More than Just a Rating discussion

Some reviews are mostly simply "I loved it" or "I loved it I read it every year" or "I'd burn it but that would be a waste of a perfectly innocent match."

Some are just plain plot summaries.

Some are chock full of adjectives trying to describe what it felt like to read it.

How would you describe other kinds of reviews?

Some are objective - apparently trying to address the book as if it doesn't matter who is reading it, it has it's own independent reality.

Some are so subjective a potential reader can get no sense of how anyone except for the reviewer might react to the book.

Some are very short and to the point. I tend to like those best unless I am looking for answers on a neverending quiz question and then I like lots of details.

Heh - that makes sense!

You know, I have an elaborate analytical explaination of this question, and, this is the modified short one. Then, I'll do the long one... everyone who knows me, should know by now that I have ... silence and bevity issues.

This is the short one.

Unless you are getting paid money for reviews, I don't know of anyone who has the knowledge of what is the right way, or the wrong way to review, only what they like.

So, I have turned over a new leave (about January of this year) and I have stopped "liking" negative reviews, unless someone comes on and pooh-poohs the reviewer for writing the review the way they chose to write it rather than disagreeing with the content of the review. In those cases, I "Like" the review imidiately even if I think that the reviewer has different conclusions about the book than I do.

Long...short... analytical...book report... phyllisophical... straight foreward...Unless you are getting paid money... they are all as valid as any other way to write a review. The are all great styles and suck equally as much.

If you are getting paid money, or have some other type of contract or formal arrangement, then, you have a responsibility to give your employer what you sold them.

Yea, this is the short version, the next post is the long one.

Oh sure, they're def. all valid. This thread was just meant to get some ideas about what kinds there are, not to judge the different kinds. :)

That was just a pre-lem for a longer winded explainatoin of the different approaches I use when thinking of writing and posting a review.

({P-{D>)

Well I've just realized that I've been writing a lot of reviews meant primarily to help other people decide whether they want to read the book or not. I try to concisely say what's good or not so good, what the description doesn't mention that is relevant, whether there's any age level or yuck factor or tiny pictures or other considerations.

But here's the thing. I've not been doing such a good job of writing reviews *for me,* which is why I joined GR in the first place. I'm finding that I am again looking at a book description, looking at my review for the book, and still not remembering actually reading it!

I need to include more about the experience of reading the book, what I what to remember about it. Not exactly more of a summary, but some kind of personal reaction that will help me feel, later, that the book was actually worth the time it took to read and review it.

I guess I don't have a question, per se, but if any of you know what I mean and can say anything about your related experiences I'd be grateful. :)

Hi Cheryl, Its often the same for me. I read a book and then can't remember much about it. I try to give stars based on how much I enjoyed the book. (just my feelings about it) I do many neverending quiz questions and then months later I go back to see if anyone liked them. If no one liked them then I delete them but the weird thing is sometimes I don't remember the book or I cannot answer my own question. The questions are often really more helpful to me with memories than the reviews are. You might try it.
Some books are just so boring that there is not much to remember. At the moment I am reading them they seem OK. I hope this is helpful for you.
I love to read reviews but don't do many except to give stars. I even change my mind later. Often when I first read a book I think its great and give it 5 stars and then later I think that wasn't so hot so I actually go back and lower the star rating. I hope I am NOT alone in doing this but it is a woman's perogative to change her mind. ;-)

This is a helpful post. I've been trying to review all the books I read so I can improve my reviewing skills. I want to do this because I've won some books on first reads and I feel an obligation to review a book in gratitude for the gift. In my reviews I try to give a one sentence summary and then post why I gave it however many stars I gave it. I'm still not a very good reviewer and I find that it helps me remember important points if I write short notes when I update my reading status for a book. I also want to write reviews that will help others decide if the book may be something they would enjoy because that is why I read reviews. But, I like Cheryl's idea of writing for myself so that when I go back years from now I might be able to recapture some of those feelings I had while reading it.

