Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Is it time to stop "being nice?"
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think you meant caveat?"Case in point. I gracefully accept your most helpful spelling correction. Thank you for your input.
Davidm wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think you meant caveat?"Case in point. I gracefully accept your most helpful spelling correction. Thank you for your input."
I wasn't being snarky, truly. I haven't downloaded the dictionary on my iPhone and thought it was possibly a word I didn't know. Hence the question mark.
Deanna wrote: "Oh...and let me add...if there is only a few errors, don't even comment on it. I have read Stephen King books with a typo. It happens. It's usually a printing error and not the author's error. ..."Well, except if it's a self-pubbed ebook. And if it bothers a reviewer, they should be allowed to comment on it. If you don't care, ignore it.
Deanna wrote: "Oh...and let me add...if there is only a few errors, don't even comment on it. I have read Stephen King books with a typo. It happens. It's usually a printing error and not the author's error. ..."Two things here: First, self-published authors have the perk of being able to fix errors whenever they like. If I point it out, it's my gift to them so others won't notice the same.
Second, no other reader would have been put off by that review. It meant nothing. Telling the world you had it removed makes it look like you're hovering...
I had seen a comment made on The Anne Rice Petition to Amazon from one author stating she'd had a terribly mean, nasty review. I went and found said review and honestly think the reviewer went too far into this author shouldn't be writing realm and what might be defined as a personal attack. I reported it to Amazon, and it is still up there, so I'm guessing Amazon deemed it within their guidelines. What did give me a giggle was that the author who 1) signed the petition to Amazon requiring users to use their real names, posts reviews to Amazon under a not-real-name account. Reviews in her own genre. Reviews her friends and contributors to her review blog. Never ever states she got the book for free nor discloses those relationships. 2) The author commented on that *meanie* review under her moniker not as the author, but like she was someone who had just come by whilst reading book reviews and how horribly mean this person's review was.
Or there's a review on Amazon UK that was written with a whole lot of sarcasm - I had to read through it a couple of times to get all the jokes. Instead of reporting the review to Amazon to see if they'd remove that *mean* review (I doubt that they would have), the author cried all over FB - not even her own FB page mind you - but a group's FB page. Stirred up a whole mess of shite and drama.
If you truly, truly believe a review is outside a site's TOS report it. It's their playpen (Amazon, Goodreads). Don't like the rules, find another sandbox to play in.
Misfit wrote: "I had seen a comment made on The Anne Rice Petition to Amazon from one author stating she'd had a terribly mean, nasty review. I went and found said review and honestly think the reviewer went too ..."*like*
Deanna wrote: "As an author I like all 5-star, glowing reviews but we all know that will never happen, not even to bestselling authors. So, as a reader, reviewer, and an author I want to say that people should b..."loving your take! +1
Deanna wrote: "Oh...and let me add...if there is only a few errors, don't even comment on it. I have read Stephen King books with a typo. It happens. It's usually a printing error and not the author's error. ..."Exactly my sentiment!
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Deanna wrote: "As an author I like all 5-star, glowing reviews but we all know that will never happen, not even to bestselling authors. So, as a reader, reviewer, and an author I want to say that ..."err the person saying that just have way too much free time..
I only asked because I rarely read comments attached to reviews. I should qualify that by saying I would probably read the comments if the book in question was mine. If such comments were made in my defense, I would also message my defender and ask them to stop. By the same token, I wouldn't feel the need to respond to a comment on my own reviews. They are my opinion. Take it or leave it.As a reader, I generally check out a sampling of the reviews. Oddly, I find a mixed bag of reviews enticing. They always make me want to read and form my own opinion (and I usually wind up somewhere in the middle). Generally, I find retaliatory reviews easy to spot and ignore them.
S. wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Deanna wrote: "As an author I like all 5-star, glowing reviews but we all know that will never happen, not even to bestselling authors. So, as a reader, revie..."Yeah, I'm sure you're right. It did take me a whole twenty seconds to write that.
