# To Terri and other people concerned about idiotic reviews



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

So, I had some moron leave a 1 star review on Fire Burn and I kid you not, it said:

"Warlocks are referred to as witches in this book and warlocks aren't witches. And a warlock can't be considered a hero." What 

Super dumb! And 6 other readers commented on how dumb this post was.

Then about two weeks later, I get another reviewer posting the exact same 1 star review only under another name and every one of the person's reviews was a 1 star review on an indie book basically tearing the book apart for stupid reasons. Clearly the person hadn't read any of the books and was just trying to skew our rankings (all purchases were not verified).

So, I approached Amazon and complained and Amazon removed both posts.

Incidentally, it turned out the poster was the mother of another paranormal author so she was just trying to destroy the rankings of those she perceived to be in competition with her daughter. 

So, Terri, I think you should talk to Amazon about removing the post if you think it's just someone trying to skew your ratings. It's good to know that Amazon listens to authors!!!!

Good luck!


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Stacey Wallace Benefiel (who also writes PR) and I had something similar to that happen to our books. It was clear that the reviewer hadn't read our books and said that all the positive reviews were fake. Amazon removed my review within 24 hours. 

Do you know who's mother is writing the bad reviews? Is the author aware that they're doing that?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Weeeelll.... witches actually get a bit bent if you call a male witch a warlock.  HOWEVER - that's real life and I'm talking about people who follow a pagan religion and call themselves witches, which is entirely different from a paranormal book / work of fiction.  I'll be sure to pass on to Blizzard Entertainment that warlocks can't be heroes, too.  I'm sure it'll be a shocker for them 

All joshing aside, I'm glad you got it squared away.  Sometimes I wonder what happens to people when they get on line.  It's like they regress to kindergarten


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Hey!  I have a level 80 Warlock....umm....She's female...

But, according to all the NPC's in World of Warcraft, she's a hero!


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

HP -- good for you for handling that!


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

The worst review on my first book's Amazon page is from another author who ritually tears apart every book he reads. He very clearly did read my book though, so I can't fault him for not liking it. Later on I did have another author use a dummy account to post an advertisement as a review on my book's page. Stanek. Got it removed.

The latest thing we've seen is authors posting their names onto other people's books. Yuck.


----------



## Syria Says... AKA Celia Can Read (Apr 16, 2010)

RedAdept said:


> Hey! I have a level 80 Warlock....umm....She's female...
> 
> But, according to all the NPC's in World of Warcraft, she's a hero!


Bwuahahahaha! I just had to share my giggle! Thanks! 

Wish people werezent so dumm sumtymz! Ridiculous. Like you guys AREN'T going to notice a bogus review! BAH!


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

I know, silly huh?
Amanda, I never did find out who the author was. The only reason I knew her daughter was an author was because she commented to one of the people who said her post was inane that her daughter is a paranormal romance author and takes the time to research the true definition of a warlock. So, that's when I realized she was just trying to upset the apple cart.
And what a bunch of my readers pointed out to her which was sort of funny is that the Webster definition of a warlock is a male witch. LOL


----------



## jhanel (Dec 22, 2010)

I'm just glad that Amazon listened and didn't say "it's free speech" or some nonsense, thus ruining your sales and making the review process entirely worthless.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I've had several one-star reviews recently.  None of them were "verified purchasers" so I don't know if they were real or not, but I'm happy to say they didn't effect sales.  We all hate seeing them, but in the long run, especially if you already have a bunch of positive reviews from verified purchasers, I'm not sure they matter much. I've even heard other authors say they've gotten more sales off really bad reviews then really good ones.  Those were traditionally pubbed authors with reviews from review sites, but I think the principle would apply to Amazon reviews as well.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I have one reviewer write two bad reviews on two of my books and I believe she was a mother too.   

Edward C. Patterson
Ham and Mutha Beans
a favorite C-Ration recipe


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

I do think having 1-star reviews help legitimize your book. A book that only has 5-stars seems a bit fishy, from a readers standpoint. And while I never enjoy 1-star reviews, if a reader has read my book and really hated it, I understand.

But fake reviews do make me angry. Not just on my own books, but on any author's books. Any fake reviews - be it 1-star or 5-star - are not acceptable, and they make us all look bad. If indie authors want to be taken seriously, we cannot go around giving 1-star reviews to our competition or give ourselves a bunch of fake 5-star reviews to make our books look better. When any indie author does that, it makes us _all _look bad.

And I'm not saying that any of you do that - but we all know that some authors do it. And it is NOT acceptable.

End rant.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Edward, it sounds like you've been struck by the mother stalker!!!

Amanda, I totally agree with you. I am fine with my other 1 star reviews where the person did read my book and just happened to hate it. Hey, to each her own. But, when it comes to just trying to bring us down, that shouldn't be tolerated. And I agree with you, it goes both ways, whether fake 1 stars or fake 5 stars, fake is fake.


----------



## jhanel (Dec 22, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> I do think having 1-star reviews help legitimize your book. A book that only has 5-stars seems a bit fishy, from a readers standpoint. And while I never enjoy 1-star reviews, if a reader has read my book and really hated it, I understand.
> 
> But fake reviews do make me angry. Not just on my own books, but on any author's books. Any fake reviews - be it 1-star or 5-star - are not acceptable, and they make us all look bad. If indie authors want to be taken seriously, we cannot go around giving 1-star reviews to our competition or give ourselves a bunch of fake 5-star reviews to make our books look better. When any indie author does that, it makes us _all _look bad.
> 
> ...


Preach it, sistah!


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

HP - thank you so much!!!  Actually, I just looked and Amazon removed the offending review.  Good on them.  I agree that some people aren't going to like my books - I'm okay with that.  But I'm not okay with people being downright mean and offensive - not only to me, but to my other reviewers and all indie e-book writers.  That was just uncalled for!

It's interesting that it might have been someone with ulterior motives.  Good grief!

Thanks again!!!

Terri


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Hi Terri,
Good! I'm glad Amazon removed it for you. 
Stupid reviews!


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> The latest thing we've seen is authors posting their names onto other people's books. Yuck.


Um...How does that work, Jason? :scratches head:

I think that a big part of the problem is the anonymity afforded by the internet. If you are a complete <insert expletive of choice> in your real life, there are repercussions for it (job loss, lack of friends, etc.) but if you are a <repeat previous expletive> online, nobody can really _do_ anything to you. Basically, you're removing the restrictions that force maladjusted adults to act like grown-ups.

Glad Amazon was accommodating for those of you who have dealt with this. It's like taking the "soccer mom" stereotype and arming the woman with a laptop.


----------



## JJWestendarp (Nov 2, 2010)

I find myself in the unenviable position of wishing I had a reviewer who thought my book was less than 5 stars. Seriously. I'm 7-for-7 on 5-star reviews from independent review blogs.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

There are always people who don't like your work, goes with the territory. We all need a thick skin and a short memory in order to keep writing. Having said that, there seem to be some folks who just delight in making up a name, putting up a negative post on a book they didn't buy or read, and trashing things. They do it with films, books, music, whatever...the only thing they have in common is a disdain for creative efforts. Just happened to me, too. No other posts, no Amazon purchase, and a generic bash that doesn't require any specific awareness of the characters or the plot ("cardboard people," "contrived situations"). Actually, speaking for myself, I'm pretty aware of the flaws in my material and don't mind an honest critique that busts me for plot holes, deus ex machina, too-brisk endings, or whatever. Just means someone was paying attention   The ones that annoy me are these cartoon bashings that seem generic, merely mean-spirited, and likely come from someone too intellectually constipated to write. They cant use the excuse of being locked out of publishing any more, they can just do it themselves, but one assumes perhaps no one is buying, which is their current source of resentment. As a veteran mid-lister, good for all you guys working hard and getting stuff out there. Just keep your head down and try to get better each time. Don't worry about the rest of it, it's largely out of our hands anyway. Some people just have a sucky attitudes. That's that.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Very well put, Alice!


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Um...How does that work, Jason? :scratches head:


Imagine I tagged your book with my name. That's what some people are doing. My hope would be that some people who like Someday will come check out my books because there's a similarity. But what actually happens is that when people search for me your book comes up. So that's a misguided strategy to begin with, but also it's not even difficult to tell who did the tagging, so it all leads back to me. It's easy to catch the people red-handed, which is nice at least.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Imagine I tagged your book with my name. That's what some people are doing. My hope would be that some people who like Someday will come check out my books because there's a similarity. But what actually happens is that when people search for me your book comes up. So that's a misguided strategy to begin with, but also it's not even difficult to tell who did the tagging, so it all leads back to me. It's easy to catch the people red-handed, which is nice at least.


Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation!

(Some people *really* need lives. If they have that much time on their hands, then maybe they should be editing their book or something. Just a thought.)


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

HP Mallory said:


> Hi Terri,
> Good! I'm glad Amazon removed it for you.
> Stupid reviews!


LOL I agree!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

HP Mallory said:


> Edward, it sounds like you've been struck by the mother stalker!!!
> 
> Amanda, I totally agree with you. I am fine with my other 1 star reviews where the person did read my book and just happened to hate it. Hey, to each her own. But, when it comes to just trying to bring us down, that shouldn't be tolerated. And I agree with you, it goes both ways, whether fake 1 stars or fake 5 stars, fake is fake.


No, actually, she's was a legitamate reviewer who was giving out hatchet job reviews on a review site by the fistful a year or so ago. She was then signing up authors to sell their POD books (they got better reviews). Then she blossomed into an on-line books store, then . . . she disappeared. Poof!

Ed Patterson


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Imagine I tagged your book with my name. That's what some people are doing. My hope would be that some people who like Someday will come check out my books because there's a similarity. But what actually happens is that when people search for me your book comes up. So that's a misguided strategy to begin with, but also it's not even difficult to tell who did the tagging, so it all leads back to me. It's easy to catch the people red-handed, which is nice at least.


I had that happen to me at Amazon UK - I figured it was an Amazon error.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Um...How does that work, Jason? :scratches head:
> 
> I think that a big part of the problem is the anonymity afforded by the internet. If you are a complete <insert expletive of choice> in your real life, there are repercussions for it (job loss, lack of friends, etc.) but if you are a <repeat previous expletive> online, nobody can really _do_ anything to you. Basically, you're removing the restrictions that force maladjusted adults to act like grown-ups.
> 
> Glad Amazon was accommodating for those of you who have dealt with this. It's like taking the "soccer mom" stereotype and arming the woman with a laptop.


I actually think my reviewer was more like this - than someone with a friend who sold paranormals. My reviewer had only reviewed two non-fiction books - and she trashed both of us. The other reviews she had were for exercise equipment and exercise books. The other book she reviewed she rated 1-star and the title was "Ignore All Those Other Reviews." Obviously, someone died and made her queen and neglected to tell the rest of us.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Gosh these people really bug me! Well, I'm glad we got them taken care of.
Keep fighting the good fight! LOL


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

HP Mallory said:


> Gosh these people really bug me! Well, I'm glad we got them taken care of.
> Keep fighting the good fight! LOL


I agree!!! Virtual high-five!


----------



## Amyshojai (May 3, 2010)

I had someone post a 2-star review, and a loooooooooong diatribe listing page-by-page what she disliked or disagreed with in one of my nonfiction behavior books (no, not one of those in my siggy  ) . She signed it, and included her website. Turns out she's a dog trainer who likes to use shock collars and disagreed with my assessment of such "tools." *shrug* 

amy


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Amyshojai said:


> I had someone post a 2-star review, and a loooooooooong diatribe listing page-by-page what she disliked or disagreed with in one of my nonfiction behavior books (no, not one of those in my siggy ) . She signed it, and included her website. Turns out she's a dog trainer who likes to use shock collars and disagreed with my assessment of such "tools." *shrug*
> 
> amy


Sounds like she was promoting her business through your book venue.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

HP Mallory said:


> And what a bunch of my readers pointed out to her which was sort of funny is that the Webster definition of a warlock is a male witch. LOL


While I'm not arguing on behalf of the woman, I will say that if you were writing a semi-serious book (ie. you claimed to do research on it) and your main characters were Wiccan, for instance, and you called your male lead a warlock, you'd possibly have some torqued readers over that. While Websters may say the definition of a warlock is a male witch, a Wiccan would be insulted as the word means "Oath Breaker" in that culture. And that has nothing to do with what she wrote - I doubt she knows anything about that. That's just me sharing obscure trivia


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I've gotten several 2 star reviews on my UK book recently.  I can't tell if they're real or fake.  None of them really go into the storyline or anything, so I guess they could be fake.  But none of them do anything against the rules, so I can't really report them.  Not without knowing for sure it's a person out to get me.

I do think it's possible all these people just didn't like the book.  

Vicki


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2010)

Arkali said:


> While I'm not arguing on behalf of the woman, I will say that if you were writing a semi-serious book (ie. you claimed to do research on it) and your main characters were Wiccan, for instance, and you called your male lead a warlock, you'd possibly have some torqued readers over that. While Websters may say the definition of a warlock is a male witch, a Wiccan would be insulted as the word means "Oath Breaker" in that culture. And that has nothing to do with what she wrote - I doubt she knows anything about that. That's just me sharing obscure trivia


Hmm. Answer me one question, Arkali: Have you or have you not ever cast a spell?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> The latest thing we've seen is authors posting their names onto other people's books. Yuck.


Geeze Louise. That's what you were talking about with the tagging thing? That's so self-defeating. If you leave YOUR name on someone else's book, that just means their book will come up when someone is searching for you. It wouldn't hurt them at all, but it might hurt you.

Camille


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Hmm. Answer me one question, Arkali: Have you or have you not ever cast a spell?


Depends on how you define a spell  Ask the right person and they'll say that a prayer is a type of spell


----------



## Holly A Hook (Sep 19, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I've gotten several 2 star reviews on my UK book recently. I can't tell if they're real or fake. None of them really go into the storyline or anything, so I guess they could be fake. But none of them do anything against the rules, so I can't really report them. Not without knowing for sure it's a person out to get me.
> 
> I do think it's possible all these people just didn't like the book.
> 
> Vicki


Hmmm...it sounds like those reviews are all written by the same person because they all say the same thing in pretty much the same way. Also, they sound pretty vague to me. That's my opinion. I'm leaning towards fake.

We all have people who don't like our books (myself included--just look up Tempest's ratings on Goodreads) but those reviews seem to be something else entirely. I think someone might be jealous...


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

Holly A Hook said:


> I think someone might be jealous...


I agree with Holly. You're doing really well, Vicki, and I'm sure that brings out some jealousy


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

I wonder if authors like Stephen King, Nora Roberts, etc... read there reviews?  I wonder if they just ignore them?  I really need to stop letting these bad reviews take up space in my brain.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Holly A Hook said:


> Hmmm...it sounds like those reviews are all written by the same person because they all say the same thing in pretty much the same way. Also, they sound pretty vague to me.


This is what makes me think they're fake too. Funny, but it does make me feel better to think that. Not that I want someone targeting me, but I'd rather have that then a ton of people thinking my book was boring! 

Vicki


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Victorine said:


> I've gotten several 2 star reviews on my UK book recently. I can't tell if they're real or fake. None of them really go into the storyline or anything, so I guess they could be fake. But none of them do anything against the rules, so I can't really report them. Not without knowing for sure it's a person out to get me.


There are Amazon reviews that are pretty clearly real, some that are very clearly fake (Amazon will usually remove these), and a bunch where there's no way we can tell for sure (Amazon won't remove these) -- people can use fake names, make new accounts, unverified purchases, it's their only review, very generic, similar wording to other reviews, etc., etc. Looks fishy but there's no way for us to know for sure. I've had a bunch in all 3 categories. I've learned to mostly ignore them -- there's no point trying to "learn" something from a review when there's at least a 50/50 chance that it's fake.

The one thing that really nauseates me is when it's not just random Internet trolls doing it (which is bad enough), but fellow indie authors, who should know the struggles we're all going through and how hurtful these fake reviews are, and who I would hope would consider their fellow indie authors as compatriots and not competition. Sadly, it's happened before, and will happen again, unless Amazon tightens up their review guidelines and starts handing out appropriate punishments (i.e., banning authors involved in this crap).


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Victorine said:


> This is what makes me think they're fake too. Funny, but it does make me feel better to think that. Not that I want someone targeting me, but I'd rather have that then a ton of people thinking my book was boring!
> 
> Vicki


I agree with you!  And, if they're targeting you - it's only because you are good!!!


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> There are Amazon reviews that are pretty clearly real, some that are very clearly fake (Amazon will usually remove these), and a bunch where there's no way we can tell for sure (Amazon won't remove these) -- people can use fake names, make new accounts, unverified purchases, it's their only review, very generic, similar wording to other reviews, etc., etc. Looks fishy but there's no way for us to know for sure. I've had a bunch in all 3 categories. I've learned to mostly ignore them -- there's no point trying to "learn" something from a review when there's at least a 50/50 chance that it's fake.
> 
> The one thing that really nauseates me is when it's not just random Internet trolls doing it (which is bad enough), but fellow indie authors, who should know the struggles we're all going through and how hurtful these fake reviews are, and who I would hope would consider their fellow indie authors as compatriots and not competition. Sadly, it's happened before, and will happen again, unless Amazon tightens up their review guidelines and starts handing out appropriate punishments (i.e., banning authors involved in this crap).


It's amazing to me to see the kind of support we give each other here on Kindleboards and to know that somewhere out there other indie authors are out to skewer us because they see us as competition. They just don't have a clue - we are all in this together!!!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

terrireid said:


> It's amazing to me to see the kind of support we give each other here on Kindleboards and to know that somewhere out there other indie authors are out to skewer us because they see us as competition. They just don't have a clue - we are all in this together!!!


I totally agree. No one buys just ONE book. Why buy a Kindle if all you're going to buy is one book?? And if someone buys one indie book and likes it, they're much more likely to try another indie book. It's pointless to try to tear another author down. That does nothing for your own sales. And many times indie books get grouped together in Amazon's "people who bought this also bought" so you're really just hurting your own sales. Duh.

Vicki


----------



## Learnmegood (Jun 20, 2009)

This reminds me a lot of a movie a while back based on real events. It was something like The Totally Adventures of a Texas Cheerleader's Mom. Something like that.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

David Derrico said:


> There are Amazon reviews that are pretty clearly real, some that are very clearly fake (Amazon will usually remove these), and a bunch where there's no way we can tell for sure (Amazon won't remove these) -- people can use fake names, make new accounts, unverified purchases, it's their only review, very generic, similar wording to other reviews, etc., etc. Looks fishy but there's no way for us to know for sure. I've had a bunch in all 3 categories. I've learned to mostly ignore them -- there's no point trying to "learn" something from a review when there's at least a 50/50 chance that it's fake.
> 
> The one thing that really nauseates me is when it's not just random Internet trolls doing it (which is bad enough), but fellow indie authors, who should know the struggles we're all going through and how hurtful these fake reviews are, and who I would hope would consider their fellow indie authors as compatriots and not competition. Sadly, it's happened before, and will happen again, unless Amazon tightens up their review guidelines and starts handing out appropriate punishments (i.e., banning authors involved in this crap).


Deplorable, but it's like this in the real world too, the guy a few cubicles down sticking pins in an effigy of you on the off chance it'll help him get the next promotion.

There's the reverse gambit too, instead of tearing people down dishonestly, building one's self up dishonestly. There was an indie author who'd also been published by a major house using his wife's account to give himself five stars and leave reviews that were really just advertisements for his own works.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm not Wiccan


Spoiler



although some here will say I'm a witch


, but your use of warlock for male witch would have had me twitching and depending on other things, might have put me off the book.

Of course, I am not standing up for the one star reviewer, but it is something for you to keep in mind.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

There are lots of areas where one can compete very well by attacking the competition. But books? There are just way too many. Does anyone think they could make a list of all the books competing with theirs for consumer attention?


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

scarlet said:


> I'm not Wiccan
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


The author calling a Wiccan belief dumb is what put me off the book. The review itself mentioned Wicca - people are entitled to their beliefs and don't deserve to be referred to as morons. It's like if someone had the devil as a hero, some people will firmly believe that this isn't right. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed for their opinion.

I know there's supposed to be other stuff going on there but this is how this thread makes me feel. The Facebook thing bothers me too, it just doesn't seem professional to me to draw attention to a negative review (aiming it at your fans who then obviously vote it down and add their own reviews). It's not like one or two reviews are going to skew ratings, come on now.

I'm really uncomfortable with most of this thread actually. The idea that someone read a book, isn't satisfied and leaves their opinion only to be classed as an automatic fake turns my stomach, to be honest. I know there are obviously some situations where something devious is at play but I believe, in most cases, the person really just didn't like the book. Why is that so bad? It's an opinion. Just one. Not everyone is a writer, not everyone leaves detailed reviews, not everyone buys their books on Amazon and not everyone keeps them - they aren't verified if they are a return.

Meh, I've said this all before. My idea of what is right and wrong is obviously in the minority.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

scarlet said:


> I'm not Wiccan
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Kim Harrison has written an entire series where Witches are defined at being able to "stir a spell" and Warlocks are just people who can invoke one that is prepared for them by a witch, there is no gender issue. I think the Hollows is up to book 8, book 9 is coming out in Feb. The main character, the hero, is a witch&#8230; and a major villain is an elf. People reinvent the world all the time to tell their stories, especially with urban fantasy. It keeps things fresh and different.



HP Mallory said:


> Incidentally, it turned out the poster was the mother of another paranormal author so she was just trying to destroy the rankings of those she perceived to be in competition with her daughter.


Don't be too hard on the author. Crazy mothers often act on their own&#8230; it seems no matter what you do they always manage to chew through their restraints and spit out their medication.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

farrellclaire said:


> I'm really uncomfortable with most of this thread actually. The idea that someone read a book, isn't satisfied and leaves their opinion only to be classed as an automatic fake turns my stomach, to be honest. I know there are obviously some situations where something devious is at play but I believe, in most cases, the person really just didn't like the book. Why is that so bad? It's an opinion. Just one. Not everyone is a writer, not everyone leaves detailed reviews, not everyone buys their books on Amazon and not everyone keeps them - they aren't verified if they are a return.
> 
> Meh, I've said this all before. My idea of what is right and wrong is obviously in the minority.


I hope I didn't sound like I was saying all my bad reviews are fake. I don't think that at all. I know not everyone will enjoy my book. I know there are legitimate bad reviews out there. I'm fine with bad reviews. I just don't think it's right for a person to open up several Amazon accounts so they can write several bad reviews to try to make the book less popular. That's wrong. But I don't even know for sure that is what happened to me.

Vicki


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Kim Harrison has written an entire series where Witches are defined at being able to "stir a spell" and Warlocks are just people who can invoke one that is prepared for them by a witch, there is no gender issue. I think the Hollows is up to book 8, book 9 is coming out in Feb. The main character, the hero, is a witch&#8230; and a major villain is an elf. People reinvent the world all the time to tell their stories, especially with urban fantasy. It keeps things fresh and different.
> 
> Don't be too hard on the author. Crazy mothers often act on their own&#8230; it seems no matter what you do they always manage to chew through their restraints and spit out their medication.


I don't think anyone is Claire, Scarlet, or myself are talking about urban fantasy. For myself, I was talking about a (theoretical) contemporary book where a major character is Wiccan. I haven't read this book, I've no clue what genre the book even falls in. My only point is that if you write a contemporary book with Wiccan characters and you call one of them a warlock, you're liable to piss off some Wiccans  Now, if the book is obvious paranormal / UF, then I think most Wiccans are going to give you a pass because they realize they don't own the term.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Arkali said:


> ...It's like they regress to kindergarten


I was thinking about writing a book called EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW, I LEARNED IN SECOND GRADE, but then some smart-aleck just HAD to go and one-up me by regressing even further... Ugh!  LOL jk


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

farrellclaire said:


> The author calling a Wiccan belief dumb is what put me off the book. The review itself mentioned Wicca - people are entitled to their beliefs and don't deserve to be referred to as morons. It's like if someone had the devil as a hero, some people will firmly believe that this isn't right. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed for their opinion.
> 
> I know there's supposed to be other stuff going on there but this is how this thread makes me feel. The Facebook thing bothers me too, it just doesn't seem professional to me to draw attention to a negative review (aiming it at your fans who then obviously vote it down and add their own reviews). It's not like one or two reviews are going to skew ratings, come on now.


I feel like I've missed something here. Facebook thing? Wicca? From what was posted in the thread, I didn't get that impression at all. It looks like a fantasy, right? I feel like any fantasy writer has the right to make up whatever rules they want and there are lots of fantasy books with warlocks. I don't think including them necessarily means disrespecting Wiccan beliefs. However, it sounds like you have more information than the rest of us, in which case it's hard to comment on the entire thing. 

I agree with not calling people morons, though.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

farrellclaire said:


> The author calling a Wiccan belief dumb is what put me off the book. The review itself mentioned Wicca - people are entitled to their beliefs and don't deserve to be referred to as morons. It's like if someone had the devil as a hero, some people will firmly believe that this isn't right. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed for their opinion.
> 
> I know there's supposed to be other stuff going on there but this is how this thread makes me feel. The Facebook thing bothers me too, it just doesn't seem professional to me to draw attention to a negative review (aiming it at your fans who then obviously vote it down and add their own reviews). It's not like one or two reviews are going to skew ratings, come on now.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately (actually, fortunately) my review that HP is referring to is now gone. The poster not only trashed my writing skills, my editing skills and my characterization skills - but then proceeded in the review to point out to Kindle owners that they should never buy an e-book unless it was also published by a traditional publishing house as a paperback, that they should be wary of inexpensive books and that - because of the poor quality - all indie e-books should be flagged in some way in order for the reader to be warned. Then (if that weren't enough) she trashed all 28 of my other reviews. 
Actually, when I initially read it - I shrugged my shoulders and moved on. But when I mentioned it during another thread - I realized (through the encouragement of other members here) that this review was not only hurting my book - but basically all the other indie authors. And, as one poster pointed out, trashing the other reviewers is against Amazon's ToS - so I could report it as abuse.

I did report it and Amazon reviewed it.

Had she only trashed my work - I would have been sad - but moved on.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

That reviewer sounds like a Bedlam escapee.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I have one reviewer write two bad reviews on two of my books and I believe she was a mother too.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson
> Ham and Mutha Beans
> a favorite C-Ration recipe


Heck, I can't even get anyone in my family to review *my* book, let alone someone elses. lol.  My mom hasn't even read my book, even though it's sitting on my dad's Nook.


----------



## Free books for Kindle (Jan 8, 2010)

Another stinky and inaccurate review on Amazon.com today.  Still I suppose it all adds to the fun  and it's nicely balanced out by another nice one on Amazon.co.uk.  And knocked back down again by the first nasty on Amazon.co.uk. 