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "Oh sure, they're def. all valid. This thread was just meant to get some ideas about what kinds there are, not to judge the different kinds. :)"

Okay, I'm not sure there are any "official" kinds of reviews (help me if I'm displaying ignorance, Cheryl) on Goodreads.

For those of us who are not professional reviewers, who review on goodreads for personal reasons (which include wanting to help others from author to perspective reader as well as help us remember how a book affected us when we read it years down the road.

Having said that, i've observed reviews and doing my over-antalitical mumbo-magic-jumbo I have deduced in my mono-manical-way that, not only am I a "one maniac man," that we can generally sort reviews into catagories based on the "Why we write them?" and that there are different reasons than the normal personal ones.

Generally there are the "Just for me" types. These are generally short, and are just the minimum to remember something important about what made a book good or bad. They may not support the star-rating but that's not important. What's important is the note you make that helps you remember what, where, why, who and how this book impacted you. You might fit that into a single sentence or, a thirty page narrative. The point is, that it's "just for me" and may not make sense to anyone esle beyond the 1-5 star rating.

There are the "community service" reviews. These may have no more motivation than the "Just for me" types, but they have an added goal of trying to put something down on the review that an outsider (as in outside of my head) could read and perhaps understand my "Star Rating" (which is how I quantify the value of the book to me personnally) and give them information that might help them choose to read, or choose to not read.

Again, these "Community Service" reviews have no specified length and, could meet the goals in one sentece or take a thirty page chapter from your memoirs.

Most of the reviews I see tend to be short, community service reviews.

Then there are the "for the good of the Group" reviews which are those I write for a book that falls in the realm of this or that Goodreads Discussion group that I may be a part of. These tend to still be informative, but, intended for a group of people (and like minded people outside of the group) to promote some discussion of the book, or maybe an opportunity to really get into what made the book enjoyable for you with people who understand and get into the same types of books themselves.

These are generally longer revews than the above reviews and, even though they are written "to" the group you belong to, they are also written with the idea of all of the above review types. Sure they can be short, but they usually have some details that the reader thought were important or liked for some reason etc. and often some comparrisons about how this or that book rates next to another (not a requirment).

This is not to be confued with the review for a "Group Read" which often gets posted both on the book file as well as on a specified discussion thread. This is written to what ever format, if there is an agreed upon format (not necessary) that the group is working under. This is a personal preference of mine, but when doing "Group Reads" I like the Modrator to post some questions or catagories to speak to at the top of the discussion thread. What ever those are, that's the format and catagories I use and address the book in before I add my own special touches that made the book personally special to me...or didn't.

Group Reads tend to come out more like "book reports." I don't like that label because it's belittling to adults to catagorize something that takes a bit of themselves and sometimes a lot of effort to write and drop it in a bin with something an elementary school or a High School might assign. I use the term because discussion of a Group Read tends to beg details and specifics and use enough examples from the orginal that often "tell" alot of what the book is about rather than what made it stand out. Group Reads also (Depending on the group and the reason for the read) tend to want those in the discussion to draw and share conclusions and think deeper into the story than the images off of the pages.

Then there are some more self-serving reviews. Reviews that want to help the author by pointing out publically what they screwed up on and what the reader likes. Face it, unless you know the author, this is self-serving (even if your a professional reviewer) but, it's valid. It's valid because its an honest opinion (hopefully) and it's self-serving because, there is a small chance that the author will actually read the review and of those who do, there is no garuntee that he'll take your comments with the weight that you intended or that he'll agree with them and deem the credible.

To Presume to tell an author how better to write his book, especially if you are not an author yourself is almost arrogant, except that... you do happen to be the formost expert on what you like and what you don't and if he's writing to entertain you, and people like you, he'd better listen and sort out those things that make sense if he wants to keep your attenion. Self-serving, but not wrong. (I write a lot of these.) And, strange as they may seem, some authors appriciate constructive criticism from under-educated, under-achieving, want-to-be-know-it-all, grumpy old guys with "nothing better to do" like me.