Jen wrote: "Deanna wrote: "Oh...and let me add...if there is only a few errors, don't even comment on it. I have read Stephen King books with a typo. It happens. It's usually a printing error and not the au..."Jen, you are right, we can fix stuff anytime. Because of that, I do welcome readers to notify me of corrections. Regardless of what people think of new authors, we have gone over the projects over and over. My first book I gave out to four different people, all came up with different mistakes/typos. When I read my work, I see what I want to see, not necessarily what is there. I got the paperback proof back--- MORE typos! I then gave the books out to four other people. Finally, the book was proofread/edited (by some) by 10 different people. Does that mean there are no typos? No. :( It's hard. It truly is. Some will say "pay for an editor". Easier said than done. I have also found paid editors who are not the greatest, making me angry enough to want to do it myself.
As far as readers pointing it out, personally, I would prefer the reader writing to me and telling me directly, rather than an open forum--if the reader's intention truly is to help. If the reader's intention is to tell the world that in my 300 page book she found 5 words to be wrong, then I guess there is nothing I can do to change that.
Davidm wrote: "I would think that they would be especially sensitive to professionalism on the part of the reviewer as well. "It is only reasonable to expect "professionalism on the part of the reviewer" if the reviewer is a professional reviewer. That's not what Goodreads is all about, it is for readers to share with other readers.
The only review of value to me as a reader and consumer are honest reviews. Reviews that are skewed in any degree out of consideration of the author the review is not helpful to me, and at worst is misleading.
I have come to the point where I ignore all positive reviews from advance copies, unless they are from readers I have come to know I can trust to give an honest opinion. Same for positive reviews from those who never give anything else.
If people don't like "snarky", "meanspirited" reviews, ignore them! But any attempt, now matter how well intentioned,to encourage (or worse) readers to provide anything other than an honest review in the way they wish to express it is harmful to other readers, consumers, and therefore actually harms authors as well.
Negative reviews tell me the reviewer is willing and able to give an honest review, and that helps me as a reader have more confidence I'm getting their honest opinion on positive reviews as well.
Rhoda, I'm unlikely to point out typos in a review, unless they are everywhere. Trad pubbed books have an average of 5-10. I usually ignore this. When there are rampant errors everywhere, though, I will comment. The work isn't professional in my opinion and I believe other readers deserve to know before shelling out cash.And, I've cleaned up messes from "professional" editors. Some are great, but others are lousy. I'd advise any author to do a lot of research before spending the money...and to make sure they are having their work widely assessed (by readers, proofreaders, editors, etc.) before putting it out there. Actually, I'd say every novel needs read by at least 12 people not emotionally connected to the author - before publication.
There are betas everywhere. If we like the hook, a lot of us are more than happy to give it a once-over.
Jen wrote: "make sure they are having their work widely assessed (by readers, proofreaders, editors, etc.) before putting it out there..."It truly appalls me how few people do this before publishing. There are tons of "will trade reviews!" type forums in almost every group on Goodreads, but almost none asking for Beta Readers. I even set up my own forum (in 3 seperate groups) as a place where authors looking for Beta Readers could hook up and exchange critiques and observations and theoretically avoid being called out for silly mistakes by reviewers or publishers.
ZERO takers so far.
I think a big problem, especially with new/young authors is that they are in such a hurry to "get published" that they get sloppy and don't mind the details. They want to be the next Steven King or Anne Rice TOMORROW, never realizing what a slow steady, methodical slog to the top it is or how much work is involved in being successful in a highly competitive industry. Most, Indy books I'll grant (even a number of good ones) would greatly benefit from more sets of eyes before they hit the Kindle store.
Linda wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "So what if the reviewer says..."Good Lord this book sucks! This author needs to find an editor. Like, yesterday! There may have have been a good story in there..."Exactly. And while I'd have to admit that a review like that from a stranger probably wouldn't be all that helpful to me, if it was written by someone I know, whose tastes, preferences and opinions I'm familiar with, it could be extremely helpful. But either way, it's still a valid and honest review.
A review like that doesn't say, to me, that the reviewer is unintelligent, has a chip on their shoulder or has too much time on their hands. Just that they really didn't like the book.
Linda wrote: "Janis wrote: "Negative reviews tell me the reviewer is willing and able to give an honest review, and that helps me as a reader have more confidence I'm getting their honest opinion on positive rev..."Yes. What good does it do me when a reviewer only posts positive reviews. Like Amazon's notorious Harriet Klausner. If she loves everything she *reads*, her *opinion* is worthless to me.
