1krazy4katz
Hello everyone,
Is there a way to tag a review of a work as an author review? I thought I had seen that somewhere but I can't figure out how to do it.
Thank you!
k4k
Is there a way to tag a review of a work as an author review? I thought I had seen that somewhere but I can't figure out how to do it.
Thank you!
k4k
2lilithcat
>1 krazy4katz:
You mean someone else's review? No, you can't change another person's data.
If the person is a LibraryThing author, that will automatically show on the review.
You mean someone else's review? No, you can't change another person's data.
If the person is a LibraryThing author, that will automatically show on the review.
3lesmel
There's an RSI about flagging reviews as author reviews: https://www.librarything.com/topic/189223.
And there's a "New Features" post about LT author "Self-reviews now marked": https://www.librarything.com/topic/294627
And there's a "New Features" post about LT author "Self-reviews now marked": https://www.librarything.com/topic/294627
4paradoxosalpha
Thumbs and flags are the only ways for users to mark each other's reviews.
Authors of books become visible only when they self-identify as such, whether in the review itself or as an LT author, which creates the automatic author review notice.
Worrying about authors "sneaking in" reviews of their own books is a fool's errand, since anyone can create a free account under a pseudonym.
Authors of books become visible only when they self-identify as such, whether in the review itself or as an LT author, which creates the automatic author review notice.
Worrying about authors "sneaking in" reviews of their own books is a fool's errand, since anyone can create a free account under a pseudonym.
5cpg
>4 paradoxosalpha:
All sorts of villainy can be perpetrated surreptitiously; that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it's done in the open.
All sorts of villainy can be perpetrated surreptitiously; that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out when it's done in the open.
6paradoxosalpha
It's not villainy for an author to openly use the LT review field to offer remarks on his or her own work, and it's crappy of you to suggest that it is.
7waltzmn
>6 paradoxosalpha:
It's not villainy for an author to openly use the LT review field to offer remarks on his or her own work....
I think the correct statement is that it need not be villainy. It could be, if the author tries to do it surreptitiously. And, yes, I know, they can always use a pseudonym! But there is a solution here: A public comments field, or some such, as opposed to a review field. A review suggests criticism (in the neutral sense of the word); public comments just suggest information.
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books, but I certainly wouldn't want to put them in something called a "review"!
It's not villainy for an author to openly use the LT review field to offer remarks on his or her own work....
I think the correct statement is that it need not be villainy. It could be, if the author tries to do it surreptitiously. And, yes, I know, they can always use a pseudonym! But there is a solution here: A public comments field, or some such, as opposed to a review field. A review suggests criticism (in the neutral sense of the word); public comments just suggest information.
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books, but I certainly wouldn't want to put them in something called a "review"!
8lilithcat
>7 waltzmn:
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books
What about using the disambiguation field on the Work page? "Clarifications to be used by future combiners and separators, or just as information."
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books
What about using the disambiguation field on the Work page? "Clarifications to be used by future combiners and separators, or just as information."
9cpg
>6 paradoxosalpha:
In #4 you referred to authors "sneaking in" reviews, which suggests dishonesty, which is villainy.
In #4 you referred to authors "sneaking in" reviews, which suggests dishonesty, which is villainy.
10waltzmn
>8 lilithcat:
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books
What about using the disambiguation field on the Work page? "Clarifications to be used by future combiners and separators, or just as information."
I suspect that, in my case, that would cause more confusion than it relieves. There are no disambiguation issues about my own works; none exist in any variant forms. :-) Three are too obscure to ever be re-published, and the fourth -- the only one with commercial potential, but also the one with most of the errors because I had horrid problems with the publishers -- has had no commercial support at all and will forever languish unless I get it away from the publishers. Which I can't do, because I am generally incapable of pushing back against people. :-)
I know that I would love to include some errata for my own books
What about using the disambiguation field on the Work page? "Clarifications to be used by future combiners and separators, or just as information."
