Creative Reviews discussion

I think if they're all fives it looks dodgy because a 5 should be saved for the best ones. For me, merely "good" is a 4 at best and "okay, no strong feelings either way" is a 3 though I know this varies from one person to the next.

Under 3 stars, if there are enough reviews to balance it out (ie more than ten), I might put it up but if there are no other reviews or only a few, I probably wouldn't unless it was written long enough ago that the author probably isn't still around to care!

A lot of people assume that if the reviewer gives all 5s and nothing else, they probably aren't for real, and if the review doesn't mention any specifics, they probably haven't read the book in question.

Why people would risk their reputation as a reviewer giving 5stars to something that might be absolute rubbish is a mystery, though, as one bad recommendation and people will discount all your reviews.

That's the conclusion I've come to from a years' worth of reading the forums, anyhow - any use?

JAC

I don't think a range of constellations from one to five is a required element for integrity or credibility as a reviewer. Integrity has nothing to do with your choice to post reviews primarily for those stories you enjoyed.

We're not journalists or politicians. We have no job description and no established rules by which we should be measured. We review because we are motivated to share - and that's highly personal.

You won't find many negative reviews from me either. If I don't care for a story by the time I'm a third of the way through, I set it down - respectfully. Usually when that happens, I simply don't have the energy or motivation to spend any more time thinking about it. I just move on.

However, when I read something thrilling, I'm so filled with awe at the author's talent and so grateful for having been moved, I have a desire to let everyone know. It's fun to celebrate with like-minded readers in a positive way.

If a reader finds your reviews to be too uniformly positive, all they need to do is seek out a range of opinions from others. There are plenty of reviewers who post insightful critiques of books they hated. As a reader, I find those helpful and informative.

However, when I write a review it's because I want to spread the joy.

Well, if you check my reviews, it's mostly 5 stars too. But then my policy is NOT to review anything under 3 stars, ESPECIALLY if it's from an indie author - I'm harsher with authors with a publisher behind them that is supposed to provide editing and fails to do so, but still, I don't think I ever posted any 2 or 1 star reviews anywhere. Like you, I'd rather move to the next, more exciting (hopefully) book.
Like Suki, I'd rather spread the joy. But then, I'm a reader AND a writer (although I still read like a reader, and not like a writer)! ;-)

I think if you review books professionally (solicit material), you should be prepared to unleash the occasional one or two star review, but certainly three star reviews. With careful consideration and some established criteria (like a sample reading), most reviewers can probably avoid having to delve into one or two star territory. I like the idea of sampling, for a reviewer that accepts mass solicitation requests for reviews. Like an Amazon or bookstore reader, you can take a few minutes to determine if the book is just not something you care to read. I can imagine nothing worse than a reviewer reading something that doesn't interest them...whether simply a bad book, or something they would never pick up in the first place. Of course, the ability to do this objectively would be the mark of a true professional. Either way, I don't envy the job of professional reviewers.

As for myself, like Suki, I write reviews on books that I really enjoyed and want to share with others. I typically go into detail, because it's helpful. I see so many reviews that aren't helpful in the least, one and five star. I have to admit, the one or two star "hated this book" or "worst book I ever read" reviews amuse me to no end. Really, you continued to read all 400 pages of the "single most worthless book" you've ever encountered? It's like taking a bite out of a rancid sandwich, finishing the whole thing bite by disgusting bite, and THEN going to the counter to complain. Then again, I've found some extremely reasonable criticism at the one and two star level, so I'll temper my rant and limit it to the one liner posts.

Either way, I thank everyone that comments on my novels. At least they took the time read, and the experience compelled them to do something. I wish more readers took a moment to do this.

As a reader, negative reviews can be helpful if that reviewer and I share similar tastes. i look at positive reviews the same way. "The author writes beautiful prose and can take several pages to describe a simple coat. I love that the entire book took place in the space of two hours and that there really was not much a story to distract me from the character study." I know to run screaming from such a book because I would fall asleep. Other people may love highly descriptive character studies.