There have been times I closed a book after the first chapter and walked away. I wouldn't rate that here at GR, and I might only leave a sentence or two in my review space, but that's only for me (because my memory is poor) and for my friends who might have also been interested in the book. Sure, it's not a real review and I wouldn't post something to incomplete on Amazon (especially since I would have to give a DNF a star rating there.
A bit OT, but I just spotted this blog post from a pal of mine about Crown's new blogger/book program. http://readersrespite.blogspot.com/20...
When readers are offering their opinion of a book to other readers one should not expect "constructive criticism".
My book actually went to two separate editors. The first one was a technical editor and was slicing and dicing to make the whole book fit into a magazine article. The second editor works in the genre my book is for. I also hired a proofreader after I had several beta readers help me weed out my typos. I reviewed every version of my book. Mobi, pdf, print, epub, found more mistakes and corrected all my files. I have been through that book at least 50 times. At least! (I still like it too. Not so for the unpublished book sitting in a pile of forgotten paper in my house 90,000 words strung together that no one will ever see) I have a friend who is an editor. She read my book, after it was published, and found things she would have changed or done differently. And sadly after all that there are still typos which will be corrected in the next edition.I am a reader with a unique POV. Every reader has their own. I review books to help other readers understand what they are getting into before they waste time or money on something that may not be to their tastes. The internet can be venomous. People feel like they can be hate-filled because it is all behind the screen. But personal attacks are useless and just unnecessary. Because I know what it took to get my book out there and how easy it is to make mistakes, I review with that perspective. I also know when I believe someone could have worked harder and really should have. You are reviewing for the readers but even though the authors are the "professionals" you only feel free to be nasty because you never expect to meet them in person. I have a news flash though, the author is a person, whether you consider them or not.
Christine wrote: "J.D. wrote: "I'm not finding that the ratio of crappy to good books is significantly different between indie authors and traditionally published authors. The great myth of "quality control" by the ..."I'm finding that it's about even. I've recently read some SPAs that made me wince, but I also have some hardbacks that I'll never finish. I can ignore some poor formatting and spelling errors, but I can never ignore silly assumptions (an anthropology book), a boring sequel (a Ringworld book), and rehashing old themes without adding anything new (a history book.)
I do not expect "constructive criticism" from my fellow readers here on GR. But if they are making the effort to write a review then I do expect them to mention that the book they read had no formatting to speak of and was full with misspellings and false tenses. It's not a "nice" behaviour to rave about a book and its author like you just discovered the next José Saramago, when a look at the sample on amazon makes other reader's eyes water.That's what is starting to make me downright angry:
People who want to lure me into reading a book which is not worth my time and money!
I am not afraid of an author's backlash if my one-star review was not to his liking but false praise from other readers dissapoints me. Big time!
Katerina wrote: "I do not expect "constructive criticism" from my fellow readers here on GR. But if they are making the effort to write a review then I do expect them to mention that the book they read had no forma..."I understand what you're saying, I really do, but...
At a friend's insistence, I recently read a book where the plot was formulaic, the characters flat, and the prose nearly illiterate.(Here I should note that I read everything from trash to treasure and mostly enjoy it.) Checking the book on Amazon, the author had hundreds of positive reviews! Now, I'll grant that some might be sock puppets, but hundreds? These readers were offering what they believed to be honest assessments. Do I agree with them? No, but what makes their opinions less valid?
I don't think there's any way out but to find reviewers you can trust, who share your reading values and review in a manner you enjoy.
Mahala wrote: "Jacqueline wrote: "Katerina wrote: "I do not expect "constructive criticism" from my fellow readers here on GR. But if they are making the effort to write a review then I do expect them to mention ..."Live and learn!
There will always be people who cheat the system. But that isn't what this thread asked. If I choose to let people know that there is an issue with a book in a kind way I am still letting readers know there is an issue with the book. Message still being conveyed.
Davidm wrote: "Jen wrote: "make sure they are having their work widely assessed (by readers, proofreaders, editors, etc.) before putting it out there..."It truly appalls me how few people do this before publish..."
Even when you use betas, you get all different opinions, and sometimes the reviewers do not like what was added/changed after considering the beta's opinions.