I suspect that, in my case, that would cause more confusion than it relieves. There are no disambiguation issues about my own works; none exist in any variant forms. :-) Three are too obscure to ever be re-published, and the fourth -- the only one with commercial potential, but also the one with most of the errors because I had horrid problems with the publishers -- has had no commercial support at all and will forever languish unless I get it away from the publishers. Which I can't do, because I am generally incapable of pushing back against people. :-)
11aspirit
>7 waltzmn: I'm fairly certain the comments field is public on the book details page, only it's less visible than reviews are.
12paradoxosalpha
>9 cpg: In #4 you referred to authors "sneaking in" reviews
And in #5 you said "when it's done in the open." Which is your "villainy"? I do think that authors misrepresenting themselves as a third party is bad behavior, but it's very impractical to police under the current circumstances.
I openly "review" my own books as an LT author, and anyone who wants to make a moral issue out of that can go blow themselves. Just because I've produced something myself doesn't mean I'm not entitled to share my reflections on it.
Such a use of the review field is also entirely within the TOS and content rules of this site, although I've seen people subject it to spurious flagging.
And in #5 you said "when it's done in the open." Which is your "villainy"? I do think that authors misrepresenting themselves as a third party is bad behavior, but it's very impractical to police under the current circumstances.
I openly "review" my own books as an LT author, and anyone who wants to make a moral issue out of that can go blow themselves. Just because I've produced something myself doesn't mean I'm not entitled to share my reflections on it.
Such a use of the review field is also entirely within the TOS and content rules of this site, although I've seen people subject it to spurious flagging.
13waltzmn
>11 aspirit:
I'm fairly certain the comments field is public on the book details page, only it's less visible than reviews are.
It's public if you go to the work page in the author's own library, I believe, but why would anyone do so? Certainly I never thought of doing it for any LibraryThing authors. :-) (Of course, most of the authors in my library are dead, often centuries dead. :-) For a book that has a long errata list (starting with the fact that the publishers managed to make the handful of words in Hebrew read left-to-right instead of right-to-left), I'd have to do a lot of work that probably wouldn't do much good.
Possibly "public comments" is a feature that should be added to Authors, not Works, but it would be nice to have.
I'm fairly certain the comments field is public on the book details page, only it's less visible than reviews are.
It's public if you go to the work page in the author's own library, I believe, but why would anyone do so? Certainly I never thought of doing it for any LibraryThing authors. :-) (Of course, most of the authors in my library are dead, often centuries dead. :-) For a book that has a long errata list (starting with the fact that the publishers managed to make the handful of words in Hebrew read left-to-right instead of right-to-left), I'd have to do a lot of work that probably wouldn't do much good.
Possibly "public comments" is a feature that should be added to Authors, not Works, but it would be nice to have.
14aspirit
>13 waltzmn: I must've misunderstood what you're suggesting. Is it that you want another field on the same page doing the same thing as an LT author review of their own book-- but not in the review field?
The discussion about villainy was confusing, so I initially filtered it out. We're here because we like books. Authors are the primary creators of the books. But authors who are members, obeying the rules while treating their works as no less than dead authors' works, are somehow antagonists. That's what I'm now getting from some of the remarks here.
What actually happens is that LT members who have claimed authorship of their works on this site are automatically marked as the authors on their profile page and on any reviews of their works. Authors who review their own works without claiming them to link their author page and profile page aren't hurting anyone but might come across as dishonest, for however much that matters in this context.
The discussion about villainy was confusing, so I initially filtered it out. We're here because we like books. Authors are the primary creators of the books. But authors who are members, obeying the rules while treating their works as no less than dead authors' works, are somehow antagonists. That's what I'm now getting from some of the remarks here.
What actually happens is that LT members who have claimed authorship of their works on this site are automatically marked as the authors on their profile page and on any reviews of their works. Authors who review their own works without claiming them to link their author page and profile page aren't hurting anyone but might come across as dishonest, for however much that matters in this context.
15aspirit
>1 krazy4katz: To point out unlinked author pages/accounts, a concerned member could message either the review writer or the LT team.
16.mau.
I do review my own books (there are things which cannot be find in the official description), but such reviews always start stating that it is a self-review, so that even absent-minded people know what to expect.