I think I'm going to have stop reading these things.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Free books for Kindle said:


> Another stinky and inaccurate review on Amazon.com today. Still I suppose it all adds to the fun  and it's nicely balanced out by another nice one on Amazon.co.uk.


I'm sorry - I HATE mean reviews!


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

HP - do you mind me asking exactly how you contacted Amazon and what you said to compel them to take it down?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Heck, I can't even get anyone in my family to review *my* book, let alone someone elses. lol.  My mom hasn't even read my book, even though it's sitting on my dad's Nook.


Not my mother, dear. Just a plain old, regular mother of the Eddie Murphy variety. 

I was glad that before my Mom passed away three years ago, she got to read The Jade Owl (after all, she was my companion for my China travel), and saw the first royalty check ($1.17). That was back in 2003. My family doesn;t read anything I write (except my 85 year old author aunt in Salem, MA). However, I make sure they have a bookself (a big one) with a signed copy of each of my novels. They don;t read 'em, but they have bragging rights - and oh how they do brag. (It must be genetic). 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

It is sort of getting off-topic, but I had to add that my immediate family has read all my books (mom and brother read VoV twice each!). I've got two aunts who've read my books, also, and two cousins who've read the first one. I have such a supportive family!


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm sorry if I made anyone uncomfortable but I won't apologize for my post. My book is a work of fiction. I don't refer to any of the characters as Wiccan and what I want a warlock to be is completely up to me. I don't have to follow any predefined notions of what a warlock is because this is fiction and I'm making it up.

This person clearly left a review that was aimed to bring my rankings down. She did the same thing to another author I know and when we viewed all the reviews she had left on numerous indie books, they were all one stars for things that were contrived and clearly just to bring down rankings (aka had nothing to do with the stories). None of her purchases were verified and the posts mentioned nothing about the books themselves, just the same drivel about warlocks not being witches and the like. 

I am 100% fine with someone leaving me a bad review based on my book. If someone read my book and hated it, that's fair enough and the review deserves to be there. But, if someone just doesn't like the fact that in my mind a warlock is one thing and in their mind it's something else, that's not a fair review. And Amazon agreed with me which is why they removed it. My other author friend has also reported the review to Amazon so I imagine they will remove it as well.

Again, I have no problem with legitimate bad reviews but when someone is clearly just trying to mess with rankings, I believe that is just wrong and has no business being there.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am a reader only. I always feel like I have to state that when venturing in here. 

This thread is making me really weird feeling, sad and a little peeved. 

Idiotic reviews? Morons? dumb reviews? Wow. 

So who will be the decider of what is considered "idiotic"? The author? Because they don't like getting a negative? Where to you draw the line. Whats idiotic to one person, might just be grumpy to another. Sorry, I don't like this cherry picking of reviews. The reviews aren't for you authors, they are for us the readers. 

So if there are badly written 1 or 2 star reviews the first thing to jump to is, it must be a competitor ? Can't just be someone didn't like the book and has every right to review any way they want? In their words, not in terms as approved by the author. 

Now reviewers have to worry about being snickered about somewhere. 

Leaves me with a bad taste.

I just don't know what to say. I am quite baffled. And left with not wanting to bother at all with any kind of reviews anymore.
I'll always wonder now when I see nothing but 4 and 5 stars, how many 1, 2 stars used to be there, but have been requested to be removed. 

Name calling of any kind of reviewer is just low, sorry, just is to me.  Sometimes it feels like high school.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Hi Atunah,

I respect your opinion and I apologize for saying the review was idiotic (I was irritated at the time) but I must politely disagree with you.

I believe negative reviews are absolutely important and they need to be there but they should be based on the book, not something arbitrary.

Let's say I wrote a book about aliens and my aliens are blue and in your mind they should be green. Do you think it's fair to leave a 1 star review because you think the aliens should be green? I don't think it is and neither did the 6 readers who commented on the review and said it should be removed and in the end, Amazon didn't think it should be there either so they removed it. And, I would also like to add to this the fact that the reviewer obviously felt their one star review wasn't enough and went in under the guise of another person and left the review again, thus giving me 2 1 star reviews. If that isn't unfair, I don't know what is.

Back to my point about someone reading the book and hating it--whatever their reasons are for hating the book, fine. That's fair. They read it and didn't like the story. But, it wasn't based on something silly like a difference of opinion on blue and green aliens. It actually had something to do with the book itself.

And I believe that whether I'm an author or a reader. I just don't think it's fair.

I have no problem, again, with bad reviews. As long as they are about my story.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Sorry, life isn't fair. You want to pick and chose what you consider "proper" reviews for your gain. You can't be partial, you are the author I get that. But who are you to decide if someone actually read the book. You don't know. You assume. 

And even your example is still a review. If someone didn't like something about a book, in the example didn't like that the aliens are blue, they have every right to say so. Again, reviews are for the readers, not you. You can't dictate what someone will write in a review. 

Why don't you give readers enough credit to decide for themselves. We can read you know. I can read a review and decide if that would affect me wanting to read the book or not. Don't take it upon yourself to censor that. 

And ratings don't have any affect on rankings. I see plenty of books with a average of 3 star up high on the rankings. Guess what, I bought many a book that had many 1,2 stars and liked it just fine. I like reading ALL reviews. If someone has beef with for example a romance book and they didn't like the steam and give it 2 stars, I know that wouldn't bother me so I can go ahead. 

All this tagging, so called competitor conspiracies, the putting of tags on other authors books, the belittling of reviewers really makes it look like a high school yard. 

Giver readers more credit than that. Really now.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Atunah said:


> I am a reader only. I always feel like I have to state that when venturing in here.
> 
> This thread is making me really weird feeling, sad and a little peeved.
> 
> ...


Let me ease your concerns. Authors are a paranoid group when it comes to reviews. And we are advised that the best course when a bad one comes it is to learn from it and never respond to it. However, we often do (much to our discredit). In forums like this, venting is allowed. I mean, I have some bad reviews (4 out of over 200) and dontcha know, those four get under my skin. Now I have moved on, but you still try to decipher why anyone one would trash you in public. It's a blind man's game (and I'm blind in one eye, so I can say it). I owe my good buzz to reviews, and in fact, without the one-stars, my review credibility would go out the window. However, besides the unending grinding discussions on pricing and rankings and nonsense (yes, I said nonsense) like that, the top discussion from authors are bad reviews (and crowing about the good ones).

Authoring is a solitary effort. We do it alone, isolated with nothing more than our muse, loud music, some addiction (mine's cookies) and our imaginations. We get feedback (from editors, some people have family support, and from beta-readers), but on the whole, the true test is the stranger - the reader who took a chance and invested their time in your days in solitary. To ask an author NOT to react to negative feedback is unfair, because we crave sunlight, and praise is sometimes the only reward beyond the effort itself and the few shekels we pocket. So I wouldn't be disturbed if I came upon a bevy of authors calling their bad reviewers morons or motherlovers, because when imploded in the safety of our numbers, we are like children in the schoolyard. We want the best. We work for it and pooh-pooh the bad press. The best judge of our work is the reader - and that reader is the one to be born in the next century, because if those moments in solitude cannot translate into a legacy, they are just that - moments in darkness.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Edward C. Patterson
also known as Miss Chatty (when I'm released from my shackles) 

PS: Removing reviews from Amazon is a 1 in 1,000 shot. Wonder not.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Actually ratings really matter and I've had numerous people tell me they purchased my books based on their very high ratings. Two 1 star reviews will absolutely have an effect on my rating so they are extremely important to me. What it comes down to is that I differ in opinion with you about what reviews should be allowed to be posted. I know the person didn't purchase my book because Amazon would have listed the review as a verified purchase, and again, none of the reviews this person posted were verified and all the reviews on other books were all 1 stars (and there were about 10 of them) and none of them had to do with any of the books reviewed. Again, I have no problem with bad reviews as long as they are legit.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Well said, Edward!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Okay, let me clarify things from my point of view.

1) I am not commenting on the quality of the original book in question.  I don't even know what that book is.
2)  I am not commenting on the review in question.  I never read it, since I don't know what the original book is.
3)  I was commenting on the use of the word warlock.  That's all I was commenting on. While that word has come into common usage as "a male magic user", it has an older definition as oath-breaker or traitor (which btw, is listed in the kindle dictionary when you're near the word warlock).  So, my comment was, if I was reading a book and someone used the word warlock to mean male witch, it might distract me from the story.

Off topic, but similiar, to me the words "witch", "wizard", and "warlock" are not interchangeable.  To me, the females in Harry Potter should not be called witches, but rather are female wizards.  

Thanks for reading this.  I'm going back to my corner with my chocolate now.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

I should add, I VERY often limit my amazon searches to 4+ star items only. If an author has received a lot of 1-star reviews, they will not show up on my search. So, reviews do matter. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does this.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Atunah,

Sure, if a review says, "I just didn't like this book," then there's nothing to argue about.

But reviews that go beyond that and include actual content will always offer plenty to argue about.  And if a reviewer makes a statement that is silly, they should expect to be mocked.  This is the internet we're talking about.

Once, on a discussion thread at Aint It Cool News, one of the commenters said that they didn't like a movie about dragons because the dragons didn't talk - and, to quote, "Real dragons are intelligent and talk!"  That person was solidly flamed, to the point where it became a meme.  Any time someone attempted to apply a factual rule to a concept that was purely fictional, another poster would mock them by posting "Real dragons are intelligent and talk!"

The point being that dragons aren't real.  That means that it's foolish to criticize a fictional work based on what a "real" dragon would do.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

LOL Scarlet!
Hi, Jessica, yes, lots of people search this way so that's why I was saying ratings are really important.


----------



## Lori Brighton (Jul 10, 2010)

I've been in this biz or trying to get in this biz for a long time. I know a lot of authors who have been in it longer than I have. No matter how much we pretend like reviews don't matter to us, they do. Imagine working on a project for 6 months and your boss telling you and everyone who will listen that your work sucks. And you can't defend yourself. And to top it off, your pay sucks. 

Editors can say we suck. Agents can say we suck. Readers can say we suck. But we can't say anything. We're the ones producing the work and we can't say a thing in defense. Yes, it comes with writing. And yes, we put up with it because we love to write. But I tell you, there are times when I'm exhausted by the negativity. People seem to go out of their way to rip us apart. And in this age, the negativity is getting only worse. 

You can give a good, bad review. I had two reviews one day, both 3 stars. One woman seemed intent on mocking my work and it didn't just annoy me, but it make me sad that this world is in such a state of negativity and mockery. Then I got the other 3 star. The woman pointed out places/things she didn't care for in my book, but you know what? I was totally fine with her review because she was professional about it. I got a 1 star review a few weeks ago because the person couldn't download the sample pages of my book. This is not what the review space is for. This doesn't help the reader decide if my book is for them or not. Bad reviews are out there, reviews that should be taken down. We write because we love to write and we care so much what readers think because you are the only ones that matter. I dont care what agents or editors think, I care what readers think. We want to write and we want to write great stories for readers. But you have to give us (writers) a break. Sometimes its exhausting and we really don't have an outlet.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Well said, Lori. And in my opinion, you should have that 1 star review removed because someone not being able to download your book has nothing to do with your book at all!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Lori Brighton said:


> I've been in this biz or trying to get in this biz for a long time. I know a lot of authors who have been in it longer than I have. No matter how much we pretend like reviews don't matter to us, they do. Imagine working on a project for 6 months and your boss telling you and everyone who will listen that your work sucks. And you can't defend yourself. And to top it off, your pay sucks.
> 
> Editors can say we suck. Agents can say we suck. Readers can say we suck. But we can't say anything. We're the ones producing the work and we can't say a thing in defense. Yes, it comes with writing. And yes, we put up with it because we love to write. But I tell you, there are times when I'm exhausted by the negativity. People seem to go out of their way to rip us apart. And in this age, the negativity is getting only worse.
> 
> You can give a good, bad review. I had two reviews one day, both 3 stars. One woman seemed intent on mocking my work and it didn't just annoy me, but it make me sad that this world is in such a state of negativity and mockery. Then I got the other 3 star. The woman pointed out places/things she didn't care for in my book, but you know what? I was totally fine with her review because she was professional about it. I got a 1 star review a few weeks ago because the person couldn't download the sample pages of my book. This is not what the review space is for. This doesn't help the reader decide if my book is for them or not. Bad reviews are out there, reviews that should be taken down. We write because we love to write and we care so much what readers think because you are the only ones that matter. I dont care what agents or editors think, I care what readers think. We want to write and we want to write great stories for readers. But you have to give us (writers) a break. Sometimes its exhausting and we really don't have an outlet.


Actually, authors can say things in response, here, on their blogs, but I don't suggest responding to a review by writing a "counter-review". But just as you want to be heard, release that everyone else does. And all a review is is ONE PERSON'S OPINION [caps added for emphasis]. In the end, for an author, I think all that should matter is what YOU think of your book. If you love it, then the blazes with the rest of the world, but be prepared to accept that others might not feel the same. The biggest problem is that you are one person, and while each reviewer is just one person, there are more readers than writers so you feel out-numbered.

As for using a review to say that they couldn't download a sample, I agree that's a misuse of the review system, as is giving one star for a book because you think the price is too high. But people do it and unfortunately, we have to live with it.

And one last piece of advice. Remember that for every negative review you get, there are probably as many if not more people out there who loved your book but just don't post reviews.


----------



## Lori Brighton (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree that there are a lot of people who like books and don't respond. Before I was at home writing and worked outside the house, they always told us that, you'll hear the negative the most. Its def. something to keep in mind. And you're right in that it does feel like we're outnumbered. 

But I disagree with the fact that we have places to vent. If an author vents even on her/his blog, that author will be seen as whining. I've seen it many times, with even N.Y. Bestselling authors who have tried to defend themselves. I feel very much as an author that we are supposed to keep our mouths shut or risk our reputation as someone who is difficult. 

And yes, of course I write for myself. But for me, the reader and the reader's opinion is very important.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Lori Brighton said:


> I agree that there are a lot of people who like books and don't respond. Before I was at home writing and worked outside the house, they always told us that, you'll hear the negative the most. Its def. something to keep in mind. And you're right in that it does feel like we're outnumbered.
> 
> But I disagree with the fact that we have places to vent. If an author vents even on her/his blog, that author will be seen as whining. I've seen it many times, with even N.Y. Bestselling authors who have tried to defend themselves. I feel very much as an author that we are supposed to keep our mouths shut or risk our reputation as someone who is difficult.
> 
> And yes, of course I write for myself. But for me, the reader and the reader's opinion is very important.


Again, it comes down to the responses you're getting on your blog. If one or two people say you're whining, ignore 'em. If a lot of people are saying you're whining, you might want to look at how you're writing. Remember, people can't tell tone in a post or blog, so they may misread a joking acceptance of life as a complaint. It's all in the eye of the beholder. For instance, people sometimes think I'm being bombastic when it's just the fact that I tend to be very wordy.


----------



## Lori Brighton (Jul 10, 2010)

I totally agree. I've made jokes before and they don't go over well online. lol. 

In all honesty, I'd very much love to be enlightened enough that I didn't care what people think about me or my writing, to be secure enough in my own writing that reviews didn't bother me. Sadly, I'm not there. And to a point, I think, we have to care if we want to make a living off of writing. I think the trick is to look at reviews and see if we can get anything of value from them. Does the reviewer have any legit points? As a writer I want to improve and grow. Most people have agents and editors to help with that. As a self published author, we have readers/reviewers.


----------



## destill (Oct 5, 2010)

A drive-by, one-star, assassin reviewer hit one of my books too. It's obvious that this individual had some kind of ulterior motive. This person has no profile information available on Amazon . . . and my book is the ONLY book she's (if she was even honest about her gender) has reviewed. The reviewer suggested my book needed a copy editor, which is hilarious because my editor is the director of the Erma Bombeck Writer's Workshop, University of Dayton, AND the book is a _ForeWord _ Book of the Year Finalist.

People who write these kinds of malicious reviews must have so little self-confidence that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to attack someone who's more successful. Very sad, indeed. Talk about a backwards compliment!

My book is still selling well, despite the bogus review.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

destill said:


> It's obvious that this individual had some kind of ulterior motive. This person has no profile information available on Amazon . . . and my book is the ONLY book she's (if she was even honest about her gender) has reviewed.
> ...
> 
> People who write these kinds of malicious reviews _must have so little self-confidence that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to attack someone who's more successful._ Very sad, indeed. Talk about a backwards compliment!


Seriously? How do you know? I understand that there are things we all tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better, but how do you know? For example, my Amazon profile is not filled out. In all the years I've been using Amazon (hundreds of books, and other items from clothing to electronics,) I've reviewed 4 items. Only one was for a book. It wasn't a particularly well-written review either (although it was 5 stars.)

So with only one review on Amazon, and no personal information in my profile, (and I bought the book from Smashwords, so the ONE review I did write would not be a verified purchase,) I fit the profile PERFECTLY that you describe as someone with "so little self-confidence that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to attack someone who's more successful." The ONLY difference is that I didn't write a negative review.

By the way, ELSEWHERE on the internet, I've done over 200 reviews and/or editorials, some extensive, some brief, some positive, some negative. In a few rare instances I've written something like "horrible, needs an editor, so glad it's over." Is that a bogus review? Not in my opinion. The book (in my opinion) WAS horrible. It DID need an editor, and I didn't enjoy it at all. I suppose the author could discount it as sour grapes, or question my gender, claim I never read the book because it's not "verified," or (if the review had been placed somewhere I have no history as a reviewer,) dismissed as malicious, sad, or having been written with an ulterior motive.

Some people don't know how to write a review, so what? Unless you have an obvious nutjob on a rampage in the comments, why must one make up stories about the reviewer? Does the author so lack self-confidence that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to attack a reviewer with a differing opinion? Very sad, indeed.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Reviews matter because Amazon has decided they matter. Whenever a book appears in any Amazon list it carries a score. The score has no bearing on the quality of the review, and when the reader sees the score, she has no way of knowing what generated that score. Amazon even provides a button labeled "Top Rated" that filters out scores below 4.5 stars.

Reviews have been digitized and aggregated. Only one page on Amazon allows one to see the composition of the aggregated digitization for any single book. All other references carry only the digital score and the number of data points. Consider how many different Amazon pages carry the thumbnail and the score for any single book. How about all those pages where a book appears under "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought."

I presume readers like this system, and pay attention to it. If they preferred something else, that's probably what we would see. Even readers who never pay any attention to reviews see the score for every book everytime its name appears. We have to remember the system is created to generate revenue from readers by assisting them in finding what they like.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Last week I received a 1-star review on one of my books - this was one of the lines from the review:
"...the entire premise of a Paranormal Research and Containment Division of the U.S. government is nonsensical."  So, because she didn't believe that there could be a government agency that's paranormal, my book didn't work for her. 

This reader was looking for paranormal mystery (having read my other books) and thought my third book was the same genre - it wasn't - it was paranormal romance. She talked about bodice ripping and "true love conquers all" in quite unflattering terms.  She said the book belonged in the romance area...

Well, hmmmm, that's where it was. 

However - that review is still there, on my Amazon page.  Because I believe that readers can read her review and decide for themselves if they want to try my book.  I'm okay with that.

The other review (and why my name is on the title of this thread  ) was from a reviewer who took it upon herself to trash the other people (28 of them) who reviewed my book and decided to trash the entire population of indie e-book authors.  Amazon has rules about reviews - stick to the topic "the book."  Don't trash other reviewers to make your review look more important.  And, for heaven's sake, don't trash an entire industry because you didn't like my book. 

That is the only review I have asked Amazon to review - they did, and decided to delete it.

I appreciate and learn from my reviews.  Some reviewers who have not liked my books have been nice about it - some not so nice.  But, that's their choice. 

We just want people to play by the rules.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Terri, I think you nailed it by mentioning Amazon's rules that reviews must stick to the topic of the book being reviewed. That is the point. And the reason Amazon removed my two 1 star reviews about a warlock not being a witch and your 1 star review was because those reviews didn't follow Amazon's rules aka the reviews had nothing to do with either of our books!


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

HP Mallory said:


> Terri, I think you nailed it by mentioning Amazon's rules that reviews must stick to the topic of the book being reviewed. That is the point. And the reason Amazon removed my two 1 star reviews about a warlock not being a witch and your 1 star review was because those reviews didn't follow Amazon's rules aka the reviews had nothing to do with either of our books!


I agree. And those readers who worry that we authors can randomly have bad reviews vanish - it just doesn't work that way. Amazon has a review process that takes several days. They (Amazon) wants to be sure the rating system is legitimate and their buyers can trust it.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Absolutely! It is very difficult to get a bad review removed from Amazon. They take them very seriously and will only remove them if they are, in fact, in breach of Amazon's policy!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

terrireid said:


> Last week I received a 1-star review on one of my books - this was one of the lines from the review:
> "...the entire premise of a Paranormal Research and Containment Division of the U.S. government is nonsensical." So, because she didn't believe that there could be a government agency that's paranormal, my book didn't work for her.
> 
> This reader was looking for paranormal mystery (having read my other books) and thought my third book was the same genre - it wasn't - it was paranormal romance. She talked about bodice ripping and "true love conquers all" in quite unflattering terms. She said the book belonged in the romance area...
> ...


I had a misguided reviewer for _*No Irish Need Apply*_, who bought the book thinking it was about Irish people during the depression, instead of gay teenagers during the 90's. His lead line was DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. Then proceded to rant how he was duped. Of course, my description is clear. But if someone wants to post their own ignorance on my page, let them do it. I mean, the book's won 2 awards and garners good press everywhere. Even my toughest critic (Miss motherbouncer) said that "it wasn't that bad', and then proceded to review the cover art as substandard.  Readers aren't dumb. They know prune juice from Asti Spumonti, and besides, such reviews - "breaks the ice are parties." Now someone invite me to a party so I can break some ice. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I had a misguided reviewer for _*No Irish Need Apply*_, who bought the book thinking it was about Irish people during the depression, instead of gay teenagers during the 90's. His lead line was DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK.


LOL!


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> LOL!


I could have reported this one to Amazon, except he went on to say that my writing was subpar. So he clearly had a bad experience and was within his right to express his opinion. He actual read the book. I suppose looking for the potato famine.

Ed Patterson


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Looking for the potato famine!!!!
LOL that was hysterical!


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I had a misguided reviewer for _*No Irish Need Apply*_, who bought the book thinking it was about Irish people during the depression, instead of gay teenagers during the 90's. His lead line was DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK. Then proceded to rant how he was duped. Of course, my description is clear. But if someone wants to post their own ignorance on my page, let them do it. I mean, the book's won 2 awards and garners good press everywhere. Even my toughest critic (Miss motherbouncer) said that "it wasn't that bad', and then proceded to review the cover art as substandard.  Readers aren't dumb. They know prune juice from Asti Spumonti, and besides, such reviews - "breaks the ice are parties." Now someone invite me to a party so I can break some ice.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


LOL I was tempted to rewrite my description after that review. WARNING - this book contains more romance than the O'Reilly Series.  (However, really, there were no bodices ripped in the making of this book!)


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Seriously? How do you know? I understand that there are things we all tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better, but how do you know? For example, my Amazon profile is not filled out. In all the years I've been using Amazon (hundreds of books, and other items from clothing to electronics,) I've reviewed 4 items. Only one was for a book. It wasn't a particularly well-written review either (although it was 5 stars.)
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> Some people don't know how to write a review, so what? Unless you have an obvious nutjob on a rampage in the comments, why must one make up stories about the reviewer? Does the author so lack self-confidence that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to attack a reviewer with a differing opinion? Very sad, indeed.


Stacey, I agree with you, in some cases it's obvious when a review is fake, in some cases it's obvious that it's real, but in many cases we have just no way of knowing. People don't have to use their real names, we can't see IP addresses, we don't see purchasing or browsing or reading history, the Amazon profiles don't link up with other online profiles, etc., etc. That review could be from another author's fake account set up to tear you down, or it could be from someone like you giving an honest review.

What is frustrating is that authors are supposed to not reply, just accept it, and we're even told to listen to bad reviews and either try to improve based on that negative review, or just "take the hint" and stop writing. The problem is (a) not all reviews are honest, and (b) even some honest reviews are not useful for self-improvement. Just like not all authors write great books, and not all people can sing well or dunk a basketball, not all reviewers write useful, well thought-out reviews (this applies to good and bad reviews, by the way). I've seen reviews that just totally made factual mistakes -- one that sticks in my mind is for a cookie recipe where the reviewer complained that using wax paper made the cookies burn &#8230; except the recipe clearly called for parchment paper. Yet that 1-star review sits there, lowers the overall average, removes the recipe (or book) from searches where customers only filter by 4-star + averages, etc. So it's easy to say, "Just ignore it, everyone is entitled to their opinion," but when that opinion can affect your livelihood (imagine if random people on the Internet had the ability to affect your salary at your day job for any reason!), then it's understandable that we at least would appreciate that those reviews be (a) honest, by someone who actually read the book, and not someone just trying to hurt our sales for personal or "competitive" reasons, and (b) well thought-out and free of huge factual errors (like the wax paper thing).

Now, I do agree with you that some authors can get carried away and unjustly slam all negative reviews. They do hurt. And I think authors consider this forum to be a "safe place" to come and commiserate with other authors, although we need to keep in mind that anything we write can be seen by readers and appear in search engines and such. You're right that, surely, not ALL negative reviews are dishonest or should be removed. But I don't agree that EVERY review is legitimate or helpful to readers (1-stars complaining about DRM, with factual mistakes, repeated with fake accounts, written by another author trying to gain an advantage, etc.).


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

scarlet said:


> 3) I was commenting on the use of the word warlock. That's all I was commenting on. While that word has come into common usage as "a male magic user", it has an older definition as oath-breaker or traitor (which btw, is listed in the kindle dictionary when you're near the word warlock). So, my comment was, if I was reading a book and someone used the word warlock to mean male witch, it might distract me from the story.


Ah - etymology, that's a tricky one isn't it. LOL - Too much education Scarlet, tisk tisk. 



Atunah said:


> And ratings don't have any affect on rankings. I see plenty of books with a average of 3 star up high on the rankings. Guess what, I bought many a book that had many 1,2 stars and liked it just fine. I like reading ALL reviews. If someone has beef with for example a romance book and they didn't like the steam and give it 2 stars, I know that wouldn't bother me so I can go ahead.


On some level I agree with this. I know people search on the rankings and &#8230; well they miss a lot of great books and it is really their fault for not realizing that reviews can be questionable. Just like when an author comes out with a book and several of his friends and relatives review it, sometimes twice under different names and then he suddenly has a 5-star ranking that it totally undeserved (you will never see a thread complaining about that though LOL). The problem comes with a brand-new book, no reviews and then someone hits it with a 1-star, who is going to take a chance after that? On a personal note I am a very critical reviewer and I have stopped review books that don't have enough reviews to pad my rating, and no indies. I started doing this when I observed my rating were pretty far off the norm, typically 85% lower than other reviews.



