World, Writing, Wealth discussion
All Things Writing & Publishing
>
Why reviewing?
Krazykiwi, I realize there are authors who bother their own reviewers or feel entitled. It certainly does not make the author look like a better writer. If a book is a mess, it invites negative reviews, and I have no issue with that. I don't remember what you said about reviews being for, or not for, the author. I have seen it posted all over goodreads that authors should pay no mind to reviews of their own books because they are irrelevant, and that's what I was addressing. But then everyone has different motivation for publishing books, so maybe they are irrelevant for some people. My personal motivation is to provide entertaining stories and I want to know that it's happening. Reviews (and sales) help me judge this. I haven't used beta readers myself, but from what I understand, they are usually friends, family, acquaintances who happen to read, volunteers, and other authors. Maybe I'm wrong? They are given the book with the understanding that they are looking for ways it can be improved. That is why I said there is a difference between the feedback coming from them as opposed to actual consumers.
I agree with Leonie re republication. When it is published, it is what it is. I have only republished (I think) three of my earliest ones, and two were forced on me because Apple wanted more pixels for the cover. I also took the opportunity to fix a couple of typos I had not seen, and update the author's note at the end to include more of my other books, but I think it is totally wrong to start changing it.The one exception is a second edition of a non-fiction work. I have wondered about updating my "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" which starts with a review of over 6oo scientific references, but perforce they stop at 2011, and there are several more since then that could be included. Rather pleasingly, they do NOT alter the theory or conclusions later, although again it would be useful to tidy those up a bit to remove some of the vagueness that has now been settled.
And that's the exception - its customary to update non-fiction to reflect current evidence, not because the writer did a poor job of the writing. (We have four editions of Clinical Sports Medicine at work for that very reason.)As far as beta readers go - they should approximate target audience. Friends and family, if used, must either be part of the intended audience, or reliably honest at the very least.
Leonie wrote: if I drive past a parked police car, I always reflexively check my speed!Don't we all? 😀
As it looks possible that we have exhausted the nitty-gritty of reviewing whilst not completely getting a concensus on the effectiveness of it, it would now seem a good time to ask those of you who do review, the question; why do you do it?Having had an abusive reaction on GR to a review I gave I have asked myself that question. The reason I did review a BOTM was because I thought that was what we were supposed to do. But I have now seen the infatuity of doing so. Why bother? is now my crede and whereas I will provide short reviews, or comments, when asked by Amazon for books I have purchased, I see no reason to do it elsewhere, even on my website, unless it is in regard of understanding the practice of writing fiction.
That's a pity, PK, because as a reader, you have every right to review as you wish - without fear of backlash.I think this is where authors have to remember to behave professionally at all times. We might disagree with what a reader says, but there is never any need to be nasty about it - it is after all, the reader's right to say what they liked/disliked about any story.
For an author to behave in a petty manner is unprofessional. It besmirches their brand.
In BOM discussions, we can expect our work to be commented upon and discussed, and our reasoning questioned, because it's a chance for the reader to understand what we were thinking when we wrote it.
It is also the reader's right to comment on our basic writing skills. If they find multiple typos or plot inconsistencies, then it's likely they won't be the only ones to do so, and it might be the only place the writer hears about those things.
Having said all of that, a reviewer can write a critical review without being nasty, by simply sticking to the facts and their own reactions to the book. It is possible to review honestly without personally attacking an author.
Of course the author may not appreciate that review, but they can choose to behave professionally, and not respond inappropriately. (Or what is inappropriately in my opinion.) They do have to realise that a review they may not agree with is not actually a comment about them personally - it's a comment about that one piece of writing.
Yes, Leonie, I agree with all that. But the question still hangs; why bother?
P.K. wrote: "Yes, Leonie, I agree with all that. But the question still hangs; why bother?"I review a lot of other indie writers, and the reason is I want to try to help other indie writers. If you have no reviews you get very poor sales. I know because some of my books have no reviews and they don't sell. I also do it because I hope others will return the favour - you know - I help you, others will help me. A secondary benefit is that it helps me with my own writing by making me recognize what works and what does not.
This hope of getting others to review my books is a waste of time. What I have found is that most indie authors cannot seem to show any interest in anything outside their on little world. In this sense, yes, why bother?
