[request/rant] To all reviewers, amateur and pro...

[Pinotage]

On reviews stating whether a product was a comp copies: I have nothing against the practice, but I do like for a reviewer to state whether they received the product for free. I wrote a few reviews for d20 Magazine Rack, and love the format there. When the reviewer lets me know how he got the product, I feel like he is being honest with me. When this info is left out of the review, I feel like the reviewer thinks he has something to hide.

On the practice of providing comp copies, I am all for it. If a reviewer states up front that he paid for the copy, that lends as much bias as getting it for free. The reviewer must have had some reason to buy the product, either familiarity and good past experiences with the publisher and/or writers, or at least with the subject matter. Of course, if the product turns out not to the reviewers liking, this could result in a more negative review, because expectations were higher. On the other hand, most people do not buy a product that they expect to dislike. (diaglo being the exception, whenever he buys a d20 product. When he tells me he liked something for d20, I know it must be exceptional.)

Isn't that a little like judging by first impressions? It's automatically calling the integrity of the reviewer into question without any proof to the point. Now, if a reader buys a product and calls a reviewer out on a poor review based on his own reading, then at least you'd have proof of a bad review. But reviews by their nature are personal opinion, and that to a certain extent includes bias. Bias to liking certain products and not others, for instance. I'm with Crothian on this one - I don't generally list if I got a product for free or not, because to me it makes no difference to the review (although after reading this thread I kind of feel like I'm forced to). I think it's unfair for readers to judge reviewers based on where they got a product because you're immediatly assuming that they're going to be biased based on something so superficial.

Pinotage

 

[diaglo]

...because you're immediatly assuming that they're going to be biased based on something so superficial.

superficial to you. but YMMV.
edit: as long as the reviewers follow the guidelines as they are presented i see no problem

 

[Pinotage]

superficial to you. but YMMV.
edit: as long as the reviewers follow the guidelines as they are presented i see no problem

That's fair enough. And I guess I should start doing that by adding where I got products from. I think it should be pointed out that it's not necessarily fair to judge a review based on this alone. People put a lot of effort into reviews, and having them discredited because the reviewer didn't point out where the reviewer got the product from seems strange to say the least.

Pinotage

 

[IronWolf]

I am one of those folks who doesn't care much about how the reviewer got the book. It just doesn't matter, I learn more about the reviewer by reading their *other* reviews. There are some people on these boards that I rarely agree with their opinion - in those cases I don't care if they spent their money on it or got it for free - I probably still won't agree with their review. I learn that by reading their other reviews.

If the reviewer was actually paid (and not just a review copy of the product) by the publisher, then I would like to know that.

If you start saying how you received it do we have to factor in I bought it at a garage sale for .50 cents? Or off Amazon.com for 30% off? Or maybe I bought it at twice the retail price because that was the only price I could find?

If reviewers are more comfortable stating where they got it, I won't hold it againt them. But there are more important things for me to consider than that factor.

 

[JoeBlank]

But reviews by their nature are personal opinion, and that to a certain extent includes bias. Bias to liking certain products and not others, for instance.

This is precisely why I like to know how a reviewer came into possession of the product in question. At first, you seem to indicate that it is wrong of me to expect a reviewer to be biased, but then you admit that we are all biased, to a certain extent.

I don't want a cold recounting of the contents of a book, I want to know what the reviewer thinks of it, his opinion. The more info I have about the reviewer, the better chance I have of deciding whether my opinion will jive with his opinion. The backgrounds that are being proposed is one good step. I also consider whether the product was provided for free to be a factor. That does not mean it is a negative or positive factor, just something to be considered.

And just so you know from whence I speak, rely heavily on reviews for all my RPG purchasing decisions. I rarely buy anything earlier than 3 months after it is released, so that I can listen to the messageboard chatter and, more importantly, read a few good reviews. While I poke around some for reviews, as long as there are a few here on ENW, and on d20 Magazine Rack, I'm satisfied that I have a good feel for a product before I make a decision to buy.

 

[Pinotage]

This is precisely why I like to know how a reviewer came into possession of the product in question. At first, you seem to indicate that it is wrong of me to expect a reviewer to be biased, but then you admit that we are all biased, to a certain extent.

I don't want a cold recounting of the contents of a book, I want to know what the reviewer thinks of it, his opinion. The more info I have about the reviewer, the better chance I have of deciding whether my opinion will jive with his opinion. The backgrounds that are being proposed is one good step. I also consider whether the product was provided for free to be a factor. That does not mean it is a negative or positive factor, just something to be considered.

My point is that given that reviews are biased or opinions, it's far more important to get an idea of the reviewer's opinion on product in general (which you can get by reading the reviewer's other reviews) and background that to know where the reviewer got the product. To me that latter is a minor issue - by far the stronger bias comes from his opinion, as you correctly point out, and then it's more a case of getting a feel for the reviewer by interacting on message boards, reading reviews, or simply asking. But I think we agree in general.

Pinotage

 

[eyebeams]

Too many people skim a book quickly for the purpose of extracting bits to review or comment on online. This has led to an unfortunate situation where I now consider most reviews written within less than a week of release to be pretty much worthless, because I know that the text won't be very useful.

Mistakes happen, but if you haven't done at least two readings (at least one of which is deliberately slow) or have not referred to the book to fact check during the writing of the review, it's my view that you're pretty much wasting my time and yours.

 

[Crothian]

Too many people skim a book quickly for the purpose of extracting bits to review or comment on online. This has led to an unfortunate situation where I now consider most reviews written within less than a week of release to be pretty much worthless, because I know that the text won't be very useful.

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't assume that. I've has some hot realses that I review fast since I want people to know about the book when it is new. I did it for Arms and Armor 3.5 and Oathbound: Wildwood for instance. Both cases I read the books as soon as I got them and went through ther review process. Some peopel will cheat the reading to get a timely review, but not everyone does. I've been asked a few times to review something when it comes out by publishers and I take that seriously since personally requests like that are rare.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Ok, I think the possible harm from not including the method of acquisition has been covered (and for the most part agreed on).

I have also seen a lot of - it's not a big deal, it shouldn't matter, etc. (people speed on the highway everyday, but it doesn't make it right).

What I haven't seen is anyone state the harm that can come from including the method of acquisition.

So, instead of pointing out how other things are more important, tell my you shouldn't include it. So far, only Crothian has admitted that artistic license and contentment (my words, not his) are his reason. Noone has given a good reason why one should not include the information.

Basically, if we're going to debate, let's debate...none of this - you're right, but it shouldn't matter - nonsense ...

 

[Crothian]

So, instead of pointing out how other things are more important, tell my you shouldn't include it. So far, only Crothian has admitted that artistic license and contentment (my words, not his) are his reason. Noone has given a good reason why one should not include the information.

Because some people think that a review based on a book that was bought is more accurate then a review based on a book that was given. The reality of my reviews is that it doesn't matter to the review so how many things that didn't matter to the review should I mention?

Also, going through old complaints and things I found one from a few years back in which I mentioned the price of a book I had been given and felt it was a little bit expensive for what was in it and the comment was that since I had been given the book there was no way for me to judge if the book was to expensive or not.