You have to try and remember when reviewing a book that (the chances are) the authour has achieved something you probably never will so you need to show them a little respect for that.... unless the authour is Gav Thorpe, then troll away.
I am sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with this. The job of any Author is to write a story that will entertain the Reader; in other words, we the writer serve the reader, not the other way around. If we fail at this, the reader (be he or she a baker, garbage man, another writer, or your wife's mother) has full rights to be displeased with you, and full rights to voice their displeasure, in any form of criticism they choose to engage in. And what should our response be to critism? No matter what is said about our work, or how it is said, our response should always be "Thank-you. Thank you for taking THE TIME -something you'll never get back- to read my work." -OJB
This. There is a reason people tell you your story has to speak for itself. You don't get to stand over your reader's shoulder and tell them what you meant, how many hours you spent toiling away over that one sentence, or why they should feel empathy for your character. You have to make the story tell them everything they need to know. Sometimes, they just won't get it. It won't be their thing, and you're going to get bad reviews. Be glad they bought it, take anything you can constructively, be grateful they reviewed at all, and move on. You can't please everyone.
When I started to write, I posted a very early version of Mystics; it got destroyed by two critiques. Either one of them would have made a lot of people cry -Harsh, brutal, and one was very unkind. One critique inspired me to take an online class to tighten up my grammar skills (which is now light years better than it was). The other critique (The harsher of two) was used as the basis of my Mystics: Prologue which has received far better reviews. The point is that instead of sending threats and acting like a child over the fact someone didn't like my work, I took the time to develop the skills they told me I was lacking, and to take my story in a direction that was more appealing to a wider audience. What you do with your critiques is up to you, but it profits a man none, to cry over bad reviews and threaten those who took the time to give them. - I really have nothing left to add to this discussion. My feelings on how to respond to a reviewer are pretty clear, and while the reviewer might not know what is 'best' for your story, they will know one thing: If they like your story or not. -OJB
This started as a humorous thread... I'm not complaining, I think that that is advice we all need to remember. As someone who spends a lot of time on fanfiction dot net, I've seen far too many negative reviews, and far too many fights erupt over these. I'm glad I've learned these lessons indirectly.
What about Mr. Thorpe do you hold in low regard? It would be helpful if you were to elaborate please and thank you.
+1 I get what @Stephen1974 means, because I find it much harder to leave bad reviews now that I know so many authors personally, but OJB is right. Reviews are for other readers, not for the author. I mean, we shouldn't get personal about the author in our reviews, but we also don't need to add on a star because at least they managed to publish it...
Three things drive me insane. The first is the use of the term rockcrete. He has a fetish for the word. It seems like every other paragraph contains the damn word. In every frickin book. The second is that everything every characters says is written as though its dramatic end of the world must have an impact, i'm surprised he doesnt finish his quitation marks with a quote from belt. https://www.youtube/watch?v=E7bhOUR1spc The third are made up metaphores used to describe made up things. DUDE!!!!! No! He is getting better. His first book was the worst I had ever read so it took a VERY long time to read anything else he wrote. I've managed to get through two more books because they are part of a series but I can only stomach so much rockcrete at a time.
@Stephen1974 Thank you. I looked him up yesterday and according to his wiki, he wrote for the WH40K series. I think I will dodge them, as there are many books in the series written by much better writers. Yeah I think the metaphor misrepresentation, and rockcrete would make me beat him to death with his own novel.
Honestly, I don't know what some people consider a 'review' but I've just got done reading a bunch of them on Amazon for a book I was considering buying. At least half of the reviews (and there were nearly 100 of them) consisted of statements like : My wife loved it. (5 stars) Not bad. (4 stars) OK. (3 stars) Didn't like it much. (2 stars) Awful. Don't bother. (1 star) These are valid opinions, but they are not reviews. They are votes. I honestly think Amazon should start requiring a minimum word count of at least 100 words for any review. Reviews are supposed to help readers make up their minds whether to buy a book or not. Just a three-or-four-word opinion from somebody we don't know isn't helpful at all. Tell us how and why you reached your opinion. THAT is a review.
It's annoying for the writers, too, especially in interactive communities. I get so annoyed when I see I have a new review on a story I've posted and it's just "Good story" (or worse: "Update!") I like to know what I did well, what I could improve upon, and loads of other stuff like that. And since I often look at reviews to decide if a fanfiction story is worth my time, that's annoying then, too. Sorry. Whine over. I will make the point, as Devil's advocate, that these people are not professional reviewers, and may also be short on time. For me, well-thought-out, detailed reviews take half an hour at least.
Yes, I can appreciate that. If people are unwilling (or unable) to take the time, however, they should not be writing 'reviews.' It's like being told by a chef: 'I don't have time to cook, but here's a bowl of hot water. You can call it soup." A couple of words from an unknown person is no help at all to a potential reader. However, they get to influence the 'star system' as much as people who are willing to take the time to write an honest review. Amazon could improve this situation a lot, by simply requiring a minimum word count that would engender a bit more effort on the part of the reviewer.
That would cut down on the purchased favorable "reviews" as well. I've seen a few books that I was definitely not a fan of with hundreds of "Good story" "Really makes you think" "I loved this" style reviews. 100 words would seriously cut into the time of the paid spammers in (insert your personal bogeyman country here)'s time, and thus income, and make it easier to weed them out. Pretty sure IMDB uses that sort of system, I remember reading a review there where the person complained about needing to fill the character count and just finished by copying and pasting "I HATE THIS MOVIE SO MUCH" over and over. Also, that was a pretty useful review, IIRC
I might be inceptioning the idea of reviewing, but what if reviewers had review ratings? Like JerkReviewerGuy 1/5 Stars Hate this book. There was a helicopter on the cover AND NO PICTURES ON THE INSIDE! (Was this review helpful?) JerkReviewGuy has a 0/5 Star reviewer rating.
