Review Group discussion

At present (from June 10th 2014) we have the rule, put in place by Jay the last group administrator, that all reviews of whatever star, should be put on amazon with the following rationale:

Reviews are written for the benefit of other readers, not the author.

The manufacturer (author) is presenting their product (the book) for sale in the open marketplace. It is a reviewer's task to say whether the product meets the specification claimed for it by the manufacturer in the product description (the book blurb).

It's no accident that you see the label 'product description' on Amazon, even for books, because that's precisely what it is. A book is a product put up for sale.

If we accept poor writing, written for any target audience, as OK, then we are doing a disservice to all indie publishers. We have to be as good as, if not better, than traditional publishers if we are to be taken seriously. Whatever the story or the intended audience, if the use of English is poor and/or the formatting is not up to spec we should warn other readers they will be buying a defective product.


We have three options as a group.

1. We continue to uphold the above rule, which fits with our honest, non-reciprocal review founding ethos.

2. As long as the review is posted to goodreads, we leave it up to the reviewer, whether they want to post a low star review to amazon or not. We as a group will uphold the right of anyone who wants to post a low star review. Having access to the reviewer does not mean the author has a right to influence their opinion. Offenders will be banned.

3. We return to the old format, where the author has to give their consent for a low star review to be posted.

My opinion is that we should stick with Option #1 and continue upholding the existing rule. Option #2 feels inconsistent and may make reviewers feel pressured to withhold their honest opinion. Option #3 leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as it seems to cheapen the review process.

Just my two cents...

I agree with option one. As a consumer I would want an honest review of a product I was considering purchasing. As a writer I need honest reviews so I can improve my writing. A low score would hurt, but also it would be helpful.

I do not like option 1 but agree that it is probably the only completely honest approach.

If anyone has another suggestion, please feel free to add it to the discussion.

Emma, I believe Option 1 is the only honest approach. Keep up the good work.

Option one, without a doubt.

Option 1, with a tweak. I'd like to suggest the same review gets placed on both sites but a review that receives 2 stars on Goodreads is given 3 stars on Amazon to compensate for the different rating systems. (2 on Goodreads: It was O.K.; 3 on Amazon: It's O.K.)

Option 1, with a tweak. I'd like to suggest the same review gets placed on both sites but a review that receives 2 stars on Goodreads is given 3 stars on Amazon to compensate for the different rating systems. (2 on Goodreads: It was O.K.; 3 on Amazon: It's O.K.)

The only thing we can do in that regard Jacob is remind people of the differences in the rating systems. We cannot, and will not seek to influence the individual ratings reviewers decide to use. Some people prefer to be consistent in the number of stars they give a book regardless of site. That is their prerogative.

I appreciate that. Thanks, Emma.

I agree that Option 1 seems to be the most honest approach to reviewing books as "products" if the group is to perform as a group of consumers. If reviewers make helpful, i.e. positive, comments intended to point out editing errors etc, I wonder whether we are then faced with a different situation to that of other products. The author may be able to implement changes to improve their "product" - not the usual case for manufacturers of a ladder, or a TV, or a camera etc.
Plus, I agree with Jacob about tweaking Option 1 to reflect the difference in star ratings, although Emma has made a significant point about the prerogative of the reviewer being respected.

Interesting point G.J. If we are not to act as 'consumers' what would be an alternative?

Are you saying as fellow authors we shouldn't mention easily fixed errors in a public review or that we should?

It's another case of us all wearing two hats. As authors we'd probably all very much appreciated being told about such things privately so we can fix them, rather being criticised in public, but as product consumers, we want to know if a product is 'faulty' before parting with hard earned cash.

Again, the group cannot have a policy on this, its up to individuals to decide what they want to do.

Emma,

I absolutely agree with you about fellow authors trying to "help fix errors". It probably should be done through a private message, but then that could introduce the problem of authors offering "books" for review that are not published and on sale publicly. The Review Group is not there to beta read, copy edit etc and so how do you filter out unfinished works? Or is that a criterion for submission of novels I've missed?

G J

Only books that are available for sale can be included in review rounds.

It is indeed an interesting point, G.J. An author can decide to pull their book and make changes as a result of what you've written (I know of a couple of cases), but the reviews aren't for that purpose; they're for the punter.

However, I think Emma did set up a beta reviewer's group, which is a good idea, although I haven't taken part in it yet - I will do in the New Year.

In a previous post I suggested option one as my preference. In the matter of corrections, I have always had a policy of pointing out minor errors privately, by personal message. Even with professional editing, there will be one or two glitches remaining in a new book.
I am always grateful for the same in return.
The only time I don't do this is if there are too many errors, and it is clear the author has taken short cuts through the final stages of publishing.