StaceyHH said:


> Seriously? How do you know? I understand that there are things we all tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better, but how do you know? &#8230;
> 
> In a few rare instances I've written something like "horrible, needs an editor, so glad it's over." Is that a bogus review? Not in my opinion.


That is a reasonable review because you stated specifically what you didn't like about the book - poor editing and it is reasonable feedback that would be helpful to a reader who was especially sensitive to grammar and sentence structure. You are helping the reader with your feedback.

Examples of bogus reviews would be:

-- The author clearly hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as his savior - 1-star
-- This erotica has sex in it, I'm shocked. 1-star
-- Book is too expensive. 1-star

The witches comment actually falls under the erotica comment since this genre is all about witches/demons/vampires/ etc. as heroes and the world being reinvented by the author. It isn't just H.P.s book that has this twist it is the entire genre. Now maybe the reviewer ventured in from reading Christian Romance and was shocked, that is possible and her review profile would tell the story and then it really would be legitimate feedback. I would click on her profile and back slowly away from anything she gave 5-stars but if she is a 1-star sniper repeatedly doing this then there is a real question. She is doing a disservice to readers and that is why she needs to be stopped and probably shouldn't be allowed to give any more Amazon reviews. Her effect on the writer is secondary.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

CIBond said:


> Ah - etymology, that's a tricky one isn't it. LOL - Too much education Scarlet, tisk tisk.


No, just too much reading!


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> So it's easy to say, "Just ignore it, everyone is entitled to their opinion," but when that opinion can affect your livelihood (imagine if random people on the Internet had the ability to affect your salary at your day job for any reason!), then it's understandable that we at least would appreciate that those reviews be (a) honest, by someone who actually read the book, and not someone just trying to hurt our sales for personal or "competitive" reasons, and (b) well thought-out and free of huge factual errors (like the wax paper thing).
> 
> Now, I do agree with you that some authors can get carried away and unjustly slam all negative reviews. They do hurt. And I think authors consider this forum to be a "safe place" to come and commiserate with other authors, although we need to keep in mind that anything we write can be seen by readers and appear in search engines and such. You're right that, surely, not ALL negative reviews are dishonest or should be removed. But I don't agree that EVERY review is legitimate or helpful to readers (1-stars complaining about DRM, with factual mistakes, repeated with fake accounts, written by another author trying to gain an advantage, etc.).


 Thanks for the perspective. I do understand that there is always a person behind the name on the book. I guess I just get frustrated when I see comments like "I have x# of one star reviews, they must all be by the same person, they all sound just alike to me," and "this person wrote a 1-star slam on my book, they must be bitter/stupid/didn't read the book/jealous of my success," etc etc. It's one thing to commiserate, it's quite another to pin malicious motives on reviewers who leave negative reviews.

I totally agree that the review should be content related, and troll posts shouldn't be allowed to remain if the author requests removal. The example above of the "Irish" book totally cracked me up, but if that had been the only review, it would have quite a different impact on the rating, so yeah.

I guess my point is that just because a review is poorly written, or there's no verified purchase or reviewer history/profile, doesn't invalidate the review.



CIBond said:


> Examples of bogus reviews would be:
> 
> -- The author clearly hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as his savior - 1-star
> -- This erotica has sex in it, I'm shocked. 1-star
> ...


Ugh, #3 is a pet peeve. If it's too expensive, don't buy it. It's a different story if someone pays full-price for a novel that turns out to be a short story, and is saying something like "I paid $8.99 for this and it was only 30 pages long, too expensive." But most of the "too expensive" ratings seem to just be people who are angry that ebooks aren't practically free.


----------



## Free books for Kindle (Jan 8, 2010)

Lots of valid points being made on this thread I think. I was pretty upset when I first read the nastier and inaccurate reviews. It isn't nice to read a review where someone inaccurately accuse you of plagiarism. 

But on reflection I think the whole process has been extremely useful. 

My guide was written for the novice Kindle owner who doesn't want to spend lots of time browsing Google to find freebie sites which are legal and safe to use.  

There's a bit of a theme running through the reviews. Basically novices seem to be very happy with the guide - while expert Kindle owners/computer users were clearly expecting something more. Since the experts aren't the target audience it's not surprising they came away disappointed. Simple is often confused with simplistic. 

If the lower star reviews help filter out the expert users and stop them from buying I think that's all to the good and I think I'm going to make it clearer in future versions and the blurb that it's designed for Kindle newbies.  

Finally it's obvious I'll have to grow a thicker skin if I want to stay in this business.  As an earlier poster said - it's unusual to receive feedback in quite such florid terms from your boss. Still less to get feedback which is contrary - some people love it/others hate it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"What is frustrating is that authors are supposed to not reply, just accept it, and we're even told to listen to bad reviews and either try to improve based on that negative review, or just "take the hint" and stop writing."_

I really can't see anything wrong in responding to some points made in a review. I sure don't recommend starting an argument, but it might be appropriate for an author to say why he did something, where he got some idea, or gracefully accept some criticism. (It might also be appropriate to just keep quiet.) This doesn't have to be defensive, nor would I suggest slamming a reviewer even if he's left himself completely open. Perhaps a negative review might be turned into a positive by the way an author responds. The audience for both the review and the response is a potential customer who is just one click away from the BUY NOW button. He's right there, on the page. I'd ask if there is some respionse that would increase the probability of that click.

For most of the history of reviews, they have been a one way street. The reviewer speaks to thousands, and the author can't respond. Is there a reason to continue that tradition? What would readers think? They are the ones who matter.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

I had a review on Goodreads that I responded to.  Actually, she made some valid points, and so I thanked her.  However, I feel that Goodreads is more of a community atmosphere -I don't know if I would feel comfortable doing something like that on Amazon.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> I've seen reviews that just totally made factual mistakes -- one that sticks in my mind is for a cookie recipe where the reviewer complained that using wax paper made the cookies burn &#8230; except the recipe clearly called for parchment paper. Yet that 1-star review sits there, lowers the overall average, removes the recipe (or book) from searches where customers only filter by 4-star + averages, etc. So it's easy to say, "Just ignore it, everyone is entitled to their opinion,"


I think that the author could/should request that this review be removed. Why? Because if I decided to bake my cookies at 200 for 40 minutes instead of 400 for 20 minutes would it be reasonable to blame the cookbook?

Another option is for Amazon to strip stars so that the review would still be there but it wouldn't effect the rating?? But that might start a flame war over the issue.


----------



## iamstoryteller (Jul 16, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> I do think having 1-star reviews help legitimize your book. A book that only has 5-stars seems a bit fishy, from a readers standpoint. And while I never enjoy 1-star reviews, if a reader has read my book and really hated it, I understand.
> 
> But fake reviews do make me angry. Not just on my own books, but on any author's books. Any fake reviews - be it 1-star or 5-star - are not acceptable, and they make us all look bad. If indie authors want to be taken seriously, we cannot go around giving 1-star reviews to our competition or give ourselves a bunch of fake 5-star reviews to make our books look better. When any indie author does that, it makes us _all _look bad.
> 
> ...


Just read through the entire thread, and though there are many well-thought-out and valuable posts for which I thank y'all, could not have said it better than Amanda did.

Wonder if the poster is informed of the deletion of any Amazon review?

Sharon


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" If indie authors want to be taken seriously, we cannot go around giving 1-star reviews to our competition or give ourselves a bunch of fake 5-star reviews to make our books look better. When any indie author does that, it makes us all look bad."_

I'm not disputing this on a normative basis, but I have to wonder if independents are being a bit too hard on themselves in setting standards, and might be misjudging readers reactions. Are independents setting standards for themselves that only a sliver of the market cares about?

Why do I ask? Big name authors regularly give each other glowing back cover reviews. They are everywhere, and nobody seems to care much. A thread discussing this last week unearthed two big authors in the same genre who put three para glowing reviews (labeled reviews) on each other's Amazon page. Maybe this is right, and maybe it is wrong. I'm not taking sides, just observing. But, looking at the real world, it doesn't seem to matter.

Will readers care if independents jump on the bandwagon? It doesn't appear they care when the books are stamped Random House. Why should we expect them to care for independents?

There are two ways people see reviews on Amazon. First, they can go to a book page and read them. Second, they see the star score everyplace a book thumbnail appears in a list on Amazon. I'd suggest many more people see those stars than read the reviews.

So, now we have a system where fourteen reviews that each say, "Great Book!" and give four or five stars are what drives traffic to book pages. In driving traffic to pages, these two word reviews have the same weight as well written, incisive, and thoughtful reviews. Getting readers to the book page is the biggest hurdle a book has to jump.

Again, I'm not saying what is right, what is wriong, how it should be, or what we should strive for. I am observing how things really work.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I ignore "glowing reviews" on the back of books just like I ignore what seem to be quid pro quo reviews on amazon.


----------



## Maria Hooley (Jul 21, 2009)

I just got one of those reviews, and I'm scratching my head over it.  It's a three-star rating, but that's not what threw me.  Here's the review.

I have to say I was mesmeized by this story. Although I have to say it is not unique and very similar to the "other" popular Vampire story, I still enjoyed it very much. But I'd like to see lots more action and adventure. To vampire lovers, you'll like this book. 

The kicker is that this book is NOT about vampires.  There are absolutely no vampires in the book.  Never have been, never will be.  It's a paranormal ya that deals with angels.

I looked at the profile and found that she had reviewed about five other books today.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

scarlet said:


> I ignore "glowing reviews" on the back of books just like I ignore what seem to be quid pro quo reviews on amazon.


That's why I rarely, if ever, give reviews of my fellow authors work. I'll help promote and do toher helpful things that make more sense, but I fear the quid pro quo.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Free books for Kindle (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm intrigued by the idea of responding to reviews and while I don't intend to do for every review, I have had a go a responding to a few of reviews. I'd be grateful to get feedback from peeps here on whether the tone and response is appropriate:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RPIRAA88URY1O/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0048ELPBC&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3I5FVU4QL2Y2I/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0048ELPBC&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

http://www.amazon.com/review/R12OVE0OXFJ53O/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0048ELPBC&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3V838BD334F76/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0048ELPBC&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Free books for Kindle said:


> I'm intrigued by the idea of responding to reviews and while I don't intend to do for every review, I have had a go a responding to a few of reviews. I'd be grateful to get feedback from peeps here on whether the tone and response is appropriate:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RPIRAA88URY1O/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0048ELPBC&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful
> 
> ...


I think you did a wonderful job with all of the responses.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

sibelhodge said:


> I had one a while ago as well on Fourteen Days Later...
> 
> "the story starts off with a fourteen day challenge. by page three id already figured out the ending... which in some novels is okay. however this is such a poorly written story that the in between (past page three till the end) is a complete waste of time. i picked this book up really thinking id like it. i like marion keyes and all the other laugh out loud funny books but her horrible horrible style makes it painful to read. imagine writting your first story in the third grade.... those are the types of stories and characters she writes and tries to sell. the overall idea of the book is a good one however the delievery falls far far short"
> 
> ...


Do you ever wonder why some reviewers feel the need to be mean-spirited about their reviews? I'm sorry this happened to you.

Terri


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

sibelhodge said:


> I suppose there could be lots of reasons, none of them particularly nice!


LOL I guess you're right!  Do you remember the Bambi movie where Thumper says, "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say nothing at all?" Now, I feel that readers have the right to critique a book - that's why we ask for reviews. And, I admit I learn more from the negative reviews - although I really love the positive ones.  But, why aren't we offering constructive criticism rather than nasty jabs? I suppose it's like the poster at the beginning said - the anonymity allows some people to be freer than they would be in person.

Although, the folks who just post bad reviews for spite or sport are just sick. IMHO


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm not crazy about hearing reviewers being dissed by authors even if the reviewers are completely wonky. Not fair, I know.  But a reader can get away with saying anything they want.  They may lose respect, but most people have short memories and will look at individuals for what they are presenting now, at this moment. So no one will even remember most of the dumb things we readers come up with.  But people do remember the things authors say! An author cannot afford to exercise this type of 'free speech' because it will tarnish their image.

The kicker is that many readers will ultimately defend the rights of other readers, no matter how "idiotic" they are, to sound off about books they read.  There is something a little sacred about it.  Reviews are our way of talking to each other about books and trying to help fellow readers decide if a book is right for them.  We do discern lameness in reviews and we can even identify with an author who sees it.  But many of us don't appreciate the public airing by an author.  It's like, I can't talk about how nutso my great-aunt Gertrude is, but you dare not say a word against her!

So an author can be right and still be wrong.  Again, not fair!  But, as someone else astutely pointed out relative to other comments, life is not fair.  

You folks became walking, talking PR machines from the minute you uploaded your books and put a price tag on them.  Everything you write on the Internet is now scrutinized.  Think about it. Nobody has ever heard of most of you.  Since your name is not Steven King or Janet Evanovitch (&etc.), readers are looking at more than just a synopsis of a book or a sample when they make their buying decisions.  (It must be said, however, that popular well-known authors have been shunned for some ill-conceived chance remarks, so even they have to be careful.) They are looking at who you are.  I have seen readers buy books from authors because they were nice or even because they felt sorry for them.  I've never seen them buy from an author because they were good at snarking.  

Everything you write publicly should be with the thought that you are writing directly to readers.  Really, you are.  One author here remarked that this is the Internet; thus, a person can expect to be mocked for writing a lame review.  Okay.  But turn that around and think of the Internet also being a place where people can easily search for authors and get turned off by those who mock readers for lame reviews.  As a reader, I can afford to say inflammatory things (although I prefer not to) because I don't have anything to lose except that people will vote down my posts or won't talk to me or stuff like that.

That said, I realize that some readers are skeptical, but there are some really bad things going on with reviews, and authors need to be aware of them and take measures to see that troublemakers (often competing authors) don't get away with it. There really are reasons to report suspicious reviews - and it is not just because an author doesn't want a low review.

I just reported some reviews because a group of 'readers' were not only spamming a book, but they were going after other reviewers.  In addition, they were attacking other indies by down-rating their books.  It looked suspicious. I actually tried to explain how I felt it was wrong, first to the 'reviewers' and then the author, before finally reporting it.  Amazon apparently agreed. Half the reviews for the book are gone (7 deleted), all of them 5-star reviews.  I'm hoping the authors attacked by these people also take action.

I reported these 'reviewers' because I felt the integrity of the reviewing process was being disrupted by bullying of other reviewers and of other authors, not because they looked to me like obvious shills (though they did).  To be honest, I see what look like shill reviews on a regular basis, but I just roll my eyes and move on.  This is something else I wanted to mention here. There are complaints by authors about down-reviewing, but I don't see as much outrage over the shills.  This is one of the reasons that complaints about bad reviews fall on deaf ears to readers. It can seem hypocritical.  If you look the other way when the shills are out in force, why should we care if you get dinged a time or two by rogue reviewers?

Don't think we just 1-click books without checking to see who reviews your books, if they have other reviews, if they have purchased the product, if they *love* everything they review, etc. We know what goes on with some author's books. Well, not all readers do, but many of us are quite well versed in this. Sometimes, even if the book looks good, I still can't make myself 1-click it if there are too many suspicious reviews.

Even if the book is $.99, I make the same decision on buying as I do if it's $9.99.  It has to be something I want to read or I won't spend a dime on it.  Even more importantly, I don't want to spend my time, which is even more valuable to me.

(I apologize for the length of this post.  Someone put a nickel in me.)


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Time to quote Brendan Carroll on our rule on not responding to bad reviews:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it."

or do like I do. I turn the critic into a character in one of my books and then find the nearest cliff for them. I mean, Richard Wagner hated critics and wrote the longest opera on record to diss them. _Die Meistersinger von Nürnburg_.  Sometimes anger serves art and in the most imaginative ways.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

sibelhodge said:


> I had one a while ago as well on Fourteen Days Later...
> 
> "the story starts off with a fourteen day challenge. by page three id already figured out the ending... which in some novels is okay. however this is such a poorly written story that the in between (past page three till the end) is a complete waste of time. i picked this book up really thinking id like it. i like marion keyes and all the other laugh out loud funny books but her horrible horrible style makes it painful to read. imagine writting your first story in the third grade.... those are the types of stories and characters she writes and tries to sell. the overall idea of the book is a good one however the delievery falls far far short"
> 
> I don't think they actually read the book, and the only book they've ever reviewed is mine. The content seemed particularly personal to me. I suspect there was an ulterior motive for it like yours. It is sad that people feel they have to do this. It's also still selling well, despite the review.


I don't see anything wrong with this review and I looked and its a 2 star, not a 1 star. How do you assume they didn't read the book? Because they didn't like your writing style? Is it really so impossible someone would just not like the way you write? There is also a 1 star with similar comments, did that one also not read the book? How do you know. 
What I really like to know is though, are you going through your 4 and 5 star reviews with the same comb? How do you know they read your book. Maybe they just liked you and gave you a 4 star? How do you know. 
I have yet to see a author complaining about a 4 or 5 star and the review not being written well, or not descriptive enough or not verified. Why is that?

Most of the latest examples of so called "assasin reviewers" have been to my reading perfectly normal low star reviews. This has turned into a pile on where there might be one or 2 low star reviews in this thread that are probably not on the up and up, but the rest is just a pile on on the reviewers who dare to not praise the writings, who dare not be good writers themselfs, who dare to just not like something about the book. How dare they take the time and effort to leave a review.

And I agree with scamp. Where is the outrage on the high star padded reviews. Haven't seen much of a peep there. But I sure have learned a lot reading this all. And it is not leaving me with much of a good feeling or impression. But after reading some of the responses, I am well aware some couldn't care less.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Scamp said:


> I'm not crazy about hearing reviewers being dissed by authors even if the reviewers are completely wonky. Not fair, I know. But a reader can get away with saying anything they want. They may lose respect, but most people have short memories and will look at individuals for what they are presenting now, at this moment. So no one will even remember most of the dumb things we readers come up with. But people do remember the things authors say! An author cannot afford to exercise this type of 'free speech' because it will tarnish their image.
> 
> The kicker is that many readers will ultimately defend the rights of other readers, no matter how "idiotic" they are, to sound off about books they read. There is something a little sacred about it. Reviews are our way of talking to each other about books and trying to help fellow readers decide if a book is right for them. We do discern lameness in reviews and we can even identify with an author who sees it. But many of us don't appreciate the public airing by an author. It's like, I can't talk about how nutso my great-aunt Gertrude is, but you dare not say a word against her!
> 
> ...


Thanks, Scamp - A very good post. You're right - as writers we put ourselves and our work out there for people to buy, critique, love or hate. We need to develop thick skin. And, I've pretty much been a spoiled brat because my reviews have been very positive and encouraging for the most part. But whether positive or negative - fair reviews need to be seen as that. It is someone's opinion and, even if you don't agree with it, they have a right to express it.

But, I am so glad that you also realize that some reviews aren't reviews at all - they are tactics to help denigrate an author and her works. And I am grateful that you have taken action when these kind of tactics are obvious to you.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Terri


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Maria Hooley said:


> The kicker is that this book is NOT about vampires. There are absolutely no vampires in the book. Never have been, never will be. It's a paranormal ya that deals with angels.
> 
> I looked at the profile and found that she had reviewed about five other books today.


Oh boy. 

See, as a reader, this strikes me oddly. It seems as though this reviewer, who is herself an author, is going around mildly downrating a few books and posting okay reviews on others. She does not seem to have read yours - possibly not others either. She may be trying to get her own name out there. All reviews are signed with the name of her book, so people looking at your book may then look up hers. Maybe there is similar readership, so it might be a marketing strategy - get her name out to people looking at other similar books. ??

To be honest, I would have had no clue whether or not there were vampires in your book, if not for your post; so the fact that she had not read the book would not have been known to me if I came upon the review cold. I tend to read 3-star reviews first, so it actually might have discouraged me from potentially purchasing your book. Nothing against vampires, but I don't tend to seek out vampire books.

This author is careful not to say terrible things, but doesn't really do you any favors. She may pick books that would possibly attract prospective readers of her own books; in fact, it looks like she does. This author may not write in your *specific* genre, but it could close enough to be considered competition. You might want to check the reviewing guidelines about that issue because it is addressed in the "What's Not Allowed" section:

>>Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product (including reviews by authors, artists, publishers, manufacturers, or third-party merchants selling the product)<<

I don't know if all readers really know how pervasive some of this stuff is, but I have only been a Kindler since July/August, and I have seen more verified instances of author-on-author misbehavior than I would have believed possible. And those are just the ones that come under my radar for some reason. It's kind of shocking to me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Everything you write publicly should be with the thought that you are writing directly to readers."_

Correct. The review and response are both written directly to the readers. So, I'd suggest the reader reaction to the author will be a function of what the review says, what the author says, and how the author says it. Civil dialog between readers and writers could be very interesting for both. This opportunity is very new for both readers and writers.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Scamp said:


> Oh boy.
> 
> See, as a reader, this strikes me oddly. It seems as though this reviewer, who is herself an author, is going around mildly downrating a few books and posting okay reviews on others. She does not seem to have read yours - possibly not others either. She may be trying to get her own name out there. All reviews are signed with the name of her book, so people looking at your book may then look up hers. Maybe there is similar readership, so it might be a marketing strategy - get her name out to people looking at other similar books. ??
> 
> ...


Wow! I just looked at those reviews too - and, if you include the day before, she posted seven reviews in 24 hours and most were three stars that really had no specifics about the books. There were a lot of "I won't go into details about the book because I want the readers to find out for themselves..." Crazy!!!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Way back before the internet, in the dark days when the reviews only appeared in newspapers and magazines, and phones had dials, suppose each review had a response by the author right next to it. How would that have effected reviews? Reviewers? Authors? Sales? Positive? Negative? I think the whole exercise would have been much more interesting, reviewers would have been more careful, authors would have been less careful than reviewers, and publisher would have rarely had a good nights sleep.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Way back before the internet, in the dark days when the reviews only appeared in newspapers and magazines, and phones had dials, suppose each review had a response by the author right next to it. How would that have effected reviews? Reviewers? Authors? Sales? Positive? Negative? I think the whole exercise would have been much more interesting, reviewers would have been more careful, authors would have been less careful than reviewers, and publisher would have rarely had a good nights sleep.


Phones had dials? Mine had a crank.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Way back before the internet, in the dark days when the reviews only appeared in newspapers and magazines, and phones had dials, suppose each review had a response by the author right next to it. How would that have effected reviews? Reviewers? Authors? Sales? Positive? Negative? I think the whole exercise would have been much more interesting, reviewers would have been more careful, authors would have been less careful than reviewers, and publisher would have rarely had a good nights sleep.


My gut response is that author responses to reviews would have a chilling effect on reviewers/reviews. My gut response to the same (as practiced by some authors) in the current days of the Internet is identical. Not good.

The author has already spoken. He wrote the book. His job is done. It's in the hands of readers and reviewers now. We don't need the author anymore. (Pretty cold, eh?)

That said, an author did respond to a review of mine and I was moved by it, partly because I felt the book was personal to him (and it was to me also) and because it was unusual for this author to do so. That is probably more the exception than the rule, though. If it was common practice to have my reviews confronted, whether good or bad, it would probably discourage me from writing reviews.


----------



## JenniferBecton (Oct 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> The latest thing we've seen is authors posting their names onto other people's books. Yuck.


I have that going on. My kindle edition was tagged with the name of another author in my genre: Mary Sherwood. Can I have Amazon remove that, or do I have to get people to disagree with it? (If you'd like to disagree for me, here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/Charlotte-Collins-Continuation-Prejudice-ebook/dp/B0041G6MGK/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1284605206&sr=8-1)


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Atunah said:


> I don't see anything wrong with this review and I looked and its a 2 star, not a 1 star. How do you assume they didn't read the book? Because they didn't like your writing style? Is it really so impossible someone would just not like the way you write? There is also a 1 star with similar comments, did that one also not read the book? How do you know.


Seriously? Look again.



sibelhodge said:


> I had one a while ago as well on Fourteen Days Later...
> 
> "the story starts off with a fourteen day challenge. by page three id already figured out the ending... which in some novels is okay. however this is such a poorly written story that the in between (past page three till the end) is a complete waste of time. i picked this book up really thinking id like it. i like marion keyes and all the other laugh out loud funny books but her horrible horrible style makes it painful to read. imagine writting your first story in the third grade.... those are the types of stories and characters she writes and tries to sell. the overall idea of the book is a good one however the delievery falls far far short"


Do you see anything that couldn't be applied generically to any book? She could have put more detail in if she read the free sample but clearly didn't bother. Just like she didn't bother to spell check her review, capitalize, clarify her pronoun in sentence 5, or write coherently (you can't write a character - you can write about a character, "tries to sell" - should be "sells" since obviously someone made a purchase). That's me reviewing the reviewer but notice that I am citing specific examples of the flaws not hurling a generic insult. Without it you would have to check to see if she was a verified buyer or what her reviewer profile looked like to see if she did this to others.

I am not protecting the author. I am trying to protect the reader from malicious and misleading reviews. Reviews that are not genuine don't help anyone make good choices and that should be the focus.



Atunah said:


> And I agree with scamp. Where is the outrage on the high star padded reviews. Haven't seen much of a peep there. But I sure have learned a lot reading this all. And it is not leaving me with much of a good feeling or impression. But after reading some of the responses, I am well aware some couldn't care less.


I actually posted a complaint about this but&#8230; yeah, not as many people are interested in this topic. The real abuse comes with people leaving multiple 5-star reviews of the same book claiming that somehow a Kindle copy and a Beta copy are different even though the stars go into ranking the same product, this drives me bananas because the only point of this is to distort the star rankings - the reader gets no new perspective, nothing. The quid-pro reviews are easy to spot if you just go to the reviewer's profile. In fact rather than go with star rankings you should probably go with a reviewer - find someone with similar tastes and read what they recommend.

Truly there are abuses on both sides and it does a disservice to the reader. I think if Amazon pulled the stars that would solve some of this problem but it is a system and as long as there is a system people will play games with it.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I just saw a 2-star review on the Ten Commandments that stated that adultery was carrying it a bit too far. The author responeed - "But I just schlepped these dings from da mountain. I didn't write dis schtuff."  

Miss Chatty
Keeping it lite, folks.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

CIBond said:


> She could have put more detail in *if she read the free sample but clearly didn't bother*.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I think the point is, how do you know the review is not "genuine?" Are you making that judgment based upon your perception that lack of detail = obviously didn't read the book?

I see this over and over on these types of forums, and on the AMZ discussion forums. An author gets a negative review, and instantly starts looking for confirmation that the reader really didn't actually read (or even buy) the book.*

But how do you know? Were you standing over their shoulder examining whether they downloaded from anywhere? We all know (or should know) that most books can be purchased from other places and then reviewed on Amazon. Between print, Smashwords, B&N, borrowing, second-hand resale, multiple users on one account, and other means of getting ahold of a book, _how do you know that they haven't read the book?_ Even when obvious mistakes are made in the review, it's not always an indication that it was neither purchased nor read.

