View Single Post
Old 06-27-2023, 09:38 AM   #12
DiapDealer
Grand Sorcerer
DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DiapDealer's Avatar
 
Posts: 28,657
Karma: 205039118
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird View Post
You've said this before, but I think a DNF book with a review that explains why it was a stinker is both valid and useful. Moreover, there's no reading oversight police to make sure a book marked read actually was read. Unless you're advocating a KU-type experience where read pages would have to be logged in order to post a review? Rather Big Brotherish, wouldn't you say?
This is why I say the cure would be worse than the disease. There is no system that could ensure the book HAS been read. It could only ensure the book has been marked as having been read. And don't get me started on systems that would try to use proof of purchase for anything.

Not accepting reviews/ratings on books that are unpublished seems simple enough, but it would have to take ARCs into account, no? And unless reviewers are concocting completely fictitious plots, characters, and/or events, then how damaging/helpful can contentless "reviews" of unpublished books be to any but the most gullible/fanatic of readers (or the most "helicopter" of authors)?

Last edited by DiapDealer; 06-27-2023 at 09:40 AM.
DiapDealer is offline   Reply With Quote