Lower ratings equal longer reviews and more prominent placement

[Patricia]

I actually just rated a book with one star and didn't write a review. The Author actually contacted me and wanted to know why. I gave her my opinion, but didn't post that.

[Kristen]

I actually feel that I would write a much longer review for a book that I rated a 4 or 5. If I disliked a book so much that I felt it deserved a 1 or 2, I wouldn't even have the motivation to leave much of a review. Books that I thoroughly enjoy are much more likely to lead to a lengthy review from me, because they are something I'm passionate about, in a positive respect. I personally hate reading long, drawn-out negative reviews because the critics often just come across ass whiney and arrogant, rather than giving helpful insight.

[Kristen]

Oh my! That should have said "...come actoss as* whiney.." Oh what a lovely typo.

[Kristen]

Of course, another typo...I give up.

[Robert]

I think generally it's easier to write about what's wrong with something. It's like that old statistic of if you're treated well as a customer you'll tell 3 people, but if you're treated badly you'll tell 10.

[Willett]

Steve wrote: "Hi all!

My name is Steve, author of Scapemaker

scapemaker has mostly higher rating and placed on over 1500 "to-read" shelves. But you and I both know that you can'..."

I don't find 1 or 2 star reviewers to be especially long winded writing-wise. Usually, I'd say, they're short and and not so sweet. Almost a "Okay, let me write this review and get on with my life," kinda thing. For sure, with those who have been given the book for free in trade for a review. I admit, I always read the 1 or 2 star reviews first because they usually are the funny ones--if you're not the writer.

Feel free to take a look at my 1 star review on Amazon. And, yes, it still makes me laugh. Though it didn't when I first read it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009KEXEQO