Actions from bookreviewerMovable Type Pro 5.22013-12-08T12:38:58Zhttp://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=feed&_type=actions&blog_id=1&id=1699Commented on Lovebible.pl in Charlie's Diarytag:www.antipope.org,2013:/charlie/blog-static//1.3685#18206042013-12-08T12:38:58Zbookreviewer
Here's a much older (1990?) version of the same idea, produced using the posts to the Usnet groups comp.unix.wizards and soc.christian (and possibly alt.evil as well): http://danny.oz.au/danny/humour/shaney1
]]>
Commented on Understanding Reader Reviews in Charlie's Diarytag:www.antipope.org,2012:/charlie/blog-static//1.3542#11029902012-12-19T15:38:50Zbookreviewer
A stack of five star ratings and nothing much else may often be, if not the result of abuse of the system, a sign that the author's reputation (or perhaps the book's presentation) has pre-filtered the range of potential readers. Or perhaps, as others suggest, a sign of good "expectation management" (expensive books often seem to get rated largely down because of their price, for example). There aren't, one assumes, many reviews of the Laundry novels that compare them to In Search of Lost Time.
]]>
Commented on Understanding Reader Reviews in Charlie's Diarytag:www.antipope.org,2012:/charlie/blog-static//1.3542#11028652012-12-19T12:40:56Zbookreviewer
The only quality rating I have on http://dannyreviews.com/ is a "best" selection (about 5% of the books reviewed) and a "excellent" one (about 10% or so). Apologies for freeloading on this thread, but I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks it would be better if I gave star ratings. (I'm also tempted to mark out my most negative reviews, if only because they are some of the more entertaining ones.)
]]>