Hello, again, fellow reviewers!
Welcome, fellow word grazers!
It's been awhile, hasn't it? I've covered many aspects of reviewing so topics are fewer to come by. Sometimes what is old is new again and this post proves it. I heard it through the editing grapevine that ratings aren't equaling the review. The ripple effect from that practice is not pretty and it affects the reviewer's credibility, not to mention causes untold confusion for the author as well as readers of your review.
The rating of three (3) isn't a bad thing. If you need a refresher about a three (3) rating click HERE -- remember the Rapunzel-effect?. I know some of you do. I even covered a three (3) rating in more depth HERE - personally, I think the 'Missing Link' is even more helpful. Three(3) is a popular subject, can you tell?
The flip side of rating a book a three (3), is not writing the review to justify it. In fact, what is being written is glowing, gushing and all perfectly positive. If you're that enthusiastic about the book, why in the world are you rating it a three (3)? To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "That does not compute." Certainly, it's not logical.
For a book to earn a three (3) rating, it has to have faults. Has to. Not maybe. Has to. And how to address them was covered in The Rapunzel Effect - so go check out that link if you haven't already.
A reviewer does a great disservice to the book and all readers of their review when there is tons of gushing and positive opinions without sharing what dragged it down from a perfect rating of five (5) or Best Book to a three (3). There has to be a reason. It's the responsibility of a reviewer to express that; share what didn't work and what could have made it better in a concise but respectful manner. Remember, no snark - it's never constructive nor truly informative. Remember, I covered No Snark when I went 'fishing'. Need a refresher? Click HERE
I'm not sure why a reviewer would hesitate to share their opinion of what didn't work for them. I don't think they'd hold back if they were talking to their friends face to face about it. I hardly think they'd recommend a book to their friends by waxing poetic about how great it was and then mislead them by not warning them of the book's pitfalls. Friendship means taking the good with the not-so-good. The relationship that a reviewer has with her/his audience is just like a friendship. Some readers follow a reviewer because they feel that they can trust the opinion of the writer. Why would you want to let them down? What are you afraid of? Are you aware that authors respect a well worded critique and find the information of what didn't work, helpful? They do. Well, most do.
If a reviewer stated that the hero's dialogue came across sounding like a stubborn, childish cur instead of a man you could respect and swoon over, then they'd know to pay more attention to the male POV and how he's depicted. Perhaps they need to do more research on how men talk amongst themselves to gain more insight. And that insight may very well benefit the next hero, and reviewers will truly have reason to be enthusiastic. Maybe there was a ton of confusing head hopping in a book and the reviewer shared that it was overdone and threw them out of the story. That might challenge the author to rein in his/her characters and the next book will be sharp and on target.
The bottom line? Write a review that matches the rating. Give details ( NOT SPOILERS) about what was missing, or what didn't work. Something. Don't just say the book 'feels' like a three (3). That means nothing. Please do not submit a review that has "Happy, Happy, Joy! Joy!" (nod to Ren & Stimpy) all over it and then slap on a three (3) rating, or even a four (4). When you do that, your credibility is on the line.
Please make your reviews match and/or justify your rating.
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Play the Match Game
Remember Match Game back in the 1970s? Ah, that Gene Rayburn was a kick.
And I just dated myself. LOL
However, it's not a game that I'm referring to with that post title. Nor is it very humorous. In my archives, I did a post called The Rapunzel Effect. One of the comments inspired a reply from me that truly created a spark of emotion.
I was talking about reviews rated a three on the LASR or Whipped Cream review sites. That rating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. It's what I term a summer read: something fun, it helps to pass the time in an enjoyable manner. Sometimes a reader doesn't want a heavy hitter, just an infusion of romance. Short stories do that but they also tend to see more three ratings than not.
Why do I think 3 has a bad rap? Easy - it's because of how the review is written. The Rapunzel Effect addresses that so I'm not going to repeat myself.
What I am trying to point out is this: The rating has to match the review.
A review simply cannot have the words: excellent, perfect, great, in the conclusion of the review where previously, the writer was blasting negatives throughout. The review will not be taken seriously--especially if the reviewer decided to give a four or better rating.