As an author, a thoughtful negative review can warn other readers with similar tastes away from my books. "There was too much violence and too many moral dilemmas. I like my heroes to be beyond reproach. Everyone in my church's book club felt the same way." :)

At least with such a negative review, you don't have to worry about other people with similar tastes wasting their time on your work and posting more negative reviews lol.

Splitter

The last part is so true! I don't need ten "too violent" reviews, when one would more than suffice to warn the squeamish away! LOL

Oh I am loving this topic! I have a blog dedicated to comments such as these...

Please drop by and have a read and please leave your own comments. I have quite a few people comment on how interesting it is to read both authors and reviews thoughts on good and bad reviews :)

http://paradox-theangelsarehere.blogs...

Barbara wrote: "Well, if you check my reviews, it's mostly 5 stars too. But then my policy is NOT to review anything under 3 stars, ESPECIALLY if it's from an indie author - I'm harsher with authors with a publish..."

Ahhh I wish I could still read like a reader and not like a writer. I don't get as easily lost in stories like I used to - I'm too busy asking why something worked or didn't work. Sad, really . . .

Patti wrote: "Oh I am loving this topic! I have a blog dedicated to comments such as these...

Please drop by and have a read and please leave your own comments. I have quite a few people comment on how intere..."

Yes, Patti, I have tweeted that link a couple time because it was spot on lol

Splitter

C.S. Splitter wrote: "Patti wrote: "Oh I am loving this topic! I have a blog dedicated to comments such as these...

Please drop by and have a read and please leave your own comments. I have quite a few people comment..."

Thanks Splitter! Always good hearing from you! Hope you have a fab Xmas xx

Suki wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Well, if you check my reviews, it's mostly 5 stars too. But then my policy is NOT to review anything under 3 stars, ESPECIALLY if it's from an indie author - I'm harsher with author..."

I know exactly what you mean. You become so critical... instead of just sitting back and enjoying the story :(

I'm not sure what my average rating is. I rate based on how I feel about the book not what my quoto is. Additionally, I usually read books that I think I'm going to like from authors I've read in the past. However, more recently, I've been reviewing books by authors I've never heard of. There is a lot of talent out there. I think I have more four star ratings than anything else. But I do have some three stars and less than a hand full of one and two stars.

J.A. wrote: "I think if they're all fives it looks dodgy because a 5 should be saved for the best ones."

I agree with J.A., too many five-stars from a reader looks kinda dodgy to me. But hey, I guess some people are easily entertained or prefer not bad-rate a book no matter what. Goodness forbid they 1-star a book they DNF. *gasp* Such audacity! LOL. =P

But I get you. People should be able to rate a book however they want, review a book however they like (assuming they're not trolling, of course). I would be presumptious and an asshat if I dictate how people should criticize a book. Last time I checked, the world doesn't revolve around me — I'm still working on that mad, mad science-y plan.

Shane, I think that person who PMed you about not giving negative reviews is pretty presumptious herself. Suki said it best:

Suki wrote: "We're not journalists or politicians. We have no job description and no established rules by which we should be measured. We review because we are motivated to share - and that's highly personal."

The only thing I agree with Shane's PMer is that negative reviews are necessary. So what Spliter said. But no way in a sewage treatment plant am I going to tell someone else how they should criticize a book. What makes my way better than theirs? Nothing, it's a matter of opinion and to argue over how one should express their opinion? What a pointless debate that would be.

Terri ? wrote: "I'm not sure what my average rating is. I rate based on how I feel about the book not what my quoto is. Additionally, I usually read books that I think I'm going to like from authors I've read in..."

Your average is 4.60. To view your average rating, visit your profile, and check the stat under your profile picture.

Thanks, I knew where it was, I just never check it. So I guess I give lots of fives tooo!