I appreciated it when a GR author pointed out some errors (total of four) and gave me the page numbers. I try to do that if there are only a few as well. When an author has a lot of errors, however, it is not feasible to do that, especially if they are punctuation ones.

I'll leave this discussion open till the end of January, but the consensus seems to be to keep the rule as it is.

In my opinion a negative assessment of a book in a group such as this should be sent to the author and not posted as a review at all. It should count as a review done, for the purposes of the round.
I see it that way on the basis that we are obliged to give honest reviews to buyers but are not obliged to give buyers a review at all. It's perfectly honest and reasonable to publish nothing after reading a book and simply message the author with your thoughts.
The platform I'm viewing this from is that we are giving each other our time and deserve only positive results, be that public praise or private criticism - both positive.
Just my 2 cents worth. I'm happy to adhere to the rules as they are.

As someone new to the publishing business, I'd like to support enthusiastically Option 1. I realize I'm late to this discussion, but I tend to agree with G.S that if we do not feel we can write a positive review we should instead comment only to the author, but with a caveat: read and review after the author has made corrections. It will take longer that way, but would be fair to both the author and the reviewer. Meanwhile, Option 1 it is!

Hi Pat,
option 1 is for posting the review whatever the star rating.

I don't think we could ask reviewers to read a book a second time, that would have to be up to the individual.
A low review might be because they found the book mind numbingly boring, rather than it being a poor proof reading/editing problem.

I think ALL reviews should be posted, good and bad. To only post the reviews we agree with is censorship and lying by omission. Would I like to see 50 one star reviews on my book? Of course not! But, if those one stars were the reviewers honest opinions, who I am to tell them differently? I think it is ridiculous that some people genuinely want only good reviews posted onto their work. Go find the best work you've ever read, and I'm willing to bet that there is at least 1 one star review on there.

I think lying by omission is widely practiced and perfectly fine when talking to or about friends and loved ones - anyone you don't wish to upset, out of kindness. It's also present in the vast majority of reviews - it's in all the friendly ones and is almost always present in the unhappy ones, omitting anything good in an attempt to make the case for the 1 star. Now, omitting part of the truth when under oath on a witness stand or responding to a police officer - well, that's another story.

Linking another issue - as there is no censorship of this kind, we should never do reciprocal reviews. There is no amount of time that will remove the natural tendency for payment in kind.

G.S. wrote: "I think lying by omission is widely practiced and perfectly fine when talking to or about friends and loved ones - anyone you don't wish to upset, out of kindness. It's also present in the vast maj..."

I'm a bit of an oddball. I am brutally blunt. I absolutely prefer the review round, but I don't mind a reciprocal review. the thing is, I would probably be the worse person for an author to do a reciprocal review with because I WILL NOT lie. I don't care if they give me a glowing five star review. If I think their work is three stars, that is what they will get. Of course, it will likely lead to them trashing my story and my name, but oh well. But, I do see how other people may struggle with that.

Even though in disagreement, I like your style, Kyion. If everyone approached reviewing that way or if the likes of Amazon/Goodreads structured the system to force that somehow, I would be on-board with you (and simply refuse to write reviews at all). I'm comfortable with my position on 'friendly reviewing' because I see the review space as having been abandoned by readers (almost impossible to get one to post a review if you're unknown), and with the space largely vacant, it has been taken up with advertising.

G.S. wrote: "Even though in disagreement, I like your style, Kyion. If everyone approached reviewing that way or if the likes of Amazon/Goodreads structured the system to force that somehow, I would be on-board..."

I see what you mean, but I honestly think we just need to take a step back, and the reviewing system will be restored. As it is, authors get upset with the review/sale ratio, and then reach out to friends/family/other authors for "friendly reviews," which floods the comment section with four or five star ratings. Readers see that, possibly get excited about reading good work, then buy and read it only for it to be mediocre or poor, which pisses them off, and makes them either write a bad review or not review at all.

Personally, I would rather have honest reviews, the more the better. If I get 100 reviews, and a large percent of them complain about pacing, then I would go back and see if the pacing is what I intended to be. If it isn't, i'll know to be careful with that in the future. If it is, oh well to them. On the other hand, if they are just mad that the story didn't end the way the wanted or people didn't pair the way they wanted, I'll chalk that up to differences of opinions and move on. I don't take a review to heart. I dissect it to see if there is anything in it I could use to improve, and move on.