The reader is going to come away scratching their head, "I thought the reviewer hated the book.(?)"
Here's a review of one of my favorite stories. It's a four book rating but the writer mentions something that justifies it being a four. I also think if it hadn't been included, I would have expected a higher rating, but that could be my personal prejudice.
GOING OVERBOARD
A reviewer cannot give a gushing and glowing report and use those same positive words yet give a three rating. That makes no sense! There has be something that prevented it from getting a higher score. The reviewer has to say so. Has to. Otherwise, how can a reader trust the rating?
Here's an example: DON'T FENCE ME IN
Don't even get me started on how the review doesn't even give a potential reader any insight. That's a different post. But, see what I mean?
She claimed it was 'well researched' and 'solid'. So, why didn't it rate higher?
A better example of a three rating is this: BEHIND THE BENCH
Sure, something wasn't quite perfect for her, but the fact that the reviewer enjoyed the reading experience was not lost on me.
Now in this example, the reviewer hated the book. The tone of the review and the rating totally matched. I don't advocate this type of harsh and in depth microscopic carnage but the writer certainly was eloquent in her distaste. LOVE IN THE TIME OF DRAGONS.
By the same token, whenever a reviewer gives a reason for a three book or cherry, they need to do it with respect and civility. Reviews are not supposed to make an author bleed.
If authors are seeing a lot of negative and scathing comments regarding their work, and the majority of those are rated threes, it's not a wonder that poor little number 3 has had a bad rep. It's not fair. It's a generic paint brush tactic that is tarnishing everything.
A three rating can be a good thing, TEXT ME
- when the review is written right. Need a Refresher? REVIEWS CLASS #2
Make the rating match the review. Make sense. And play nice.
And I just dated myself. LOL
However, it's not a game that I'm referring to with that post title. Nor is it very humorous. In my archives, I did a post called The Rapunzel Effect. One of the comments inspired a reply from me that truly created a spark of emotion.
I was talking about reviews rated a three on the LASR or Whipped Cream review sites. That rating isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. It's what I term a summer read: something fun, it helps to pass the time in an enjoyable manner. Sometimes a reader doesn't want a heavy hitter, just an infusion of romance. Short stories do that but they also tend to see more three ratings than not.
Why do I think 3 has a bad rap? Easy - it's because of how the review is written. The Rapunzel Effect addresses that so I'm not going to repeat myself.
What I am trying to point out is this: The rating has to match the review.
A review simply cannot have the words: excellent, perfect, great, in the conclusion of the review where previously, the writer was blasting negatives throughout. The review will not be taken seriously--especially if the reviewer decided to give a four or better rating.
The reader is going to come away scratching their head, "I thought the reviewer hated the book.(?)"
Here's a review of one of my favorite stories. It's a four book rating but the writer mentions something that justifies it being a four. I also think if it hadn't been included, I would have expected a higher rating, but that could be my personal prejudice.
GOING OVERBOARD
A reviewer cannot give a gushing and glowing report and use those same positive words yet give a three rating. That makes no sense! There has be something that prevented it from getting a higher score. The reviewer has to say so. Has to. Otherwise, how can a reader trust the rating?
Here's an example: DON'T FENCE ME IN
Don't even get me started on how the review doesn't even give a potential reader any insight. That's a different post. But, see what I mean?
She claimed it was 'well researched' and 'solid'. So, why didn't it rate higher?
A better example of a three rating is this: BEHIND THE BENCH
Sure, something wasn't quite perfect for her, but the fact that the reviewer enjoyed the reading experience was not lost on me.
Now in this example, the reviewer hated the book. The tone of the review and the rating totally matched. I don't advocate this type of harsh and in depth microscopic carnage but the writer certainly was eloquent in her distaste. LOVE IN THE TIME OF DRAGONS.
By the same token, whenever a reviewer gives a reason for a three book or cherry, they need to do it with respect and civility. Reviews are not supposed to make an author bleed.