Timely comment! Ok, so the author of a book I edited (Death Wish Book 1: The Vamp Saga) posted on her Facebook page today how excited she was to receive a non-5 star review of her book (it was 3 stars): http://www.amazon.com/Death-Wish-Book...

It is the one 3 star review among the 5 star constellations. Actually, it's a really good and helpful review. Even though the reviewer didn't love the book, it was because of his personal opinions, not because the book wasn't good - and he even admits it IS good.

And I recently left a 3-star review for a book (Westerly Gales) that had eight reviews, ALL of them 5 stars: http://www.amazon.com/Westerly-Gales-...

DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU INTEND TO READ WESTERLY GALES AND YOU DO NOT WANT SPOILERS! STOP HERE! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

Ok then...the reason why I didn't appreciate the book was because the "pirates" set in this future PA universe were described as Muslims. That's right, even in future generations, this author thinks that all Muslims will be fatwa-jihadi lovin', 'let's kill all the Christians' deathmongers, only this time they will be in boats. That sorely pissed me off, and that (and the fact that, though well written and with few editing complaints, the book was super extra detailey on sailing and all things nautical, and was very archaic in flow of language) was the main reason I didn't love this book.

And interestingly enough, two different people who had read and reviewed the book commented on my review, and explained that the complaints I had about the first book are adequately addressed in the second. So, though I had NO intention of reading the second book, because of other reviews, I am willing to give the book a chance.

HELPFUL critical reviews are great. Whiny, complainy reviews with no explanations are not.

As a reviewer, I actually have given out the odd 1 or 2 star review. But the book has to be pretty terrible for me to do that. And since I have been working much more closely with authors as an editor, and I hear THEIR side of bad reviews, I have tried to be much kinder in reviews, even if I hate the book. Stingy with 5 star reviews, too, because it has to be pretty terrific to score a "perfect" rating.

As a reader, I like a few 'less than glowing' reviews. Maybe I'm a cynical little creature, but if I see a book with only five star reviews, I get a little suspicious. Not because I don't believe that the book couldn't be wonderful, but because I don't think that every book can appeal to every reader. If there are 1 or 2 star reviews, I also read them in a little greater detail to see why it was that the reviewer didn't like the the book.

As a reviewer, most of my reviews are four stars, but I know what I like and tend to stick to that formula for the most part. I do post 'negative' reviews (negative in terms of stars), but I always say why I didn't like the book and make it clear that it is a matter of personal taste. I always try and find something positive about the book - as Splitter says, just because I find a book far too slow in pace, doesn't mean another reader wouldn't enjoy it if they love descriptive writing.

I go 50/50 with a review usually, I give my good opinion and then what I didnt like, unless i loved it to at which i give no negative feedback. If i didnt like it then I go all negative which is demeaning to the writer but also is what they need to hear, i try to get a good word in there too..thats what i do, thats my take..

Try to find a balance and set levels. If you liked it lean more torwards that but put a few negative things, if u disliked do the opposite, if ur torn then give an equal balance of both.

Kat, that's a great way to go about the process. There is good and bad to every book, depending on perspective, and the more help your review gives to readers, the better. As a writer, I tend to shy away from the negative...I'd just prefer not to say anything, because I often read within my own "writing" genre, and...well, some authors aren't as levelheaded as I am. Hah! But, you're right. What makes a book 5 star for one, might mean a "no go" for someone else. The more, the better.

90% of my four star reviews point out why I only gave the book four stars, as I think it's only fair to point out what it was that stopped me from five stars.

The other 10% was just that the book wasn't world shattering for me, but I just couldn't pin-point exactly why. After all, you don't need to be enthralled in a book to enjoy it, you just need to be entertained.

One of my pet peeves is a review like this:

'I hated this book, it was really boring'

It makes me want to comment and ask WHY. Did nothing much happen, did the main character make you want to dig your own eyes out with a rusty nail, was it full of spelling mistakes?

