Amazon Killed The Book Reviewer Star

[plib]

Originally Posted by RHWright

I think there is a higher "noise-to-signal" (or BS-to-insight) ratio with amateur online reviews than with professional ones; this is not to say that the pros are more "trustworthy."

Consistency is probably more useful than "trustworthy". There was a Sunday Times film critic called Dilys Powell many years ago, I could pretty much guarantee that anything she liked I would hate, and vice-versa. Worked for me.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't understand what you mean by "keep whatever item I am reviewing". Surely you can only review an item after you've bought it, can't you?

Perhaps she's a Vine program member?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Perhaps she's a Vine program member?

I'm afraid I don't know what that is. Can you explain?

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by plib

Consistency is probably more useful than "trustworthy". There was a Sunday Times film critic called Dilys Powell many years ago, I could pretty much guarantee that anything she liked I would hate, and vice-versa. Worked for me.

Agreed, there have been a few over the years that are consistently the opposite of my tastes, and this can be helpful too.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

"Others have implied that Amazon contains far worse than uncritical literary buffoons; Cornell professor Trevor Pinch, discovered systemic corruption within the ranks of top 1,000 Amazon reviewers, many of whom are given perks for good reviews or abstaining from bad ones."

2 words: harriet klausner.

Yeah, its true that there are some out there like the group of hacks posting collectively as hariet klausner that have the exact same standards and motive many academic reviewers have exhibited for decades.

The article doesn't deny that.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I don't know what that is. Can you explain?

Here you go...

Amazon Vine™ invites the most trusted reviewers on Amazon to post opinions about new and pre-release items to help their fellow customers make informed purchase decisions. Amazon invites customers to become Vine Voices based on their reviewer rank, which is a reflection of the quality and helpfulness of their reviews as judged by other Amazon customers. Amazon provides Vine members with free products that have been submitted to the program by participating vendors. Vine reviews are the independent opinions of the Vine Voices. The vendor cannot influence, modify or edit the reviews. Amazon does not modify or edit Vine reviews, as long as they comply with our posting guidelines. A Vine review is identified with the green stripe Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

In short: relying on Amazon reviewers (hijinks and all) is *no worse* than relying on annointed "critics". And possibly better.
(shrug)
Not unreasonable...
...as long as the book has a reasonable number of reviews.

That is one of the "virtues" of the Prime Lending Library and promotional freebies: increased reads that might lead to added reviews and thus greater legitimacy for future buyers.

THIS.

I like to check out the Goodreads reviews. There tend to be more stars even if there aren't comments. In some cases I think it's just the customer "gut" feeling without the person having to explain themselves.

I don't think that prime lending necessarily leads to more reviews, but I could be wrong about how popular the program really is.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Here you go...

Thanks. I don't think we have that on Amazon UK. (Or at least, I've never noticed it, if we do.)

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Check out the reviews on Diablo 3

Is it a good game? Dunno, 'cos most of the reviews are penned by angry teens who can't log-in. Is that part of the gaming experience? You decide. (Whats great though is the angry reaction to the DRM system. Being forced to play online even when playing SP is pissing people off...)

While the above doesn't have much to do with books, the same principles apply. Expectations, poor formatting, etc...all affect reviewers and some people give them more weight than others.

You're still better off listening to friends + critics who have the same taste as you than with Amazon.

If you read through a number of the two star reviews, you find the lack of broad skill trees which made replay value a hallmark of the first two games is also dissapointing people who expected this to be a bigger, better reitteration of the meme.

The internet connection requirement might be fixable with a patch, but the strait jacketed character advancement pretty much insures that this lackluster offering will kill the franchise.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Yeah, its true that there are some out there like the group of hacks posting collectively as hariet klausner that have the exact same standards and motive many academic reviewers have exhibited for decades.

The article doesn't deny that.

There will always be corruption in any system. The pro reviewers have their version of it.

Then there's the fact that Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus both now charge for some reviews. Kirkus doesn't tell you which ones, although I think PW does. So if I wanted to get what looked like a great impartial pro review, all I'd have to do is pay Kirkus 400 dollars. Then I could quote from that review and post it under editorial on my Amazon and other pages. Kirkus started doing it quite a number of years ago. PW has a section for paid reviews and only started in the last couple of years.

But we all know that paid reviews are more likely to be "friendly." Not saying they all are, but gosh. If you want the author to fork over 400 dollars again, you're probably going to be nicer than not. How's that for corruption? And the end reader? Has no idea that either of these rags take money for reviews, especially if they just see the quote from the review on Amazon.

[BenG]

Personally, the stars may catch my attention but I then ignore them and look for well reasoned reviews that explain why I should or should not read the book.

[ProfCrash]

I tend to read the three and two star reviews first, than the four and than the ones and fives, just for kicks.

[CommonReader]

new research from the Harvard Business Review shows that the aggregate rating of Amazon reviewers are every bit as good as professional book critics

I am apparently too dense to understand this. What exactly is the "aggregate rating" we get from professional critics? Do professional critics in the US hand out points, a sort of Robert Parker (who wants to make us believe that one bottle of wine is 89 points, the other 92 points) for books?
From a professional critic I expect an erudite review, something I rarely get from the Amazon crowd. The Amazon reviews offer a useful range of opinions, the most scathing being often the most useful. I do distrust the "star reviewers". The sheer number of reviews posted by some of them undermines their credibility.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

Check out the reviews on Diablo 3

Is it a good game? Dunno, 'cos most of the reviews are penned by angry teens who can't log-in. Is that part of the gaming experience? You decide. (Whats great though is the angry reaction to the DRM system. Being forced to play online even when playing SP is pissing people off...)

My opinion is that book reviews on Amazon are product reviews, not simply literary reviews. Is this item worth your money? That includes all parts of the product experience (excluding extrinsic things like shipping).

If a book is blank, I'll return it assuming that it was a rare problem and replace it rather than give it a bad review. If all copies are blank the product deserves bad reviews.

If a game won't run, who cares how beautiful the art design was?

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If you read through a number of the two star reviews, you find the lack of broad skill trees which made replay value a hallmark of the first two games is also dissapointing people who expected this to be a bigger, better reitteration of the meme.

The internet connection requirement might be fixable with a patch, but the strait jacketed character advancement pretty much insures that this lackluster offering will kill the franchise.

Yeah, there are some reviews that actually discuss the game. The point is that the aggregated score is skewed with people frustrated by what is hopefully only a temporary issue. How useful will that review be six months from now when access is no longer a problem?

Don't want to sidetrack the thread, but... I'm no ARPGer, though I do make an exception for the Diablo franchise. DI It was the first ARPG I played and was a blast, especially LAN play. It was always more action than RPG but if the (reliable) reviews I hear are true, its only getting worse. Sigh. I will probably wait till its a bit cheaper and then give it a shot.

Originally Posted by Fluribus

My opinion is that book reviews on Amazon are product reviews, not simply literary reviews. Is this item worth your money? That includes all parts of the product experience (excluding extrinsic things like shipping).

If a book is blank, I'll return it assuming that it was a rare problem and replace it rather than give it a bad review. If all copies are blank the product deserves bad reviews.

If a game won't run, who cares how beautiful the art design was?

I agree with what you up to a point. The log-in problem is temporary though, blank pages are not, and hopefully will not be an issue a few days or weeks from now when demand isn't quite so high. The game is the game, review that (if you can), not the fact that you cannot connect to the servers. Not defending Blizzard, my view on this was in the first post.