Some thoughts on "meaning" and the process.

[npandit]

I recently attended a class which talked about how it's important for people to know their work has meaning in order to feel motivated.

(Experiments showed that when people thought their work was ignored or shredded after they did a worksheet with some math problems for money, they lost motivation to keep going.)

I had an idea for how this concept can be applied to our review system.

It usually takes me (and I'm sure many other reviewers) several hours to write a review, sometimes over a few days, because I want to make sure that I am doing the author justice, and providing a fair review of their hard work. However, often, if the rating is low (2/4)--it directly gets sent to the author as constructive criticism, and that's the end of it. I never get to find out whether the author actually read the review, or whether it helped them, or even whether they disagreed with what I had to say.

I understand that this might be a sensitive issue (especially if the feedback is critical of their work). But I think it would be nice, in these cases, for the author to privately write a few lines back, saying whether or not they agree or disagree with the points made. After all,the purpose of this system is to write fair reviews, not only positive reviews, so the authors are expecting some constructive criticism anyway.

Otherwise, I feel like those people in the experiment--taking extensive notes while reading, spending several hours churning out a review, only to have it possibly "thrown away" or never read.

Obviously it is easier to write back when the review is positive, but I think it would show me, at least, that the author read my comments on his or her work, and either thought it was fair and something that was helpful, or not.

This way, as reviewers, we are able to hone our own skills to try to write more balanced reviews. And if it does lead to a bias for writing positive reviews (which probably already exists at some level), another thought I had was that even though writing reviews is subjective, maybe there are ways to make it more objective.

What if we are forced to objectively rate a book we read based on certain pre-determined criteria? That way, it won't be that one person will be marking really low for grammar, whereas another person will forgive grammar for the sake of plot pacing, etc...?

These are just some ideas. I hope they help or that this is a start to a conversation coming up with more ideas to make the system even better, but if it isn't, and this is too difficult to implement, that's okay too.

[gali]

I understand your feeling on that matter. In matter of fact, a couple of my reviews were not published due to the authors' request. However, one can not "enforce" the authors to get back to the reviewer. Even the authors of the published reviews don't always bother to comment on the reviews (and it is fine by me). I agree that it was nice if the authors did refer to the reviews, but I don't expect them to. It is enough for me that others view and comment on my reviews.

About the pre-determined criteria, I am against it. I don't like to be limited that way. The reviews will always be subjective, since they are subject to the person's taste. One reviewer may love a certain book, while another may hate it. I think that system is fine as it is. Restricting the reviewer that way will just spoil the fun of writing the reviews, for me at least.

[PashaRu]

Interesting post, and thanks for your thoughts, npandit. I guess for me, my motivation is not at all dependent on whether or not the authors read my reviews. I enjoy both reading and writing, and that's my motivation - simply doing something I like to do. I guess another way to put it is, that the reward for me is the process and not the result. Of course, I wonder if the author has read the review and what he/she thinks of it, but if I don't get a response, it doesn't bother me at all.

And I agree with gali - I would prefer that there not be pre-determined criteria beyond what we already have. Reviews for anything (books, movies, music, etc.) will always be subjective, and that's what makes them enjoyable. I would be against trying to "standardize" it in some way. Just as authoring a story is a creative process, so is writing a review on that story. No restrictions should be imposed on either side, IMO.

[npandit]

Hey Gali,

Thanks for offering your thoughts. I don't think that the criteria has to be limiting--it can be done in a way to 'remind' reviewers what to look for, rather than telling them exactly what they need to find. Each person has their own tastes, and how interesting one person found a book usually has nothing to do with the book's other qualities. (I was thinking along the lines of: writing style? characterization? plot? etc...) Or possibly suggest the reviewer come up with their own criteria on what they were looking for before they began reading the book.

Even though the reviews will always be subjective, there can always be ways to make them more objective and unified that don't make people feel limited. (There are already guidelines in place to try to make this happen.)

I know that many authors don't comment on published reviews, however, I was referring to the ones that are automatically sent to the author right after you select a rating.

In these specific cases, you never know whether the author read the review, so it would be nice to ask them to respond, even if they disagree.