By and large, authors and reviewers are very respectful towards each other. It really is a mutually beneficial relationship--even more so now than before the self-Publishing revolution. (Personally, I wouldn't let the exception rule the day. However, I respect each individual's right to make a choice that is right for them at any moment in time.)Having said that, the preponderance of power because of their sheer numbers (with respect to social media as well as purchasing power) is in the hands of reviewers.
Didn't Conan Doyle need to revive Sherlock Holmes, because the audience demanded?Writers have different motivations behind their writing. Some write to entertain and thus would want to address issues arising from reviews. Others tell the stories they have in hope the audience like them, but would never bother to change if it doesn't.
I don't think many indie authors care to present 'new editions', give them separate ISBN, etc and just update their current version instead. In computer games, for example, updating and improving the same game is something very acceptable, but in lit when the first published version is of a low quality, hastily done, then I imagine the first buyers do become taken advantage of..
Interesting question, one I hadn't considered. Why do I review books? I guess because I have an opinion and like a lot of humans, I want to express it to other interested humans. I don't have a lot of them in my everyday life (interested humans, not humans in general), so I post reviews on Amazon (occasionally) and here on Goodreads (generally after I finish a book). I don't usually go into a ton of depth, mainly because, you know, effort. But when I like a book, especially those by struggling indie authors, I want to put their name and book out there and say that I liked it. As far as the rating system, I generally think of it as a grading system, so although Goodreads gives two ratings that I'd consider "A" work, I generally use five stars if it gets that grade. I equate 3 stars in my head to a "C", an average work. If my son gets a "C" I am disappointed. So I don't give out too many "C's". I've given out a few "D"s (2 stars) because works really don't hold together or something.
I also know that reviews increase visibility for authors, so I'm happy to give ones I like any help I can. Especially if all it costs me is to type my impressions of their book on GR or AZ.
Hope I'm not too late to the discussion here.
Never too late to enter the discussion :). The rating scale in my head is similar to what you said about the grade scale.
Hi Scott. That's a nice honest appraisal and it flags up another question; why are we talking to each other? I guess the answer is mostly like yours; we do it because we've got no other like-minded people to talk to. And that's a good extension for reviewing fellow authors. I liked to thing of GR as an international writers/readers club where we can talk honestly about writing as we might at a local seminar. But some authors see it only as a means to an end.
P.K. wrote: "Hi Scott. That's a nice honest appraisal and it flags up another question; why are we talking to each other? I guess the answer is mostly like yours; we do it because we've got no other like-minded..."I would think rather because we can, rather than we have nobody else. The internet permits us now to converse with others in a way that was impossible in my youth, and I think we find more people who share our interests through it. Personally I don't care why other authors do it, and if they see it as a means to an end, that's fine with me, as long as they give a bit as well as take.
People are naturally attracted to creative types doing interesting things and discussing new ideas, so they're drawn in and then like it and get stuck in the honey. Reviewers are moths to the flames of writers on this website, which is really a concentrated living collective of creative people. The reviewers don't write books and may feel inadequate about that but they want to feel part of the vibrant collective, so they write their opinions. Everyone likes to give their opinion, even if they aren't wise. I simply like books. The trouble for me is that no one beyond this website wants to talk to me about books.
Faith wrote: "The reviewers don't write books and may feel inadequate about that but they want to feel part of the vibrant collective, so they write their opinions. ..."Wow. This "you're just jealous" trope is pretty silly, and a giant assumption, and I really don't know why people cling to it based on virtually no evidence. I guess if it makes you feel good about yourself, you're free to believe anything you like though.
I've read a lot of academic research about consumer reviews of books specifically and products in general, and written some of it, and I've never seen "jealousy" as a motivator in a single paper, ever. Accruing social capital amongst followers is certainly a motivation for a small but significant portion of reviewers - some people write reviews because they like the attention, yes - but not jealousy.
From a sociocultural psychology perspective, people like to give opinions because we are social animals and word of mouth recommendations go back to the very heart of communication - it may even be why we developed language. Early word of mouth, which is essentially what a review is, was pretty much "There's more deer this way than that way", or "I know this place with great caves to spend the winter in" and was pretty crucial to our ability to adapt and survive as well as we do.
The internet just lets us spread the word of mouth to more people.
Krazykiwi wrote: This "you're just jealous. ..."You've misunderstood. Reviewers aren't jealous of writers. They see there's a good vibe and want to be part of it, so join in the best way they can. They contribute to the party. Some reviewers will go on to be writers because they'd like to try it and see how they do.