For example, my new book is about an Irish family. A very catholic Irish family. The betas told me that I did not add enough conversation about the church. Also, they told me the book was too dark and gloomy, and wanted an uplift. The same betas loved the finished project, and I had other read it for their opinions. The result? The four star review I received recently stated I put too much emphasis on the church and the uplift seemed out of place from the rest of the book.
It was still an awesome review, and the reviewer wrote it nicely, in a way that stated his opinion without putting me or the book down. I appreciate his criticism. But have learned that you cannot please everyone. We all have different tastes.
One beta I had repeatedly changed my words, not due to grammatical errors, but out of preference.
Whether you use "shouted, exclaimed, or yelled," it all means the same thing. I understand that we need to avoid using the same words repeatedly. However, it seemed as if this woman just wanted to make a point that she knew some big words. LOL
Linda wrote: "...That's how I personally feel about badly written books. I know perfectly well that I could write my reviews so they aren't quite so painful for the author to read. I'm not writing them for the author." Linda, I hope people are listening. You are right on with reviews and the need for absolute honesty. This isn't Kindergarten and we don't have to play "NICE". This is about being fair and honest with readers.
I agree with you completely!!!
I'm learning a lot here today, so here's here's another something I'd like to hear honest opinions about. Some of my reviews come from GR 'friends'. At first, I hesitated to offer or accept friendship from 'fans', yet I have connected with some over books we enjoy. They have become more to me than 'fans'. I don't ask for five star reviews, nor do I expect them. I want to know if I'm living up to their expectations, particularly since they know my writing so well. I don't always get 5 stars.What are your feelings on this? Are GR 'friends' reviews suspect? Let me add that I only know these people through GR or FB. They aren't connected with each other i.e. street teams and such.
Jacqueline wrote: "I'm learning a lot here today, so here's here's another something I'd like to hear honest opinions about. Some of my reviews come from GR 'friends'. At first, I hesitated to offer or accept friends..."Unless, you are their only GRs friend and the only author whose books they've reviewed, then no. I wouldn't consider them suspect.
Readers friend and fan authors they like all the time. One of the great things about GRs is the ability for readers and authors to connect.
Linda wrote: "Katerina wrote: "I do not expect "constructive criticism" from my fellow readers here on GR. But if they are making the effort to write a review then I do expect them to mention that the book they ..."Jacqueline wrote: "Katerina wrote: "I do not expect "constructive criticism" from my fellow readers here on GR. But if they are making the effort to write a review then I do expect them to mention that the book they ..."
I have friends/reviewers on here whom I trust and follow. But I am one of those readers who likes to pick up a book which doesn´t already have thousands of reviews or which none of my friends and followers has read. And that´s when I come across reviews where reviewers forgot (knowingly or not?/ conveniently or not?)to point out the book´s flaws.
So if we then say these readers did not know it better, then we don´t have the problem of being too nice in our reviews, do we?
Then it seems to me that there are roughly two groups of readers out there: the ones who do not care about how a book should look like, or do not even know it.
And the other group consisting of readers who are unwilling to lower their standards just because the author couldn´t be bothered to polish his work before pushing the publishing button.
I learned long ago to ignore reviews on Amazon. I found them to usually be overinflated and misleading.I'd hate for Goodreads to become more like Amazon in reviews.
Authors may love large numbers of 5 star gushing reviews, but gaining sales by deceiving consumers that a book is more widely popular than it actually is, or a wonderful story when it really isn't only upsets customers and won't gain them repeat customers. The word of mouth news will also spread.
I've spend unknowable amounts of money on books that with info available seemed likely I'd enjoy them well enough, when the reality was quite different.
I rely on honest reviews, and that is where Goodreads has shone. I don't want entitled, bully types intimidating enough readers so that Goodreads reviews are no longer honest reviews from actual readers.
I would be interested in knowing if there is a correlation between those who can't ignore formatting or spelling errors and geographical location. For example, just taking the US into account, are people on the east coast more annoyed by these errors than people on the west coast?
Stan wrote: "I'm finding that it's about even. I've recently read some SPAs that made me wince, but I also have some hardbacks that I'll never finish..." I was pretty specific comparing the ratio among 1,000 traditionally published books and the ratio among 12 self-published.
