|
Giggleton,
I agree with you that these things are always a matter of degree. The question though, is to what degree. I don’t think that a reviewer need savor every flowery adjective or deeply reflect on every chapter. Reviewing need not be quaint. There should be however, a minimum expectation of an endeavor for it to be considered acceptable.
Some of my expectations would be that the reviewer has access to the entire content of what is reviewed. A reviewer should have the ability to rate an item fair or poor, and not just good or better. A reviewer would spend more than 5-9 minutes researching the book and writing the review. The review would be signed so that the reader could assess the reviewer. A review would be dated. The reviewer follows a minimal process of inquiry, evaluation, and disclosure, and not a hasty, assembly line method.
None of these criteria seem to be followed by the company in question. The simple fact that the company does not permit a one or two star rating is misrepresentation that disqualifies them as a legitimate reviewer. You’re right about usefulness. The best market is the free market, and this company has certainly shown its colors in that realm. I don’t hate anyone or anything, but I certainly disdain an effort that is disingenuous.
|