I didn't read Faith's comment as suggesting reviewers were jealous. There are probably many reasons for people to review books and one of them might be that they are trying to understand the writing process better. Of course, there are professional reviewers too who have no intention of trying it themselves; theatre reviewers spring to mind. There are also professors who spend their life talking about other people's work without doing it themselves. Even the late and great FR Leavis of Cambridge didn't try fiction writing so far as I know yet he was considered the best literary critic through several generations. There is nothing wrong with this and it does not prevent those reviewers seeing things beyond the author's expectations. But to support Faith's view, in these columns once Scout wrote that he could not conceive of writing himself but loved reading; it was a humbling comment to any author.
I like your questioning of how language started, Krazykiwi. I touched on this in my Welcome to my website; www.penpowerwriiting.com.
I am sure there are a number of authors who also review. I am, for one.
P.K. wrote: "I like your questioning of how language started, Krazykiwi. "While I'd like to take credit for that, this is foundational sociocultural theory, which underpins a great deal of (especially northern) European psychology.
OT: If you're interested in reading about this more, I suggest looking up Lev Vygotsky or Roger Säljö. The latter is more likely to be found in English though, very little of Vygotsky's work has ever been translated to English, which is a great pity. He's mostly known in English for being a great critic of Piaget, but here in Scandinavia he's considered seminal in the disciplines of both education and psychology. There's a good overview simple here: https://www.verywell.com/what-is-soci... (which hilariously calls it "emerging theory", because it's pretty new in the US - it's not like most of Europe and all of Russia for the past 70 odd years have been doing anything at all :)
Enough digressing however :)
I write reviews for 2 reasons. The 1st is that when I come across something that really excites me as to the creativity and applicable social comment in science fiction I want others to read it and like it too. I write reviews in return for free books from authors whom I have already read and liked. I occasionally write reviews for really lousy books simply so that someone else does not waste their money on it. I hate writing them.
Thanks for the link to Vygotsky, Krazykiwi. I was aware of some of Piaget's work (and other socio-psychologists). A lot of what is written is no more than explanations for what any intelligent observer knows. It's a bit like Shakespeare; his genius was really that he explained, sometimes in flash sentences, what everyone has at some time thought, again, often in flash images. I suspect Vygotsky's basis of the imprtance of peer cuture in individual development overlooks the basis of cognitive progress of a child regardless of its social background. The brain works just as easily for wild animals that live secluded lives as those of pack animals. The difference is the way it is used. I think the Darwin effect is more relevant; experience through genetic inheritance. But this is a long way from reviewing.
Ian wrote: "I am sure there are a number of authors who also review. I am, for one."Same here, but I'm only reviewing on GR...I suppose it's a a subtle form of advertising. While I'm not talking about my own works in reviews of other books, just putting your name out there may bring awareness to your "brand."
But as for reviews, I've become so jaded with all the positive reviews, I actually look for the negative reviews on books, because I tend to find negative reviewers go into more depth, sometimes they're more honest, and generally they give me a better idea of what to expect from a book than someone who gives a 5-star and just retells the plot in their review. Usually negative reviews won't affect my decision to grab a book unless they pique my curiosity on a book I might have otherwise passed over. I think there's apart of me too that tends to like what everyone else seems to hate.
Self-analysis, JJ? Perhaps that's why we review?
Remember, when you mark someone's work, in part you are marking yourself.
Ian wrote: "Remember, when you mark someone's work, in part you are marking yourself."This is a valid point and one reason--besides prioritization of writing over reviewing--why some writers Eschew reviewing.
J.J. wrote: "actually look for the negative reviews on books, because I tend to find negative reviewers go into more depth, sometimes they're more honest, and generally they give me a better idea of what to expect from a book than someone who gives a 5-star and just retells the plot in their review. ."I do the same, reading 3, 2, and 1 star reviews to find info that is more likely to reflect what i am seeking to know. Negative reviews only affect my actions when they advise of very poorly edited books.
I write reviews if 1) a book rocked my world, 2) it pissed me off. Books in the middle just get ratings. I tend to review indie books more, just to help out indie authors, but also to warn readers if the book was poorly edited, for example.When looking at reviews, I avoid the 5/4 stars and read the lowers, much like others here have said. Those high star ratings are probably by friends/review exchanges, etc. In my reality, if I liked the book, it gets a 3 star.
If you liked the book, giving it a 3 star is not helping the author. 3 stars means OK - nothing great but not a disaster either.