We are asked to write a few lines for paid reviews summarizing the ending to prove we read it, so why can't there be something similar for authors?

As far as other people are concerned, usually I find people read or comment on the reviews for books they like, so it doesn't bother me when other people don't comment or read my reviews, especially because I write them mainly with the author in mind.

When it is published, I get the sense that the authors did read it but it is okay with me if they didn't, because someone else may read the review and choose to read that book.

Under circumstances when it is immediately sent to the author as constructive criticism (rather than the author waiting to receive the review, and choosing to publish or not afterwards), it gives me the impression that the author may not want to read a critical review, and it makes doing the whole thing feel pointless. So I don't think that it would be that crazy to ask the authors to write back.

-- 05 May 2014, 10:09 --

Interesting post, and thanks for your thoughts, npandit. I guess for me, my motivation is not at all dependent on whether or not the authors read my reviews. I enjoy both reading and writing, and that's my motivation - simply doing something I like to do. I guess another way to put it is, that the reward for me is the process and not the result. Of course, I wonder if the author has read the review and what he/she thinks of it, but if I don't get a response, it doesn't bother me at all.

And I agree with gali - I would prefer that there not be pre-determined criteria beyond what we already have. Reviews for anything (books, movies, music, etc.) will always be subjective, and that's what makes them enjoyable. I would be against trying to "standardize" it in some way. Just as authoring a story is a creative process, so is writing a review on that story. No restrictions should be imposed on either side, IMO.

Thanks for responding, PashaRu, and for sharing your thoughts.

I disagree on the point that authoring a story and writing a review should not have restrictions. There are many restrictions for writing a good book (grammar being the easiest example), and judging something based on certain merits and criteria is a much more technical process than creatively writing a book.

Like I said in response to Gali, each reviewer can come up with their own criteria--or there can be some other method to making the reviews less subjective, (not in the sense of 'everyone has to like the same thing') but in a much broader sense.

I agree that the process is fun! However, even when you like the process of doing something, when you get the sense that there is no meaning to it, (as in the person you wrote this extensive review for is not going to read it) it loses its fun (for me.)

-- 05 May 2014, 10:24 --

*As an interesting side note: In one experiment, the study took a group of people (some loved legos and some were indifferent to legos), and asked them to build a man with a lego set. They were given $0.50 for each legoman they built. For one group of people, the experimenters immediately destroyed the lego man once it was built, and asked the people to build the lego man again. For the second group of people, the experimenters kept the lego man away and said it was going to be given to some charity, and asked the people to build another legoman with a new set.

They measured how many legos the people in those two groups built, and what they found was that in the group where the lego man was destroyed, people built much fewer lego men. Even people who LOVED legos stopped building them, which suggested that even when people love doing something, the moment it is perceived that the work is meaningless, the enjoyment of the work is lost.

I thought this experiment was really interesting and that it could be applied to various aspects of life.

[anomalocaris]

I must have missed the bit about the site only publishing positive reviews. If that's really the case, the process is meaningless anyway. A reader can hardly get an objective view of the book if all the negative reviews are swept under the carpet, and only positive ratings are shown.

[gali]

I must have missed the bit about the site only publishing positive reviews. If that's really the case, the process is meaningless anyway. A reader can hardly get an objective view of the book if all the negative reviews are swept under the carpet, and only positive ratings are shown.

The site doesn't publish only positive reviews and there are negatives reviews abroad as well. However. sometimes the authors ask in advance not to publish the reviews, regardless the score.

[npandit]

Hi anomalocaris! (I like your profile pic, btw)

The site doesn't publish only positive reviews, but many times authors will choose not to have a review published if it is a 1 or a 2. There is probably a selection for "do not publish below a certain rating" before submitting a book for the review process.

I think what you are saying is right, however, sometimes new or inexperienced authors may just want private feedback, without having something very critical published about their work, and I can understand that.

[gali]

Hey Gali,

Thanks for offering your thoughts. I don't think that the criteria has to be limiting--it can be done in a way to 'remind' reviewers what to look for, rather than telling them exactly what they need to find. Each person has their own tastes, and how interesting one person found a book usually has nothing to do with the book's other qualities. (I was thinking along the lines of: writing style? characterization? plot? etc...) Or possibly suggest the reviewer come up with their own criteria on what they were looking for before they began reading the book.