17waltzmn
>14 aspirit:
13 waltzmn: I must've misunderstood what you're suggesting. Is it that you want another field on the same page doing the same thing as an LT author review of their own book-- but not in the review field?
I want another field, but I don't want it to do the same thing as a review. Reviews serve a good purpose: They identify the audience for a book and say whether it is good or bad. An author might help with the first but obviously is biased about the second. :-)
What I want is things to help readers without being a review. This might be corrections of errors, updates, additional resources, links... I'm sure there are other things that might be useful. Data tables for scientific books, e.g. Yes, the big publishers now have web pages for many of their books. But small presses don't. And most of the really interesting stuff (to me at least) is the small press stuff.
The discussion about villainy was confusing, so I initially filtered it out. We're here because we like books. Authors are the primary creators of the books. But authors who are members, obeying the rules while treating their works as no less than dead authors' works, are somehow antagonists. That's what I'm now getting from some of the remarks here.
If an author uses reviews to sell their books to people who would not otherwise wish to buy them, I think that reprehensible. I do not know if anyone has done this. But my way would avoid the risk. :-)
What actually happens is that LT members who have claimed authorship of their works on this site are automatically marked as the authors on their profile page and on any reviews of their works.
And my books are so marked. But the descriptions of the books are imperfect, and they don't correct the errata. And if I put up a review that says that the word re'em was misspelled as me'er because somebody's file converter doesn't understand that Hebrew is a right-to-left language, I think someone looking for real reviews would find it very confusing. :-)
13 waltzmn: I must've misunderstood what you're suggesting. Is it that you want another field on the same page doing the same thing as an LT author review of their own book-- but not in the review field?
I want another field, but I don't want it to do the same thing as a review. Reviews serve a good purpose: They identify the audience for a book and say whether it is good or bad. An author might help with the first but obviously is biased about the second. :-)
What I want is things to help readers without being a review. This might be corrections of errors, updates, additional resources, links... I'm sure there are other things that might be useful. Data tables for scientific books, e.g. Yes, the big publishers now have web pages for many of their books. But small presses don't. And most of the really interesting stuff (to me at least) is the small press stuff.
The discussion about villainy was confusing, so I initially filtered it out. We're here because we like books. Authors are the primary creators of the books. But authors who are members, obeying the rules while treating their works as no less than dead authors' works, are somehow antagonists. That's what I'm now getting from some of the remarks here.
If an author uses reviews to sell their books to people who would not otherwise wish to buy them, I think that reprehensible. I do not know if anyone has done this. But my way would avoid the risk. :-)
What actually happens is that LT members who have claimed authorship of their works on this site are automatically marked as the authors on their profile page and on any reviews of their works.
And my books are so marked. But the descriptions of the books are imperfect, and they don't correct the errata. And if I put up a review that says that the word re'em was misspelled as me'er because somebody's file converter doesn't understand that Hebrew is a right-to-left language, I think someone looking for real reviews would find it very confusing. :-)
18lorax
paradoxosalpha (#12):
I openly "review" my own books as an LT author, and anyone who wants to make a moral issue out of that can go blow themselves. Just because I've produced something myself doesn't mean I'm not entitled to share my reflections on it.
Few people would disagree. The problem most of us have is when the author does not make it clear that they are in fact the author, and instead give their books five-star ratings and rave reviews that conveniently omit their connection to the book.
I openly "review" my own books as an LT author, and anyone who wants to make a moral issue out of that can go blow themselves. Just because I've produced something myself doesn't mean I'm not entitled to share my reflections on it.
Few people would disagree. The problem most of us have is when the author does not make it clear that they are in fact the author, and instead give their books five-star ratings and rave reviews that conveniently omit their connection to the book.
19lorax
waltzman (#17):
If an author uses reviews to sell their books to people who would not otherwise wish to buy them, I think that reprehensible. I do not know if anyone has done this.
I don't know whether they have *succeeded*. Many have tried.
If an author uses reviews to sell their books to people who would not otherwise wish to buy them, I think that reprehensible. I do not know if anyone has done this.
I don't know whether they have *succeeded*. Many have tried.