Also, "malicious?" I wonder how many times "frustrated" is mistaken for "malicious?" There's a bestselling author I've tried several times, mainly because my friends RAVE about her writing. I've read one full novel, part of another, and various short stories, and find ALL of them a total waste of my time, her voice is shallow and vapid, I can see her plot constructs coming from 100 pages away, she pulls her punches, her transitions are atrocious, every single character sounds like a pretentious teenaged girl... My point is, in frustration, IF I wrote a review on both of her novels that said: _'I saw the ending from a mile away, terrible juvenile writing, everything she writes is just tripe, bleh, nobody should waste their time on this garbage..._' the author could make all kinds of assumptions about me - that it's obvious I never read it because of the lack of detail, that I had a personal grudge and wanted to smear the author, that I didn't buy it, so how could it be a genuine review, etc etc. NONE of which assumptions would be true. (I didn't write such a review, although in my frustration, I could have done so.)

I think, as a reader, I find it troublesome that there is this vocal minority of authors out there who seem to make it their aim to make a liar out of every reviewer who pans their writing. I believe that the vast majority of reviews are left by people who actually read part or all of a book, and that only the tiniest fraction of the reviews are author/author smears or disgruntled liars. And yet, if you check the many reader/writer forums, there are those who would have us believe that the practice of leaving false reviews is rampant.

While it might be true that there are a great many poorly written and unhelpful reviews, a reviewer's lack of ability to write well or helpfully does not automatically make the review mendacious or malicious.

*Not that I think most authors do this, I think it's a _very small_ but vocal minority who wish to malign the veracity of anyone who dares to say something negative about their book.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

HP Mallory said:


> Incidentally, it turned out the poster was the mother of another paranormal author so she was just trying to destroy the rankings of those she perceived to be in competition with her daughter.


I would not leave it anonymous. Public shame is probably the best way to prevent this kind of thing. If they can get it away with it anonymously they will keep doing it.


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> I think the point is, *how do you know the review is not "genuine?"* Are you making that judgment based upon your perception that lack of detail = obviously didn't read the book?
> 
> While it might be true that there are a great many poorly written and unhelpful reviews, *a reviewer's lack of ability to write well or helpfully does not automatically make the review mendacious or malicious*.


Agreed. A poorly expressed opinion does not negate the opinion itself.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

quote author=StaceyHH link=topic=47022.msg821204#msg821204 date=1293910552]
I think the point is, how do you know the review is not "genuine?" Are you making that judgment based upon your perception that lack of detail = obviously didn't read the book?

I see this over and over on these types of forums, and on the AMZ discussion forums. An author gets a negative review, and instantly starts looking for confirmation that the reader really didn't actually read (or even buy) the book.*
[/quote]

Not at all. I am saying that it brings the review into question. Looking at the readers profile will show a pattern or not. If there are reasons - even poor reasons for her negative review like she hates the genre with a passion but was given the book. It is still a valid review. It's the pattern of her reviewing, such as 28 1-star vague reviews of indie books then there is a problem and it should be addressed.



StaceyHH said:


> My point is, in frustration, IF I wrote a review on both of her novels that said: _'I saw the ending from a mile away, terrible juvenile writing, everything she writes is just tripe, bleh, nobody should waste their time on this garbage..._' the author could make all kinds of assumptions about me - that it's obvious I never read it because of the lack of detail, that I had a personal grudge and wanted to smear the author, that I didn't buy it, so how could it be a genuine review, etc etc. NONE of which assumptions would be true. (I didn't write such a review, although in my frustration, I could have done so.)


"I didn't write such a review, although in my frustration, I could have done so" -- Why didn't you? If I expressed myself to a colleague at work this way or wrote an e-mail this way or spoke to my child this way my very words would discredit my intention. I suspect that you know this as well. You don't have to be nice in reviews (I'm not) but if you want to be taken seriously you need to speak intelligently and specifically about the subject matter. If you don't people are going to question you or dismiss you as an idiot, just like they would at a job or in any other social context. It doesn't mean that you didn't read the book or are an idiot but if you allow your emotions to get the better of you and you express yourself like one&#8230; well there you go. Amazon is no exception to this social world. Writers who get a legitimately bad review are similarly tempted to blast their reviewer and are told to go eat ice-cream rather than respond.



StaceyHH said:


> I think, as a reader, I find it troublesome that there is this vocal minority of authors out there who seem to make it their aim to make a liar out of every reviewer who pans their writing.


H.P. Mallory has several 1-star reviews of her book in addition to the one she had removed. I have also read her books, all of them so I know that the reviews mention legitimate and specific complaints about the story. She hasn't said a thing about these reviews. They are obviously written by someone who has read at least some of the book and are valid. No one wants to get rid of valid reviews but ones which are questionable should get a second look.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"The author has already spoken. He wrote the book. His job is done. It's in the hands of readers and reviewers now. We don't need the author anymore. (Pretty cold, eh?)"_

Those were the rules back then. We lived in a world of limited one way communications,. But every reader now has a voice, where hardly any did in the past. Now that rules for the reader have changed, must all other rules remain unchanged?

The author has indeed spoken, and those who choose to read his book can do so, while those who choose not to read can refrain. But we now have the means for readers to choose to read dialogs with the author. They sure don't have to, just like they don't have to read other readers' comments. The readers are intelligent enough to make their own choices.

I agree we don't need the author. We probably didn't even need the book. (Getting even colder in here...) But, I'm not sure what we gain by asking anyone to remain quiet.

Regarding genuine reviews vs some other kind...
I don't care. But, I would care if some very sincere and genuine reviewer said Barnabas Collins was a character in _Gravity's Rainbow_. As a potential reader I'd appreciate it if Pynchon commented that there were no vampires in the book. Some things are simply not opinions. They are wrong.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Wow, so now because someone has spelling issues or doesn't phrase a sentence to the high standard of a writer the review must be looked at closer? Now the reviewers profile has to be disected, analyzed and broadcast just because they dared not to like a book? Really? Maybe there needs to be some ego check sometimes  .

In all my many years of buying on Amazon, I never really bothered with reviews. I am just not good at writing them and I am always worried putting myself out there. I thought I was being nice when I started giving them, after reading some indy books. So basically my review means squat because I didn't have a profile, no other reviews, I am sure there are many grammar and other horrible offending things wrong with my writing. Oh wait, my reviews happened to be 4 and 5 stars so I guess its ok in that case. 

So basically only 1 and 2 stars are being scrutinized. Otherwise I would have heard complains after complains about badly written reviews. I see. 

Is there a reviewer school some can recommend as apparently ones own words are not enough. Must put in specific details about said book. Must write proper, must use perfect grammar, must not under any circumstances have issues with the authors writing or characters or storybuilding. If you do, be prepared to be called a moron, dumb writer, assassin, pig. 

Please feel free to dissect and correct my spelling, grammar or whatever else might offend. I am sure there is plenty to find. 

And no, I see still nothing wrong with that last example that supposedly got personal. Well of course its personal when someone doesn't like your writing, story or characters. Its not personal against the author as a person, especially in that example. Reviewer just didn't like it, period. Its his/her prerogative and not really the authors business how and why they write it. 

Just leave the reviews for the readers as its suppose to be. Give us enough credit to be able to read and make our own conclusions. Don't treat us like we are needing to be coddled or treat us like we aren't bright enough to look through obvious 
hit and run reviews. The more you engage in this infighting between the indy authors, the worse it gets. Makes the whole look childish. He did this to me first, he put that tag on me, he is such and such and they are so mean to me. 

Just let it take its natural course, like any other product for sale on Amazon. Thats what books are, a product. 
I just don't see all this drama with other stuff on Amazon and those people are making a living just like authors do. We all have to make a living. Nobody is special in this regard.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Atunah said:


> In all my many years of buying on Amazon, I never really bothered with reviews. I am just not good at writing them and I am always worried putting myself out there. I thought I was being nice when I started giving them, after reading some indy books. So basically my review means squat because I didn't have a profile, no other reviews, I am sure there are many grammar and other horrible offending things wrong with my writing. Oh wait, my reviews happened to be 4 and 5 stars so I guess its ok in that case.


Here's my oft quoted phrase from many a post, and also in my How-to publish book:

"Readers are golden, but reviewers are platinum."

Any author who shuns a revie, whatever the feedback, quality, or motivation is nutz and ought to be writing ads fo the back of Wheaties boxes.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Thanks Sir Edward


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Let's be honest about a couple things here. First, a five-star review that says "Oh my god this is book is amazing! Buy it now!" isn't getting to help a book anymore than a one-star "Oh my good this book is awful! Do not buy it!" will it hurt it. These reviews tell readers nothing about the book, except that someone somewhere liked it and someone somewhere didn't. And I think in depth reviews of any kind - be it positive or negative - that can explain what they liked/didn't like do really help the book. 

Second, unless we as authors have clear evidence that the person didn't read the book or has a vendetta against us, we must assume that the person who wrote a negative review actually read the book. At least in a public forum. And clear evidence is beyond "they only reviewed one book" or "they didn't mention specifics." A lot of reviews don't mention specifics. I don't usually when I write reviews of things I read. It doesn't mean I didn't read the books. It means I'm a bad review writer. 

Third, to be defined as a troll or a malicious activity I think it must be more than one negative review on one book. It has to be repetitive, spiteful behavior either to one author or a group of authors. So if you're only evidence is that it's a single bad review, that's not enough.

Fourth, if a review does appear unfounded, cruel, or abusive, (i.e. "I hate Amanda Hocking and hope she dies."), click the "Report Abuse" button on Amazon, and let them decide. 

Fifth, readers aren't idiots. Even if a negative review stands there saying something ridiculous, readers are smart enough to know the difference between a review and someone just being a jerk. I know it throws you don't your algorithm or whatever, but honestly - tough cookies. Books get negative reviews. All of them. From the Bible to Catcher in the Rye. It's just part of being a writer. And yes, it would nice if our rankings didn't get thrown off or whatever, but it happens. That's the life of a writer. We are judged constantly. It's inherent to the business. 
Sometimes we are judged unfairly, perhaps, but so it goes. And more people are fair than unfair. More people will be kind than cruel. But we have to take the good with the bad.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Thank you Amanda. You put some of what I was trying to say in much clearer words  

And if you are a bad review writer, as an author, no wonder I totally am useless at it as a non writer.  

I need some of Harriet Klausner's "skill". Or then maybe not


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> Third, to be defined as a troll or a malicious activity I think it must be more than one negative review on one book. It has to be repetitive, spiteful behavior either to one author or a group of authors. So if you're only evidence is that it's a single bad review, that's not enough.


This is the whole point. If a review is vague enough or personal enough or vicious enough that's one flag, but only one and it does invite scrutiny of profile and intent. There is nothing wrong with this. If you see 28 consecutive 1-star reviews then there is a pattern which invites further investigation. There is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean the author is a whiner for being concerned since some people feel that stars have value.

Real feedback is great, all of it but it has to be real otherwise I might well buy an 8-ball and turn it over every time I want to know something.



Atunah said:


> Wow, so now because someone has spelling issues or doesn't phrase a sentence to the high standard of a writer the review must be looked at closer? Now the reviewers profile has to be disected, analyzed and broadcast just because they dared not to like a book? Really? Maybe there needs to be some ego check sometimes .


LOL&#8230; sounds like you're mad because I reviewed a reviewer. Something apparently I'm not supposed to do? Why because I'm a "writer"? (I'm not, I'm a total a hack maybe someday&#8230 She wasn't my reviewer but because I write I am forever barred from making comments about other reviews? IMO - Amazon is a social networking site that sells books. Reviewers give reviews and then other people (anyone at all) can comment on those reviews, even writers&#8230; and they do get heated, ask anyone who has give Twilight a poor review about the flames that followed. You are putting yourself out there just like writers do and you will get responses if you give a book a 1 or 2-star review especially from people who loved it.

We aren't talking about legitimate negative reviews in any case we are talking about deliberate attempts to "play" the system and how to spot them.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"The author has already spoken. He wrote the book. His job is done. It's in the hands of readers and reviewers now. We don't need the author anymore. (Pretty cold, eh?)"_
> 
> Those were the rules back then. We lived in a world of limited one way communications,. But every reader now has a voice, where hardly any did in the past. Now that rules for the reader have changed, must all other rules remain unchanged?
> 
> ...


Whoopsie. When I say we don't need the author, I omitted something. With your indulgence, I shall begin again:

The author has spoken. He has written his book. His job is done. We don't need him anymore (dot dot dot) until the next book. So, Mr. Author, let me attend to the business of writing my review of your now-last-week's-news book while you toil away busily on your computer to quickly craft the next novel that I am impatiently awaiting. Why is it not finished yet (Read: Mind your own business and get to work, you lazy bum!) I am like a hungry marine predator (think baracuda) looking for the next big fish from you. Don't interrupt my conversations with my reader pals, thus stifling my inner child (LOL); and I won't dump a pail of water on your computer, thus preventing you from the writing task at hand!!

Okay, that was meant to be playful and hyperbolic, but not all that far from the truth, in that I expect that you as an author will be more concerned with your next novel than with micromanaging every little detail surrounding the work that you already published. I do not wish to have these dialogues with you on my review page, and I think you may find that many readers will also not want this. It's not a question of whether you have a "right" to speak, but of whether it is prudent to do so.

Let's say I write a review of your book that rankles you. Why would I want what you call dialogue but which I am certain will probably turn out to be a flame-out fiasco? Why would you want to be seen by other readers (who incidentally may also think I'm as big an idiot as you do, hypothetically speaking) as trampling over poor little Scamp, a nobody reviewer whom everybody will imagine is collapsed into tears, inconsolable, due to the horrible *attack* by the mean writer?

There is no winning for authors. Honestly, writers, it really is in your best interests to stay out of the reviews. It.Will.Make.You.Look.Wrong.Even.If.You.Are.Right. (That is... stay out unless it is a situation that is truly suspicious. Try not to be paranoid. Try not to be too trusting either.)

Signed,
Poor Little Nobody Scamp

P.S. Ha ha ha! I got a chuckle out of the 'Barnabas Collins' thing. Wasn't that a character on "Dark Shadows"? <snort>

P.P.S This was meant to be a general observation and not geared toward you in a personal sense, Terrence. I am not yet familiar with your work or even your posts on this forum. You raised some questions that spurred my interest. I am a very occasional visitor to Kindle Boards and was attracted to this thread due to my recent weird experience with reporting rogue reviewers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Barnabas can't die, so it is quite possible he might just pop up between the pages somewhere... somewhere he chooses. I'm uploading a new file of my book to fix some bonehead errors, so if you really can't sleep and decide to download it, give it a few days to get through the Amazon system.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Some things are simply not opinions. They are wrong.


Not that this subject hasn't already been beaten to death here, but I think this point bears repeating. There is a big difference between a negative _opinion_, no matter how valid or invalid, and a complete lie about a book, as happened in Maria Hooley's situation. Let's say, for example, a reader left a review on a children's book that said, "This is a terrible book for children, because it is filled with graphic sex and violence." That would be an opinion if it were _true_, but if the book contains no such material, then it's not an opinion; it's a bald-faced lie. An author should legitimately be able to respond to that comment or ask Amazon to remove it, without fear of reprisal.

In Maria's case, the vampire comment would likely drive away anyone who's not into vampire reads, and possibly sell the book to folks who are. Then the vampire fans would get angry when they found out the book was really about angels, and they'd probably leave negative reviews for being misled!


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> Let's be honest about a couple things here. First, a five-star review that says "Oh my god this is book is amazing! Buy it now!" isn't getting to help a book anymore than a one-star "Oh my good this book is awful! Do not buy it!" will it hurt it. These reviews tell readers nothing about the book, except that someone somewhere liked it and someone somewhere didn't. And I think in depth reviews of any kind - be it positive or negative - that can explain what they liked/didn't like do really help the book.
> 
> Second, unless we as authors have clear evidence that the person didn't read the book or has a vendetta against us, we must assume that the person who wrote a negative review actually read the book. At least in a public forum. And clear evidence is beyond "they only reviewed one book" or "they didn't mention specifics." A lot of reviews don't mention specifics. I don't usually when I write reviews of things I read. It doesn't mean I didn't read the books. It means I'm a bad review writer.
> 
> ...


Amanda, thank you for your observations. I agree with most of what you have said, especially your comment that more people are fair than unfair. In fact, I would say it is probably about in proportion to people we know in our daily lives. We all know some stinkers, but most of us probably know a whole lot more decent people.

Thank you to Edward Patterson. I don't come to the Kindle Boards very often, but I do enjoy your posts and find your tolerant attitude very healthy.

I appreciate the comments of all the authors of this thread, in part because I know how it feels to be critiqued due to my own artistic endeavors. Dealing with critiques from professionals is tough enough, but I think that the new amateur critiquing spawned from the ebook revolution has made it even tougher. Terrence made some interesting observations about these changes and what they might mean for authors and readers. Being defensive also comes with the territory, and I understand that also. I think the ability to take criticism is a struggle for most people. Also it must be said that self-publishing puts authors in the relatively new position of PR agent. There is a reason that people go to school and train for that. It is a talent all its own, and not everybody excels at it.

Even more, I enjoy reading the comments from the readers in the thread because I find myself reading what they are saying and thinking, "Yes!! I feel that way too!"


----------



## iamstoryteller (Jul 16, 2010)

Scamp said:


> Also it must be said that self-publishing puts authors in the relatively new position of PR agent. There is a reason that people go to school and train for that. It is a talent all its own, and not everybody excels at it.


Amen to that! (speaking for myself)



Scamp said:


> Even more, I enjoy reading the comments from the readers in the thread because I find myself reading what they are saying and thinking, "Yes!! I feel that way too!"


And we authors really appreciate comments from readers. Thanks for all your input, Scamp, it has been most edifying.

Sharon


----------



## destill (Oct 5, 2010)

Despite all of the "us against them" discussions, authors, readers, reviewers, and publishers are in a symbiotic relationship. If we post negative feedback, then we have to be prepared to receive negative feedback--and vice versa. There is no safe place to vent anymore. Writer's Cafe, like any other online community, includes viewers of all types, many of whom will not appreciate our momentary ire when derogatory remarks are made about our personal character, chosen profession, or hard work (regardless of where we are in the foodchain). 

I certainly appreciate anyone who's shelled out $2.99 and spent a few hours reading AND/OR reviewing my books. 

A good review can come from anywhere, as I suppose a bad one can too. It's all part of the literary landscape we must navigate.

Really, no part of this community is any less needed than the next. Every opinion matters and has some validity. We simply need to be judicious about when, why, and how we post those opinions. And "we" includes me.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm uploading a new file of my book to fix some bonehead errors, so if you really can't sleep and decide to download it, give it a few days to get through the Amazon system.
> 
> Thanks for an interesting discussion.


I forgot to ask you if you could somehow announce when your corrected book will be uploaded into the system. I tend to sample books from authors when I read posts here.


----------



## BlakeCrouch (Apr 18, 2010)

If you want to see some negative, horrific reviews, check out Konrath's and my "Serial." Of the almost 300 reviews, a very large chunk of these are angry, 1-star wonders. And here's the thing...the book is free, and Joe and I went out of our way to warn people of the subject matter. These are people who didn't read the product description, downloaded our freebie, and got mad b/c it wasn't what they expected. BUT...it's constantly in the top 100 of free stuff, because of those reviews I think. Readers are smart, and I'm surprised how many other reviewers have also come to our defense against these hit-reviews. If you're getting some 1-stars, you're inciting passion, and that's a good thing, I think.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

BlakeCrouch said:


> If you want to see some negative, horrific reviews, check out Konrath's and my "Serial." Of the almost 300 reviews, a very large chunk of these are angry, 1-star wonders. And here's the thing...the book is free, and Joe and I went out of our way to warn people of the subject matter. These are people who didn't read the product description, downloaded our freebie, and got mad b/c it wasn't what they expected. BUT...it's constantly in the top 100 of free stuff, because of those reviews I think. Readers are smart, and I'm surprised how many other reviewers have also come to our defense against these hit-reviews. If you're getting some 1-stars, you're inciting passion, and that's a good thing, I think.


It may be a good thing, but it still isn't fun, which is why authors have to be very, very careful about responding to these (with the best response probably being no response other than some nice comfort food).

David Dalglish


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

That's an old Marketing trick, page 253 in the Getting the Villagers Angry to Pursue You with Pitchforks chapter.   Nothing like branding with a real branding iron.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## BlakeCrouch (Apr 18, 2010)

"It may be a good thing, but it still isn't fun, which is why authors have to be very, very careful about responding to these (with the best response probably being no response other than some nice comfort food)."

Agreed. I would never, ever, ever respond to any negative review. Then the story becomes you. I just remind myself that everyone's entitled to their stupid opinion.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

BlakeCrouch said:


> If you want to see some *negative, horrific reviews,* check out Konrath's and my "Serial." Of the almost 300 reviews, a *very large chunk of these are angry, 1-star wonders*. And here's the thing...the book is free, and Joe and I *went out of our way to warn people of the subject matter.*


Whenever a writer on one of these forums invites the members to take a look at all of their negative reviews as an example of anger or misbehavior, I do so. I just took a quick read through 10 pages of "1-star wonders," and about 5 pages of your other reviews. What I saw was the vast majority were expecting "a thrilling piece of horrifying suspense," and "a deeply twisted version of an 'After School Special,'" and "a groundbreaking experiment in literary collaboration." Nowhere do I see in the description that this is a short story (not a novel) of extremely graphic and gruesome content.



> These are people who *didn't read the product description, downloaded our freebie, and got mad b/c it wasn't what they expected.* BUT...it's constantly in the top 100 of free stuff, because of those reviews I think. Readers are smart, and I'm surprised how many other reviewers have also come to our defense against these hit-reviews. If you're getting some 1-stars, you're inciting passion, and that's a good thing, I think.


When your book hit the free list, I took a look at the description, and came away expecting a psychological thriller - a novel - with a story, not just a condensed version of a hacker/slasher/rape/murder with all the story removed and just the gory bits.

When I look at the reviews, it appears to me that at least 1/2 of the people (from all star categories) read the reviews, had a different expectation (probably something like my expectations based on the review,) and got something else entirely. So yeah, they got mad for various reasons, but the primary note of all of the reviews seems to be that people didn't like either the story or the writing, which is a valid complaint, not IMO "negative, horrific reviews."

Of the opinions expressed in some 125+ 1 and 2 star reviews, I saw very few that felt like drive-by attacks. I don't think it matters one bit whether your book is free or $19.99 - the investment is not the money, but the time. Free does not entitle any writer to a "pass" when it comes to reader opinions.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> I don't think it matters one bit whether your book is free or $19.99 - the investment is not the money, but the time. Free does not entitle any writer to a "pass" when it comes to reader opinions.


StaceyHH, thank you for this thought. Just as writers invest time in creating their books, we readers invest our time in reading. [ever thought of a bad movie as "2 hours of my live I'll never get back"?]


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> When your book hit the free list, I took a look at the description, and came away expecting a psychological thriller - a novel - with a story, not just a condensed version of a hacker/slasher/rape/murder with all the story removed and just the gory bits.


I'll bite.

While Blake and I didn't have a say so in the description (my publisher released it. The version we released had a warning for graphic violence), the description seems pretty self explanatory:

Remember the twin golden rules of hitchhiking?
# 1: Don't go hitchhiking, because the driver who picks you up could be certifiably crazy.
# 2: Don't pick up hitchhikers, because the traveler you pick up could be raving nutcase.
So what if, on some dark, isolated road, Crazy #1 offered a ride to Nutcase #2?

When two of the most twisted minds in the world of horror fiction face off, the result is SERIAL, a terrifying tale of hitchhiking gone terribly wrong. Like a deeply twisted version of an "After School Special," SERIAL is the single most persuasive public service announcement on the hazards of free car rides. Beyond a thrilling piece of horrifying suspense, SERIAL is also a groundbreaking experiment in literary collaboration. Kilborn wrote the first part. Crouch wrote the second. And they wrote the third together over email in 100-word exchanges, not aware of each other's opening section. All bets were off, and may the best psycho win.

-------

Included in this description are the words: crazy, raving nutcase, twisted minds, horror fiction, terrifying, deeply twisted, horrifying suspense, and psycho. Plus, it's called SERIAL for heaven's sake.

That isn't enough to forewarn people?

Also, there are no "gory bits". The gory stuff is off the page. While the ebook has some horrible murders in it, there aren't any graphic descriptions.

Plus, as one of the writers, I'm pretty sure the story wasn't removed. In fact, the story is summed up in the description:

_So what if, on some dark, isolated road, Crazy #1 offered a ride to Nutcase #2?
_

Blake and I are pretty amused by all the hate this story has caused, and judging by how well SERIAL UNCUT sells, we know it has plenty of fans. I also 100% believe that all opinions are valid, and everyone is entitled to say and think what they like. If you didn't like it, that's cool.

But I'm reasonably confident the story is effective, and realizes its intent. Which means the story doesn't suck. It just doesn't appeal to everyone. Tearing down something that might appeal to someone else, based on personal bias, is bad reviewing.

If I had to guess, I'd say the story got to people, disgusted them (which was part of the point--it's a horror novella, and part of the fun for horror fans is being disgusted), and they knee-jerk reacted and spat venom.

I don't dig romance novels. And I certainly don't download them just because they're free, and then post reviews about how much they stink.

In fact, when I get something for free, there's a gift horse/mouth rule I follow. But that's me.

Would we ever respond to negative reviews? Of course not. But I do think reviewers should perhaps be a bit more thoughtful. While all the negativity didn't hurt my feelings, or hurt the downloads the ebook has gotten (over 300,000), going through life bashing things probably isn't a healthy way to live, and a lot of times what Peter says about Paul really says more about Peter than Paul.

And yes, the majority of those reviews were negative, horrific, drive by attacks that didn't require any thought at all on the part of the reviewer. If you'd care to debate, I can give examples.

Of course, a lot of glowing 5 star reviews are equally vapid. For a review to be helpful, it has to be more than "I loved it" or "I hated it."


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Tearing down something that might appeal to someone else, based on personal bias, is bad reviewing.
> 
> I don't dig romance novels. And I certainly don't download them just because they're free, and then post reviews about how much they stink.


This drives me crazy too, I dread when a review begins with "I got this as a gift and frankly&#8230;" It says, I didn't pick it, it's not my kind of book, I didn't like it and so now I am going to vent. They are still legitimate reviews just not terribly fair since we write to genre conventions and the reviewer is going to complain about the book as if the book invented the conventions not the other way around. Can you image getting erotica for a gift and writing a review that blasted it for have explicit sex scenes?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

CIBond said:


> Can you image getting erotica for a gift and writing a review that blasted it for have explicit sex scenes?