Three stars, by GR ratings, means I liked it. :) Most of the trad books I read get a 3 star unless it really was a page turner.
Then you load it down because what does the difference between 3 and 4 or 5 mean? It is how the average reader sees things - 3 is in the middle between 1 and 5, which means it is in the middle - neither good nor bad. The average reader is not interested in some other scale - they consider it linearly, even if to some extent they think logarithmically.
Ian wrote: "If you liked the book, giving it a 3 star is not helping the author. 3 stars means OK - nothing great but not a disaster either."Is a review about helping the author? I thought it was my evaluation of the book. I do advise any author for whom i am offering a review in exchange for a free book of my approach to reviews.
Great writers dont write great books 100 percent of the time. Most books are average. 3 is average. To assign 5 stars to all books would lessen the impact of 5 stars for really great books. That would be unfair to the exceptional works as it would dilute the 5 star rating.
Advertising an average book as 5 stars results in disillusionment for me. Hence, my solution being yo read 2 and 3 star reviews to obtain a truer perspective.
There are some series that i enjoy reading that are only 3 stars. A few, I have been a beta reader for on 3 to 8 books. Thise authors continue to offer me their drafts to evaluate and eventually review the final product. I must asdune that authors, like readers, vary as to their opinions on how reviews are done and what the stars indicate.
Despite what Krasykiwi thinks about the inviolate nature of the Amazon and GR star systym it would seem that many of us desregard their guidlines and have individual views of what a star means. I tend to agree with Lizzie and Nat that 3 stars should represent a good book, not a great book or a very good book but one that dots the i's of presentation, storyline and writing quality.A good example; I have recently finished A Kind Worth Killing by Peter Swanson. The very experienced readers of the A Good Thriller group gave it four and even five stars. The book is written, I cannot understand why but it seems there is a misguided fashion at work here, in the First Person which restricts a writer's ability greatly, like playing golf with one hand tied behind one's back. But Swanson even went high risk and wrote the book from the point of view of four people. It is a well plotted story and has a very nice ending but I will give it only three stars because each person does not have an individual voice, they all sound rather the same. Swanson might argue that this was because they all had similar social and educational backgrounds. But that is his fault for choosing similar characters without distinguishing vocal characteristics. I enjoyed the story and it is a good 3 star read.
I think the most useful thing any reviewer can do for an author is rate and discuss their book soon after publication. Being the 759th person to give an opinion on a book is useless. However, a number like that might be all you need to know on the "Is your boyfriend loyal?" website.
I totally agree with Lizzie, I picked up a novel once because it had glowing praise all over on ratings and review. Couldn't have been more disappointed. Since then, I started reviewing and I give five stars only to books which I found fantastic. Four stars is a very good book I'd recommend, three stars is something I enjoyed but not enough to recommend it.
I'm in review groups and I'm baffled at the books with 14 five stars out of 18 reviews. Even masters don't reach those kind of ratings (GRRM, WoT, Harry Potter, etc.) For a few of those, it's friends and family pitching in at five stars (and some authors do rate their own books five stars, they're entitled to it, but I can't understand that), which discredits the whole thing.
By not helping the author, I mean having an grading system that does not correspond to the way the average person thinks. Nobody is arguing that 5 stars should be scattered liberally. I think that Christian is more or less right - the 3 star should be for an average book - neither good nor bad. If you really like it, and give it 3 stars, you are telling most others it is just so so. The point is, the scale has to be linear. If three is good, what on earth do you give a so so book? Two? Then what does one mean? And more to the point, why does someone else happen to be able to interpret your personal bias? This would not matter so much if you explained in the text what your grading means, because in my view the text of the review is the only thing that really matters. This is where I explain WHY I give a grade. And hence, if those things don't apply to you, you can make your own conclusion.
I agree, Ian; the text is the place to explain the star rating but, unfortunately, many readers do not read the text, they just go straight to the star rating. I once worked for the Consumers Association (Which, UK) and disagreed then with their Best Buy system because people just chose that without reading the very comprehensive explanations of the products which, if they had done so, they would have realised that the Best Buy label was not as technically suitable for what they might need. The answer is; don't have a star system. Perhaps we should all dig in and do that?
I agree with your thoughts, PK, but unfortunately Amazon and Goodreads probably won't post the review if you don't follow their system
P.K. wrote: "Despite what Krasykiwi thinks about the inviolate nature of the Amazon and GR star systym it would seem that many of us desregard their guidlines and have individual views of what a star means. I t..."I didn't say anything about them being inviolate, so please don't put words in my mouth. I just asked why reinvent the wheel, when there's already perfectly good wheels there.
