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

[WhimsyTheFae]

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?

Reality, in this case, is really in the eye of the viewer. You keep mentioning that it doesn't matter for your reviews, but how does Joe Blow know that?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Now, obviously you have to use judgement when deciding how much "stuff" to mention. The very point that we are discussing is so borderline that the majority probably don't care (I will readily admit that my opinion is most likely in the minority, but I still believe it).

If we were discussing whether or not to mention the quality of art, there would be no argument. We are discussing a relatively minute issue (and like dogs with a bone, neither side wants to let go ).

Ari's point about making sure you read the subject was much more important, as well as being a non-argument (as anyone who would argue against it would be quickly chastised).

So, I don't think that we need to continue the back and forth, but I also don't think that you need to go overboard and start including your place of birth in the reviews. Just think about it and use your judgement.


Later...

 

[Crothian]

Reality, in this case, is really in the eye of the viewer. You keep mentioning that it doesn't matter for your reviews, but how does Joe Blow know that?

I get that. But it is hard to know what Joe Blow knows and what he needs to know. In the last two reviews I've done though how I got the product made it into the first paragraph. So, I hope it deosn't seem like I'm not listening to everyone just because I'm taking the counter position.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

So, I hope it deosn't seem like I'm not listening to everyone just because I'm taking the counter position.

Not to me, you just don't see it as a priority. Completely understandable. If you had been arguing that you should be able to review a product based on second-hand knowledge, however...

 

[Aaron L]

Woulnt reviewers only reviewing books they bought themselves be inherently biased?

I mean, unless you have a LOT of spare money and free time, youre by default only goingtobuy bookd that youre interested in, right? Unless your masochistic you arent going to be buying something you think you arent going to like.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Woulnt reviewers only reviewing books they bought themselves be inherently biased?

I mean, unless you have a LOT of spare money and free time, youre by default only goingtobuy bookd that youre interested in, right? Unless your masochistic you arent going to be buying something you think you arent going to like.

If you assume no bias, then mentioning this or leaving it out is moot. If you assume bias, then you should be able to see what kind of bias is being assumed and adjust your expectations accordingly. In other words, yes, one may assume that a reviewer who purchased the book may be biased as well, but I want to know which way he/she is biased.

*Note: I said assumed bias, not proof of bias...

 

[Arnwyn]

The rest of it seems to be circling around though with a handful of people posting. Not that their opinions aren't important, but if the 10K people find things okay and the six who post here don't, I know who I'm "listening" to so to speak.

Whoa nelly. Let's not make wild assumptions (and inappropriate conclusions).

I could certainly condemn a few reviews and reviewers, but I'm certainly not going to do so on a public forum.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

The rest of it seems to be circling around though with a handful of people posting. Not that their opinions aren't important, but if the 10K people find things okay and the six who post here don't, I know who I'm "listening" to so to speak.

Whoa nelly. Let's not make wild assumptions (and inappropriate conclusions).

I could certainly condemn a few reviews and reviewers, but I'm certainly not going to do so on a public forum.

Also, just because not everyone has piped in does not mean that they all find things okay. Just because I didn't raise my hand when I was in class doesn't mean that I didn't know the answer. Some don't have a strong opinion, some don't care, some don't agree with me and some just haven't posted (they are on vacation, they don't have anything new to add, they don't want to get into a debate, etc.).

 

[nothing to see here]

If you assume no bias, then mentioning this or leaving it out is moot. If you assume bias, then you should be able to see what kind of bias is being assumed and adjust your expectations accordingly. In other words, yes, one may assume that a reviewer who purchased the book may be biased as well, but I want to know which way he/she is biased.

*Note: I said assumed bias, not proof of bias...

Every review has bias. The very act of reviewing is a subjective practice. If there was a uniform measurable code of quality we wouldnt need reviewers.

Compare two popular Olympic Sports...say the 100 meter sprint to figure skating. Which sport has more controversy over who actually wins...why it's the on with the french judge holding up the "9.7". Conversely, despiste whatever doping scandals are out there -- you don't need a 1-10 scale to determine who wins the 100 meters.

Since every review is based in bias -- the viewer has to take a caveat emptor kind of approach to the value of each review. An exhaustive background check on the motives and mechanics of a given reviewer might succeed in ferreting about the fanboys, scam artsts and malcontents but will still leave a massive number of points of view from the many, many reviewers that remain. It's worth noting however that whether or not you RECEIVE a free copy has no bearing on a reviewers credabilty. in and of itself. It would be a more productive use of time to invetigate publishers and their criteria for who they SEND a review copy too.

Among the reviewers that remain, a case can be made that depth of experience, provides a great frame of reference for assessing relative quality. Therefore on a general level, the more you review the 'better' you are. This requires the reader of a review to at least partially share the criteria of the reviewer. This, of course, is no guarantee.

The only way for an invididual to reliaby depend on a given reviewer is to, over the course of time compare a reviewers opinion on a variety of materials to their own. On these boards for instance, I find Psion's reviews most closely match my opinions of the books I've read -- I therefore tend to pay particular attention to his review - regardless of the how, why's and wear's he obtained the original product.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Every review has bias. The very act of reviewing is a subjective practice. If there was a uniform measurable code of quality we wouldnt need reviewers.

Compare two popular Olympic Sports...say the 100 meter sprint to figure skating. Which sport has more controversy over who actually wins...why it's the on with the french judge holding up the "9.7". Conversely, despiste whatever doping scandals are out there -- you don't need a 1-10 scale to determine who wins the 100 meters.

Since every review is based in bias -- the viewer has to take a caveat emptor kind of approach to the value of each review. An exhaustive background check on the motives and mechanics of a given reviewer might succeed in ferreting about the fanboys, scam artsts and malcontents but will still leave a massive number of points of view from the many, many reviewers that remain. It's worth noting however that whether or not you RECEIVE a free copy has no bearing on a reviewers credabilty. in and of itself. It would be a more productive use of time to invetigate publishers and their criteria for who they SEND a review copy too.

Among the reviewers that remain, a case can be made that depth of experience, provides a great frame of reference for assessing relative quality. Therefore on a general level, the more you review the 'better' you are. This requires the reader of a review to at least partially share the criteria of the reviewer. This, of course, is no guarantee.

The only way for an invididual to reliaby depend on a given reviewer is to, over the course of time compare a reviewers opinion on a variety of materials to their own. On these boards for instance, I find Psion's reviews most closely match my opinions of the books I've read -- I therefore tend to pay particular attention to his review - regardless of the how, why's and wear's he obtained the original product.

Agreed. I said earlier that only through reading many reviews will you truly learn about the reviewer. I have also stated that this is a very minor sticking point. The fact remains, however, that by omitting the method of acquisition, some readers will question if the reviewer is sloppy or trying to hide something.

Minor detail.

Not review breaking in most cases.

Could be overcome by consistantly quality reviews.

But fact, nonetheless.