I'm pretty sure if you look, you will find such a review.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CIBond said:


> Can you image getting erotica for a gift and writing a review that blasted it for have explicit sex scenes?


Our internet society has spawned some major societal problems. We feel that now, just because we have a voice, we can use it all the time without thinking. And if we use it without thinking, it doesn't matter because there is no personal liability.

I'd never say something on the internet I wouldn't say to someone's face. Reading some of my 1 star reviews, I know that there is NO way most of those reviewers would say those things aloud to me. They'd remember their manners, and fear repercussion. But on the net, even Grandma can become a frothing meanie.

On an unrelated note @CIBond, I was intrigued enough by your banner to click on it, but it lead nowhere. I even tried to do an Amazon search and couldn't find your book.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> On an unrelated note @CIBond, I was intrigued enough by your banner to click on it, but it lead nowhere. I even tried to do an Amazon search and couldn't find your book.


I gave it to Candy's Raves for a review and she let me know that it would benefit from a copy-editor to correct some of the trickier grammar (there are just so many mistakes to make when you start out but I am managing to squeeze them all in). Anyway my final copy edit will be done Jan 4th and if my new cover is ready it will be back up a few days after that. The thing is if you don't like romance I'm not sure you will like it&#8230; Its sort of&#8230; Chicklit-Horror but graphic and dark - dismembered body parts that keep moving and some question as to the difference between an first date and a kidnapping a la demonic undead.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm not big on romance.

I do, however, dig dismembered body parts.  

Also, I read some of the samples on your website.

You need to get a better designed site, with more info, and better cover art. If you do that, I think you can sell the hell out of this book. It's fun, well written, and in a hot genre.

Much success to you.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> You need to get a better designed site, with more info, and better cover art. If you do that, I think you can sell the hell out of this book. It's fun, well written, and in a hot genre.


Thanks, you made my day.

I knew about the cover art and the typos but not the website (which I did myself). I'll add it to the list... there's probably a book on website design someplace.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

CIBond said:


> Thanks, you made my day.
> 
> I knew about the cover art and the typos but not the website (which I did myself). I'll add it to the list... there's probably a book on website design someplace.


Spend $300 and have a pro do it.

Or kill it completely and just use a free blog like Wordpress or Blogger.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Spend $300 and have a pro do it.
> 
> Or kill it completely and just use a free blog like Wordpress or Blogger.


I feel bad that this is so off topic but if you can recommend someone who will do it for $300 I am all ears. The quotes that I was seeing were closer to $1500


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I'll add it to the list... there's probably a book on website design someplace."_

Web site design depends on where you start. If you do it from scratch, writing your own html and css, it can be quite challenging. However, systems like WordPress or Blogger make it easier by offering "preprogrammed" options that one can customize to their own needs. They will even host the system so you don't have to deal with a server farm. These systems can produce excellent web pages.

There is no right answer that applies to everyone. One question to think about is how often you might want to change the webpage and how you will do that. Good luck.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

I could not sleep, so I signed onto the Internet.  I should never visit a forum in a sleepy state.  I must apologize, sibelhodge, because I accidently clicked the link of "report to moderator" on your post.  I have no idea how the mouse went there.  Bleh. What do they do when this happens?  Is there somebody I need to talk to so that it is known that I clicked accidentally?


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

sibelhodge said:


> Oh, no! I've been reported!


So what happens next? Do you go on the lam? Wire location; I'll send money.

(I feel really dumb. lol)


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

The mods will show up, read the post, and then respond appropriately. If there's nothing wrong (which seems most likely) they'll just ignore it. And they'll also see your post saying "ack sorry!" to give them a hint as to why. Don't worry about it. No witch hunts here.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> The mods will show up, read the post, and then respond appropriately. If there's nothing wrong (which seems most likely) they'll just ignore it. And they'll also see your post saying "ack sorry!" to give them a hint as to why. Don't worry about it. No witch hunts here.


I disagree with your post and just reported you.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Scamp said:


> So what happens next? Do you go on the lam? Wire location; I'll send money.
> 
> (I feel really dumb. lol)


Sibel, If you have to go on the lam, take your Kindle. We'll send you books from time to time 

Scamp - don't worry about it. Pretty much what Half-Orc said. And by the way - welcome to KindleBoards


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am thinking lots of bribing is required at this point. I would start trying with chocolates.


----------



## iamstoryteller (Jul 16, 2010)

Or you could buy her book, I bet that would go a long way to redemption...


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

Be nice to my friend Scamp, you guys! She's a sharp one!  

(Despite a tendency toward MWI--mousing while insomniac.) 

Let's share some chocolate this morning, Sibel! Here's a virtual Terry's chocolate orange from me! (whizzzzzz! Whack!)


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

sibelhodge said:


> CHOCOLATES! Yes, purleasssssse!


Did somebody mention CHOCOLATE?


Spoiler



you know that always gets my attention.



Scamp, like the others have said, the mods will look at the post, scratch their heads and maybe PM you, but it's not like the report goes on your record or Seibel's.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"This could also be true because indies are batting from the underdog position."_

Good point. Sometimes the underdogs try to portray themselves as more genuine that the normal old dogs.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I disagree with your post and just reported you.


Wait, what, are we on the Amazon forums now?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"IMHO the underdog always has to work harder and try and be better than the normal old dogs."_

I agree. And the work has to be directed in an efficient and effecive manner. So, I never discount all those tricks the old dogs learned on the way up. There's a reason they are the old dogs. When I see the mutual admiration society at work on the back of all those best-selling book covers, and see the cross posting of reviews by big name authors, I have to wonder if independents might be taking it a bit too seriously. Readers just don't seem to care what the big dogs do. Should we expect they will rally care if independents do the same? I don't have the answer, just observe the market and have the questions.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

CIBond said:


> This drives me crazy too, I dread when a review begins with "I got this as a gift and frankly&#8230;" It says, I didn't pick it, it's not my kind of book, I didn't like it and so now I am going to vent. They are still legitimate reviews just not terribly fair since we write to genre conventions and the reviewer is going to complain about the book as if the book invented the conventions not the other way around. Can you image getting erotica for a gift and writing a review that blasted it for have explicit sex scenes?


My erotic romance has garnered more negative reviews than any of my other titles, and without fail the criticisms have to do with a) the amount of sex, b) the type of sex acts depicted, and c) the amount of sex. lol. Fair enough...clearly there are readers who expect a certain level of sexual content in an erotic romance book and I managed to exceed that level. Go me!

Incidentally, these negative reviews honestly don't bother me much. Although it does feel "unfair" to get dinged for too much sex in an erotica book, I figure that those readers who are looking for a sexy book will read those reviews and figure they've just hit the jackpot. And those who aren't will be warned away, hopefully.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I got a yellow shirt for Christmas. I look terrible in yellow. This shirt sucks. I would never buy it. One star.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I got a yellow shirt for Christmas. I look terrible in yellow. This shirt sucks. I would never buy it. One star.


The maker of that shirt should be ashamed that they manufactured something you look terrible in. And you should also complain to the store that sells those yellow shirts.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Apples and oranges. Doesn't matter if the book was a gift, and outside of their regular reading preferences. If they read the book, in whole or in part, the reader is entitled to comment, after all they HAVE invested their time. Not being nice is not an invalidation of the review. 

Ridiculing reviewers, however, is a sure-fire way to make sure that reviewers who CAN make a difference by leaving well-written and thoughtful reviews, will opt out of ever reviewing (or even reading) your book.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

sibelhodge said:


> I'm going to ask a question, because I'm really interested in the answer...
> 
> If you saw a negative review that read:
> 
> ...


Both reviews are pretty meaningless to me as a reader. I wouldn't base a buying decision on just a generic review UNLESS it was from a known individual who I know has similar tastes. (There are a few people on GR that I've interacted with enough to know if they say "I loved it," there's a high probability I will too. Same for "hated it.")

In either instance, I see a reader - someone who invested their time in both the reading and the review. I don't think most people spend a lot of time thinking about the writer as a person. So when someone says about a book "I hated it, it was awful," it's generally genuine, if not especially nice. But it's no more malicious than asking them if they want brussel sprouts for dinner, and them responding (tactlessly) with a gag noise.

Same with the ""I loved it!" review. The reviewer is not writing it to be personally nice to the writer - it's a comment on something which is more or less regarded by the reader as a commodity - it's an organically generated story, meant to be consumed and "used up."



> I suppose, like anything creative, where you spend so much time putting your heart and soul into and slogging your guts out over, sometimes you are going to get upset or over-sensitive to a negative review. I guess how the review is written will also be a factor in how you react to it. *Authors are people too with feelings. *


And that, right there, is where the disconnect begins. Readers read books, we don't go to the bookstore and befriend writers, we go to bookstores, look at the cover art, read the blurb, and buy the book. Then we read the book and stash it on a shelf or dump it at the Goodwill. If we become a "fan" of a particular writer or series, we might _then_ become curious about the personal thoughts/feelings/lifestyle/politics, etc, of the author. But reading "So and so lives in Maine with her 4 dogs and a gerbil," on the back cover is only germane to the reader if they _also_ live in Maine, or have 4 dogs and a gerbil. All the reader _really_ cares about is whether or not you write well, connect with the reader _in the pages of the work they are reading,_ and keep their interest. Not whether you have only 3 dogs and a Budgie.

And as far as people who seem to be making personal attacks in their negative reviews (as well as positive reviews that sound like they want to fly to your house and bring you cookies,) some people on the internet are incapable of voicing an opinion without it sounding personal. This is a failing of the communication medium more than it is a personal connection. I believe it's a mistake to give those types of comments any more weight than "poorly written review."

On a similar note, I have an internet friend who says he doesn't write "reviews," but rather he "discusses his experience" in reading a book. I believe this wording is much more reflective of how most of us casual reviewers are commenting. It's not a formula, many of us choose to talk about more than just the style and content of the words we are reading, instead we are thinking (and perhaps writing) of all the surrounding ephemera, thoughts and environment that contributes to our enjoyment, or lack of, in reading.

Most of the time, I suspect, that additional information never makes it into a review, and thus there is no context for "I hated it, it sucked, don't read this."


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Not being nice is not an invalidation of the review.


Reviewing a steak, when you're a vegetarian, certainly skews the review. And to then blame the cow for the steak, or the farmer who raised it, is a bit silly. That behavior shouldn't be encouraged.

But I agree is shouldn't be directly opposed by the author.

I once got a review from Kirkus (one of the major review magazines) that said, "Konrath's prose is as careless as it is wretched."

I admit to laughing like crazy when I saw it, and I even used it as a blurb on the back of one of my books. But the reason this review was bad wasn't because of the opinion stated, it was because the reviewer--a supposed professional--didn't articulate why they reached that opinion.

I don't mind detractors. But, c'mon, at least back-up your vitriol with reasons.

The internet, for all its wonders, has made it too easy to instantly criticize things, with zero accountability. Any way you slice it, that's not a good thing.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Reviewing a steak, when you're a vegetarian, certainly skews the review. And to then blame the cow for the steak, or the farmer who raised it, is a bit silly. That behavior shouldn't be encouraged.


If you ate the steak, regardless of whether or not you are vegetarian, you have the right to comment on the flavor. And if the rancher who raised it, chose to feed it corn for its entire life, commenting on the ranch and the rancher would certainly be relevant. Perhaps blaming the cow would be a bit over the top though - like blaming the author for the publisher's choice in paper - but it wouldn't be a completely irrelevant comment.

At Christmas dinner this year, we had lamb. After dinner one of my friends said that she didn't really enjoy it because she prefers not to eat baby animals. She said nothing about the taste, the preparation, the presentation, but her feelings about eating the lamb were no less valid or relevant. She ate it, she has the right to tell us if she liked it, regardless of her personal criteria for deciding.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> At Christmas dinner this year, we had lamb. After dinner one of my friends said that she didn't really enjoy it because she prefers not to eat baby animals. She said nothing about the taste, the preparation, the presentation, but her feelings about eating the lamb were no less valid or relevant. She ate it, she has the right to tell us if she liked it, regardless of her personal criteria for deciding.


If your friend said, "This lamb sucks, and you're terrible for preparing it" that pretty much sums up 90% of the 1 star reviews Blake and I got for SERIAL. And it wouldn't be fair to you, or the lamb.

I know that all feelings and opinions are valid. But they can be presented intelligently, without being a jerk.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> If your friend said, "This lamb sucks, and you're terrible for preparing it" that pretty much sums up 90% of the 1 star reviews Blake and I got for SERIAL. And it wouldn't be fair to you, or the lamb.
> 
> I know that all feelings and opinions are valid. But they can be presented intelligently, without being a jerk.


I read ALL of your 1-star reviews for Serial, at the behest of this thread. This was not the impression I got, so I am suggesting that perhaps your personal REACTION to said reviews is informing your perception of them more than the actual content. I agree that a _few_ of the reviews were indeed of the "you're an awful person" variety, but only a very few.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Do book reviews exist anymore? The reason I ask is because the nature of the aggregate under Amazon's "Reviews" heading appears to be very different from what we saw in newspapers and magazines before 1990.  I'm talking about everything in Amazon. All of it.

If everything in Amazon is a book review, then I'd suggest the term has lost the meaning it once conveyed, and we are complicit in diluting the tradition. 

I'd go further and suggest there are many excellent reviews written today that continue the tradition of the past. There are more, in fact, because the internet has opened doors to reviewers' talent that didn't have an outlet before. But there are also many more comments posted under "Reviews" that have little in common with that tradition.

Is there a reason to think today's reviewers in the established tradition feel a kinship with anyone posting anything under "Reviews?" Why?

Matthew Arnold said criticism is the identification of the best that has been thought and written. Should entries under Amazon's "Reviews" be subject to that same standard, or do they get a pass?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> I read ALL of your 1-star reviews for Serial, at the behest of this thread. This was not the impression I got, so I am suggesting that perhaps your personal REACTION to said reviews is informing your perception of them more than the actual content. I agree that a _few_ of the reviews were indeed of the "you're an awful person" variety, but only a very few.


Perhaps your personal dislike of the material is informing your perception, as it did with the many 1 star reviewers. Not liking something doesn't equate to it being bad. That's my point. But the majority of those reviews were flat out biased, leveling insults without backing up opinion with logic, facts, or examples.

SERIAL isn't poorly written, by any definition of the term. It isn't graphic. It isn't gratuitous. It isn't vulgar. It isn't violent for violence's sake. It isn't dozens of things it has been called.

The majority of the one star reviews are by people who were disgusted. That's fine. I can't argue with that.

But that ain't smart reviewing, and akin to saying "This lamb sucks, and you're terrible for preparing it."

I think we can go back and forth on this all day, and it won't get anywhere.

Reviewers have a right to say what they think about books. I have a right to think they're wrong, and I believe I've ably defended my reasons for them being wrong. But I'm not going to list all 97 reviews, going point by point, because I don't believe I'll convince you even if I do.

That said, it's been fun debating you.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2011)

When I see a cow, I don't think "I want to eat that." But when there's a steak on the grill, I start to get _hungry_. I love animals, I just love to eat them more.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Perhaps your personal dislike of the material is informing your perception, as it did with the many 1 star reviewers. Not liking something doesn't equate to it being bad. That's my point. But the majority of those reviews were flat out biased, leveling insults without backing up opinion with logic, facts, or examples.


Perhaps I read 100+ reviews for another book called SERIAL. Because the impression I was left with is that the majority of the reviews comment directly on content.



> SERIAL isn't poorly written, by any definition of the term. It isn't graphic. It isn't gratuitous. It isn't vulgar. It isn't violent for violence's sake. It isn't dozens of things it has been called.


Cutting off eyelids with swiss army knives isn't graphic? a corncob rape isn't gratuitous? Seriously? The goal of this novel is not to write an ultra-violent horror novel? And I believe "poorly written," is subjective. The writer certainly is not going to think he/she wrote crap, but if 1/3 of your poor reviews specifically mention that they thought the writing was bad, that's a conservative 10% of reviewers whose subjective opinion that it is "poorly written" is based upon having read the book.



> The majority of the one star reviews are by people who were disgusted. That's fine. I can't argue with that.
> 
> But that ain't smart reviewing, and akin to saying "This lamb sucks, and you're terrible for preparing it."
> 
> ...


I agree we could argue point by point all day. However, I also believe that you are grossly misrepresenting your reviewers by dismissing the majority of them as writing "this sucks, don't read it" reviews.

AS A READER, I'm telling you that the collective impression of the negative reviews of your book is an impression of valid reviews. Based on all of the confirming details presented in your 1-star review, as a reader, I can confidently say that this is a book I would never read. I think I'm quite capable of determining the relative value of this:

"this is the worst book i have ever read. 30 minutes of my life i will never get back."

vs. this:

"I love discovering new authors and genres on my Kindle, and I've seen this short story on the Kindle best sellers list for awhile. As an avid fan of horror movies and free Kindle downloads, I figured it was a no-brainer.

The concept behind the story is interesting. One author writes a chapter from his characters POV, then another author writes the second chapter from his character's POV. Neither know what the other will write until the third chapter, when the characters meet up and face-off.

While the concept is interesting, the execution is terrible. It plays out like a cheesy version of "Tales From the Crypt" with none of the delightful campiness the show had. Character motivations, backgrounds or personalities are never explained and hardly developed.

The authors brag at the end about how gruesome and crazy the storyline is, but it reads like two frat boys who got high and then tried to gross each other out"

I did find it mildly amusing that about 25 of your 1-star reviews were complaining that you _weren't_ graphic and violent enough, and at least a dozen more complained about it being too short.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

You just can't agree to disagree, can you?



StaceyHH said:


> Cutting off eyelids with swiss army knives isn't graphic? or gratuitous? Seriously?


If SERIAL had contained the passage: (Warning! Gross!)



Spoiler



"As the man screamed and begged for the agony to stop, the killer pinched his tender eyelid and stretched it out like a rubber band. Working slowly, he brought the needle-sharp scissors up and began bisecting the eyelashes, the blades cutting quickly, the blood spurting across his fingers making them slip as the wide, terrified eyeball was completely exposed."



then, yes, you could truthfully say it was graphic and gratuitous.

But that passage isn't in SERIAL. Here's what is in SERIAL:

"The tiny scissors worked well on eyelids."

That's all. That's it. No more. Not a lick more description. And that isn't, by definition, graphic, or gratuitous. It is understated, and leaves it up to the reader's imagination.

Horrible things happen in the story. After all, it's about two serial killers. But the descriptions are, for the most part, off the page.

Less is more. Writing 101.



StaceyHH said:


> The goal of this novel is not to write an ultra-violent horror novel?


Look up "splatterpunk." Jack Ketchum, Skipp and Spector, Ed Lee, Wrath James White. JF Gonzolez. They write some really ultra-violent stuff.

SERIAL is not ultra-violent. It's a character study of what happens when two predators meet. How does evil react when it sees evil?

The uncut version explores this deeper, and gets a bit into motivation. But the goal was to put two monsters in the same room and see what they do, not write ultra-violence.



StaceyHH said:


> And I believe "poorly written," is subjective.


And you'd be wrong.

Grammar and correct sentence structure are academic, not subjective. SERIAL follows classic narrative structure, with conflict, rising action, and resolution. We did exactly what we wanted to do, because we understand storytelling. Though the format was experimental, both Blake and I are professionals who know what we need to do in order to carry a story forward.

All those who said the writing was bad didn't point out a single instance where the writing was bad. And guess what? I've judged more than 20,000 stories for various Writer's Digest contests. In every instance I can point out bad writing, clearly and distinctly.

SERIAL is not badly written. It simply disgusts people. And then those people, offended that they read something that disturbed them, rushed to Amazon to pan it.

When, in fact, if something could effect them so badly, it pretty much shows how effective the story is.



StaceyHH said:


> I agree we could argue point by point all day. However, I also believe that you are grossly misrepresenting your reviewers by dismissing the majority of them as writing "this sucks, don't read it" reviews.


The reviewers, like you, are wrong. Simple as that.

They didn't like the subject matter, most of them probably had no idea what they were getting into when they began the story (it's a horror story about SERIAL KILLERS, duh) and because they hated it they knee jerk reacted.

I'm not saying people didn't hate it. I'm saying that not liking something doesn't mean it's bad. But the average reader has a hard time distinguishing between their own, personal tastes and what quality is.



StaceyHH said:


> "I love discovering new authors and genres on my Kindle, and I've seen this short story on the Kindle best sellers list for awhile. As an avid fan of horror movies and free Kindle downloads, I figured it was a no-brainer.
> 
> The concept behind the story is interesting. One author writes a chapter from his characters POV, then another author writes the second chapter from his character's POV. Neither know what the other will write until the third chapter, when the characters meet up and face-off.
> 
> While the concept is interesting, the execution is terrible. It plays out like a cheesy version of "Tales From the Crypt" with none of the delightful campiness the show had. Character motivations, backgrounds or personalities are never explained and hardly developed."


At least that reviewer made an effort.

But she loses me in a few places. "A cheesy version of Tales of the Crypt" is redundant--that show was purposefully cheesy.

SERIAL isn't cheesy. Nor is it campy. It's sly, and mean, and she's comparing apples to oranges.

But still, at least she made an effort at writing an informative review. She might not of liked it, but she didn't dismiss it outright. And she's right about character motivations and backgrounds; they aren't developed. But that was intentional on our part.

Metaphorically, SERIAL is about a shark fighting an alligator. We saw no need to explain the background of either. It wasn't what we were trying to accomplish. Both sharks and alligators are nasty predators. So are serial killers. The story isn't about mental problems or broken homes or child abuse or anything that might turn someone into a serial killer. "Here are two serial killers in the same car" was all the motivation and backstory we wanted.

As for personalities, I disagree. Both Donaldson and Lucy have distinct, unique, and developed personalities. Anyone who reads the story can easily picture them, tell the difference between them, and understand what each wants.



StaceyHH said:


> I did find it mildly amusing that about 25 of your 1-star reviews were complaining that you _weren't_ graphic and violent enough, and at least a dozen more complained about it being too short.


I find all of it amusing. I find it most amusing of all that I'm continuing this debate.

SERIAL is free. But Blake and I have made about $20,000 on it. SERIAL UNCUT has sold over 8000 copies. We sold the movie rights to SERIAL. We sold the audio rights to SERIAL. It's appearing in the anthology SHIVERS IV. SERIAL is the first story in the collection. The second story is by some guy named Stephen King. Perhaps he can't write either?

So, for the last time, let me state that SERIAL is not poorly written, and some reviewers are morons.

Now I really have to get some writing done...


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Based on all of the confirming details presented in your 1-star review, as a reader, I can confidently say that this is a book I would never read.


Hold the phone, I missed that earlier.

You haven't read SERIAL?

You're really agreeing with reviews when you haven't read the story?

Ugh.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Yes, I'm commenting on the content of the reviews, not the content of your story, which I've made abundantly clear in my comments. I'm not saying that the 1-star reviewers are expressing the same opinion I would have had if I read the book, I'm saying that your reviewers are not idiots, as you seem to be claiming.

I'm objecting to the wholesale painting of 1-star reviewers as somehow holding less-valid opinions, being "drive-by" reviewers or otherwise malicious simply because they don't leave a detailed review. I'm objecting to the characterization of "90%" of your 1-star reviews as more or less worthless.

By the way, I find it DO disgusting that you are forcing an extremely graphic writing sample on this thread.

Although I suppose I am grateful to you for illustrating so exquisitely my issues with the adversarial relationship that _some_ writers have toward their readers.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

If anyone likes horror and wants to read SERIAL for free, here's the link to the Kindle version, Sony version, and a downloadable pdf.

http://www.blakecrouch.com/serial.shtml

If you could handle Silence of the Lambs or The Stand, you can handle SERIAL.

If you're easily disturbed, I don't recommend it.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> By the way, I find it DO disgusting that you are forcing an extremely graphic writing sample on this thread.


I wouldn't go so far to call it disgusting, but could you uh, spoiler tag that passage maybe? I'm kind of easily grossed out and I only read a snippet of it before quickly scrolling on, but I feel a bit queasy now. XD

There is a reason I do not read that genre!

Edit: Much appreciated, thank you.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Jessica Billings said:


> I wouldn't go so far to call it disgusting, but could you uh, spoiler tag that passage maybe? I'm kind of easily grossed out and I only read a snippet of it before quickly scrolling on, but I feel a bit queasy now. XD
> 
> There is a reason I do not read that genre!


Sorry. Didn't know spoiler tags were an option. Just did it.

I'm not a fan of gratuitous or graphic violence. Which is why I don't write gratuitous or graphic violence. Which is why I get annoyed when someone tells me it is, when it isn't.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

One of my contentions is readers react to the same phenomenon in all kinds of different ways, and it's a mistake to attribute a single reaction or attitude to all those readers. I really don't think anyone speaks for readers and can accurately say readers want this and don't want that.

As a reader, my reaction to the exchange between Stacey and Jack was to click on the BUY button after Jack's 6:26pm post. I'm not even sure if it cost me money. I probably would have paid $10 simply because of the exchange. Now I am really interested in reading _Serial_. The discussion opened up a whole new dimension for me.

Stacey has a perspective, Jack has another, and the reviewers all have their own. But, they all caught my interest, and now I will decide for myself.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Hah!  I downloaded Serial when it was first offered.  I'm soooo tempted by this thread to read it NAO, rather than later.  For the record, I think the first example of eyelid mutilation (the spoiler-tagged bit, to clarify) was gratuitously violent.  The actual line from the story?  Disturbing, you bet!  Graphic, no.  Thanks for the debate


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

I'd like to apologize to Stacey for posting that gratuitous bit without adding the spoiler screen. I wasn't even aware a spoiler screen existed, and I certainly don't want to offend anyone. As I said, I don't like graphic writing either.

I'd also like to thank Stacey for maintaining grace and composure on an issue we so bluntly disagreed on. She's a class act.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Thanks for the spoiler tags. I don't always feel like a class act, sometimes I'm just a cranky old lady.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

StaceyHH said:


> Thanks for the spoiler tags. I don't always feel like a class act, sometimes I'm just a cranky old lady.


See? I was right. That's pure class right there.