Think about it. You buy a toaster, and it works. However, even the lowest setting almost scorches your bread, so you go onto Amazon and say, "People be careful with this product. Unless you like your toast well done, this may not be for you." That is not written for the manufacturer, but other buyers. If the manufacturer is smart, however, after seeing several reviews like this, they will review the heat output, and see if it is where they intended it to be. It would be crazy for them to contact you and tell you to remove your review or to not post it at all. If that practice were to get out, it would make them look even worse than having a bad product.

I can't argue with that Kyion, except to say it seems to me the resolution needs to come from the host. I also publish under a pseudonym, with 15 titles selling about 3000 books last year, as many again given away free. From that distribution I received 6 reviews in total, while the books in competition on the Amazon lists have lots of friendly looking reviews. So, with that pseudonym, I've done as you suggest and stepped back... With this real name profile, I'm joining the party and getting involved with groups like this to generate reviews, most of which seem to lean towards friendly... But all that said - I fear not the brutally blunt reviewer like you. Bring it on, I say :-)

I feel your pain. I'm human, and when I see other authors practically having a party in their review sections, it's tempting to reach out for "friendly reviews." But, I always tell myself that it will do me no good. Yes, it may generate a little interest, but it may impede honest reviews, which is what I need if I plan to grow into a great writer.

I'm not sitting idly by, however. The review rounds are great. You review someone that is NOT reviewing you, so the people reviewing you should feel no pressure to give you a four or five star rating. Plus, with the rule that you can never review a person that has reviewed you, it's even more sound. The honesty is more valuable to us than the generated interest or sales. Yes, this one book may sale, but if we want longevity, we need to improve. To improve, we must take ALL reviews.

Yes, all reviews help us become better writers, even if we do not agree with everything they say. But the issue here is about POSTING reviews to an author's product page.

And another problem is this: what if, after receiving a bad review, we take on board some of the feedback and edit those areas, and then upload this new version? The review will no longer be entirely accurate, but shoppers will believe it is. The only way to remove the review would be (if the poster does not do it) to republish your book with a new title. That is a lot of work.

G.S. wrote: "I can't argue with that Kyion, except to say it seems to me the resolution needs to come from the host. I also publish under a pseudonym, with 15 titles selling about 3000 books last year, as many ..."

Yes, it is hard to get reviews from readers. I think the best way is to give them a little encouragement. Anywhere you interact with readers - social media, your website, at author events, book signings - if someone says they read your book and enjoyed it, ask them to please post a review, because it really helps new and indie authors. You could also, if you have enough fans interacting or signed up for a mailing list, do a competition where, they have to write a review of one of your books to go in the draw to win a prize (as far as I know, that would not be against Amazon rules).

I was also wondering, for those not happy with this group's policy on low star reviews, if anyone can suggest groups here or on FB where authors can get non-reciprocal reviews without having to get one and two star reviews posted to Amazon?

Odelia wrote: "Yes, all reviews help us become better writers, even if we do not agree with everything they say. But the issue here is about POSTING reviews to an author's product page.

And another problem is t..."

That is just it, beyond a typo, I never edit my work based on a review. Once I write something, it is complete and that's that. I simply use the feedback for future projects, so the entire bit about unpublishing and republishing shouldn't apply. I feel that the reviews should be posted to all sites because potential buyers, other readers, deserve to have all the available information before they spend their hard earned money. I feel it is a slippery slope to ask for reviews, and then turn around and ask for them not to be posted unless we agree with them.

My vote is firmly with option 3. I do not think there is anything inherently dishonest about withholding public criticism. As indie authors, we are not just writers. We are also publishers, book designers, editors, publicists and marketers. I have never walked into a store and seen them have a negative customer review displayed right next to the product they trying to sell, to help people make a choice. In fact, you will not see one anywhere. Any marketer would think anyone in favour of option 1 or 2 is nuts.

And reviews do not always help the customer. I've seen reviews on Amazon for books which I have read, and the impression I'd get from the review is totally at odds with my own reading of that book. A review that misrepresents a book will put off people who might have liked it, because they get the wrong idea about what it's like.

It is hard enough to get anywhere as an indie author as it is. Why shoot yourself in the foot.

Yes, firmly option 3 for me too after thorough consideration. IMO a group like this might function with several people posting negative reviews publicly, but more than a few and it would implode. As it is, rule 1&2 make it implausible to ever do reciprocal reviews - not the case with option 3 at all. (This in addition to Odelia's summary above, which I fully agree with)

so far we have:


12 for option 1
5 for option 3

updated 22nd Jan 2015

Option 3. I would only say option one if any of us were the ultimate experts on novels. Art is subjective. To ruin the chance a reader might pick up a novel because the rating is low, especially out of the gate, is not helpful. I've read bestsellers that I thought were miserable garbage, but they had a publisher who could drum up loads of readers. In that case, some 2 star ratings don't matter.