The SP books established a ratio with me of 60% trash. I would consider that probably fair overall, given the comments regarding this issue.
The Traditionally published books have far less than 1% trash. I can recall 2 (out of the thousand) books I really hated. Given the hundred plus years books have been traditionally published (including all those "Classics"), I can only dismiss your opinion as ridiculous. You either know nothing about books or nothing about math.
Christine wrote: "Stan wrote: "I'm finding that it's about even. I've recently read some SPAs that made me wince, but I also have some hardbacks that I'll never finish..." I was pretty specific comparing the ratio..."
You are certainly doing a lot better than I am. I've found about 70% of every genre I read to be junk, and that is since 1960 when I was nine. A lot of "classics" were not worth reading, then or now.
Linda wrote: "...I'm not suggesting anyone HAS to be mean or harsh or sarcastic or anything else. But I am suggesting that the snarky, highly critical style of review has every bit the validity of any other. And maybe, sometimes, more."Well said!! - I really hope this thread gets the importance of honest reviews across to the readers. It has sidetracked a few times and there have been the few trolling for an argument, but overall I think a lot has been accomplished.
Please remember that the point of a review is to inform other readers of your opinions and feelings about the book itself. So much concern about being "nice" - how about being "nice" to your fellow readers and giving them your honest opinion.
Rhoda wrote: "Even when you use betas, you get all different opinions."Absolutely you do and that's the greatest benefit of them. if you have enough betas who are representitive of the population you want to market your book to then you should get a fairly accurate range of opinion that will be generally representative of the population you are trtying to sell to. However, you should never just copy ver batim what every single beta reader suggests. They can be useful in calling your attention to things you may have missed or perspectives you might not have considered IN AGGREGATE, but individually it is still just one person's opinion. At the end of the day it is still YOUR WORK. You have to make the executive decision about what goes and what stays, what gets changed and what stays the same. Don't blame your betas if it still doesn't work for some people . The final cut rests solely with you.
(BTW a 4-star review isn't that bad. according to the Goodreads guidlines 3 and above means they liked it.)
Linda wrote: "Katerina wrote: "And that´s when I come across reviews where reviewers forgot (knowingly or not?/ conveniently or not?)to point out the book´s flaws. So if we then say these readers did not know ..."
Yes, this is the reality of reviewing, and this is true not only regarding books, but most other products. It's annoying to buy a $2.99 book and find that it's not worth reading, but it's better than getting stuck with a $99 product that costs more to return.
"Caveat emptor" has never been truer.
Rhoda wrote: "...One beta I had repeatedly changed my words, not due to grammatical errors, but out of preference..."I know this is a bit off topic but I just have to respond.
People who do Beta Reads or Line Edits need to discuss with the writer, what the writer expects from the reader.
When a reader or editor corrects the "voice" of the writer they've severely overstepped. In other words their job is to correct or provide an opinion on the work. When they make changes that reflect the words they would use or how they would write the passage, they are removing the writer's voice and tone. Rewriting is very insulting to the writer. The reader needs to be informed as to what their job entails - they obviously don't know.
Jen wrote: "Two things here: First, self-published authors have the perk of being able to fix errors whenever they like. If I point it out, it's my gift to them so others won't notice the same.
Second, no other reader would have been put off by that review. It meant nothing. Telling the world you had it removed makes it look like you're hovering... "
I am late to the party as always, but Jen, that is something everyone SHOULD remember. If an SPA makes a mistake or two and a reviewer picks it up they should be grateful and correct that mistake. Regular published authors are stuck with the book the publisher has released and can't improve on the work of bad editors.
The other thing I wanted to add is that some of the worst culprits when it comes to dreadful writing will probably ignore bad reviews anyway. They wouldn't release trash otherwise. I find it hard to believe nobody would have said the writing needed an edit, reformat or spell check at the very least. If they argue with the reviews it serves only one purpose which is to get the name around. Bad publicity is better for some than no publicity.
"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." ~ Oscar Wilde
and:
"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." - Brendan Behan
@Linda That´s well said, Linda!