Even though the reviews will always be subjective, there can always be ways to make them more objective and unified that don't make people feel limited. (There are already guidelines in place to try to make this happen.)

I know that many authors don't comment on published reviews, however, I was referring to the ones that are automatically sent to the author right after you select a rating.

In these specific cases, you never know whether the author read the review, so it would be nice to ask them to respond, even if they disagree.

We are asked to write a few lines for paid reviews summarizing the ending to prove we read it, so why can't there be something similar for authors?

As far as other people are concerned, usually I find people read or comment on the reviews for books they like, so it doesn't bother me when other people don't comment or read my reviews, especially because I write them mainly with the author in mind.

When it is published, I get the sense that the authors did read it but it is okay with me if they didn't, because someone else may read the review and choose to read that book.

Under circumstances when it is immediately sent to the author as constructive criticism (rather than the author waiting to receive the review, and choosing to publish or not afterwards), it gives me the impression that the author may not want to read a critical review, and it makes doing the whole thing feel pointless. So I don't think that it would be that crazy to ask the authors to write back.

I sympathize with your sentiment regarding the authors, but I don't think anything can be done about that.

About the other mater, restriction is restriction and I am still against it. I think that the current criteria are enough. Unified reviews are boring in my view.

-- May 5th, 2014, 6:26 pm --

Hi anomalocaris! (I like your profile pic, btw)

The site doesn't publish only positive reviews, but many times authors will choose not to have a review published if it is a 1 or a 2. There is probably a selection for "do not publish below a certain rating" before submitting a book for the review process.

I think what you are saying is right, however, sometimes new or inexperienced authors may just want private feedback, without having something very critical published about their work, and I can understand that.

My 2 unpublished reviews were 3 stars and 4 stars and the authors still asked for them not to be published.

[npandit]

I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree, then. I believe there are ways to improve the system and make space for better, more objective reviews without having the process of writing or reading them be boring.

-- 05 May 2014, 11:37 --

My 2 unpublished reviews were 3 stars and 4 stars and the authors still asked for them not to be published.

Oh wow, that's interesting to know!

[gali]

I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree, then.

Indeed

[PashaRu]

To npandit,

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by making the reviews "less subjective but in a much broader sense." For the sake of discussion, what restrictions/standards would you like to see imposed on reviewers?

There are guidelines in place for writing reviews ("reminders," as you mentioned) and the editorial analysis (I assume) rates reviews based on these criteria. (http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewto ... =31&t=9801) These are simple guidelines as to proper form and what specific things to mention in the review. I can't think of anything I'd add, but I'd be interested to hear any suggestions.

[npandit]

PashaRu, that's a good question.

(I hesitate at 'imposing' anything on anyone. I think it might be better to suggest that they think about certain specific things before writing their reviews, rather than forcing a certain criteria on people. This is what I meant, but maybe it didn't come out that way.)

I noticed that when I started writing a review with a "criteria" in mind, it helped me organize my thoughts much better. At the beginning of my notes, I jotted down what I expected from the book (did it fulfill its purpose, did it have a coherent theme, what was the writing style, and was it interesting, etc...) And this way, after I read the book and took notes on it, I was better able to figure out what the good parts were and what the bad parts were (rather than just my overall impression).

This process helped me, so I thought it might be helpful for new reviewers to have some suggestions along those lines on what to look for in a book to provide better, more balanced reviews.

Hope this clears it up a little, and I'm sure that other people will have much more creative ideas on what they include as criteria for judgment while reviewing books, which I personally would find helpful.

-- 05 May 2014, 12:02 --

For example, if a book has amateurish sentence structure, it might be difficult to enjoy, but on the other hand, the plot might be amazing. Some people would overlook the sentence structure if they were intrigued by the plot, and other people might be so irritated by the sentence structure that they wouldn't be able to enjoy the plot. But, if both reviewers are at least thinking about both these criteria, it would still result in the same, subjective review ("I hated it because of this! Though this other thing was okay.")--but as a reader, I think you'd get more information.