You could have something like # of reviews posted and average star rating given. JerkReviewer: 65 reviews/1.2 star average The problem with that, of course, is that I suspect there are a lot of people like me who only review things they hate, as a warning to others.
At least Jerk Reviewer Guy gave SOME kind of a reason for why he hated the book. And of course that's not a good review. But it's better than just "Hate this book." At least we know there's a helicopter on the cover and no pictures on the inside.
I used to think that as well, but my experience yesterday opened my eyes. I found these kinds of votes attached to everything from 5-star down to 1-star ratings. Do folks think Amazon is Twitter, I wonder? If I were Amazon, I'd be looking to put a lid on this, if they want the reviews to actually be helpful to buyers. I do now indicate 'no' in the section that asks, 'Was this review helpful to you?' Because, hey ho, it WASN'T helpful. Until I encountered some reviews with meat on them, I was as ignorant about the worth of the book as when I began. If the reviewer was somebody I know or am familiar with, a statement like "I hated this book" might carry some weight. But because I don't know these people and have no idea where they're coming from or what other opinions they might hold, a statement like "I hated this book" means absolutely zippidee doo da. If Amazon had a reasonable word count requirement plus a system where customers could report abuse—such as "I hate this book" repeated over and over 20 times, to achieve the word count—then I think the problem would go away.
There's a "was this review useful" function at Amazon and the reviews with the most votes rise to the top. And they do rate reviewers somehow, with their "Top 100" or "Top 1000" reviewers and the Vine program, whatever that is. But some of that may just be based on volume? And I thought there WAS a word limit on Amazon...I can't remember what the limit is, but I'm pretty sure there's a minimum...
I will review it either way. Though the last review I gave was more or less neutral. The book was evenly bad as it was good, which made it difficult to summarize my thoughts of it. I still gave it 3/5. I too despise those reviews that are not informative. Also those that gush over every little detail of a book, to where they spoil the story for you. Seems there are people of two camps: Those who can't be bothered to say more than the minimum of good/bad etc. And those that want to spend an inordinate amount of time recounting all the fine details. (Which is great when you're looking for a product that you don't intend to read or watch.) This is why I love the fact that used book stores are still around.
Well, if there is a minimum word limit, it's pretty low ...and it doesn't even need to be a word, apparently. Check out the last entry: 5.0 out of 5 starsFive Stars ByAmazon Customeron 20 July 2017 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase Bought as a gft Comment| 3 people found this helpful. (???!!! - probably because they agreed with the 5 stars, but this is certainly not helpful, is it?) Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse 1.0 out of 5 starsOne Star ByMr. J. E. Mosson 24 July 2017 Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase The Worst CC book I have ever attempted to read.YesNoReport abuse 4.0 out of 5 starscool ByKelly Duntonon 23 July 2017 Format: Kindle Edition this is the first Catherine cookson book i hve ever read and it is really good for me but not my sister but my mum qould probably read it YesNoReport abuse 2.0 out of 5 starsTwo Stars ByAmazon Customeron 18 July 2017 Format: Kindle Edition G v lw YesNoReport abuse .................... In case anybody thinks I'm making this up, these are lifted directly from the Amazon.uk site for the following book. You're welcome to check for yourself. However, this review, from the same page, I find acceptable. It tells us at least SOMETHING about the book and why the reviewer didn't like it. It's not a great review, and it's a tad short, but it's acceptable : 1.0 out of 5 starsDisappointed ByDawn Haganon 20 July 2017 Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase Not up to her usual standard very disappointed a lot of the story needed finishing as you don't get to know what happens to the rest of the family Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
@jannert Yeah that one review was not a word, but some code for what they wanted to say about the book. Or it might be the worst way of spelling God awful.
I think there are lots of people submitting 'reviews' from their smartphones, which might explain the weird spellings, lack of punctuation and strange abbreviations. (I kinda liked 'gft.' I wasn't aware that 'gift' was a word that required abbreviation, but then I'm an old fart.) However, that doesn't excuse the lack of content. I mean ...a review that says "I bought it as a gft?" That's a review? Oh, I don't think so. And if that person actually intend to review it, they will not have read the book? That would be my assumption anyway, if they've bought it as a gft and have nothing else to say about it. So why are they 'reviewing' it at all? This isn't the only book I was reading stupid reviews for the other day, but I WAS genuinely interested in this one. I have recently been reading some of Catherine Cookson's novels, after reading some biographical information about her—and realising she wrote about what she 'knew' and had experienced many of the same conditions and events that her characters do. I discovered that her heirs had recently unearthed an unpublished novel of hers, and that they'd had it recently published. I think this is the book. So I was interested in reading reviews of it, just to see what it was like. I haven't bought it yet, but I might. However, it certainly won't be because of these inane reviews. It will be in spite of them.
Yeah. The point I was making is that Amazon did publish the 'review.' Why? Especially if they do have a minimum word requirement for reviews? I would suspect the minimum word count should be at least ONE word. This one doesn't cut it. But that person certainly got to vote.
I agree. Amazon doesn't have a minimum word count for reviews. I don't think people put the effort in to actually writing them. At least not in cases like this one. They just wanted to rate the book, but had to write something. At least that is how it seems. So they were just being lazy, but wanted to rate anyway. Review wise it is negative nil as far as being useful. In order to rate, you have to write a review.