Amazon bans reviews based on free or discounted products

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

I didn't post a review of any kind in that instance. I set the book aside unfinished, and I don't make a practice of reviewing books I've barely started.

Figure it like this. Suppose you see a book on Amazon that looks interesting, so you "look inside" to check out the first few pages. They're not to your taste. Do you post a review?

If a book is not to my taste simply because I didn't like the story, no, I wouldn't post a review. If, however, it was not to my taste because of the type of issues that you describe then I probably would, because I'd want to warn other potential readers. Particularly if the problems didn't show up in the normally very limited preview that you get. I've
posted many reviews warning people of poor grammar or obvious lack of proofreading.

[Krazykiwi]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

You are, of course, free to do that. To repurpose your metaphor, I see posting a review based on a preview as akin to judging a five-course meal based on the appetizer. For instance, I've seen several books where the editing gets noticably worse in the sex scenes - a problem that you probably won't see if you go by a front-of-book sample.

To be clear, I don't look at the "Look Inside" to review it. I look at it because I am considering reading (i.e. purchasing) the whole book.

If I read the "Look Inside" and just don't feel inspired to buy it, I will stick it on a "tried, didn't buy" shelf - that's enough to remember that it didn't grab me, in case I'm browsing around and the synopsis grabs my attention again. There's a world of difference between "Just not for me" and "Oh dear, this preview is awful, and here are the reasons."

The kind of thing you describe, if they didn't show up in the preview, I've already bought the book and read a substantial part of it. To me, there's also a world of difference between someone who writes "This book sucks" and "I couldn't finish it, it started out well but...." and gives some reasons.

Besides, negative reviews aren't always total downers from an authors point of view. I loathe love triangles with a passion, and I've put down books before that sprang one on me halfway through the book. I hate unexpected cliffhangers that leave the primary plot unresolved (sure, set up the next book, but at least wrap up the main points of this one). That's why I don't read much YA, and I don't buy serials unless they're already complete. But there are a lot of readers who actively like both those things. My reason for not finishing a book can as well be someone elses "Oh that sounds good." while also warning off other people who don't like love triangles and cliffhangers. I've picked up books based on the reverse--"It's too hard sciencey", or "I don't get the worldbuilding, you have to figure it out as you go along, there's no exposition" - both being things I tend to like, but that aren't for everyone.

A good part of marketing for an author is getting the book in front of the right audience. Negative reviews can help with that more than a sycophantic "OMG OMG OMG it's so amazing" review with no content. I really wish authors would stop obsessing over their average ratings and how many stars things have, and worry about what the reviews actually say.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've absolutely no idea, I'm afraid. Presumably they employ lawyers who know more about such things than you or I do .

That's my take on it as well. If an American company with a, err, history of free and frank discussions with the IRS thinks it's OK, I reckon the lawyers agree with them

[Cinisajoy]

I hate changing POD every chapter and time skips. I reviewed one book that was like that.
The first few chapters were ok, but then the characters got separated. The thing that made me review the book was one character got pregnant in the castle and the other two jumped in a hole in another part of the country while being chased. Turned the page and the first words were 9 months later. All the characters were in the same place in that chapter.
That totally lost me.

*Side note: the author loved the review.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Krazykiwi

Besides, negative reviews aren't always total downers from an authors point of view. I loathe love triangles with a passion, and I've put down books before that sprang one on me halfway through the book. I hate unexpected cliffhangers that leave the primary plot unresolved (sure, set up the next book, but at least wrap up the main points of this one). That's why I don't read much YA, and I don't buy serials unless they're already complete. But there are a lot of readers who actively like both those things. My reason for not finishing a book can as well be someone elses "Oh that sounds good." while also warning off other people who don't like love triangles and cliffhangers. I've picked up books based on the reverse--"It's too hard sciencey", or "I don't get the worldbuilding, you have to figure it out as you go along, there's no exposition" - both being things I tend to like, but that aren't for everyone.

This is very true. There are some "negatives" listed by reviewers that actually encourage me to try the book; and vice-versa.

For instance, when I read someone raving about an author's "world-building" skills, I tend to assume that there's a lot of pointless, fill-ery, info-dumping going on. I like to do the heavy lifting myself where "world-building" is concerned--thank you very much. An author who tries to micromanage that experience tends to annoy me.

Conversely, someone who gripes about hating first-person narratives has just handed me a plum.

Things like that are especially helpful when I have past experience with the reviewer in question, and have a feel for their tastes. Whether or not they coincide with my own is mostly irrelevant.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

For instance, when I read someone raving about an author's "world-building" skills, I tend to assume that there's a lot of pointless, fill-ery info-dumping going on. I like to do the heavy lifting myself where "world-building" is concerned--thank you very much An author who tries to micromanage that experience tends to annoy me.

Interesting. One of the reasons I like Brandon Sanderson's books so much is his detailed world-building. I guess he's not an author you're overly keen on?

Conversely, someone who gripes about hating first-person narratives has just handed me a plum.