For example, a book I am reading at the moment has a good storyline, an interesting main character, but the focus is far too 'military tactical' for my own taste. That doesn't make it a bad book, just that if you aren't interested in the military stuff, then it may not be the book for you, or you should be prepared to skim-read some parts of the book.

Personally, I can skim the military bits, I can also overlook spelling mistakes, but if reviewers give negative reviews without saying why, it's unfair to the author and misleading to other readers.

After all, we need each other! :)

Kat wrote: "One of my pet peeves is a review like this:

'I hated this book, it was really boring'

It makes me want to comment and ask WHY. Did nothing much happen, did the main character make you want to di..."

We're symbiotic f'sure.

My ratings are usually between 3-5 with authors, but what I do is write something I do like and something that I did not like or had a problem about with each book so that it is a balance.

I don't understand not wanting to give a rating below
a 3. If I see that there's only 4s and 5s on someone's shelf, I'd also find that fishy. It's not possible that a person can like everything they read.

Damali wrote: "I don't understand not wanting to give a rating below
a 3. If I see that there's only 4s and 5s on someone's shelf, I'd also find that fishy. It's not possible that a person can like everything the..."

I know that some reviews don't like to give 'low' ratings to Indie authors. I can understand the reasons why, but I can't bring myself not to be completely honest about what I read.

I support Indie authors 110%, and have met some amazing authors through reading and reviewing their books, but I can't let that influence how I feel.

It's important to be honest but fair.

I just usually keep reading a book if it's really that bad below a 3 that's why. I'm honest how I feel about the bok

There are some books so bad i dont wanna give em any stars but im nice enough to give em one or two lol.

I'm not afraid to give 1's, 2's or a 3 but I don't take my volunteer "job" as a reviewer super seriously as many do. If I were getting paid to stay home and read and review all day I'd have to rethink things. I'm just a reader sharing my personal experience with a book. Some people agree, lots don't. I'm good with that. Besides I cannot purge a bad book from my brain until I dissect it. It's a sickness, I tell you.

Most of the books I read are 3*'s or higher and it is rare to find a 1* but believe me they are out there. I review indie's and trad's on the same scale. There are gems and duds in both arenas and I don't believe in sugar-coating. If a book blows me away or makes me just a wee bit more insane I want all of my friends/fellow book lovers to know and to know the reasons why.

I review books for the New York Journal of Books website. It isn't a paid gig, but they only take on professional writers or other experts in their field, only allow us to review in the areas where we have expertise, and expect balanced, intelligent reviews. They only review books from traditional publishers.

If I request a book to review, I'm committed to reviewing it, so I finish it and try to write an analytical review. We don't give star ratings or recommend/not recommend books. We are supposed to discuss what's good and bad about the book, so the reader can make their own decision.

You can see my reviews here: http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/revie... or link through to the rest of the site. I think my worst review was for Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer, by John Grisham, if you want an example of a negative analytical review.

It's different with Amazon or GoodReads, though. I'm not committed to finishing or reviewing a book I don't like. If I do post, I still try to clearly analyze what I liked or didn't like about a book, but I'll err on the side of "rounding up" my rating. On Amazon, three stars is "It was okay," and if it wasn't at least okay I wouldn't have kept reading.

As a casual reviewer, I can afford to be kinder to people in the star rating (while still giving a helpful review), and I don't risk starting a war with another author unhappy about my reviews.

I recently posted a bunch of romance/romantic suspense reviews to Amazon under my alternate writer name, Kris Bock. I haven't yet gotten around to also posting them here. Most of the books listed under my Chris Eboch profile are for kids. I know a lot of other children's book authors professionally/socially, so although I won't lie, I also won't post bad reviews.

Then there is this (someone else brought it up too): I spend so much time researching books I want to read that, chances are, I will like what I actually read.

That's why I don't knock people with a "high" average rating. That high rating does not necessarily mean that they are just being nice. It might mean that they are just being selective.