Then there are political or "Statement" reviews. These are written by people who want to make a point, for good or bad about things that, realistically, probably have more to do with things outside of the book (even if the book is about them) than with the book itself. Say, you may have a personal distaste for Anne Coulter and, post 1 star ratings on all her books with the reive stating "there you go again, Annnn." Such things are not always ugly, or negative and sometimes even the disagreements can be very eloquent statements of an alternate way of thinking expressed in terms hepful to society. Many of them tend to be mud slinging exercises.

There are Look Here Look Here Reiviews designed to call attention to a book, hopefully for good reasons, to help generate interest. Authors and publicists like these. Sometimes it's just a way of expressing the joy and thrill of reading a wonderful story. They are strongers statements than the "Community Service Reviews" and tend to express more of the impact on the reviewer than the the details of the book. These need not be long but can be.

And sometimes there are those books that you just want to talk about, analyze, inspire discussion over and share about. Which celebrate a book for just being good, and back it up with details that the reviewer thought were important. These tend to be longer, but... not always.

There are the "look at me, I'm a great creative Reviewr!" types. These are the reviews with all of the pictures and bells and whistles. Sometimes the actual reviews are well thought out, well written, informative and actually helpful and, we all know that all those flashing lights and video clips are kind of like the bold and brave, prideful peacock spreading his plumage. I'm not saying these are good or bad, just that it is a motive for writing reviews,... looking at the cyber page like a canvas and having a desire to create something that is artistic. Most artists take pride in their work, and they want you to see THEIR work. So as factual and helpful as the review is, just remember that.

Some people may (right or wrongly) say the same thing about my long winded analytical reviews. They have a point, but, like any of those in the above catagory, it's hard for me to look at it that way.

And, there are thousands of variations on a theme, combinations of review types and purposes, and unlimited ideas not yet concieved.

The bottom line is, I think the bottom line of a review should be a star rating, and What Where Why How and Who you liked about a book.

And, have some sort of undertanding (maybe not an active decision making process) of why you are writing the review and for whom, then just do in the best way you know how.

It's okay to use different styles and formats when reviewing. I mean. I play golf, and, Sometimes I need a putter or maybe a sandwedge to go with my driver. Each type of reivew is a tool, or uses tools like I use golf clubs (hopefully much better). If your going to play golf, even just for fun, then you need to be able to use different tools.

I'm jus' sayin' (as much as I hate that "sayin'")

I shoulda known you'd get all thorough on us, IC. I appreciate how you expanded into kinds of reviews, purposes, I'd never actually thought about before.

G. forbid anyone on GoodReads ever tries to guide us to an 'official' kind of review!

Here's a nice example of a review that is both "community service" and will probably help the reader remember the book she read:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

"Cherylann's review Nov 12, 12

bookshelves: historical-fiction
Read from October 22 to November 12, 2012

It's hard for me to classify this book. Part of me wants to call it historical fiction as the book is set in Alaska in the 1910s and 1920s, and it paints a picture of what it was like to homestead in Alaska during this time. Another part of me wants to call it magical realism, as one of the characters floats in and out of the book like snowflakes. Another part of me wants to call it a fairy tale retelling since it is set against the backdrop of a Russian tale. Regardless of how you classify this novel it is a beautiful read. Layers deep, Ivey explores the relationships between husbands and wives, kinfolk, and friends. The characters are complex and multi-faceted. By the end of the novel, I felt as if I knew Mabel and Jack and all the people who surround them. The Snow Child will haunt me for many months to come."

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "Well I've just realized that I've been writing a lot of reviews meant primarily to help other people decide whether they want to read the book or not. I try to concisely say what's good or not so ..."

If you want to write comments about a book that are just for yourself, Cheryl, there is a personal notes section for each book that only you can view. Unfortunately, there is a very strict character limit. People have been asking for more space for personal notes on the Feedback group.