[Catlady]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

You do realize that being an author is (at least partially) a profession, right? Bad reviews are a reflection on the writer, who will not only take a hit on this book, but might not be able to get a second book going because of them. That's why it's important to put the blame where it belongs. And even if you don't care how it affects individual authors, consider how it affects the industry in general. Who's going to want to write an e-book, if their work is going to be maligned for things they can't even control? Who's really that much of a masochist?

Oh puh-leeze. An author's not going to write because he or she might get a lousy review?

Yes, self-publishing is an option, but that will inevitably lead to a loss of quality. People who self-publish can't usually afford good editing/proofreading. (I'm not painting all self-published authors with the same brush. I'm just saying that on average, quality will suffer.)

Self-publishing is not relevant here. We're really talking about a way to protest Agency pricing.

Some people have said in various threads that they refuse to buy DRM-ed books, that they refuse to buy Agency books, that they refuse to buy books over a certain price. Aren't they all hurting the poor author who apparently has no control over such things? A one-star review is simply another form of protest--and it's a clearer one, because people get to express exactly WHY they are taking the action.

The problem is that the main page at Amazon doesn't break things down that way. If you've got a list of books to choose from, you see the average star rating, not the individual reviews. It's not only the author's tender feelings at stake. (I assume most authors are fairly thick-skinned.) It's the livelihoood of good authors, and the health of the e-book industry in general that's my concern.

I don't pick my reading based on how many stars other people gave it. I might narrow my choices of electronics or appliances that way, but books?

One-star reviews may be based on what you think are spurious grounds, but so can five-star reviews. I've seen raves for how quickly Amazon shipped a book; I've seen raves for books that haven't been published yet because the reviewer liked the author's previous books.

It's appropriate for price to be a factor in a review, but if it's an overall review (which the Amazon reviews are) then it should be an overall assessment, not just one based on price.

The best thing about Amazon's reviews is that people can write whatever they want, uncensored. I've submitted reviews at other places that have been rejected for some unknown reason (don't meet some mysterious guidelines). Amazon lets you say what you want and give the rating you want.

Personally, I would be in favor of preventing people who haven't bought an item on Amazon from even posting a review of it. I think it really hurts the site's usefulness when you get a bunch of reviews (positive, negative, or neutral) from people who haven't even bought the product in question. That goes for anything from e-books to toasters.

Amazon does indicate "verified buyer" if you're reviewing something you've purchased from them. But I have no problem with anyone posting a review--you might have gotten the item as a gift, you may have bought it elsewhere, so what? Do you want Amazon reviewers to prove they've READ the book they're reviewing?

All you need to do is skim the reviews, or a handful of them, and you can quickly see what the issues are, content, price, whatever. It's not a major effort to do so.