If authors are seeing a lot of negative and scathing comments regarding their work, and the majority of those are rated threes, it's not a wonder that poor little number 3 has had a bad rep. It's not fair. It's a generic paint brush tactic that is tarnishing everything.
A three rating can be a good thing, TEXT ME
- when the review is written right. Need a Refresher? REVIEWS CLASS #2
Make the rating match the review. Make sense. And play nice.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Books Are Like Fish
Books are like fish only in a figurative sense. I guess I'm lucky to review for the site that I do simply because of their policies.
I believe that some sites put reviewers at a disadvantage. How? By dictating to reviewers what books they'll read and review. No choice, no preferences just here you go and perhaps even give them a deadline. I wonder, do they even allow them to 'opt out'?
I prefer to fish for books. I prefer having the opportunity to say, "nope, not my thing" and toss it back into the water for another reviewer's fishing line.
I've read about an author's experience with a reviewer that concentrated solely on what they didn't like about the book and totally trashed it. I sat back and wondered, "Did that reviewer even have a choice? Was she forced to read something that wasn't even in her area of interest?" That could be one explanation for such a diatribe. Perhaps a passive-aggressive response? If so, totally not fair to the author!
I am of the opinion that review sites who dictate to their reviewers do the reviewer and the author a grave disservice. I believe this is especially true for those that are sent print books. It's also why I think Ebooks are so wonderful - another post for another time.
The site I belong to has a policy to never dictate to a reviewer. Nor do they insist that a reviewer write the review even if the reviewer has indicated a dislike for the book just because they requested the book in the first place. It's a personal preference and reviewing is basically opinions. If you go fishing for bass to eat and catch an eel, you're going to throw it back. Perhaps screech a bit before you do, but it's going back where it came from, right? So too, a book that doesn't resonate with a person. Send it back. Reviewing is supposed to be FUN!
Why should reviewers be allowed to send it back? It's logical. Think about it. A great review will throb with enthusiasm and positive vibes when it's written by an excited reviewer. It's unlikely to be a short one either. It will flow and the reviewer's voice will come through leaving a reader of the review in no doubt as to where the writer stands. Like this REVIEW. Or, this REVIEW
On the other hand, a reviewer who gets the willies from reading about zombies and vampires and avoids them in her personal buying choices will not enjoy reading and then having to write about it. It will ALWAYS show.
OK, you might ask why'd she request the book in the first place? Why wouldn't she write a review? If it's a site that allows for picking then perhaps the blurb was misleading OR she read a review about the topic and wanted to give it a try. (must have been a good review then, eh? ) Or she closed her eyes, spun around four times and then pointed. In any event, she tries it and finds that this book doesn't change her mind. She can't get into it. She discovered it deals with issues that are on her "never buy" list. She doesn't like the characters and can't even get past the first three chapters. Any number of reasons and all are valid. A good review site will allow her to send it back (Ebook) and put it out there for other reviewers to grab. They recognize (or should) that one person's opinion does not signal the end of the road for that book. It's better to have a review written by a person who enjoyed themselves and was entertained.
If a reviewer does request to return the book, they should provide the site's admin people the reasons why. Sometimes it's that personal preference thing and sometimes, whoa, it's major issues that can be objectively identified: poor editing, misuse of vernacular for the time period, objectionable content outside the boundaries of the site's protocols, TSTL heroine, no plot or the book didn't live up to the blurb or expectations. The review site I belong to actually gives a book two chances before notifying the sender why it couldn't be reviewed.
I give kudos to a review site that resists snark. I respect a review site that doesn't publish reviews that are negative to that extreme. If the points being made are valid and greatly affect the rating of the book (read low to zilch rating), then it's more professional to write to the publisher with the feedback, or to the author if it's an author submitted book. I don't have high a regard for a review site who posts all reviews just to have the numbers or to generate sensational feedback and visit hits. It reminds me too much of the National Enquirer or other sensationalist tabloids. ::shudder::
Poorly written, snarky and insulting and/or lazy synopsis style reviews should not have a place on a review site if they value integrity, takes pride in itself or cares about professionalism or how it translates to authors and an industry as a whole. Remember that not all synopsis reviews are bad if they include extra paragraphs that actually review the book. I only refer to the ones that don't. You know, those one-liners at the end. "I liked Dick and Jane. I liked how they ran. You should read it." ::rolls eyes::
So, have you caught any good fish lately?