Most people already have a similar criteria that they use to review books. I see the same elements popping up on many different reviews: "I didn't like the characterization", or "the pacing was too slow", or "the plot was interesting, but the resolution wasn't satisfying". We're all judging on similar things... but in some cases, I don't really see these elements being written about, and in these cases, I am unable to get an understanding of what the book is truly like.

[gali]

PashaRu, that's a good question.

(I hesitate at 'imposing' anything on anyone. I think it might be better to suggest that they think about certain specific things before writing their reviews, rather than forcing a certain criteria on people. This is what I meant, but maybe it didn't come out that way.)

I noticed that when I started writing a review with a "criteria" in mind, it helped me organize my thoughts much better. At the beginning of my notes, I jotted down what I expected from the book (did it fulfill its purpose, did it have a coherent theme, what was the writing style, and was it interesting, etc...) And this way, after I read the book and took notes on it, I was better able to figure out what the good parts were and what the bad parts were (rather than just my overall impression).

This process helped me, so I thought it might be helpful for new reviewers to have some suggestions along those lines on what to look for in a book to provide better, more balanced reviews.

Hope this clears it up a little, and I'm sure that other people will have much more creative ideas on what they include as criteria for judgment while reviewing books, which I personally would find helpful.

Now your meaning is much more clearer.

I always take notes when I read a book for review and I note down the writing style, themes, etc.' The guidelines already refer to that I believe.

[PashaRu]

PashaRu, that's a good question.

(I hesitate at 'imposing' anything on anyone. I think it might be better to suggest that they think about certain specific things before writing their reviews, rather than forcing a certain criteria on people. This is what I meant, but maybe it didn't come out that way.)

I noticed that when I started writing a review with a "criteria" in mind, it helped me organize my thoughts much better. At the beginning of my notes, I jotted down what I expected from the book (did it fulfill its purpose, did it have a coherent theme, what was the writing style, and was it interesting, etc...) And this way, after I read the book and took notes on it, I was better able to figure out what the good parts were and what the bad parts were (rather than just my overall impression).

This process helped me, so I thought it might be helpful for new reviewers to have some suggestions along those lines on what to look for in a book to provide better, more balanced reviews.

Hope this clears it up a little, and I'm sure that other people will have much more creative ideas on what they include as criteria for judgment while reviewing books, which I personally would find helpful.

-- 05 May 2014, 12:02 --

For example, if a book has amateurish sentence structure, it might be difficult to enjoy, but on the other hand, the plot might be amazing. Some people would overlook the sentence structure if they were intrigued by the plot, and other people might be so irritated by the sentence structure that they wouldn't be able to enjoy the plot. But, if both reviewers are at least thinking about both these criteria, it would still result in the same, subjective review ("I hated it because of this! Though this other thing was okay.")--but as a reader, I think you'd get more information.

Most people already have a similar criteria that they use to review books. I see the same elements popping up on many different reviews: "I didn't like the characterization", or "the pacing was too slow", or "the plot was interesting, but the resolution wasn't satisfying". We're all judging on similar things... but in some cases, I don't really see these elements being written about, and in these cases, I am unable to get an understanding of what the book is truly like.

If I understand you correctly, you would like to see reviewers be more specific in their reviews. With that, I agree. Writing in generalizations is easy, but not terribly informative to anyone. It's also not very helpful to an author who may be looking for constructive criticism.

In my post above, I included a link to the guidelines provided on this site. There are no less than 16 points to keep in mind when writing a review. If all reviewers adhered to these guidelines, the reviews would be of high quality.

[npandit]

Gali, I'm glad.

The guidelines refer to these things and many people use them, but like you mentioned, PashuRu, sometimes I don't see these things mentioned in reviews, and for me it is a little confusing to figure out whether I will like the book or not, when I don't know what criteria the person used to judge it.

Originally--since I was talking about the possibility of feeling pressured to write a positive review (knowing the author will write back), I mentioned that it might be helpful for the individual reviewer to write down what exactly they are rating the book for, so they have to think about these specific things and mention them.

In job interviews for example, when people have a pre-defined criteria for what they are looking for in a candidate, they make better, clearer judgments.