Honestly, in the end nobody cares what you rate anything. I've seen people use the stars to indicate order on a reading list, what shelf the books are on, 1 for A1 great and 5 for rubbish and all manner of things besides. GR doesn't care. Nobody cares. So I guess you really can reinvent that wheel all you like. But one user's rating is meaningless noise, but when there's enough ratings, the aggregate acquires some measure of meaning. And in the aggregate, most people follow the suggestions (easily demonstrated by the fact that ratings on GR tend to skew a little lower than on Amazon.)
P.K. wrote: "Self-analysis, JJ? Perhaps that's why we review?"Forgive my ignorance for not understanding what you mean. For the reader side of me, I just lack trust in the glut of 5-stars out there (though admittedly I do find a lot of books I rate here worth five stars). With the influence reviews have on buying behavior, and authors racing to acquire 5-star reviews, I just don't give them a lot of weight. There was a thread on here a few months back about authors (including one of the top selling indie authors out there) using alternative accounts, not only to buy their own books to boost sales, but to leave glowing reviews of their own work. The trend of ARC's leaves me skeptical as well, because I'm thinking if I get free books for reviews, will that come to an end if I give an author a bad review? Can I the consumer trust those ARCs to be honest if there is an implied or inferred reward based on their review? I know ARC reviewers are required to leave that disclaimer when they review, but when an author collects, say, a hundred such reviews, how many people actually open up the individual reviews and scroll through pages and pages of 5-star reviews to find out how many are ARCs and how many are certified purchases.
I take it as another form of advertising. When you see a TV commercial or read a print ad, and there's usually some blurb about how 4 out of 5 (blank) recommend the product, etc., you have to wonder if those 4 out of 5 were paid or selected for the poll because they recommended the product. There's one going around for a weight loss supplement where they're going on about a trial showing people who use their supplement lose more weight than those who don't. The kicker is, it's their own trial - of course it's going to reach the conclusions they want.
On the other hand, reading the negative reviews, I'm convinced many come from people who just want to trash everything and everyone - the kinds of people who don't want to see anyone succeed, but those who neg a book but don't fall into that category are usually the ones giving reasons (2-d characters, poor editing, story hard to follow, etc.). Too often, even the well-intentioned 5-stars don't give me reasons why they like a book. Usually I see "This book is about [main character and retelling of his/her adventure]. 5 stars." I walk away with no real reason why they liked it.
I tend to like what I read far more than seems possible, and though I've been backing away from writing full reviews here on GR, when I do, I try to explain what I liked about it. Even when a book is riddled with issues, oftentimes I'll address them and still lay out reasons for why I could overlook them.
Amazon's new system only lets you see verified reviews from the past. So if the ARC review was left in the past and does not show on the product page, it's basically lost in the review abyss. The only option to see more reviews or sort through which are most recent or most critical is to view verified purchase reviews only.
My comment, JJ was a propos of yours saying you tend to like what others don't; just tongue in cheek. Although, as someone else hinted at, when we review we do, or perhaps should, learn a little more about ourselves. Everything else you have added makes sense as much as anything does about this debate; I don't think anything that has been said is going to change what anyone does - and certainly not Amazon or GR. But, the bottom line is; authors need reviews to sell books. Without them we don't. How we get them is the problem.How do Amazon verify reviews, Marie Silk?
P.K., a verified purchase label is attached to reviews of books that have been downloaded or purchased directly through Amazon. So if the reader gets a copy from the author or library or any non-Amazon sales platform, their review on Amazon will not be considered verified.
(well, it seems like the general discussion of "reasons people write reviews" has laterally translated to "reasons authors need reviews"--which is okay. ^_^)I don't think reviews are the only and not even the main component of the book-selling ecosystem that sells books. furthermore, you don't need that many reviews.
(I'm cross-posting my OP (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...) b/c I think it's worthwhile to get it inline here to make it easier for people to comment. (it wasn't getting much traction in the other thread, anyways.))
Do you really need more than 5 reviews?
This article has a list of review sites with the author's results.
...reviews are far less important for books than [for], say, socks or a new television. That’s because fiction quality is far more subjective. And, also, all other elements aren’t equal. A book with zero reviews and a genre-relevant cover will trounce one with a terrible off-genre cover and a hundred glowing reviews.What are reviews good for?