For indies, our novels are fragile at the beginning. We need readers. I will not post a falsely positive review but I'm happy to offer my thoughts without posting a review if the review would hurt the author's chances of gaining a readership.

Thanks chance, I'll update the count as people join in.

I would say Option 3, definitely. Odelia puts it very nicely. It's about giving indie authors a chance to be seen and read, in a marketplace where the dice are loaded hugely against them. This doesn't prohibit poor reviews being given privately; and it allows the author to receive feedback and - if necessary - to rewrite and improve without a potentially crushing public vote of no-confidence.

Thanks Duncan, your vote has been added.

There's some really great points here all around but I'm going to have to choose option 3, mainly for the points Odelia, Chance, and Duncan listed.

What irks me are not low star reviews where the books bones -- it's formatting, editing, and flow -- are at fault but the one's where someone doesn't think a character is believable and gives you a one star because of it. I think a certain amount of minimal stars should be given to a technically sound book (like 2) and then after that whatever your opinion of it's other elements like characters, boringness, etc. added after that. I know reviewing is subjective but come on! Someone put a lot of time, work, and maybe even money to make sure their story at least read smoothly. That should be accounted for at least.

I'll add your vote Belart.

Emma, Option 1 sounds good and fair to me: Fair, unbiased, non-reciprocal reviews. That's why I joined the group in any case.

I just got a very detailed note from an author reviewing my e-novel, about simple lazy mistakes that should be corrected - he was very thorough about what the mistakes were! And said that I'll get bad reviews simply for that, not the story/ content, so should correct it. He really wrote it as a peer, not to inform me that he was rating the book as low or high or something - it's his prerogative to rate the book as he pleases because he has taken time to read it!

I personally find the whole debate about low-high rating silly - we are supposed to be adults and professionals working in a very public format - so as long as the review is about the book, it's okay. It's only when people get personal / competitors carpet-bomb to create a bad vibe about the book that it gets nasty.

And this group makes sure that people don't end up even reviewing similar genres! So option 1 is fine with me. You guys (mods) are doing good work.

Thanks Noorilhuda.

Option 1 makes the most sense, and holds the most integrity.

That having been said, I think the perspective we take when conducting the review is very important. If the book is already published, then we should review as readers and not authors/critics.

Writers are particular people, and generally gravitate toward a style which matches their own. If a book is written in a style which you don’t care for personally, you shouldn’t blast the author (unless the style is inappropriate for the target audience or genre). Furthermore, we should refrain from taking a “Simon Cowell” stance where we look for things to criticize; if you have legitimate issues with a book then so be it, but heading into a review with the intention to nitpick a work apart isn’t exactly the most honest approach either.

A little humility from both the author and reviewer is critical. The author must accept that some people may not actually like their work, while a reviewing author needs to realize that he/she might not know what is best for the work they are reviewing. Just to be clear, I do not endorse softball reviews either, but we should not be heading into reviews with the intention to torpedo a book in the name of constructive criticism.

Noorilhuda wrote: "Emma, Option 1 sounds good and fair to me: Fair, unbiased, non-reciprocal reviews. That's why I joined the group in any case..."

I agree with Noorilhuda and Judah, wholeheartedly. I joined this group because of the honesty I felt in the mission to post all reviews in the name of ethics instead of just stroking the authors' egos, including my own. There are many groups that only allow 4 or 5 star reviews to be posted, so there is no reason to alter this group. If someone wants that environment, it is available; I know because I saw them when I was searching for a review group.

Now, even though I firmly vote for option 1, note that I do NOT go out of my way to tear down anyone's work. I try to be as tactful and respectful as I would hope someone would be with my work, and I agonize over having to give someone less than a stellar rating. I understand how much work, time and effort goes into writing, so I do not take reviewing lightly. Example, I finished the book for my review round three days ago, and I'm STILL reviewing and editing my review to make sure nothing is too harsh or too sugarcoated.

With that said, I do not like the precedent of changing the rules to only showcase the positives. In my opinion, it cheapens this group's integrity as well as the resulting reviews that come out of it. Say you go through three different review rounds, meaning you should have 12 reviews. However, only six of them are 4 or 5 five stars, meaning only six will be posted. How is that an honest depiction of your readers' opinions to other readers? You now have a rating of roughly 4.5 stars instead of the 3.5 stars you would have gotten. How is that not disingenuous?