20MarthaJeanne
>18 lorax: I have seen a lot of these 'reviews', and I strongly doubt that most LT members are fooled by them. When only one member has entered a book (and usually only that one book), given it five stars, and said how wonderful it is, usually with spelling and grammar mistakes, I have trouble imagining that anyone will spend money or time on it.
21cpg
>12 paradoxosalpha: "And in #5 you said 'when it's done in the open.' Which is your 'villainy'?"
How about if I replace "done in the open" with "detectable"? As in the Orlando Figes affair. And the John Rechy affair. And the Stephen Leather affair. And the R. J. Ellory affair. (Tip o' the hat to Wikipedia.)
How about if I replace "done in the open" with "detectable"? As in the Orlando Figes affair. And the John Rechy affair. And the Stephen Leather affair. And the R. J. Ellory affair. (Tip o' the hat to Wikipedia.)
22waltzmn
>20 MarthaJeanne:
When only one member has entered a book (and usually only that one book), given it five stars, and said how wonderful it is, usually with spelling and grammar mistakes, I have trouble imagining that anyone will spend money or time on it.
This is certainly indicative but not guaranteed. There are a lot of books in my library for which mine is the only copy -- and I am much more likely to review such a book than a book that is widely held. (What possible point could there be in another review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? But there is every reason to review, say, Popular Campaign Songs by Anna Adams Gordon, so that people will know that they're temperance campaign songs, not political campaign songs.) Admittedly I rarely give five star reviews -- I try very hard to make my review average be 3.0 stars! -- but it can happen. And there are days when my fingers can be pretty palsied, though I usually come back and look at my reviews a day later and correct myself. Plus I often review, and quote, Middle English, and how can you tell if I'm spelling that correctly? :-)
And while all of my books show at least two copies, none has more than seven, and in one case, the second copy is my mother's. :-) So I could give my own books the sort of review you describe, though I have not done so, and how could you tell it from my review of, say, My Wyl and My Wrytyng (which I gave only three and a half stars, but it was the highest-scored book I noticed in a quick glance of my singletons I had reviewed)?
When only one member has entered a book (and usually only that one book), given it five stars, and said how wonderful it is, usually with spelling and grammar mistakes, I have trouble imagining that anyone will spend money or time on it.
This is certainly indicative but not guaranteed. There are a lot of books in my library for which mine is the only copy -- and I am much more likely to review such a book than a book that is widely held. (What possible point could there be in another review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? But there is every reason to review, say, Popular Campaign Songs by Anna Adams Gordon, so that people will know that they're temperance campaign songs, not political campaign songs.) Admittedly I rarely give five star reviews -- I try very hard to make my review average be 3.0 stars! -- but it can happen. And there are days when my fingers can be pretty palsied, though I usually come back and look at my reviews a day later and correct myself. Plus I often review, and quote, Middle English, and how can you tell if I'm spelling that correctly? :-)
And while all of my books show at least two copies, none has more than seven, and in one case, the second copy is my mother's. :-) So I could give my own books the sort of review you describe, though I have not done so, and how could you tell it from my review of, say, My Wyl and My Wrytyng (which I gave only three and a half stars, but it was the highest-scored book I noticed in a quick glance of my singletons I had reviewed)?
23lorax
waltzmn:
All pieces of MarthaJeanne's puzzle are important, and "only one member has entered a book" is the least important of them.
If there is a book where:
* One member has entered it, AND
* That member has entered ONLY that book, or only books by that author, AND
* That member gives the book or books five stars, AND
* That member reviews the book in vague but glowing terms. Things like "I don't usually read books in {genre}, but I loved this book!!!! It was amazing and I am recommending it to everyone!!!"
then it is quite likely that the member in question is the author, or a friend or family member who was asked by the author to create an account here for the purpose of reviewing the book. Nobody's going to think a long-standing member who happens to review a singleton is a sock-puppeting author of that book.
All pieces of MarthaJeanne's puzzle are important, and "only one member has entered a book" is the least important of them.