Splitter

C.S. Splitter wrote: "That's why I don't knock people with a "high" average rating. That high rating does not necessarily mean that they are just being nice. It might mean that they are just being selective."

I never thought of it as that way, but you got a great point there.

This topic is all about opinion. Some people are gonna be honest while some will hold back in fear of hurting feelings of an author..Me? I'll give an author a 1 star rating but if he gave me a 1 star rating id be pissed lol I know its not right but thats how id be and I know it at least im honest to admit it!

BTW- My Book is sooo not a 1 star its at least 4.5!

I agree with the emailer ^_^ If you don't want to deal with the drama of neg reviews (and who does?), just create a shelf called something like "could not finish" and throw all the books you hate in there without star ratings. Seeing what you hated only makes your positive recs more influential, because it gives people to something to match their tastes up against.

I'm on Amazon daily. Every few weeks, they'll ask me to rate what I've bought, and I just rate the book. I never bothered to give a review, because there's already plenty on there, and I'm on Amazon to shop, not write.

A "could not finish" shelf doesn't do any good, IMO. Maybe I couldn't finish a book, because I'm just not in the mood for it, not because I didn't like it. And I think they add all the books on the shelves to the total books, and I'd rather my count be based on books I've completed.

great discussion here guys!

I don't have a DNF shelf, either here or at home. It's very rare that I don't finish one but if I don't, out it goes. Recently I tried to read Kat Richardson's Greywalker but couldn't so I gave it back to my mom's friend. Maybe later I can give it a shot.

I've thrown away only one book in my life but it was so derogatory towards Native Americans that I refused to let anyone else read that dreck. >:(

Lack of historical or scientific research really gets to me.

C.S. Splitter wrote: "Then there is this (someone else brought it up too): I spend so much time researching books I want to read that, chances are, I will like what I actually read.

That's why I don't knock people with..."

Belated comment (this thread moves fast with volume): I tend to agree and follow your pattern, Splitter, with two exceptions:
1) I'm hooked on police procedurals and read a ton of them. Many I enjoy but are really very ordinary from the standpoint of writing and plotting. I give them a three and that has brought my average somewhat below yours.
2) I read a lot of self-published books to give fellow GR authors a try where the description looks like I might like the book. If I don't like them (I've had several DNFs), I don't rate and don't review. Even if people don't cut me any breaks (they don't), I'm emotionally committed to not roughing up Indie authors.

Since the topic is about the importance of negative reviews, I thought I share this other thought of mine that is unrelated to the topic-starter's matter.

Another reason I believe negative reviews are necessary is because they give credibility. I don't mind family and friends of an author and the author herself five-starring her books, but do know a perfectly-rated book, especially a self or indie-pub is highly suspicious. Not to mention they're Shiny Little Stars that Look Pretty but Feel Fake.

Those "perfect" books make me feel like someone is actively scamming me to buy the book. And if I do end up buying them and reading them and suddenly not liking what I finished, I feel like such a moron for buying into all those acclaims. And then I start questioning the credibility and honesty of those acclaims.

Negative reviews help prepared myself for the worst and allow me to safely believe that this book will be enjoyed by some and hated by others — that this is no scam.

I'm sorry to say this but there is absolutely no way for a book to exist that could be enjoyed by all unless the book has mind-controlling ability that forces the reader to enjoy it (nice idea for a sci-fi, don't you think?). Even before an author put her hands on the keyboard, no matter what she will write, there is always-always-always going to be someone who will hate what she write — I'm not talking about someone hating the author herself, but hating the author's writing craft.

I like to think I'm in majority of readers who believe a "perfect" book sounds dodgy. But I been wrong before, so anyone here who thinks so?

Experiment, I'm with you there. I think a salting of a couple of bad ones is no bad thing. Which is lucky, as I've got some!!