Thanks for the discussion. You made some valid points I'll be thinking about for a while.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Last time this topic came up, I pondered it a while and then wandered off to Goodreads to write a blog post outlining my personal opinion on negative reviews and author opinions. Here it is, if anyone's interested in reading it:



> I'm a pretty easy-going gal. Honest. If you're ever pausing with your mouse pointer over a 1-star rating for one of my books and wondering if I'll burst into tears and/or rampage after you with a machete for it, relax. Go ahead and click. Seriously.
> 
> First, I know that my books aren't perfect. I work hard on them to make sure they're as good as I can get them, and then I put them out there. But I never labour under the delusion that I've written the first faultless book in the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlakeCrouch (Apr 18, 2010)

Apologies....I guess I sort of started this mess by complaining about what I deemed were unfair (for all the reasons Jack illustrated, not trying to repeat anything) reviews. I guess this just shows that even two guys who write poorly-written, gratuitously violent, fiction have feelings.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

BlakeCrouch said:


> Apologies....I guess I sort of started this mess by complaining about what I deemed were unfair (for all the reasons Jack illustrated, not trying to repeat anything) reviews. I guess this just shows that even two guys who write poorly-written, gratuitously violent, fiction have feelings.


Don't lie. You have no feelings.

Also, all those bad reviews were talking about the parts you wrote. The parts I wrote got us those 5 star reviews.

FWIW - Blake and I are hard at work on KILLERS, the sequel to SERIAL. He's writing the verbs.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> And that, right there, is where the disconnect begins. Readers read books, we don't go to the bookstore and befriend writers, we go to bookstores, look at the cover art, read the blurb, and buy the book.


Would it be fair to say that, on the flip side, writers read reviews to get intelligent feedback on their writing? If the negative feedback isn't from someone who understands the genre it will be dismissed out of hand. I am pleased if someone is happy with my book if they are new to the genre, perhaps they will buy another but I question the intelligence of someone who blasts it for being what it is - the yellow shirt for being yellow in ignorance of the fact that all shirts sold in this store are yellow. It is still a valid review - just not one that has any value for me.

I will review any Urban Fantasy because I have read so completely in that genre that I am very qualified. I won't review porn though - not qualified to render an intelligent opinion. PNR/Porn - I have reviewed and I tried to be careful about my expectations. If I didn't like the book I probably wouldn't have published the review. If I didn't like an Urban Fantasy I have no problem publishing the review. I am an Urban Fantasy Goddess. 



StaceyHH said:


> Ridiculing reviewers, however, is a sure-fire way to make sure that reviewers who CAN make a difference by leaving well-written and thoughtful reviews, will opt out of ever reviewing (or even reading) your book.


There is no need for the author to ridicule a reviewer. Other reviewers will do it pretty fast, especially if it is a beloved book or the reviewer is particularly clueless about the genre.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

"Come on, people, move along, nothin' to see h- OH MY GOD, a flaming plane crash!! Come on, crowd around!"

-- Chief Wiggum, _The Simpsons_


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> If anyone likes horror and wants to read SERIAL for free, here's the link to the Kindle version, Sony version, and a downloadable pdf.
> http://www.blakecrouch.com/serial.shtml
> If you could handle Silence of the Lambs or The Stand, you can handle SERIAL.


See stop right now my TBR list is long enough and I've been itching to read this already. (I will buy it though)

On the serious side. I have read and followed this thread since it popped up but have resisted commenting. Here are my thought for what they are worth.

1) Reviewers whether good or bad can say what they want. It can be inaccurate, mean, and spiteful.
2) Authors can feel however they want about the reviews, but as stated earlier by another. "We became our own walking talking PR machines the moment we hit the submit button."
3) As authors we are very rarely if ever allowed to respond to the criticisms and reviews whether good or bad. This is the nature of the industry. If we don't like it we can choose to pull our books and walk away.
4) I think it is best to remember that these are another persons opinions and as a mechanic friend put it so eloquently. "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one."
5) As far as pulling reviews I am not a fan of it, unless the reviewer clearly states they have not read the book (Yes I did get a review like this).


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> "Come on, people, move along, nothin' to see h- OH MY GOD, a flaming plane crash!! Come on, crowd around!"
> 
> -- Chief Wiggum, _The Simpsons_


I told you not to post that 1-star review of Twilight... "Craptastic Sparkly B&D Boyfriend Fantasy" is going to get some people upset.

(I am kidding BTW - I don't know Doug and so for all I know he read Twilight and loved it.)



Laurensaga said:


> 3) As authors we are very rarely if ever allowed to respond to the criticisms and reviews whether good or bad. This is the nature of the industry. If we don't like it we can choose to pull our books and walk away.


Choose not to respond. It's smart not to respond? Allowed implies that there is something other than common sense guiding this and since all reviews invite comments you can in fact comment if you so choose.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Laurensaga said:


> 5) As far as pulling reviews I am not a fan of it, unless the reviewer clearly states they have not read the book (Yes I did get a review like this).


I saw that review you're talking about. I see your book a lot around mine, and sometimes I check out the reviews for fun. And I saw a review on your book clearly stating they didn't read it. I wanted to say something, but I didn't because I knew it would just make things worse (both for you and me). So, props to you for not responding. I also agree with everything else you said.


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

CIBond said:


> Laurensaga said:
> 
> 
> > 3) As authors we are very rarely if ever allowed to respond to the criticisms and reviews whether good or bad. This is the nature of the industry. If we don't like it we can choose to pull our books and walk away.
> ...


I made a poor word choice. Yes we are allowed to respond, but I believe not responding is the best response.

For me it is a common sense issue and placing trust in our readers or potential readers. Some may be swayed by a hackneyed review, I do not think this is the norm. Perhaps I am too trusting. I hope and think the readers are smart enough to make up their own minds.

I think the funniest thing for me is the fact that when I look at a book I rarely if ever look at the reviews. I do limit my searches at times to three stars and above, but usually I just browse in a category. If the cover is catchy, the blurb is good, and the sample is good I will purchase the book regardless of stars or reviews.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

One thing I've noticed that bothers me a lot is that when I buy one of your books, read it, take the time to write an honest, in-depth review and post it to Amazon, I've been getting a bunch of "not helpful" comments. I notice this happens a h*** of a lot more with Indie writers than with traditionally published ones. I hate this because it drives down my reviewer rankings. I cross-post these reviews other places, like Goodreads and my own blog, where the feedback on my reviews is largely positive and there are no "helpful or not" buttons that effect rankings or sales. I've also noticed a general trend in lower review ratings for Indie authors across the board at Amazon, even though sales are climbing. Maybe it's time to break out my tin foil hat, but I cannot believe it's a random thing.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

How ironic. The reviewer that initiated my part of the thread...the one that slammed my book, slammed all of my reviewers and slammed the entire indie author industry...and was subsequently removed by Amazon has reposted a review. This time I've slunk from two stars in her estimation to one star.



> Don't waste your money, December 28, 2010
> By R. Esposito
> Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
> This review is from: Loose Ends (A Mary O'Reilly Paranormal Mystery) (Kindle Edition)
> ...


For those of you who wonder - I'm not going to do a thing about this review. Although she did slightly disparage the other reviews and self-published Kindle writers - it wasn't overt. So, she's staying where she is...


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

There are ill-conceived reviews, both positive and negative. There are shills and there are trolls. (I know all about trolls, trust me!) There are thoughtful, helpful reviews, both positive and negative. None of them should be responded to, IMO. 

The more negative, ill-conceived, or trollish the review is, the greater the temptation. We must not give in! 
I suffered through three years of the same annoying troll (another well-known indie author famous for underhanded tactics) who would hit my books with 'reviews' accusing me of everything from plagiarism to sock-puppetry. He would also start bogus 'discussion threads' in which he claims my awards to be false, my ethics questionable, that I am a threat to other indies, and so on, and so on. That damage remains. I have never responded to it (the one exception was on the 'this award is a lie' thread--I thanked him, as I was unaware that there were several awards with the same name. I then clarified the information on my blog, as I would not want to mislead my readers).  

I was a relatively new author when these attacks began, and they devastated not only my ratings but my pride. I felt absolutely helpless and I couldn't fathom why anyone would attack me in this way. This same troll targeted several others at the same time, which brought some comfort. They responded--I didn't. Their damage went on far longer. I wept and gnashed my teeth in silence. Then a wondrous thing happened--the reviews were voted down. Now, they are still there, because the sock-puppet army voted them back up, but the comments on them and on the 'discussion threads' are from readers defending my honor. There can be no finer response than that.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Archer (the Dinosaur) said:


> There are ill-conceived reviews, both positive and negative. There are shills and there are trolls. (I know all about trolls, trust me!) There are thoughtful, helpful reviews, both positive and negative. None of them should be responded to, IMO.
> 
> The more negative, ill-conceived, or trollish the review is, the greater the temptation. We must not give in!
> I suffered through three years of the same annoying troll (another well-known indie author famous for underhanded tactics) who would hit my books with 'reviews' accusing me of everything from plagiarism to sock-puppetry. He would also start bogus 'discussion threads' in which he claims my awards to be false, my ethics questionable, that I am a threat to other indies, and so on, and so on. That damage remains. I have never responded to it (the one exception was on the 'this award is a lie' thread--I thanked him, as I was unaware that there were several awards with the same name. I then clarified the information on my blog, as I would not want to mislead my readers).
> ...


I agree with you - and good for you for sticking to the high road.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Vicki Keire said:


> One thing I've noticed that bothers me a lot is that when I buy one of your books, read it, take the time to write an honest, in-depth review and post it to Amazon, I've been getting a bunch of "not helpful" comments. I notice this happens a h*** of a lot more with Indie writers than with traditionally published ones. I hate this because it drives down my reviewer rankings. I cross-post these reviews other places, like Goodreads and my own blog, where the feedback on my reviews is largely positive and there are no "helpful or not" buttons that effect rankings or sales. I've also noticed a general trend in lower review ratings for Indie authors across the board at Amazon, even though sales are climbing. Maybe it's time to break out my tin foil hat, but I cannot believe it's a random thing.


Honestly, I wouldn't sweat it. I have a lot of my reviews voted not helpful on Amazon and TRR, for both indie books and traditionally pubbed. Yes, it dings my pride, and I'm frustrated that I don't at least have a review to go on - just a big, fat, "Not helpful", but oh, well. From what I've seen, I don't think it has anything to do with indie vs. trad.pub. I think it has to do with how much or how little people agree with the points you raise.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Awww, thanks, Sibel


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

sibelhodge said:


> Well, I have to say, Arkali, that I think your reviews are always thorough and objective.


I agree. And helpful!


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Writers shouldn't ever respond to reviewers, though every once and a while Blake and I will drink too much beer and think about making comments on all the 1 star wonders in the SERIAL thread, just to generate controversy. It never gets beyond thinking about it, though. Still, it would be fun until the negative public reaction began to hurt us financially, which I beleive it would.

The fact is, Amazon reviews help sell books. As readers, we're savvy enough to see when someone has an agenda. We can recognize sniping, and pettiness. The fact that SERIAL has gotten a hundred terrible reviews and is still being downloaded so often is proof that a bunch of negative morons really can't hurt your book.

The more reviews, the better, whether they're good or bad. 

Also, it's important to remember to take NO review, good or bad, seriously.

Praise is like candy. We like it, but it isn't healthy.

The opinions of strangers, positive or negative, just don't matter. If you begin seeking praise or bridling at critics, you're on a slippery slope to unhappiness.

A caveat, however. If several people have the same criticism (the ending is too abrupt, the main character is a jerk, the formatting is bad, there are too many typos) that is something you should listen to.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Writers shouldn't ever respond to reviewers, though every once and a while Blake and I will drink too much beer and think about making comments on all the 1 star wonders in the SERIAL thread, just to generate controversy. It never gets beyond thinking about it, though. Still, it would be fun until the negative public reaction began to hurt us financially, which I beleive it would.
> 
> The fact is, Amazon reviews help sell books. As readers, we're savvy enough to see when someone has an agenda. We can recognize sniping, and pettiness. The fact that SERIAL has gotten a hundred terrible reviews and is still being downloaded so often is proof that a bunch of negative morons really can't hurt your book.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Jack.

Terri


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

This constant calling of reviewers morons is really off putting. Is that really necessary? All these demands being put on the low star reviewers about having to write intelligibly and detailed and who knows what else, all based on the superior knowledge of that author.

Are the same demands being made of the 4 and 5 star reviews?  Are they all written to that same high standard? Where are the posting calling them morons. *crickets*

And some of you guys wonder why Indy authors are getting a bad rap out there. Wow, just wow.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I find this whole thing ironic, in a way. An author is expected to suck it up when someone calls their work a pile of crap, says they're untalented, calls them cretins, says a college student could do better (at least it wasn't a kindergartner) - I could go on and on. But the author says that in their opinion some reviewers are morons (note, they didn't point to any particular reviewer) and suddenly they're the bad guy? What happened to "Everybody has an opinion"?

Furthermore, if someone says "I think this book is the best thing, EVER!" how do you call them a moron when it's your book? That would be saying that you _don't_ think your book is good. There's no logic there. However, plenty of authors have stepped up and said while they appreciate the praise, that would not make for a particularly helpful review. What more do you expect them to say?

PS: Those snippets above? Actual quotes from the first 10 1-star reviews of Serial.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Atunah said:


> This constant calling of reviewers morons is really off putting. Is that really necessary? All these demands being put on the low star reviewers about having to write intelligibly and detailed and who knows what else, all based on the superior knowledge of that author.
> 
> Are the same demands being made of the 4 and 5 star reviews? Are they all written to that same high standard? Where are the posting calling them morons. *crickets*
> 
> And some of you guys wonder why Indy authors are getting a bad rap out there. Wow, just wow.


Atunah, I have the very same reaction. Readers here are called trolls, morons, stupid; and their worthiness to write reviews is under scrutiny. I've spent a good portion of my life as a news reporter and some as a recreational writer, but I am not an expert at writing reviews. In fact, I think my reviews are pretty lame. They are also very stressful for me to write, so I procrastinate.

A good part of the reason for my stress is that some of these reviews are for indie titles, and I know I am likely to get flack if I don't write my review in such a way that pleases authors and their core group of fans. To be fair, this thread is not the only reason for my feeling this way. It's a cumulative thing. Over the past few months at Amazon, I have seen enough similar threads and comments by authors and their fans to feel sick to my stomach at the idea of reviewing.

I feel like I am likely to get flack if I write something that somebody doesn't like. I want to write honestly or not at all. I think I'll stick to writing reviews of some select indie authors. Coincidentally (or not?), these select authors not only behave professionally, but they are the most talented authors I have found in the indie world.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I feel the same Scamp about the reviewing. I started writing them only because I thought it would help the Indy authors.

After a lot of different threads and opinions and other going ons, I am just not sure its worth the trouble anymore for me. 
It is extremely hard for me to write reviews. I don't have a handle on the language as I would like. I worry I won't be descriptive enough, not intelligent enough, not helpful enough. Lots and lots of worries. Now we as reviewers have to think about being snickered about somewhere about how we write, our lack of word play. No thanks, I don't need that stress. I am suppose to be the customer, not treated like dirt and called names. Imagine going to a retail store and being treated like that on the return counter while complaining about a product you bought. 

I have also found that sometimes the authors ask others to downvote some reviews and upvote others, because they want specific ones to appear on the top. 

Of course they want the ones written by someone they look at as intelligibly written. I don't like that practice. I don't like the mass tagging much either as I think it messes with lists and isn't really done by reviewers and customers. 

I agree this is all cumulative. And as I read a lot of forums about books everywhere, I see more and more unsettling. 

Oh well. My eyes are much wider open now than they have been 2 years ago when I got my Kindle and heard of Indy writers for the first time.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Atunah said:


> This constant calling of reviewers morons is really off putting. Is that really necessary? All these demands being put on the low star reviewers about having to write intelligibly and detailed and who knows what else, all based on the superior knowledge of that author.
> 
> Are the same demands being made of the 4 and 5 star reviews? Are they all written to that same high standard? Where are the posting calling them morons. *crickets*
> 
> And some of you guys wonder why Indy authors are getting a bad rap out there. Wow, just wow.


I hope you understand that writing is a solitary profession. There is no cubicle gossip, no grabbing lunch together. The only time writers can share their opinions is in open forums like this.

Of course we care about readers. And we care about reviews. But we never have the opportunity to talk about it, because our jobs are insular.

As I stated earlier in the thread, there are a lot of worthless 5 star reviews as well. In fact, I write worthless 5 star reviews all the time.

But right now, this thread is about how writers handle negative reviews. And it's healthy to vent, and to voice outrage among peers.

No one here is going to Amazon and commenting on every negative review. But we're human, and we should be able to say, "Boy, this reviewer is stupid" in a writing thread without anyone being personally offended by it.

This is watercooler conversation, and it's therapeutic.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Atunah said:


> I worry I won't be descriptive enough, not intelligent enough, not helpful enough.


If you put that much thought and care into your reviews, chances are you're a good reviewer, even when giving less than stellar reviews. It shows you're taking the time to think about what you're saying, and that's to be commended, even if you hate the book.

But I believe that a lot of reviews, both good and bad, are thoughtless. When a writer spends six months working on a book, getting a thoughtless one star review can rankle.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm going to share something that will, if you can internalize it, make you a lot happier.  Believe it or not, I have self-confidence issues.  I always have.  I always feel like people are talking about me, laughing about me, whatever.  But you know what?  They aren't.  They don't.  99% of people are WAY too wrapped up in what they're doing, worrying about if someone is laughing at THEM, to even notice what anybody else is doing outside of the moment.  Seriously, you may feel like people are pointing at YOU... but trust me, they aren't.  They're way too busy stressing about who's pointing at them.  Once you realize that, you'll feel a lot better.  

Write your reviews, do whatever makes YOU happy.  Will it help authors?  You bet!  Will it help other readers?  Yes!  Do what you want, don't worry about what other people are doing.  Because seriously.  Think REALLY hard about the last helpful review you read on a book you were interested in.  Do you remember who wrote it?  I'll bet a chocolate orange that you can't remember the person's name


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Ok, let me take a moment to talk about amazon reviews OTHER than books. A few months ago, I was looking for a new camera lens to buy. On one lens, someone had written a 1-star review that said they hated the lens because a few days after they bought it, they got sand in it and the auto-focus no longer worked as a result. I _laughed_ at the review, even shared it with my boyfriend, amazed that someone could blame the lens for their own stupidity.

I bought the lens anyway, took some picture and yep, a few months after I got it, sand got sucked in and I can hear it grinding away in there. I realized that while they hadn't phrased their review well (and I didn't think it deserved 1-star), they had a valid point: the lens has a tendency to suck particulate matter in as it focuses, even if you try to be careful and keep it clean.

The lesson I learned from the whole experience? Even so-called "idiotic" reviews often have some sort of truth to them. Even if they're not well-worded, they can still contain important information. As a sidenote, I wrote a 4 or 5-star review for the lens, stating that while it DOES have a tendency to suck up dirt and sand, it's still an amazing piece of equipment. I think the same thing happens with book reviews. Even if you get a totally "unfair" 1-star review, it may prompt others to review the book as well, giving it their idea of a fair star-rating. In the end, it usually all balances out.

I've seen the same thing happen with books that are unfairly rated high. Eventually, someone comes along and writes a review that states they have no idea who is giving the book 5-star reviews, but in their opinion, this-and-this is why it deserves a really low rating. Maybe authors should take a step back from their reviews and just let the process sort itself out.


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

This thread makes my head hurt and my heart heavy.

Fact #1: Writers need readers. And readers need writers. 
Fact #2: Not all readers need indie writers. And indie writers don't need all readers. 
Fact #3: Neither readers nor writers will _always _act in ways that satisfies the other.

We all need to understand these facts, learn to live with them, and go about our own business as best we can.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Scamp said:


> Atunah, I have the very same reaction. Readers here are called trolls, morons, stupid; and their worthiness to write reviews is under scrutiny.


This is a thread on unfair reviews posted in the Writer'sCafe. What do you expect this thread to be about? These threads are either an author licking his wounds over a scathing review looking for comfort or someone venting about being the target of an attack. It is commiseration with colleagues and that really is all writers get since it is unwise to respond directly to the reviewer. Why should we be denied the ability to address this topic because it offends you? Some interesting points have been brought up and there is real value in this conversation.



Arkali said:


> I find this whole thing ironic, in a way. An author is expected to suck it up when someone calls their work a pile of crap, says they're untalented, calls them cretins, says a college student could do better (at least it wasn't a kindergartner) - I could go on and on. But the author says that in their opinion some reviewers are morons (note, they didn't point to any particular reviewer) and suddenly they're the bad guy? What happened to "Everybody has an opinion"?


This.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

A question for the readers (and I know all of us authors are readers too, but I'm looking for the reader-only perspective) -- Why do you write reviews?  Do you do it to help other readers make informed decisions?  Or do you do it to help the author (either by helping their ranking with a good review or perhaps by offering constructive criticism in a less that stellar one)?  Or for some other reason?  And do you only write reviews for self-published books or do you write them for traditionally published books as well?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm not the average reader (since I post reviews for a review site) but back before I started doing that... well... here's my timeline as a reader / reviewer:

1) I only read traditionally published books. During this period on Amazon, spanning several years (I'll go look in a minute) - I wrote a total of 9 reviews. A couple were to refute what I felt were unfair criticisms in another review. A couple were because I adored the book. One I was torqued because I felt the book was a rip-off of Sherrilyn Kenyon's Dark-Hunter books. Another I wrote because I HATED the book. One was for The New Atkins book, which I feel VERY strongly about, especially for women with PCOS, so I shared some personal stuff in order to (hopefully) help other women who have PCOS. Let's see. And another was for an acquaintance of mine who wrote a great book about manners and so that was written more as a favor to her.

Timeline: First Amazon order placed October 19, 2004. I actually suspect it was earlier than that, but that's as far back as their records go. Actually - I KNOW it was earlier than that. I've been married that long. Come to think of it, that "first order" is 2 weeks after I got married. So, I'm guessing anything before that got wiped (probably due to the name change). Hrrrm. I probably joined Amazon back in 1999. Okay. Further back - I remember ordering Baldur's Gate from Amazon, and that was published in 1998. So. In summation: From 1998 to August of 2010 I wrote... 9 reviews. Errrr. Why didn't I write more? I always figured there were plenty of other people writing reviews, and when Harry Potter has practically 4,000 reviews, well... who gives a rat's butt what my opinion is?

2) August last year - I got my Kindle. Some of the first books I got for my baby were two books by Sherrilyn Kenyon. One was a re-purchase from the Dark-Hunter series, as I re-read those a LOT. Also, part of the deal I made with hubby was "Let me get a Kindle and I'll eBay off a lot of my book clutter." So I have to re-acquire a lot of my old favorites. Anyway, Night Pleasures was HORRIBLY formatted. It was an OCR scan, I reckon, and it was just horrible (the book itself is great) - a quote from my review - actually, heck, here's the review:


> *Great story and book, but there's a reason the Kindle version is $2.99, August 26, 2010*
> 
> Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
> This review is from: Night Pleasures (Kindle Edition)
> ...


Yeah, I was ticked. My second review during this "phase" was for another Kenyon book. I disagreed with some of the reviews so I threw my hat in, so to speak.

* August 2010 - September 2010: 2 reviews

3) I discover indie authors. Here, I think, HERE is somewhere my reviews can make a difference. These folks don't have thousands, or even hundreds of reviews. Someone might actually see my review and give a rip what I thought of a book, plus it's helping out indies. I vow to review every indie book I read.
4) Late October, 2010 - Some kind soul mentioned The Romance Reviews after I started whining that what with going back to school, hubby's cutting off my book allowance :sniffle: Thankfully, Carole thought I could actually string some sentences together into a coherent thought and so she "hired" me. I get paid in books, but hey - that suits me just fine 

* September 2010 - Present: 33 reviews written

-------------

So, that's probably way more info than you wanted, but that's why _this_ reader writes reviews.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" Another I wrote because I HATED the book."_

I don't know how you rated that book, nor am I asking, so I'm not presuming any rating because I don't know. And there is nothing wrong with hating a book. I've done it myself. But the statement prompts a question. Lots of things spark a thought, and your post did.

Can a reviewer hate a book and still give it an outstanding review and ranking? Does a review have any standing outside the personal emotions of the reviewer? Is the review intended to be a glimpse of the emotional state of the reviewer or an informed analysis of the book?

If I read Pride And Prejudice and hate it, does that justify a one star review? If a reviewer read and hated Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, An American Tragedy, Rabbit Run, Grapes Of Wrath, and Harry Potter, does the reviewer's emotional reaction justify a one star?

Do we expect the reviewer to bring an informed knowledge, discipline, and analytical skill to the task? Should the reviewer be skilled enough to discern that others may love what he hated? Does a reviewer have an obligation to say exactly why he liked or hated a book? And if he doesn't is it reasonable to criticize that review?

So, what contribution to the larger conversation are reviewers making? Have we reached a point where we now say everyone is a reviewer, and everyone's opinion is a review? Are there any standards for reviews? I hope there are. I see reviews that maintain a long and noble tradition, and I'd like to see more.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Beth O said:


> A question for the readers (and I know all of us authors are readers too, but I'm looking for the reader-only perspective) -- Why do you write reviews? Do you do it to help other readers make informed decisions? Or do you do it to help the author (either by helping their ranking with a good review or perhaps by offering constructive criticism in a less that stellar one)? Or for some other reason? And do you only write reviews for self-published books or do you write them for traditionally published books as well?


I do reviews to help readers, not authors. The reviews are there for other readers to help decide whether a book is a good fit for them. To me, any reviews that look like they are helping the author don't look like they will help me very much. So I bear this in mind and try to remember when I write that it's the reader I'm talking to.

I just looked at my reviews. I have reviewed: 9 indie books (3 were for 1 series), 6 trad-pub books, 5 songs/albums, and 1 health/beauty product (Amazon sent me an e-mail soliciting this! lol).

I don't think I will be reviewing indies with the exception of a couple of authors whose books I will feel comfortable reviewing honestly and without pressure. I don't believe I can do a proper job of just reviewing anything I read under the present climate/circumstances.

I will review the trad-pub books, especially those that are under reviewed. Another focus of mine will be public domain books, especially those with a poor showing in the review section. Some of these are gems, like Of Human Bondage, and they deserve some attention. The odd thing is that there are so many versions of Human Bondage that have numerous reviews, but not the free Kindle version. So I hope to do that one when I get in a reviewing mood. (That's not often. lol)

Thanks for asking, Beth.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _" Another I wrote because I HATED the book."_
> 
> I don't know how you rated that book, nor am I asking, so I'm not presuming any rating because I don't know. And there is nothing wrong with hating a book. I've done it myself. But the statement prompts a question. Lots of things spark a thought, and your post did.
> 
> ...


Good points. I don't mind posting my review. I'll own anything I write, so no biggie. Here's the review:


> Two Stars
> *Yuck. Way too crude, and the story was not tightly woven*, _October 10, 2006_
> 
> Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
> ...


9 out of 16 people found it helpful. You'll notice, firstly, that it was written several years ago. My reviews these days go into a LOT more detail. However, I'd like to point out that I did mention exactly why I didn't like it. This, in my opinion, makes for a helpful review. If I had just written "I hated it! This sucks!", I don't think it would have helped anyone, regardless of whether I liked it or didn't like it. Because I specified exactly why I didn't like it, though, I may have actually sold some books for that author, ya know?