I don't mind first-person narratives - some of my favourite series are narrated in the first person (eg Kathy Reichs' "Temperance Brennan" series). What I strongly dislike are first-person present tense narratives, which I always associate with "YA" books.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

This is very true. There are some "negatives" listed by reviewers that actually encourage me to try the book; and vice-versa.

For instance, when I read someone raving about an author's "world-building" skills, I tend to assume that there's a lot of pointless, fill-ery, info-dumping going on. I like to do the heavy lifting myself where "world-building" is concerned--thank you very much. An author who tries to micromanage that experience tends to annoy me.

Conversely, someone who gripes about hating first-person narratives has just handed me a plum.

Things like that are especially helpful when I have past experience with the reviewer in question, and have a feel for their tastes. Whether or not they coincide with my own is mostly irrelevant.

Oh yes. I know a guy that loves the Temperance Brennan series. I can't stand them. I find them way too full of info dumps.

So yes, one person's dislike is another one's cup of tea.
So good reviews (as in the why) are fantastic.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Interesting. One of the reasons I like Brandon Sanderson's books so much is his detailed world-building. I guess he's not an author you're overly keen on?

That would be correct (though his prolific output makes me wish that wasn't the case!).

Unless they're intricate to the plot (and even then, it better not be gimmicky) , I don't want to "learn" a magic system, or be regaled with stories about a fantasy world's historic figures, weather-patterns, moon-phases, or overall geography. I like to use my own imagination to fill in the ancillary details. You know ... be involved, instead of just being a passenger. Brick-by-brick, layer-by-layer world-building thwarts that. Makes me feel the author doesn't trust my imagination to play "correctly" in his sandbox.

don't mind first-person narratives - some of my favourite series are narrated in the first person (eg Kathy Reichs' "Temperance Brennan" series). What I strongly dislike are first-person present tense narratives, which I always associate with "YA" books.

I love good first-person present narratives, too. YA or otherwise. I'm up for any POV provided it's well-written. I don't blame the POV for poorly written books.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

who outsource beta testing in exchange for software

Beta Testing is slightly different, in that there is no retail distribution point for used software, the way there is for used pbooks.

This is how Strand Books, Powell's, etc. have "used copies" of books that haven't yet been released.

Amber

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Beta Testing is slightly different, in that there is no retail distribution point for used software, the way there is for used pbooks.

This is how Strand Books, Powell's, etc. have "used copies" of books that haven't yet been released.

Amber

But, what happens if we are talking about eARC with expiry date? It's the same. Those are the majority of ARC now.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What I strongly dislike are first-person present tense narratives, which I always associate with "YA" books.

This is difficult for me too - just keeps pulling me out of the story, especially once I become aware of it. I remember when I read The Time-Traveller's Wife it was difficult for me to stay in the story for a long time, and it wasn't until later that I realized it was because it was present tense.

I borrowed a book from the library just recently (The Comet Seekers) and was massively disappointed when I realized it was first person, present tense. I returned it immediately.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

For instance, when I read someone raving about an author's "world-building" skills, I tend to assume that there's a lot of pointless, fill-ery, info-dumping going on. I like to do the heavy lifting myself where "world-building" is concerned--thank you very much.

Oh gosh, I wouldn't assume that at all. The times that I am moved to comment on the skill of an author's world-building, it's exactly because they have managed to build a rich, amazing world without pulling a Kim Stanley Robinson or a narrative stuffed with As You Know, Bobs.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

Oh gosh, I wouldn't assume that at all. The times that I am moved to comment on the skill of an author's world-building, it's exactly because they have managed to build a rich, amazing world without pulling a Kim Stanley Robinson or a narrative stuffed with As You Know, Bobs.

Aside from me not knowing what a "Kim Stanley Robinson" is, I agree completely. A compliment to the quality of world-building would be a real draw for me.
Now, if they comment on the large AMOUNT of world building, that might send up a red flag.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ApK

Aside from me not knowing what a "Kim Stanley Robinson" is, I agree completely. A compliment to the quality of world-building would be a real draw for me.
Now, if they comment on the large AMOUNT of world building, that might send up a red flag.

Exactly! KSR is a big fan of long passages of descriptive exposition, and has famously blasted the advice "show, don't tell" and objected to the term "infodump" as smartass abuse by cyberpunks. He thinks that anyone who doesn't like his infodumps is producing "attacks on the idea that fiction can have any kind of writing included in it", and that those people want him to "dumb it down".

So yes, his prolonged expository passages work for him; they just don't work for me. And I think that agile, slow-reveal world-building built-in to the narrative is the opposite of "dumbing it down". Rather, it generally demands more work from the reader.

[DiapDealer]

In my experience, people frequently mentioning the "quality" of the world-building in reviews typically means that there is too much for my taste. I can appreciate that people's mileage varies, but I assure you, authors whose world-building skills are frequently praised are authors I tend not to enjoy as much. It's neither right nor wrong; it just is. I'm perfectly comfortable if that makes me the weird one.