One thing not discussed in the kind of depth it should be, is what does it matter whether the review is paid for or not when the terms used to describe the review are good or bad? What I mean is that how helpful is an unpaid positive review like the following?
Quote:
|
Well-written story with believeable characters. 4/5 stars. -- opus941
|
or an unpaid review like this one?
Quote:
|
Way overpriced by the publisher -- 1/5 stars -- perkydog101
|
What do the positive or negative reviews tell you about the book, the reviews, or the reviewers? How really valuable are they? opus941 or perkydog101 may well be the same person, or the same person who was paid $25 for the paid for review that was rejected. opus941 may be a shill for the author, and perkydog101 simply a contrarian.
"Well-written" much too often means
there was used for
their,
scene was used for
seen, and
seam was used for
seem, but the reviewer didn't know the difference between the words.
Or what about the review that says the book was obviously well-researched but doesn't tell you how the reviewer know it was well-researched? When I read a review of a World War II book in the
New York Review of Books written by Max Hastings that declares the book was well-researched, I feel I can believe it because Hastings is well-known historian in his own right and has signed his name to the piece. That Hastings has been paid to write the review, really doesn't matter; he has earned a reputation for objectivity. But opus941 and perkydog101 haven't -- nor many of the reviewers on Amazon, Smashwords, or the review blogs.
Consequently, I do not see what difference it makes to include or exclude a paid-for review. Perhaps it should be included but marked as
author paid for. But should it be excluded? I see no compelling reason to exclude it considering the reviews that people are accepting and the inability to verify that they are not paid for, are objective, and written by competent reviewers.