"I'd say we have as many "groups" of reviewers as we have reviewers. ;-)
You are right! And I have noticed this "rating behaviour" myself. Seems to depend often on the mood I am in, and this reflects on how I rate a book.
As to what Rhoda wrote about her beta readers and how they influenced her work: In my opinion, anyone attempting to write a book should write the book he/she has in mind and not what her beta readers would like to read about.
Yes Lou, I uploaded an ePub after as the doc file was horrible. At least nook publishing site has a built in app so you can at least fix some of the things it does during conversion. I'm going to end up buying a nook and a kindle just so I know for sure as I'm Leary of the apps for laptop and iPad. My nook app on my iPad always crashes so I can't use it for reading. I usually send people files who have those gadgets and ask, "How does it look?"
For the record, I think a 99cent book still should held to the same standards.
Lisa wrote: "If an SPA makes a mistake or two and a reviewer picks it up they should be grateful and correct that mistake. Regular published authors are stuck with the book the publisher has released and can't improve on the work of bad editors."Which is all the more reason to hammer the like of the Random Penguin for letting down the author by hiring an incompetent editor (who probably thinks that that is spelt incontinent). A review calling attention to typos is appealing to the publisher to fix it and certainly do better next time, whether that is a self publisher or the big company that let down their author.
Perhaps it actually was an incontinent editor and he was is too much of a hurry - or maybe he was just too flushed with success. ;}
Lisa wrote: "Perhaps it actually was an incontinent editor and he was is too much of a hurry - or maybe he was just too flushed with success. ;}"Yep, that author is SOL.
Fair enough, though I'm not sure why you were yelling. My apologies if I hit a nerve. I certainly didn't mean to.
@ David and Christine, yes thanks for your responses. I did take into consideration, then did what I wanted. And you are correct, I would never change my voice on my work. I just found it interesting that I did was several betas suggested, then it was mentioned as a negative in a great review otherwise.@Lisa--- funny you mentioned bad publicity! One of my books is about my crazy workplace, and of course I sold a ton of copies at work. So when asking my co-workers to post reviews, I was told, "Yeah... I'm going to post that my lawyer is going to sue you for defaming my character!" The other employee there then said, "Oh! OH! People love controversy! That will sell books!"lol0
@lou, I had a book that looked different on that viewer from what the customers receive :(
Linda wrote: "Jacqueline wrote: "Fair enough, though I'm not sure why you were yelling. My apologies if I hit a nerve. I certainly didn't mean to."My apologies to you, Jacqueline, because the yelling wasn't di..."
I'm relieved! I've enjoyed today's discussion here and gained some new perspectives - even though I was supposed to be writing! I'll consider it an educational break. While we may not agree on everything, I do appreciate and admire your forthrightness. In one area at least, we are in full accord. We are not our books.
this thread has been quite addictive for days now! loland even when our opinions have differed, for the most part, people were respectful. THAT is what I think this thread was originally about--- get your point across, but be respectful. :)
Linda wrote: "Unfortunately, many of the writers who can't build coherent plots also can't write coherent sentences. Their books will be criticized on the basis of writing style and the authors will fall back on, "But you didn't read the story!" They rarely admit their poor writing skills are preventing the readers from seeing the story. It's as if writing doesn't matter. Nine times out of ten, however, there isn't a gem of a story hiding behind the fractured syntax and misused words. Because those of us who read, and read a lot, know that the devil is in the details. There are few original story ideas, so it's up to the writer to haul out one of those old tired plots and dress it up with new finery. Eloquent, evocative language and memorable characters and all that other good stuff we as readers have learned to love."
This is such a good point. I have seen the argument over and over that grammar, spelling, etc. are irrelevant if the story is good, but if the writing is incoherent, how would we know?
It doesn't make sense to me that people who don't seem to care about language choose writing as their creative outlet. If that's the way they want to channel their creativity and get a story out there, it would be much more effective if written well.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Reflections of Queen Snow White (other topics)The Reflections of Queen Snow White (other topics)
Chances (other topics)
Lucky (other topics)
The Little Black Fish (other topics)
So what if the reviewer says..."Good Lord this book sucks! This author needs to find an editor. Like, yesterday! There may have have been a good story in there, but hell if I could find it through all that crappy writing. It was free and I still paid too much."
Is that too mean?