I say the best way to combat bad reviews, besides improving your writing, is to get more reviews. One bad review out of five has more impact than one bad review out of 50. To actively get more reviews, participate in more review rounds. If you continuously get bad reviews from the resulting rounds, look over your product again. If you're happy with it, to hell with what they say. If you're not happy with the product, learn from it, and make your next release even better. (Besides correcting typos, I do not believe in changing a finished product. I think of writing as a snapshot of that time period. Today, I may think my work is a masterpiece. Six years from now, after I have hopefully grown as a writer, I may look at it and think that it's shit.)

I vote Option 1.

To me, writing is something I love doing. We all write in a different manner and about different worlds and or things and people. I love good reviews and I believe every author does. When I read a book, I give a review based on how I enjoyed the story, the characters or whatever, but in the end it’s all about; ‘Did I get what I expected from the book?’ (If nonfiction). ‘Was I entertained?’ (If fiction).

I know many would disagree with me, but I would never give a lower rating based on formatting , grammar errors, and things like that, unless those things hinder my understanding of the book/story itself. Now that’s me-one person out of millions of readers.

As authors, we cannot define how readers should review our books, even if those readers are authors. I believe when an author picks up a book to read, they become a reader. It is up to the reader to review books however they like. If they wish to give low rating for formatting, grammar, 2D characters, boring ending, or whatever, it is up to them. I do not like public criticism either, but let’s agree it is the reader’s prerogative to do so if they wish.

We are all readers and authors with different levels of intelligence and education. Not that I do so, but if I read a comedy that I might find difficult to understand because it is too ‘up there’ for my small brain, that book would not be funny to me and certainly not a 5 star. Whether I chose to put one star for that book is up to me. Personally, I would keep my comments to myself. But not everyone thinks like me. We all like different things, write differently, and certainly review differently too. We cannot pick our readers, but we can only hope to attract those who will find our books interesting. Let reviews be what they are meant to be.Honest.

It seems option 1 will carry the day. Fair enough. Option 3 is available elsewhere, and I shall be devoting my limited time in that direction in future. I think option 3 is largely misunderstood here. It was never about HOW reviews should be written, merely that negative ones be published (and damage book sales) or offered privately (and potentially improve book sales).

If I wanted to take care of the reader, I could write a legitimate 2 star for every book I read, pointing out flaws. I'm sure we all could. One other quandary here is that we can see better than the typical reader - we can't actually wear that hat. As it is, I don't have time to take care of the reader. Option 3 is about taking care of my book sales potential, and I believe it is honest.

You are taking care of your book's potential by making sure it is as good as possible, G.S. and so far it seems to be working. Your reviews are good.

This issue is also about personal integrity, if you give high star reviews to books you personally don't think deserve them, what are people going to think about your work, that you like bad writing? That you don't notice it? Saying something is a pet peeve, or that you noticed but it didn't bother you is one way around it.
Everything you write, be it a review or a book can and will be examined by others if you pressed the post or publish button. By writing over inflated reviews, you are not only doing a disservice to someone that might then spend money on that book, you are shooting yourself in the foot, especially on goodreads. That little picture beside your review is the same one on your books.
And yes, bad reviews really hurt your pride. I have a few, but then again so do all the top writers. At least I can join their club in one way (it certainly isn't in sales!)

Thanks, Emma. I've enjoyed my short time here and will of course do my final review assignment in group 57 before moving along. Yes, I have received positive reviews so far. I'm also very comfortable with the reviews I've written and stand by them as genuine first and foremost impressions of the books I've read - the kind of impressions I believe relate to reader experience, rather than in-depth critical ones where you have to search for issues.

This is a fascinating topic too. There's a lot of good argument here. I would also challenge the assumption that option 1 will produce more honest reviews than option 3. I believe the reverse to be true. Most people have a tendency to be nice, and prefer to avoid doing any kind of harm. By forcing them to publish criticism you may well discourage them from giving it at all (pushing reviews towards the positive). A lot of people who read a book and think it's terrible would be more inclined to say so if they could do it privately - if they have to go public they may well choose to stick with being nice (like I do:).

There's also a huge issue with perspective imo. We agree to step out of our comfort zone and review any genre. Often we are reading a book we have no chance of relating to. I'm a mature male who read a book targeting YA girls the other day. There is no way I'm going to experience any amount of euphoria from a book like that. Therefore, I'm not going to be swept up like a young lady might, and I'm going to be free to think clearly and focus on small negatives. Unless I'm very careful, I'm not going to give a fair review to the likely reading public... These books we are reviewing are at a distinct disadvantage being involved in an open genre review group.