Also, unless they say something factually wrong, I might disagree with their opinion but that doesn't make it any less valid, and it helps people with similar opinions avoid the book. In turn, that means that of the people who read it, a proportion of those who would not like it will have already been weeded out and so the proportion of people who will like it is higher.
Seems like a good thing to me!
JAC

Experiment wrote: "I like to think I'm in majority of readers who believe a "perfect" book sounds dodgy...."

I agree. If I see only five star reviews, I assume those are the author's family and friends, especially if there are fewer than 10 total reviews. (I don't know many of us who could get more people than that to actually sit down and write a review... but maybe if they were buying reviews off of Craigslist, or something.)

Usually quickly skimming over the reviews reinforces that view. If they are all "This is the best book ever!!!!" I'll take that with a whole shaker full of salt.

Kris Bock

I've been burned (just recently too and I know better!) by all 5 star reviews. I have learned to let the hype die down and wait before buying an entire series of books based on a slew of 5* reviews. My favorite 5* book of all time, Geek Love by Katherine Dunn, is reviled by many but still loved by me and some other weirdos. It's all a matter of personal taste and there's no way a writer can please everyone who picks up their book.

J.A. wrote: "Experiment, I'm with you there. I think a salting of a couple of bad ones is no bad thing. Which is lucky, as I've got some!!

Also, unless they say something factually wrong, I might disagree wi..."

Exactly, negative reviews steer your books to the audience that would mostly like enjoy them, warning off people who wouldn't.

I once read a negative review about how there was an assassin MC in the book and he murders people. This reviewer didn't like it one bit at all. Kind of weird for a reviewer to say so because the book blurb expressively said it was an assassin story. Her review, though negative, served as a definite confirmation that the book was about as it was advertised/blurbed as. Obviously, her negative review will ward off people who would dislike that kind of MC and steer people like my closest book friend who are obsessed with assassins as anti-heroes.

Is it me but most of the time, I feel like negative reviews are more detailed than their positive counterparts. And if you know me, you would know I love spoilers and hate surprises (am pro-spoiler extremist).

Negative reviews are always thought-provoking for me. I read a negative review of a book I like and found out that whereas I only took off a few points for the book's cons, that reviewer took off major points for it. And here's the kicker, my average rating stat was a full integer lower than the reviewer's. I'm usually a harsh critic but in that one rare case, she was a harsher than I was.

Then on a different book, I punished a book's rating severely because it dealt with the rape issue improperly. However, in a positive review, the reviewer thought it wasn't rape and that at most it was sexual harassment. O.o So I learned that people have different viewpoints about what defines rape, and that's these people aren't living in some third country where women are severely oppressed and men are overly prized. Something to ponder about.

I have a question that relates to this thread. If an author puts out a call for people to read and review their book and I do and it's really God awful... I mean I hate to be harsh, but they asked for reviews, right? I don't mean it's not to my taste, but there's no story, nothing makes sense, the writing is not just a little badly edited but reads like the writer doesn't understand basic mechanics of language... What then? I mean they did ask for reviews... I don't know.
And also, I feel like if people don't right well thought out negative reviews when a book is bad then the only negative reviews will be trollish or mindless or the book's rating will skew much to high. I feel like a lot of the reviews on Amazon skew crazy high for average books.
Just my two cents.

Erin wrote: "I have a question that relates to this thread. If an author puts out a call for people to read and review their book and I do and it's really God awful... I mean I hate to be harsh, but they aske..."

For what it's worth, what you do might turn on what the particular problem with the book is. If it's a matter of poor editing, I think a PM is in order. I DNF such books and therefore neither rate nor review. If the book is poorly written (e.g. functional illiteracy), I put that in the same category as poorly edited (it shouldn't have got past the editor) and I DNF it. In that case, no PM. How do you tell someone they can't write? If you don't like the actual story for some reason, than a thoughtful review is in order, keeping in mind that others may disagree. It seems to me.