* Reviews allow you to qualify for promo sites. This is the real reason to bother—many advertisers have requirements of either 5 or 10 reviews, at 3.5 – 4-star averages.Are review sites the most effective method?
* A distant second: Social proof is a thing.
* A good critical review can improve your craft.
And going with review sites are not the only way nor necessarily the most effective. Try these:
Method 1: Ask ‘em in the back of bookOne technique to get 80-100 reviews around release date
Method 2: Build an ARC (advance review copy) team via your mailing list
(http://nicholaserik.com/book-review-m...
Most recent update: March 2017)
"Science fiction romance and adventure romance author, Anna Hackett, regularly has 80-100 reviews on her books within a few days of release..." through ARC reviewers. (This topic starts at 40:30 of the podcast.)
(http://www.marketingsff.com/putting-t...
Most recent update: 16 August 2016)
(linked from https://janefriedman.com/book-marketi...)
If a book description looks interesting and even when one is offered for free through various sites, I immediately look at the distribution of Amazon stars. A few high, a few low, and a solid center mass or a heavier top half vs. bottom of the scale. I look at the weight distribution. I figure that balances out the friends and family. Then I sort and read the 3 star reviews first. The problem for me is that only works when there are a lot of ratings. If less than 25, I read all the reviews, skipping over plot reiteration.Someone indicated that ARC and freebies result in auto good reviews. I have emailed authors and advised them of the option of no review or 2 stars. One author pulled their book to redo it, the rest asked me not to post. Others because I felt like I was the only person who didn't like it I just didn't post or email figuring it could simply be a matter of taste. Since I have done ARC reviews for multiple books by authors where they were mostly 3 stars without being culled from their list, I have to figure authors are not seeing it as a problem. I could be their token not perfect score or they like my reviews.
As both a reader and a reviewer, I wish there was half stars. Often a book is a bit above average but not quite 4 stars. My solution is to give 4 stars on Amazon and 3 stars on GR.
Lizzie, if you are reviewing a popular book, it does not matter, but if the author is an indie and has only very few reviews, a different grading scale will tip the book into obscurity. It never gets out of it because nobody can find it by browsing, and promotion sites that do anything usually require 4.5 star average. Now if the book is really only worth 2 - 3 stars, so be it, but if everyone else would give it 4 - 5, that obscure grading scale kills the authors chance for no good reason at all. Remember, Goodreads and Amazon give a definition of what the grades are supposed to mean, so inventing your own which is far harsher really doesn't help.
Ian wrote: "Lizzie, if you are reviewing a popular book, it does not matter, but if the author is an indie and has only very few reviews, a different grading scale will tip the book into obscurity. It never ge..."From this thread and from the reviews I read, I am apparently not alone. I don't review books for advertising; I review them for the reader. I have also compared my stars to other readers who have the same "tastes" in books, and mine seem to be in synch with the averages on GR.
Ian, a 4 star rating on Amazon is equivalent to a 3 star rating on Goodreads. So it works :). Lizzie, I would argue that freebies have potential to bring in more negative reviews.
Marie Silk wrote: "Ian, a 4 star rating on Amazon is equivalent to a 3 star rating on Goodreads. So it works :). Lizzie, I would argue that freebies have potential to bring in more negative reviews."
Interestingly, I put reviews on both Amazon and GR, and I always give the same star rating. So that means you have to take one off my GR ratings???
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. A director's cut of a movie generally happens when the director wasn't given the opportunity to release their own vision. Indie publishers don't have corporate studio machinery meddling in their output. A remix of a song is an entirely different artistic take on the original, it's not even comparable to the situation I'm talking about.
And a rip-off? If people put out a sub-standard product, they deserve to live with the flak.
I've personally been harangued by an author who got a 2 star review from me, that I must re-read their book and update my review, because it had been completely re-edited and was much better now. That I owed it to him. Bullhockey -- I owed him the money he already got from me to legally purchase his book in the first place, and that is all I owed. I know I'm not alone in having been in that situation, because I've seen it happen to multiple people I know right here on GR.
Never forget that GR and Amazon reviews are consumer reviews by definition. I certainly never said consumer reviews are irrelevant to the author, just that they're not intended for the author. If the author benefits from them, great, good for them, but it's incidental. Just don't go down the rabbithole that reviews on GR or Amazon owe an author anything.