the pages for Kool & the Gang, Big Black, and the Melvins, and yes, that's quite a trio), samples.json took about 4 seconds to load twice, and then 19s. I've attached screen shots of the network traces here.