I believe that some sites put reviewers at a disadvantage. How? By dictating to reviewers what books they'll read and review. No choice, no preferences just here you go and perhaps even give them a deadline. I wonder, do they even allow them to 'opt out'?
I prefer to fish for books. I prefer having the opportunity to say, "nope, not my thing" and toss it back into the water for another reviewer's fishing line.
I've read about an author's experience with a reviewer that concentrated solely on what they didn't like about the book and totally trashed it. I sat back and wondered, "Did that reviewer even have a choice? Was she forced to read something that wasn't even in her area of interest?" That could be one explanation for such a diatribe. Perhaps a passive-aggressive response? If so, totally not fair to the author!
I am of the opinion that review sites who dictate to their reviewers do the reviewer and the author a grave disservice. I believe this is especially true for those that are sent print books. It's also why I think Ebooks are so wonderful - another post for another time.
The site I belong to has a policy to never dictate to a reviewer. Nor do they insist that a reviewer write the review even if the reviewer has indicated a dislike for the book just because they requested the book in the first place. It's a personal preference and reviewing is basically opinions. If you go fishing for bass to eat and catch an eel, you're going to throw it back. Perhaps screech a bit before you do, but it's going back where it came from, right? So too, a book that doesn't resonate with a person. Send it back. Reviewing is supposed to be FUN!
Why should reviewers be allowed to send it back? It's logical. Think about it. A great review will throb with enthusiasm and positive vibes when it's written by an excited reviewer. It's unlikely to be a short one either. It will flow and the reviewer's voice will come through leaving a reader of the review in no doubt as to where the writer stands. Like this REVIEW. Or, this REVIEW
On the other hand, a reviewer who gets the willies from reading about zombies and vampires and avoids them in her personal buying choices will not enjoy reading and then having to write about it. It will ALWAYS show.
OK, you might ask why'd she request the book in the first place? Why wouldn't she write a review? If it's a site that allows for picking then perhaps the blurb was misleading OR she read a review about the topic and wanted to give it a try. (must have been a good review then, eh? ) Or she closed her eyes, spun around four times and then pointed. In any event, she tries it and finds that this book doesn't change her mind. She can't get into it. She discovered it deals with issues that are on her "never buy" list. She doesn't like the characters and can't even get past the first three chapters. Any number of reasons and all are valid. A good review site will allow her to send it back (Ebook) and put it out there for other reviewers to grab. They recognize (or should) that one person's opinion does not signal the end of the road for that book. It's better to have a review written by a person who enjoyed themselves and was entertained.
If a reviewer does request to return the book, they should provide the site's admin people the reasons why. Sometimes it's that personal preference thing and sometimes, whoa, it's major issues that can be objectively identified: poor editing, misuse of vernacular for the time period, objectionable content outside the boundaries of the site's protocols, TSTL heroine, no plot or the book didn't live up to the blurb or expectations. The review site I belong to actually gives a book two chances before notifying the sender why it couldn't be reviewed.
I give kudos to a review site that resists snark. I respect a review site that doesn't publish reviews that are negative to that extreme. If the points being made are valid and greatly affect the rating of the book (read low to zilch rating), then it's more professional to write to the publisher with the feedback, or to the author if it's an author submitted book. I don't have high a regard for a review site who posts all reviews just to have the numbers or to generate sensational feedback and visit hits. It reminds me too much of the National Enquirer or other sensationalist tabloids. ::shudder::
Poorly written, snarky and insulting and/or lazy synopsis style reviews should not have a place on a review site if they value integrity, takes pride in itself or cares about professionalism or how it translates to authors and an industry as a whole. Remember that not all synopsis reviews are bad if they include extra paragraphs that actually review the book. I only refer to the ones that don't. You know, those one-liners at the end. "I liked Dick and Jane. I liked how they ran. You should read it." ::rolls eyes::
So, have you caught any good fish lately?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)