Regarding your question "Can you hate a book and still give it a high rating?" I don't see how. At the same time, just because I hate a book doesn't relegate it to one-star category. Amazon has a 1 through 5 rating system for a reason. Some people forget that, though, and in their minds a book must be either a 5-star or a 4-star. Objectively, though, there are three main parts to a book:
1) Technical aspects - grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. This is not subjective. It's either wrong or right.
2) The "craft" - This is personal. Some people may prefer more straight-forward prose, while others prefer a more lyrical style.
3) The story - Plot and characters are sub-areas. This is partially subjective. A story may be soundly written, but just not my cup of tea. On the other hand, it may be poorly written, full of gaping plot holes, weak characters, cliche, and the like.

In my opinion, for a book to receive one star from me, it must have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. That means that it's more than just "I didn't like it" - it fails on a technical level, as well. In my review, above, even though I hated the book for the reasons mentioned, it did not fail on a technical level, so it got two stars.

To address your question:


Terrence OBrien said:


> Do we expect the reviewer to bring an informed knowledge, discipline, and analytical skill to the task? Should the reviewer be skilled enough to discern that others may love what he hated? Does a reviewer have an obligation to say exactly why he liked or hated a book? And if he doesn't is it reasonable to criticize that review?


I think so. Not necessarily "informed knowledge, etc." but certainly I think that if a reviewer wants their review to actually be useful, they should specify why they liked or didn't like a work. Unless I know you and your taste, a blanked "I loved this" or "I hated it" tells me absolutely NOTHING about whether or not _I_ would like it.

Something that aggravates me, personally, is the tendency of people to downrate reviews based on whether or not they agree with the rating. The question is "Is this review helpful?" not "Do you agree with this rating?"

Anyway, I'll hush now


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _" Another I wrote because I HATED the book."_
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


I think that really is the crux of the issue, Terrence. I think professional reviewers, the few of them that are left at least, do have that skill and their job is to write a review for the reader to hopefully make an informed decision about the book. Although even in that group, they let their personal biases leak in. An example: Roger Ebert is a very respected movie critic and I often check his review before I go see a movie, especially if it's one I'm on the fence about. But he has a thing for Angelina Jolie and will always give an Angelina Jolie movie a good review no matter how bad it is. After watching him on TV and reading his reviews for years, I know this about him, so if I read his review of an Angelina Jolie movie it is only for entertainment value, not because I think it will help me determine if it's a good movie.

I think Amazon reviews are an entirely different animal and the motivations behind them vary, but it really is more of the 'I'm a person, I have an opinion, and I'm going to share it with you variety.' Sometimes, some of those reviewers happen to be really good at it and they do write helpful reviews. Others don't.

Do other readers/authors/members of the Amazon Community have the right to comment on that person's review? My personal belief--yes. But just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should. Do I think authors should publicly comment on a negative review of their book? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If I, as an author, get a bad review am I upset when I read it? Of course I am. I'm a human being. How could I not be. The book wasn't written by a machine. It was written (in most cases) by one person and that one person is going to feel bad when someone tells them their book, one they may have poured their heart and soul into and spent years writing, sucks. Do I kvetch about it? Yes, I admit that I do. But I do it PRIVATELY to friends and family who love me and are going to give they sympathy I crave (and possibly chocolate, ice cream, and/or alcohol too). I know we all feel like the Writer's Cafe is a space just for writers but this is a public forum and non-writers lurk and sometimes even post here. So the Writer's Cafe is not the place to kvetch about your bad review. If you want to share your pain and get some sympathy from another writer because only that person truly understands what it's like to get a bad review (and I do believe that) then send them an email or a personal message. Don't post it for the world to see.

BUT, does someone other than the author have the right to comment on someone else's review? Yes, I believe they do. Just as an author "puts their work out there" and has to be able to accept criticism of it, an Amazon reviewer has "put their work out there" and has to be able to accept that some people may disagree with their opinion and may feel the need to share that with them. The difference is the Amazon reviewer can publicly respond to their critic while the author shouldn't. For the Amazon reviewer, there are essentially no repercussions. Sure some people might click the "unhelpful" button, but do you really care? For the author, the repercussions can damage your career. And hopefully I haven't just damaged mine by posting this


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Scamp said:


> I don't think I will be reviewing indies with the exception of a couple of authors whose books I will feel comfortable reviewing honestly and without pressure. I don't believe I can do a proper job of just reviewing anything I read under the present climate/circumstances.


Scamp, I'm curious - present climate? Present circumstances? I'm not trying to bash you, and I've really enjoyed your posts so far, but... what exactly do you foresee happening if you write an honest review? Nobody is going to come to your house and toilet paper it, nobody will call your home phone or leave malicious messages, you won't have a brick come flying through your window. I'm just puzzled as to why you feel you couldn't write an honest review, whether a 1-star, a 5-star, or somewhere in between.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Do we expect the reviewer to bring an informed knowledge, discipline, and analytical skill to the task? Should the reviewer be skilled enough to discern that others may love what he hated? Does a reviewer have an obligation to say exactly why he liked or hated a book? And if he doesn't is it reasonable to criticize that review?
> 
> So, what contribution to the larger conversation are reviewers making? Have we reached a point where we now say everyone is a reviewer, and everyone's opinion is a review? Are there any standards for reviews? I hope there are. I see reviews that maintain a long and noble tradition, and I'd like to see more.


Well, I will not be reviewing indies, with rare exceptions, in part because of sentiments like these. Terrence, I'm not irritated with you or angry, and you are not alone in your expressed concerns about these issues. I've been hearing criticism of *citizen reviewers* since I became aware of the Kindle last summer and ran into my first indie authors.

You talk about professional standards, but I am not a trained professional in the area of reviewing, nor are most readers. Where might these volunteer 'professional' reviewers who are worthy of reviewing indie books come from?

It must be said that, just as you question the qualifications of reviewers, who incidentally are not getting one thin dime for their trouble, some readers like me who sample ebooks regularly will look at a book and wonder how this person can put this out, call it a book, actually charge money for it, and not appear to have a clue about basic standards of writing, plotting, character development, etc. Where are the professional standards for self-publishing, standards that somehow require extraordinary professionalism on the part of unpaid reviewers?

This self-pub phenomenon is poised at the moment to potentially impact the traditional publishing industry, possibly in surprising ways. Or maybe not. The jury is still out. We don't know. It is a whole new world, though.

Me? I am not interested in putting myself out there as a professional reviewer. I don't envision some glorious future for myself as a book critic. I am a reader trying to basically have a conversation with other readers. Amazon is fine with this, but many in this burgeoning cottage industry of newbie authors are not yet ready to accept it. The book industry is in flux and a lot of changes need to be assimilated by everybody. And not everybody is ready for that. If major publishers are struggling with how to proceed, I certainly can't fault indie authors for growing pains. It must be mentioned that trailblazers always have it tough. 

It's discouraging for people like me to read some of the authors' posts here, on the Amazon forum, and in the review section arguing with reviewers. Because I'm not remotely interested in making a big splash on the review scene or the blog scene, I'm going to take a pass before someone has the cheek to demand I be trained at a proper review school.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Scamp, I'm curious - present climate? Present circumstances? I'm not trying to bash you, and I've really enjoyed your posts so far, but... what exactly do you foresee happening if you write an honest review? Nobody is going to come to your house and toilet paper it, nobody will call your home phone or leave malicious messages, you won't have a brick come flying through your window. I'm just puzzled as to why you feel you couldn't write an honest review, whether a 1-star, a 5-star, or somewhere in between.


I've seen flameouts on the Amazon forum that resulted from snarky threads about reviews and too many instances of authors venting at reviewers, here, there, and elsewhere. There is nothing in it for me. I'm not like you. I have no desire whatsoever to make my mark as a reviewer or obtain any kind of professional position. I don't like the lack of decorum present in indie author conversations about reviewers, and I have no plan to fight my way through any of it. I've seen too many fights not to think that I might be in for one just because I said what I thought about a book.

Anyhoo... 'nuff said. No offense taken, either, by the way. I enjoy your posts also. 

I'm off to eat chocolate-covered cherries.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Ooooh... chocolate-covered cherries.  My favorite   

For the record - I've no plans to ever be a "professional" reviewer.  Mainly, I do it because I enjoy it, and I hope that somebody out there finds my reviews helpful.  I'm also in it for the books 

As for the Amazon forums - I've heard those frequently host flame-fests, so I'm not surprised about that.  The KindleBoards are pretty civil, though, at least in my experience.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Scamp said:


> I do reviews to help readers, not authors. The reviews are there for other readers to help decide whether a book is a good fit for them. To me, any reviews that look like they are helping the author don't look like they will help me very much. So I bear this in mind and try to remember when I write that it's the reader I'm talking to.


Also, for the record, it's my opinion that ALL honest reviews help the author, especially if the review gives reasons for why you like or dislike the book. I don't write dishonest reviews - never have, never will.


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Have we reached a point where we now say everyone is a reviewer, and everyone's opinion is a review?


Yes. And if your book is sold on Amazon you had better be prepared for it. It is simply life in the real world. Embrace it, deny it, or rail against it all you want. But you can't escape it.

In my opinion (there's that word again), it's a _good _thing. Embrace it.



Scamp said:


> ...you are not alone in your expressed concerns about these issues. I've been hearing criticism of *citizen reviewers* since I became aware of the Kindle last summer and ran into my first indie authors.
> 
> ...It's discouraging for people like me to read some of the authors' posts here, on the Amazon forum, and in the review section arguing with reviewers....
> 
> ...I don't like the lack of decorum present in indie author conversations about reviewers...


Scamp, you paint with a very large brush. If you spent time in the Writer's Cafe, you would see that a _large __majority _of authors here are of a singular mind in how we approach bad reviews -- and in how we suggest others approach them. Advice from the author community is typically:

"That's okay, we all get bad reviews."
"Do NOT respond."
"Have some ice cream or chocolate."
"Not everyone will like your book."
"Etc., etc."

Do some authors complain or argue with reviewers? Of course. But the percentage of those who complain is small. I hope you see that.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I completely understand the reticence some may have in leaving reviews in light of this thread and others. But please know that honest reviews, good or bad, are welcomed by the vast majority of authors - traditional or indie. Reviews don't have to be art, just real.

Fwiw, I consider the main purpose of ALL Amazon reviews (for products or books) to help other consumers decide if they want to buy the item. Many reviews help the author/manufacturer, but that's secondary. Oodles of product reviews have helped me make buying decisions. I'm grateful when who someone took the bullet takes the time to warn me of the potential pitfalls and, conversely, when someone discovers something fantastic shares their enthusiasm.

Please keep reviewing!


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Honestly, I think all any of the authors here are trying to say is that ideally, someone reviewing a book will offer more than just a "loved it" or "hated it", since that's so subjective as to be worthless, and also that ideally, a book review will be about the book and the reader's reaction to it--and that's it. If your criticisms focus on genre conventions, shipping costs, or other things beyond the scope of the book itself, that's not really appropriate for a review and that type of review feels fundamentally unfair.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all reviewers be ultra-literate and offer insightful analysis. To answer Terrence's question, I believe a professional reviewer and a customer reviewer are two separate things. To expect the same type of review from both trivializes the professional reviewer's skills and career, and asks too much of someone who simply wants to offer their opinion on a book and let other readers what they did or didn't enjoy.

I think there is a tendency, especially online, for people to take comments too personally. A comment about a certain type of review is not equivalent to a blanket condemnation of all reviewers. And I don't think it's unreasonable for authors to hope for reviews that are substantive and thoughtful--which _doesn't_ mean anything other than "offers concrete details and realistic praise/criticism". As authors, we do put our hearts and souls into our work, and it _is_ frustrating to get a "If you want a book that's terrible, read this" type of review. Heck, if you hate our work, tell us why. Give us actual, valid reasons. Or don't bother saying anything at all!

I would never expect a reviewer to blow me away with their literary prowess. It's just a review. All I ask from a reviewer is that they share their honest opinion in a way that makes it obvious they actually read the book, and that they limit their comments to things relevant to the book.

I do get frustrated with reviewers who award 1-star when they simply didn't like a book, even when the book was technically sound and competently crafted. Obviously it's up to an individual reviewer to determine what each rating means to them, but that always blows away. To me one-star indicates the worst of the worst...I admit that as a reader I tend to dismiss many one-star reviews out-of-hand, especially when a book has many other more positive reviews, because I rarely believe something is honestly _that_ bad. Most often a one-star review is more about a strong emotional reaction on the part of the reviewer than anything else.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

As I've watched this thread twist and turn over the past few days, I've come to a couple conclusions:

1.Indie authors are a brand new animal.  There has never, in the past, been the kind of access/relationship between an author and a reader as there is now with indie authors. And, because of that access, readers are seeing the "real" people behind the books - if they care to.  No one will ever know if Stephen King kicks a garbage can and calls someone who rates his book with one-star an idiot.  But because of forums like Kindleboards, we writers are exposed - the good, the bad and the ugly.

2.The Writers Cafe is not a safe place for writers to vent.  Someone feeling sad, outraged, insecure, (fill in the blank) over a criticism of their work is going to be judged - sometimes harshly. We need to be aware that this is not a safe watercooler spot - this is just another place for readers to access writers - no matter what it's called.

3.I agree the self-publishing e-book phenomena is still new - but I don't think the jury is out.  I think we're still on trial.  I think savvy e-book readers are going to start reading samples before they buy, I think the authors who really make it are going to have to turn out professional products if they are going to last. I think those who don't will be culled out by readers who finally understand the genre. I think this sub-industry will end up becoming huge because of the talent and power behind it. But I think that indies are going to start creating their own "publishing houses" so they aren't unfairly grouped into a poorer cousin category. 

4.Reviews - if we (the authors) are doing what we are supposed to be doing, the reviews won't matter - good or bad.  The way the current review system operates you really aren't getting a good sampling of your readership either way. You are usually getting the extremes - loved it or hated it.  At this point, I've sold about 5,000 copies of my first book - I have 30 reviews. That's not a representative sampling.  And, from what I've read on this thread - since 24 of my reviews are 5-star, 5 are 4-star and 1 is 1-star no one is going to believe them anyway. Well, maybe the one-star. 

I was speaking with a fairly well-known traditional author yesterday who is just getting into e-book publishing.  He said when he was a young writer in New York - he knew very few authors because they all kept to themselves and presented a stand-offish and "artsy" front so people didn't get too close. While I appreciate the support and encouragement from the indie writers on this board, and I think a forum where we can share information and learning experiences is very helpful - this thread has really opened my eyes to the fact that any and all information shared here is very public information and perhaps that's not always a good thing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"It must be said that, just as you question the qualifications of reviewers, who incidentally are not getting one thin dime for their trouble, some readers like me who sample ebooks regularly will look at a book and wonder how this person can put this out, call it a book, actually charge money for it, and not appear to have a clue about basic standards of writing, plotting, character development, etc. Where are the professional standards for self-publishing, standards that somehow require extraordinary professionalism on the part of unpaid reviewers?"_

Correct. I completely agree. Standards for both good writing and good reviewing come down to us in our literary tradition. But, I'd say the standards exist regardless of the professional status of any individual. The standards exist if one is being paid, just as they do if one is not being paid. We should be able to look at any work and hold it to standards without knowing the financial details.

The fact that an author clicks on the UPLOAD EBOOK button says nothing about the quality of the book, nor does it say anything about the standards of the book. That is the task reviewers have taken on in our tradition. That's their contribution. That's how they have contributed to maintaining and improving those standards. The reviewers' standards allow them to do a quality job of holding authors to quality standards.

And these types of discussions? I hope they prompt folks to ask questions about both their own work and that of others. I think I have benefited from these threads, and I hope others can say the same. We might not have all the answers, but we sure can ask the questions.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

*"Writers' Cafe
Come in, grab a cup of coffee and chat with our authors."*

Plus: it's the internet.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I was being snarky in that last post.

Some issues will never be resolved. 99 cents or 2.99. boxers or briefs. cats or dogs. pro reviews or "user" reviews.

Is it really unsafe just because someone reads the stuff here and decides because of it they don't want to post reviews anymore?

(which only goes to prove how much we authors actually LOVE LOVE LOVE reviews, even the so-called bad ones; we freak when someone casually mentions not wanting to give them)

Yes, this is called the writers cafe -- but it's because they needed a place to stick us to keep us from taking over every other spot on the site. It's not supposed to keep us safe from them. It's suppose to keep them safe from us!

As far as a "safe place to vent" -- that's nowhere on the internet that I ever heard of. And I really didn't read anything on this thread that was too horrible for anyone's delicate eyeballs to roll over. [eww. talk about bad writing]


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> Is it really unsafe just because someone reads the stuff here and decides because of it they don't want to post reviews anymore?


No - I wasn't referring to reviews. I was referring to, perhaps, my own false sense that the Writer's Cafe was -as Jack mentioned in an earlier post - a water cooler area where the writers can gather and talk industry stuff. It's not. It is - as you mentioned in your earlier post - a place that's advertised for readers to come and interact with the writers. It's an exhibit hall or a sideshow act. (That sounds harsher than I mean it.) And when we start talking about prices and sales and money - we had better be aware of that.


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> As far as a "safe place to vent" -- that's nowhere on the internet that I ever heard of. And I really didn't read anything on this thread that was too horrible for anyone's delicate eyeballs to roll over. [eww. talk about bad writing]


This was my feeling as well. A little random tussling over some ideas that have merit&#8230; I suppose it is possible for someone to find offense in anything if they try hard enough, and there are people who will try really hard but I am certainly not going to walk on eggshells because of them. I won't flame reviewers but I also won't say that I wouldn't like to sometimes&#8230;


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Right. But I don't mind if readers or anyone watch the conversation. There are a lot of thoughtful readers on this site who chime in with great ideas about stuff.

stuff = technical term of art.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

terrireid said:


> No - I wasn't referring to reviews. I was referring to, perhaps, my own false sense that the Writer's Cafe was -as Jack mentioned in an earlier post - a water cooler area where the writers can gather and talk industry stuff. It's not. It is - as you mentioned in your earlier post - a place that's advertised for readers to come and interact with the writers. It's an exhibit hall or a sideshow act. (That sounds harsher than I mean it.) And when we start talking about prices and sales and money - we had better be aware of that.


I think you're worrying a bit too much.

The ability to discuss reviews or prices in a public forum is more important than offending a few readers with frank discussions. I've sold 120,000 ebooks. Angering a few dozen folks who visit this board because I say "some reviewers are morons" or "maybe we should raise prices" isn't going to harm my bottom line.

You can't please all of the people. Period. But that doesn't mean you should walk on tiptoes around them.

Do I value readers? Absolutely.

Am I going to worry that I might lose a few sales because I said something and they overreact? No, I am not. I believe that interacting with my peers, and trying to figure out work-related stuff, is more important than the royalties I'll lose.

I know of what I speak. I'm constantly offending scores of people. 

Don't sweat the small change. This is the Writer's Cafe. If a reader wants to come in and show disapproval, good for them for voicing their opinion. But you'll do okay without their two bucks.

Besides, me publicly saying "some reviewers are morons" is me voicing an opinion that EVERY writer has when they get a bad review, but few have the guts to admit.

The only people that should be offended by that statement are the morons. If you aren't a moron, I wasn't talking about you.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I think you're worrying a bit too much.
> 
> The ability to discuss reviews or prices in a public forum is more important than offending a few readers with frank discussions. I've sold 120,000 ebooks. Angering a few dozen folks who visit this board because I say "some reviewers are morons" or "maybe we should raise prices" isn't going to harm my bottom line.
> 
> ...


Thanks. You're right -I needed to look at it from this perspective - that really helps.

And LK is right - this is the Internet and no matter how cozy the Writer's Cafe might seem (although for some reason, I keep picturing Chalmun's Cantina from Star Wars) it is still out there in the open for all to see.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

terrireid said:


> No - I wasn't referring to reviews. I was referring to, perhaps, my own false sense that the Writer's Cafe was -as Jack mentioned in an earlier post - a water cooler area where the writers can gather and talk industry stuff. It's not. It is - as you mentioned in your earlier post - a place that's advertised for readers to come and interact with the writers. It's an exhibit hall or a sideshow act. (That sounds harsher than I mean it.) And when we start talking about prices and sales and money - we had better be aware of that.


Very much aware, as you all know.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

So, Jack... how do you _really_ feel? 

Seriously, though, thanks for keeping it light, but honest at the same time.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> The only people that should be offended by that statement are the morons. If you aren't a moron, I wasn't talking about you.


And neither was I! LOL


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

> stuff = technical term of art.


 

I vote we make this official: What do you do for a living? Indie stuff. 
Seriously, though. I am learning a lot. Amazon really will pull reviews if you can prove they are false or hateful?

Just for the record, I work my butt off when I write a review.  Initially I didn't think much about the reviews I wrote. As I got more and more serious about taking the Indie plunge, I began writing them for myself. Reviews have been one of the best ways to study the craft. I really hope other writers find them useful or that I can help a reader make up his or her mind, but reviews are also a chance to study how good (and bad) books are put together, what makes them work (or not), and other "stuff." 

Also, I'm a few months shy of defending my dissertation for a Ph.D. in English Lit., and I cannot turn off the analytical machine. I can't even watch South Park without trying to decide whether Cartman or Kenny best represents the Id or the Ego. I wish it would stop. I would really like to just watch South Park without Sigmund on the couch with me.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

> 1.Indie authors are a brand new animal. There has never, in the past, been the kind of access/relationship between an author and a reader as there is now with indie authors. And, because of that access, readers are seeing the "real" people behind the books - if they care to. No one will ever know if Stephen King kicks a garbage can and calls someone who rates his book with one-star an idiot. But because of forums like Kindleboards, we writers are exposed - the good, the bad and the ugly.


Interesting. A close "access/relationship between an author and a reader" seems to be one of the defining characteristics of this new breed: Indie authors. Should they not then see us in our natural habitats, warts and all? Perhaps this is the very thing that makes us Indie, that they can yell at us and we can yell back. Part of our allure? If I'm writing a series, and every single one of my fans hates the direction I'm taking it, that access/relationship gives them the power to tell me so, instantly. Without a Big6 prison...er, gatekeeper, to navigate, I can respond to fan demand quickly. Or not. But isn't that what makes us Indie? Being that much closer to the hand that feeds us (readers) means it can slap us that much harder?
But then, with no buffer (Big6), I guess we can always find ways to bite back.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Vicki Keire said:


> Interesting. A close "access/relationship between an author and a reader" seems to be one of the defining characteristics of this new breed: Indie authors.


The phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" comes to mind!


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

I suspect there are as many motivations for reviews as there are reviewers.   My "reviews" have been a journey. I started off simply cataloging books (on Goodreads,) emotionally rating my reading history as I remembered the book. I commented on very little of my reading history, because for the most part, these were conversations I had in real life at the time I read the book. 

The next phase was when I started writing a little note to myself regarding the book I had read. Later, I got involved in conversations that springboarded off other reviews around Goodreads, blogs and review sites. At that point I started writing what I attempted to regard as "serious" reviews. That was very sporadic though, and the reviews had very little value, either to myself, or to other readers. 

Lately, I comment on nearly all the books I read, but if one wanted to be precise about what it is I'm actually writing, it might be more accurate to classify it as commentary or a conversation. Whether that has value to the author is not my concern or my intent. The "reviews" spark conversation among other like-minded readers, which is exactly what I want. They also provide a snapshot for me of what I was thinking as I read (and sometimes after the reading has concluded.) Sometimes that commentary is brief, because the experience with the writing is vivid, and I don't need to really review it. 

I will say that it has only been 6 months since I really discovered "indies," although I have long been a subscriber to several 'zines where currently more or less unknown authors are submitting stories. Through this, I found a number of new and small-press published authors. Kindle opened up indie self-pubs to me. In that 6 months, I've learned that before I review an indie (in fact before I even READ an indie,) I now google the writer to see if this is somebody who is likely to chase me down, or ridicule me if I were to post an opinion of their writing that they found somehow disagreeable. I keep all of those names in a txt file and will never read anything from those authors. There are somewhere in the vicinity of 15 names on that list - maybe 35% of those indies I've looked up. That means 1 out of every 3 indies I've checked has an internet history of ridiculing reviewers. 

Maybe I'm naive, but I hope that those readers who are brave enough to talk about our hesitation to review indies because of the potential for ridicule and confrontation, may be able to have a small impact on the reader/writer symbiosis.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> I suspect there are as many motivations for reviews as there are reviewers.  My "reviews" have been a journey. I started off simply cataloging books (on Goodreads,) emotionally rating my reading history as I remembered the book. I commented on very little of my reading history, because for the most part, these were conversations I had in real life at the time I read the book.
> 
> The next phase was when I started writing a little note to myself regarding the book I had read. Later, I got involved in conversations that springboarded off other reviews around Goodreads, blogs and review sites. At that point I started writing what I attempted to regard as "serious" reviews. That was very sporadic though, and the reviews had very little value, either to myself, or to other readers.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt your word for a moment - but I am really shocked and disappointed to learn that there are indie authors who would track down their reviewers and ridicule them. But, hopefully, just like the review I received the other day that attacked all indie authors and everyone who reviewed my book because she didn't like it - these kind of people are far and few between.

I love the relationships between readers and authors I have found on Goodreads. I've had reviews that aren't all positive - but have given me excellent feedback. I've also made some good friends there. I think the biggest differentiating factor between a place like Goodreads and an Amazon review is that Amazon is basically anonymous, so you can hit and run. Goodreads is a community of readers and writers and we treat each other with a measure of civility. If only Amazon could find a way to copy that atmosphere.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Stacey, for what it's worth, I'm thrilled that you read and commented on my book. I remember seeing your comment at Goodreads and being so thrilled that someone actually thought about the ideas in the book.

Then one day you commented on my Book Bazaar page, I think when I had a KB book of the day. It was so much fun! I went to lunch with my friends that day and told them all about the "real conversation I had with real readers about the actual story!" I'm pretty sure BTackitt and Arkali were involved in that, but you started it that day.

Maybe it's sad that this is true, but so far that day has been my happiest experience around writing my books so far.

We spend so much time writing, editing, producing, formatting, dealing with the vicissitudes of Amazon slashing our prices and B&N losing our sales, and nobody even noticing we're there and constantly being told we're fools for even trying.

