One Unfortunate side-effect of the way we do Critic-O-Meter is that show's get an initial grade based on the early batch of the reviews and then frequently that grade gets revised, sometimes dramatically. Back Back Back's early Critic-O-Meter posting had a grade around a B- (it might have been a B-/C+, I'm not sure) largely based on Charles Isherwood's review of the play in the Times but later reviews pushed it up to a B+. I know I'm a lot more willing to see a B+ show than a B-/C+ show, especially at MTC prices. Similarly, Rock Of Ages score fell from an initial A- to a B as we began to pick up the stragglers.
This is unfortunate, as it means our initial posts are less accurate than we like and, if Critic-O-Meter becomes as popular and useful as we hope, this could actually affect how shows are received and remembered. At the same time, it might be unavoidable. Many reviews are posted the day after the show opens in the dailies and on several websites. But weekly reviews- which includes TONY, The Village Voice, The New Yorker, New York, The New York Observe and The Wall St. Journal, all of whom are pretty heavy hitters comparatively speaking- weigh in later in the week. Sometimes various press organs don't review a show until later in its run if its a smaller show, or sometimes they'll hold onto a review until they have the column inches to spare. The New York Times just posted a review of Too Much Memory today, almost a week after it opened, that pushed its grade up from a B to a B+.
I'm not sure there's anything we can really do about this at this point. Unfortunately, weekly magazines and theatre columns don't cater to our needs. Jerks. Seriously, though, if you have any ideas for how to solve this particular pickle, please suggest away.