Agree. If it's a technical thing - plot, grammar, incoherent, typos-a-go-go, whatever, then message the author and let them decide whether they want to go away and look at it or if they're ok with the review going up. If it's just that you didn't like it, that's a different matter.

Reviews saying it's technically rubbish are more of a killer than reviews saying it wasn't to your taste, I'd hazard, but either way, specific reasons are good.
JAC

Okay, thanks, Lee and J.A. That's helpful.

(Still think ratings skew too high on Amazon in general though.)

Erin wrote: "I have a question that relates to this thread. If an author puts out a call for people to read and review their book and I do and it's really God awful... I mean I hate to be harsh, but they aske..."

If I was in that situation, it wouldn't be hard for me. If an author ask for a review, they'll get a review. If they ask for my review to be strictly positive, I'll politely refused. Sorry, but my integrity ain't for sale, try Craigslist.

The reason Amazon have such "enthusiastic" reviews is because they're a retailer. Reviews can make or break a sale for a book because the reviews directly affect the algorithm of the book in many ways, from how the book is recommended to its placement on lists of top books. This is especially important if the book is self or indie pub where they get barely any advertising. A bunch of good reviews on Amazon is a quick way to slip your book into lists and the recommendation slidebar.

My answer, an honest review from an unbiased source, no matter how low or high, is always best.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/7...

I haven't given a rating lower than a three (other than for my own story 'Crystalline'--but I think I can be honest with myself without fear of offending). Therefore my overall rating average is higher but that's because I've also read many, many more books that I haven't bothered to rate.
Poor editing sinks a book, no matter how great the characters, writing style or plot. Anything that diverts from, or slows the story, anything that distracts the reader's attention, needs to be fixed or they simply won't go on.
I've found a developmental editor for my novel (Sorrow's Child). I'll also be getting a copy editor.
Just my two bob's worth.

I also think it's good to remember the Goodreads rating system;
1 - didn't like it
2 - it was ok
3 - liked it
4 - really liked it
5 - it was amazing.

Our opinions are always going to be subjective. I recently decided to rate my own stories (author reviews). I've avoided doing this as it seems strange and I dislike self-promotion (an obvious problem as I am an indie writer!). I've rated them 2, 3, and three stories with a rating of 4 (I'm really pleased with them).

My husband and I talked about it afterwards and we had to laugh at the idea that I gave Anne Rice's 'Interview with a Vampire' a 3 star rating, whilst I placed several of my short stories higher than that.

Do I really think my little stories outstrip Anne Rice's book? Well, no, the idea is ludicrous, but I am still very pleased with three of my stories. So, do I go back and edit my review of 'Interview with A Vampire'? Or do I rate my books much lower? Then that would mean a rating of 0 to my story 'Crystalline' (which I honestly rated with 2 stars--it's o.k).
Reviews are always going to be subjective but they should be an honest opinion.

I have been rethinking some of my earlier reviews. When I look back, it seems like everything I reviewed was five-star material. It's hard because a lot of the books I read are books written by friends, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I've decided to invite authors who are also friends to be interviewed on my blog instead of reviewing their books. It's a good way to help without rubbing anyone the wrong way.

I'll be honest on popular NTY Bestseller books, but when I think about it, I wonder if it even makes a difference. The small-press authors are the ones who need the reviews, especially on Amazon. But negative reviews, as folks have already established on this thread, can hurt sales. I feel really crappy if I'm responsible for that on some level. I feel like I'm bailing out if I opt not to review small press books written by contacts, but I feel like a jerk if I read one and give it a negative review.

I had a one-star review on my book, but it was written well and I actually sent the reviewer a friend request after he wrote the review, because I respect someone who can be honest without hurting someone's feelings. It's an art I think I need a bit more practice in. Until then, I'm trying to find ways to dodge the issue until I can be honest in good conscience, because I think that's the best policy.

I'm glad this thread is here, and it's been enlightening reading the thoughts of others on this subject. It's a hard situation to negotiate.