Then someone actually reads the story and... enjoys it. talks about it. had fun with it. wants more.

sigh. makes it all worth while. I will ALWAYS be grateful for you, Arkali, and BTackitt. I am so glad all of you took the time to share your thoughts about my little book.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Awww, thanks, L.K.  I'm getting kinda misty-eyed over here 

Stacey, I'm honestly flabbergasted.  Writers tracking down reviewers to ridicule them?  Really?  I don't disbelieve you, but... holy cow.  Maybe I'm just "sheltered" - my sole exposure to indies has been authors here on KB.  There was this one guy, at band camp... seriously, he was a jerk.  Other than that, though - every author here has been perfectly civil and I've made some friends and acquaintances and learned a lot.  I really find it hard to imagine that anyone here would do something like that.  At the same time, I also realize that KB is a small corner of the 'verse, so I guess I'm lucky I haven't had the misfortune of running into these guerrilla authors.  Out of curiosity, any anecdotes you care to share, without naming names?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

terrireid said:


> I don't doubt your word for a moment - but I am really shocked and disappointed ...


Believe me, so was I. I've had interactions with authors before via blogs and author events, and obliquely through other artists. Other than watching Anne Rice's infamous meltdown, and just about everything Harlan Ellison has ever said on video (although I admit still being a fan mainly because he's like that to everyone, heh,) and a few other notable cases of "authors behaving badly," I truly didn't expect to find so many examples of hostile reader/writer interactions, because I'd seen so little of it from trad-pub authors.

Of my entire circle of friends, I can think of only 2 or 3 who read more than I do. NONE of my friends make a habit of going to author events or listening to author interviews, podcast and NPR spots like I do (unless I drag them there.) So finding a huge online community of not just readers, but writers too, was like walking into the biggest candy story one could ever imagine in their wildest dreams.



Arkali said:


> At the same time, I also realize that KB is a small corner of the 'verse, so I guess I'm lucky I haven't had the misfortune of running into these guerrilla authors. Out of curiosity, any anecdotes you care to share, without naming names?


In the last year or less, I've seen everything from writers posting links on their blog and telling people to go troll so-and-so reviewer, or go vote down their review. I've seen writers on Amazon forums posting comments such as "you're not a verified purchase, I don't believe you actually read my book," on every less than favorable review. Writers poking fun at reviewers' typos, telling them "you wouldn't know good fiction if it bit you on the..." I saw one indie tell one of his reviewers that he doubted one of his brain cells could even find another brain cell in order to mate, which admittedly made me laugh, but did also make me decide to steer clear.

Indies and their audience are still trying to find their footing with each other (IMO.) While I do observe and take note of poorly behaved authors via forums, blogs, etc, I can't pretend that these interactions haven't changed my own reviewing habits. I am learning to give it a little more thought before I post a "review." I still tend to be more forceful than diplomatic, which is sometimes a failing, but not always. I try to remember what John Scalzi wrote last year on his blog: "The failure state of 'clever' is '


Spoiler



a$$hole


.'"



LKRigel said:


> Stacey, for what it's worth, I'm thrilled that you read and commented on my book. I remember seeing your comment at Goodreads and being so thrilled that someone actually thought about the ideas in the book.
> 
> Then one day you commented on my Book Bazaar page, I think when I had a KB book of the day. It was so much fun! I went to lunch with my friends that day and told them all about the "real conversation I had with real readers about the actual story!" I'm pretty sure BTackitt and Arkali were involved in that, but you started it that day.
> 
> Maybe it's sad that this is true, but so far that day has been my happiest experience around writing my books so far.


I'm just as delighted when I read something I so thoroughly enjoy, especially from a new writer. Getting to chat with that writer is icing on the cake. One of my most fun experiences as a reader was getting to attend the very first author event Cherie Priest did all by herself. I'd seen her once before (at Powell's,) but she was all on her own when _Boneshaker_ came out. Of course, she had been published before, small press releases, but this was the first novel that got big play.

All of that being said, author/writer interactions can be fraught with pitfalls, and I rarely initiate (or even respond to) direct contact unless I've had a chance to observe how said author comports him or herself in public. Heh. It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> In the last year or less, I've seen everything from writers posting links on their blog and telling people to go troll so-and-so reviewer, or go vote down their review. I've seen writers on Amazon forums posting comments such as "you're not a verified purchase, I don't believe you actually read my book," on every less than favorable review. Writers poking fun at reviewers' typos, telling them "you wouldn't know good fiction if it bit you on the..." I saw one indie tell one of his reviewers that he doubted one of his brain cells could even find another brain cell in order to mate, which admittedly made me laugh, but did also make me decide to steer clear.


Wow, Stacey, that's pretty much all I can say. Well, actually, I seem to be on my soapbox today so I guess I can say a little bit more.  As someone who was (and may again be) traditionally published I can tell you that there is a learning curve to being a "professional author." One of the benefits of going the traditional route is you get to join professional writer organizations and interact with other authors in a *private* forum. Trust me, there is just as much "You would not believe this horrible review I just got on Amazon/B&N/Blog/etc" complaining in those groups as you see among the indie crowd, and that includes from NYT bestsellers. The only difference is (1) non-authors never see it, and (2) those authors know not to respond publicly. Sometimes we have to remind each other, but when one of us is having one of those bad days, we take the advice of the group members to "step away from the keyboard and go eat lots and lots of chocolate" because we know its the right thing to do (and we probably gave that exact same advice to someone else the week before!)

Indie authors aren't any more thin-skinned then their traditionally published counterparts, indies just don't have the benefit of learning the ropes in private. Thanks for reviewing indies anyway.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

sibelhodge said:


> OK, so we're all agreed then...
> 
> $2.99 plus - boxers - cats!


$ .99 or $3.99 (for Epics and new releases before they get discounted), No underwear and uniforns.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> Some issues will never be resolved. 99 cents or 2.99. boxers or briefs. cats or dogs. pro reviews or "user" reviews.


I must kindly disagree with sibelhodge and Edward.

It should be whatever price is best for your book and not someone elses, boxerbriefs (you can get the support and coverage plus my husband looks hot in them), and dogs. 
(not sure what a "uniforn" is, but if their a type of dog its cool)


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> In the last year or less, I've seen everything from writers posting links on their blog and telling people to go troll so-and-so reviewer, or go vote down their review. I've seen writers on Amazon forums posting comments such as "you're not a verified purchase, I don't believe you actually read my book," on every less than favorable review. Writers poking fun at reviewers' typos, telling them "you wouldn't know good fiction if it bit you on the..." I saw one indie tell one of his reviewers that he doubted one of his brain cells could even find another brain cell in order to mate, which admittedly made me laugh, but did also make me decide to steer clear.
> 
> I try to remember what John Scalzi wrote last year on his blog: "The failure state of 'clever' is '
> 
> ...


Wow. I'm guessing I should be thankful that I haven't seen anything like that. Good grief. And that's pretty funny (and also true) about the "failure state of clever". Thanks!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We're watching a general disappearance of the gatekeepers, and there hasn't been time for new norms to develop. Newspapers are now held accountable for everythig they print, and are being forced to retract by bloggers. Columnists find hundreds of people ready and willing to refute them on the web. Politicians have FaceBook pages and respond to the opposition within minutes. The White House even put up a web page last year for people to report untruth in political discussion. And anyone remember Dan Rather?

All this is new, and the newspaper folks, TV newsmen, columnists, and politicians have all registered their displeasure. (Remember the head of CNN News telling then nation about the bloggers sitting around in their pajamas?) They once controlled access to the public and could say what they choose. Anyone who wanted to refute them didn't have access. Opposing voices were effectively locked out. Those voices certainly could speak, but couldn't get access to the same sized audience. 

So, the publishing gatekeepers are also losing their clout. Agents and publishers can be bypassed by independents authors. Independent reviewers are bypassing newspapers and magazines since Amazon and web pages also offered them a venue. With the gatekeepers gone, various factions will vie for influence. That's what happens whenever the king dies. We see it right here. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is all part of another, larger game.  Let the games begin.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

> But then, with no buffer (Big6), I guess we can always find ways to bite back


Wow, that did not sound at all as I intended it to. 
I love the interaction between reader and writer. To me, it's Indie writing's big appeal. To see that violated makes me _mad._
For a long time I had this posted as part of my author profile:
"Writers are just readers who occasionally run out of reading material and have to create their own." The day I lose respect for readers is the day I lose what makes me a writer too, I think.

That said:


> In the last year or less, I've seen everything from writers posting links on their blog and telling people to go troll so-and-so reviewer, or go vote down their review. I've seen writers on Amazon forums posting comments such as "you're not a verified purchase, I don't believe you actually read my book," on every less than favorable review. Writers poking fun at reviewers' typos, telling them "you wouldn't know good fiction if it bit you on the..." I saw one indie tell one of his reviewers that he doubted one of his brain cells could even find another brain cell in order to mate, which admittedly made me laugh, but did also make me decide to steer clear.


A percentage of people in any given situation will always behave badly, I suppose; readers and reviewers alike. I know one particular writer whose sense of humor is just naturally caustic and snarky, and I suspect some readers/reviewers are drawn to this because they like a good web brawl. But most Indies aren't like this. I really believe the writers who sink to these levels will not last. When I look at the most successful Indie writers now, they are polite to their readers and reviewers and do not engage in sharky, gimmicky tactics.

Probably because they're busy _writing._ Which I should be doing!


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

I hope that no one reading this thread is dissuaded from giving their honest opinion about a book they read. Honest reviews are valuable to both readers and authors. Sure, the author won't be thrilled to see a bad review, but if it's your honest opinion, the author can just get over it. (We do appreciate it when you leave out the personal insults, though -- we are real human beings. Well, most of us. I'm not sure about some of the other Davids.  )

And your review doesn't need to have perfect grammar or spelling or be "professional." Of course, well-thought-out, well-explained reviews are more helpful to other readers than "I loved it" or "I hated it," but I'm thankful for any honest review, no matter how long or short. Amazon reviews are supposed to be written by readers, not necessarily other authors or professional reviewers.

Most of what you're hearing in this thread is (a) authors commiserating with each other over bad reviews, which no one enjoys receiving, in what they (perhaps incorrectly) feel is a "safe" place with fellow authors, and (b) authors expressing outrage over dishonest reviews. (I don't think anyone is defending those.) With some reviews, reasonable minds can disagree over whether they're honest or dishonest, because most of the time we just don't have enough info to know for sure. But calling reviewers "idiots" isn't any more helpful than when reviewers call us idiots. 



Arkali said:


> Something that aggravates me, personally, is the tendency of people to downrate reviews based on whether or not they agree with the rating. The question is "Is this review helpful?" not "Do you agree with this rating?"


This is a pet peeve of mine too. So much so, that the number of "helpful" votes a post or review gets has become essentially meaningless.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

I just had to share this with all of you. It totally made my day!! 


> 5.0 out of 5 stars Great Find, January 7, 2011
> By Lisa A Ferguson - See all my reviews
> Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
> This review is from: Loose Ends (A Mary O'Reilly Paranormal Mystery) (Kindle Edition)
> ...


----------



## Patricia Rice (Mar 1, 2010)

Please bear with me as I try to figure out these boards. I can't even figure out how to put my indie covers on here as the rest of you have, but I'll get there eventually.

I'm both traditionally pubbed and have been going the indie route for the past few years. From experience, I've learned not to read reviews unless a friend sends me an especially good one. So I've never really paid attention to Amazon reviews. It looks like I should start. (is there a smiley for wincing?)

But when buying books, I look at the reviews in the same way as I do travel reviews--what floats your boat doesn't always float mine. If a review, whether 5 star or 1 star, mentions graphic violence, I'm outta there. If it mentions humor, I'll keep reading. 

So basically, I'm thinking the star ratings may not be entirely relevant. If all reviewers are doing are reacting to their experience with the book, why give it a rating? Just express the experience. Would this take the fun out of reviewing books so no one would do it then?


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

Patricia Rice said:


> Please bear with me as I try to figure out these boards. I can't even figure out how to put my indie covers on here as the rest of you have, but I'll get there eventually.
> 
> I'm both traditionally pubbed and have been going the indie route for the past few years. From experience, I've learned not to read reviews unless a friend sends me an especially good one. So I've never really paid attention to Amazon reviews. It looks like I should start. (is there a smiley for wincing?)
> 
> ...


Hi Patricia - nice to meet you.  Actually, I have found out that people even do a search on the number of stars a book receives. So, if they search three+ stars and you're at 2.5 - you're out of their ballpark. Right now, reviews - especially for indie authors - are important to get people to take a chance with your book.


----------



## CandyTX (Apr 13, 2009)

This is an interesting thread and why I like that the Writer's Cafe isn't only for writers. I'm a reviewer who does it just for fun (in my "real" life, I'm own a bookkeeping firm). I freely admit that my reviews are biased - on my own tastes, but I also try to remember that not every book is going to be the next great life-changing novel. Konrath, while I love his work, probably won't be writing the next Great Expectations - he'll scare the daylights out of me, which is maybe what I want at that moment. Imogen Rose isn't going to write the next Jane Eyre (sorry, Imogen, love ya!) but she'll pull me into another world, which what I ALWAYS need when I read. 

So, I make an effort to review the book for what it is. I know, not all reviewers do that. The "I love that book!" reviews driving me crazy. Okay, why? Did it scare you? Did it make you think? Is it written by your BFF and you just wanted to make sure they got five stars? What?

I've also found that writers, for the most part, are a very gracious group. I've returned books to the author and told them I cannot review it because the errors are too numerous or the story is just not holding water or whatever. Most thank me and go on, some make changes and some just keep on with what they've got. I've pointed out errors and problems in reviews and, that I know of, none have gotten too upset. I think it's how you present it as well. Don't get me wrong, I have written some pretty scathing reviews - particularly one called "On a Forty Year Drunk" - don't even look for it, the author pulled a few years ago after a few bad reviews. It was bad. Just BAD. I still want that 2 hours and $2.99 back. *laughing*

Anyway, my point is that I'm totally okay with writers venting about idiotic reviews. And I do agree, I have seen some really bad reviews before. Even the five star reviews can be bad.

I'll leave you with my favorite 1-star review I saw a while back:
"I hated this book. The author shouldn't be allowed to right anymore."

Yeah.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

CandyTX said:


> I'll leave you with my favorite 1-star review I saw a while back:
> "I hated this book. The author shouldn't be allowed to right anymore."


For some reason, I find that hilarious.

This thread has actually gotten really involved, which is awesome  I like popping in to see what you guys are coming up with.



David Derrico said:


> I hope that no one reading this thread is dissuaded from giving their honest opinion about a book they read. Honest reviews are valuable to both readers and authors. Sure, the author won't be thrilled to see a bad review, but if it's your honest opinion, the author can just get over it. (We do appreciate it when you leave out the personal insults, though -- we are real human beings. Well, most of us. I'm not sure about some of the other Davids.  )


I've been on both sides of this issue, and while a 'bad' review hurts, it can also be tremendously helpful, depending on the quality of the review. In general I'll strive to be nice but honest...unless the book is just _that_ bad, in which case, options are limited.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

CandyTX said:


> I'll leave you with my favorite 1-star review I saw a while back:
> "I hated this book. The author shouldn't be allowed to right anymore."
> 
> Yeah.


That is priceless!


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

I couldn't agree more. When a 1 star review is out of left field, incorrect, misleading and untrue, by all means go after the post with a vengeance. On the other hand, if it is helpful and accurate, work to make it untrue, and consider it a gift.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

I find it somewhat incongruous that so many authors at this board beg and plead for someone to read their work and post reviews, and then when the review is not what the author expected, immediately there are calls to other authors to vote the review down or publicly castigate the reviewer. Perhaps a line should be placed in each post asking for reviews such as "4 or 5 stars only, please." I can no longer imagine why anyone would want to review any books in this atmosphere and will no longer do so myself.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

intinst said:


> I find it somewhat incongruous that so many authors at this board beg and plead for someone to read their work and post reviews, and then when the review is not what the author expected, immediately there are calls to other authors to vote the review down or publicly castigate the reviewer. Perhaps a line should be placed in each post asking for reviews such as "4 or 5 stars only, please." I can no longer imagine why anyone would want to review any books in this atmosphere and will no longer do so myself.


Well said.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

For myself, any reviews/comments anywhere would be welcome. I trust readers to judge the reviews and make up their own minds about the quality of the review.

Someone above negatively mentioned the practice of appending author name and works to a review. It is something I have done lately (though I don't review much) simply because I feel it adds a little weight to the review (possibly not much as I am not that well known). I doubt that many/any readers will seek out my own work as a consequence, and it may even have a negative impact. I wouldn't mind a few comments on this practice.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Someone above negatively mentioned the practice of appending author name and works to a review. It is something I have done lately (though I don't review much) simply because I feel it adds a little weight to the review (possibly not much as I am not that well known). I doubt that many/any readers will seek out my own work as a consequence, and it may even have a negative impact. I wouldn't mind a few comments on this practice."_

Well, take a look how authors who review Stephen King include their names, pictures, and a link to their own books.

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Dark-No-Stars-ebook/dp/B003YUC3YE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=generic&qid=1297349736&sr=1-1


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Someone above negatively mentioned the practice of appending author name and works to a review. It is something I have done lately (though I don't review much) simply because I feel it adds a little weight to the review (possibly not much as I am not that well known). I doubt that many/any readers will seek out my own work as a consequence, and it may even have a negative impact. I wouldn't mind a few comments on this practice."_
> 
> Well, take a look how authors who review Stephen King include their names, pictures, and a link to their own books.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Full-Dark-No-Stars-ebook/dp/B003YUC3YE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=generic&qid=1297349736&sr=1-1


That's not the same, that's part of Amazon's promotional model. It's a completely different thing for an author to write an unsolicited review, and attach their name and links to the bottom. As a reader of reviews, I dislike it immensely. Yesterday I got a "friend" request from an indie who appends his/her every post on that board (review or comment,) with his/her tagline: Name, book title, website and link to author profile. I don't want that coming through my update feed. Once I've seen it, I've seen it. I don't need to see it over and over, everytime he/she posts.

From a visibility perspective it's probably brilliant. Unlike a forum (like this one,) where everyone has a signature line, and the eye/brain quickly learns to filter it out, in that environment the brain doesn't filter the linky signature, because it's unexpected.

But I view it as a big old "HEY LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!" and instantly wonder if they are only reviewing books (especially high profile books) as a form of marketing.

I mostly skip the solicited marketing reviews at the top, and the LAST thing I want is some random author soliciting within the text of their review in the customer comment area.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Someone above negatively mentioned the practice of appending author name and works to a review. It is something I have done lately (though I don't review much) simply because I feel it adds a little weight to the review (possibly not much as I am not that well known). I doubt that many/any readers will seek out my own work as a consequence, and it may even have a negative impact. I wouldn't mind a few comments on this practice."_
> 
> Well, take a look how authors who review Stephen King include their names, pictures, and a link to their own books.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Full-Dark-No-Stars-ebook/dp/B003YUC3YE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=generic&qid=1297349736&sr=1-1


No, they did not. AMAZON did that. There is a difference. I know you like to play devil's advocate, Terrance, but it's not the same. Also, I don't think it looks good for an author who is doing a reader review - ie. the five-star rating system - to include a link to their own work because that, to me, looks like the author is doing a bit of marketing via the other person's work.

What Stacey said. We aren't always on the same side of every debate, but on this issue I agree with her 100%


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

intinst said:


> I find it somewhat incongruous that so many authors at this board beg and plead for someone to read their work and post reviews, and then when the review is not what the author expected, immediately there are calls to other authors to vote the review down or publicly castigate the reviewer. Perhaps a line should be placed in each post asking for reviews such as "4 or 5 stars only, please." I can no longer imagine why anyone would want to review any books in this atmosphere and will no longer do so myself.


I'm sooooo in agreement with you here, INTINST. Like any writer I have some bad reviews, but I have a 100% hands off policy about this. I don't even like commenting in a thread about reviews 

Even if I don't understand a review, or don't think it makes any sense, my feeling is that it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the reaction that reader had to what I wrote.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

intinst said:


> I find it somewhat incongruous that so many authors at this board beg and plead for someone to read their work and post reviews, and then when the review is not what the author expected, immediately there are calls to other authors to vote the review down or publicly castigate the reviewer. Perhaps a line should be placed in each post asking for reviews such as "4 or 5 stars only, please." I can no longer imagine why anyone would want to review any books in this atmosphere and will no longer do so myself.


That is why I don't do them. I do Amazon reviews for books I've purchased, and for the Amazon Vine, but I won't do ones with "all calls" on boards. Even if the book looks interesting to me. I've seen to many other readers/reviewers burned.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"No, they did not. AMAZON did that. There is a difference."_

OK. What's the difference? Who wrote the reviews? Can we presume the authors knew how they would be presented? Did the authors have a choice to participate?

I don't say the practice is right, wrong, proper, improper, wise or foolish. I simply recognize they are reviews including a link to the reviewer's book.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"No, they did not. AMAZON did that. There is a difference."_
> 
> OK. What's the difference? Who wrote the reviews? Can we presume the authors knew how they would be presented? Did the authors have a choice to participate?
> 
> I don't say the practice is right, wrong, proper, improper, wise or foolish. I simply recognize they are reviews including a link to the reviewer's book.


Oh, my favorite. Comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"No, they did not. AMAZON did that. There is a difference."_
> 
> OK. What's the difference? Who wrote the reviews? Can we presume the authors knew how they would be presented? Did the authors have a choice to participate?
> 
> I don't say the practice is right, wrong, proper, improper, wise or foolish. I simply recognize they are reviews including a link to the reviewer's book.


Okay, I honestly feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Do you truly not see the difference, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Okay, I honestly feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Do you truly not see the difference, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?"_

What's the substantive difference? In both cases 
1. the review is written by another author, 
2. the author is identified, 
3. there is a link to the author's own book.

If one says it is proper in one case, and improper in the other, then what are the variables on which that judgement is made? They can't be the above three, since we have a case in front of us with all three, and it is considered proper.

So, what factors must be added to the above three to make such a review improper? Are there other factors that independently make any review improper, or are there other factors which make any review improper only in conjunction with the above three?


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

This:



Arkali said:


> Okay, I honestly feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Do you truly not see the difference, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?


It seems to be a pattern, though. 



Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Okay, I honestly feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Do you truly not see the difference, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?"_
> 
> What's the substantive difference? In both cases
> 1. the review is written by another author,
> ...


Let me try to explain this very clearly. Context is everything--and it's something you often intentionally ignore.

The reviews in question appear within the "Editorial Reviews" section of Stephen King's "Full Dark, No Stars" Amazon page. The content of the "Editorial Reviews" section of a book's page is controlled by the author and/or the publisher. Meaning that only the author/publisher can add content to that area.

Therefore, the four "guest reviewer" reviews that you see on that page were added by Stephen King and/or his publisher. They are NOT unsolicited reader reviews.

That is the difference.

If you review Stephen King's book on Amazon, leaving a link to your own book is done primarily to promote your own work (since, no offense, Terrence O'Brien's opinion of "Full Dark, No Stars" carries no particular weight). Plenty of eyeballs will no doubt at least skim your review, making it a tempting place to do some marketing. On the other hand, if Stephen King and/or his publisher decided that a Terrence O'Brien review would bolster their marketing effort and they posted it within the Editorial Reviews section, you would have done nothing tacky or improper. Your words (the review) have essentially been published by someone else, and the proper attribution is being given.

Seems pretty obvious to me. YMMV.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Can we agree each of the following factors considered in isolation has no effect on the propriety of a review?
1. the review is written by another author, 
2. the author is identified as review author,  
3. there is a link to the author's own book
4. solicitation status


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> This:
> 
> It seems to be a pattern, though.
> 
> ...


I was just asked to write a review for a fairly well-known author. He's traditionally published - for over 25 years - but is moving his backlist to e-books and so, since the book in question is paranormal, he asked me to read it and write a review - that he intends to use for marketing purposes. We both know what the review is for and we both know how it will be used. He will probably use a quote and at the end write "Terri Reid, author of The Mary O'Reilly Paranormal Mystery Series." But, in this case, (as weird as this seems to me) he is using my name to promote his book - not the other way around.

If I were to review a book on Amazon - that I purchased for myself, I would never presume to add my links or the names of my books to the review. I wasn't reading the book as an author - I was reading the book as a reader and I was writing the review as a reader. Anything else is disingenuous.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Can we agree each of the following factors considered in isolation has no effect on the propriety of a review?
> 1. the review is written by another author,
> 2. the author is identified as review author,
> 3. there is a link to the author's own book
> 4. solicitation status


No. Because to analyse a review, you MUST consider the context.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Okay, I honestly feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. Do you truly not see the difference, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?"_
> 
> What's the substantive difference? In both cases
> 1. the review is written by another author,
> ...


Rudeness.

Piggybacking off another author without their approval is like physically jumping on a stranger's back and yelling, "To the bus stop! Giddyap!" Sure, you see people getting rides on others' backs, but they generally ask first. Or the guy asks the hot girl if she wants a ride because he'll get social cachet from being seen in physical contact with her.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Hmmm. enough responses for me to see that views are mixed on the subject.

Personally I would *not* add a link to my own work. I feel that that would be presumptuous, intrusive and inappropriate. At the moment I see no harm adding name and titles; letting the reader of the review know very clearly who wrote it. To not do so seems to me, almost... craven; brave enough to say whatever I think, not brave enough to say it's me saying it. What else? pretend to be someone else, not me? If I thought my name alone were distinctive/well known enough to be recognised by the majority I wouldn't bother adding the books.

I'm willing to be persuaded that my current view is wrong. Right now, I'm not seeing it. I don't review much - so far only two books. Books that have impressed me. Books I like. I want to say so; I think it's only fair that I make it clear that it is me saying so. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Chris Northern said:


> Hmmm. enough responses for me to see that views are mixed on the subject.
> 
> Personally I would *not* add a link to my own work. I feel that that would be presumptuous, intrusive and inappropriate. At the moment I see no harm adding name and titles; letting the reader of the review know very clearly who wrote it. To not do so seems to me, almost... craven; brave enough to say whatever I think, not brave enough to say it's me saying it. What else? pretend to be someone else, not me? If I thought my name alone were distinctive/well known enough to be recognised by the majority I wouldn't bother adding the books.
> 
> I'm willing to be persuaded that my current view is wrong. Right now, I'm not seeing it. I don't review much - so far only two books. Books that have impressed me. Books I like. I want to say so; I think it's only fair that I make it clear that it is me saying so. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.


I think we are all in agreement that if a writer reviews the work of another writer he should make it clear who it is doing the reviewing, for the sake of transparency (same goes for reviews from friends / relatives). Where people part ways is whether or not one should write the review in the first place.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

nomesque said:


> Rudeness.
> 
> Piggybacking off another author without their approval is like physically jumping on a stranger's back and yelling, "To the bus stop! Giddyap!" Sure, you see people getting rides on others' backs, but they generally ask first. Or the guy asks the hot girl if she wants a ride because he'll get social cachet from being seen in physical contact with her.


I think it's more like standing outside of a concert venue and handing out flyers for another concert - which would, of course, be _absolutely and without question_ perfectly kosher.


----------

