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

[Jim Hague]

I'm still not sure on how the perception of the reader changes. Is a review of a book I bought assumed to be more honest then one I got for free? How is the perception being altered?

Whether you like it or not - and I hasten to say, like others, that I'm not questioning your integrity - getting product in exchange for a review can be perceived as conflict of interest. It can come across to some as a version of 'payola' - that the review will be biased because you're being 'paid off'. I give any reviewer the benefit of the doubt, and take their review with a grain of salt as well, but as some posters have shown, not everyone takes that particular stance.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I'm still not sure on how the perception of the reader changes. Is a review of a book I bought assumed to be more honest then one I got for free? How is the perception being altered?

Basically, it may change the perception of the reader if he learns later that you got it for free and thinks that you were paid off and didn't admit in the review in order to cover your tracks. The issue isn't huge, but I don't think that I am alone in questioning folks who omit facts.

Later...

 

[Crothian]

Whether you like it or not - and I hasten to say, like others, that I'm not questioning your integrity - getting product in exchange for a review can be perceived as conflict of interest. It can come across to some as a version of 'payola' - that the review will be biased because you're being 'paid off'. I give any reviewer the benefit of the doubt, and take their review with a grain of salt as well, but as some posters have shown, not everyone takes that particular stance.

Its not about me liking it, it's about me understanding what the perception is. So, reviewers who get a book from a publisher to review are seen as being paid for a good review? So, does this perception change if the review is bad?

 

[Crothian]

Basically, it may change the perception of the reader if he learns later that you got it for free and thinks that you were paid off and didn't admit in the review in order to cover your tracks. The issue isn't huge, but I don't think that I am alone in questioning folks who omit facts.

Later...

I'm just trying to figure out why this fact is relevant. There are lots of facts about reviews that don't get posted. I don't say if it is a review I wrote in the morning or the evening for instance. I don't know if there is a differnece in those reviews but there could be.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Its not about me liking it, it's about me understanding what the perception is. So, reviewers who get a book from a publisher to review are seen as being paid for a good review? So, does this perception change if the review is bad?

For many it doesn't make a difference. For those who do care, the perception will be adjusted by consistant and quality reviews.

For example, if a person thinks that you have alterior motives, he may not believe your post and look elsewhere. If he learns, either through many reviews or through purchasing the products, that your reviews are spot on then his perception is altered. This is true whether you choose to put your method of acquisition on your review or not.

 

[Jim Hague]

I'm just trying to figure out why this fact is relevant. There are lots of facts about reviews that don't get posted. I don't say if it is a review I wrote in the morning or the evening for instance. I don't know if there is a differnece in those reviews but there could be.

Whether you wrote in the morning or not is immaterial to the end rating on the review - it's got nothing to do with the product, which doesn't change based on the time of day. Whether you got free product is directly applicable and can be viewed as conflict of interest. See again the concept of 'payola'.

 

[Crothian]

Whether you wrote in the morning or not is immaterial to the end rating on the review - it's got nothing to do with the product, which doesn't change based on the time of day. Whether you got free product is directly applicable and can be viewed as conflict of interest. See again the concept of 'payola'.

My point with the when I wrote the review might have an effect on the rating of the review. You have no way of knowing. I fail to see how getting the book for free makes it any better. I can see that some people might thing that my review is being bought, but all you have to do is read the review and you know percisely why a certain score was given.

But I think that there might be a misperception with people that think that. Because frankly in my case it's just wrong. But I see the point. I'll have to think on that.

 

[diaglo]

My work is a public place and people are free to question it whenever they want. I know its your opinion and I'm always curious to hear what and why people think about reviewers.

does that hold true for all opinions?

i tend to view many of your reviews with neutrality.

Psion and JoeG...i'll come right out and say as i've said in the past and will continue to say long into the future:

Spoiler

since they didn't say it was okay i'll put in spoiler: i have no respect for at all. Zero. zilch. nada. rien

 

[Crothian]

does that hold true for all opinions?

i tend to view many of your reviews with neutrality.

Of course it holds true for all opinions. So, what would I need to do to improve my reviews in your eyes?

 

[Jim Hague]

does that hold true for all opinions?

i tend to view many of your reviews with neutrality.

Psion and JoeG...i'll come right out and say as i've said in the past and will continue to say long into the future:

Spoiler

since they didn't say it was okay i'll put in spoiler: i have no respect for at all. Zero. zilch. nada. rien

Care to expand on that, diaglo, or are you content with just sniping? Is it because they're primarily interested in something other than the Basic Set, perchance?