If there is a book where:
* One member has entered it, AND
* That member has entered ONLY that book, or only books by that author, AND
* That member gives the book or books five stars, AND
* That member reviews the book in vague but glowing terms. Things like "I don't usually read books in {genre}, but I loved this book!!!! It was amazing and I am recommending it to everyone!!!"
then it is quite likely that the member in question is the author, or a friend or family member who was asked by the author to create an account here for the purpose of reviewing the book. Nobody's going to think a long-standing member who happens to review a singleton is a sock-puppeting author of that book.
24MarthaJeanne
I, myself, have lots of singletons. A few even have 5 stars and a review, but I am not the author. But then, I have entered lots of books, and the reviews are clearly not by the author.
25booksaplenty1949
>22 waltzmn: Yes, a single review of a single copy is not a guarantee, but when it is a five star review of a recent book, full of superlatives mis-spelled or otherwise, the odds are high that it is a form of advertising on the author’s part. If an author wishes to provide “reflections” on his/her own book as a form of self-blurbing I see nothing dishonest about that, as long as the author is up front about being the author.
262wonderY
>17 waltzmn: May I suggest using this group to corral comments and data and links related to a particular title:
https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/22182/One-Book-One-Thread
It will show up on the work page under conversations. And there used to be a box on the right column in talk threads where you can more clearly identify a dedicated thread. I don’t see that option, but it may still be there.
https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/22182/One-Book-One-Thread
It will show up on the work page under conversations. And there used to be a box on the right column in talk threads where you can more clearly identify a dedicated thread. I don’t see that option, but it may still be there.
27MarthaJeanne
>26 2wonderY: I now find 'About' below all the messages.
282wonderY
>27 MarthaJeanne: Aha! Thanks!
29booksaplenty1949
One can, of course, find sincere, disinterested five-star glowing reviews of complete tripe, just as one can find reviews of, say, Moby Dick along the lines of “Could not finish. I hate fishing. 1/2 star.” if you are using reviews as a guide to whether something is worth reading you obviously do not give them all equal weight.
30krazy4katz
Thank you >15 aspirit:
Sorry! I seem to have created a slug fest. That was not my intent.
In the case I saw, the person who wrote the review used the same name as the author, so it was obvious. This person was not an LT author so the automatic mark did not show up.
I don't think it is wrong for an author to review their own book. Maybe wrong to star it. I just thought if you notice the review is by an author, you could mark it as such, or the author could, which is helpful in considering the perspective of the reviewer. Perhaps it is sufficient to point out that the author has "authored" the review. In a different but similar situation, I sometimes review books written by a friend. If that is the case, I always say so at the beginning. The review is still useful (I hope), but perhaps written from a perspective that has some bias.
Peace, everyone.
Sorry! I seem to have created a slug fest. That was not my intent.
In the case I saw, the person who wrote the review used the same name as the author, so it was obvious. This person was not an LT author so the automatic mark did not show up.
I don't think it is wrong for an author to review their own book. Maybe wrong to star it. I just thought if you notice the review is by an author, you could mark it as such, or the author could, which is helpful in considering the perspective of the reviewer. Perhaps it is sufficient to point out that the author has "authored" the review. In a different but similar situation, I sometimes review books written by a friend. If that is the case, I always say so at the beginning. The review is still useful (I hope), but perhaps written from a perspective that has some bias.
Peace, everyone.
31booksaplenty1949
Just noticed a profile which, under “About Me” basically said “If you send me your book I will review it on Goodreads” and several other sites, including this one. She has posted 1,267 reviews here. I doubt she does this out of the goodness of her heart.
32gilroy
>31 booksaplenty1949: As long as they are her reviews, doesn't matter.
33booksaplenty1949
>32 gilroy: How is this different from paid advertising?
34lilithcat
>33 booksaplenty1949:
Seems to me she is doing nothing more than what everyone who is an ER member does; namely, ask for free books in exchange for a review.
Seems to me she is doing nothing more than what everyone who is an ER member does; namely, ask for free books in exchange for a review.
35AnnieMod
>33 booksaplenty1949: She reads a book. She reviews a book. As long as she did not write or publish the book, how she got the book is irrelevant. Or should LT require proof of purchase before you can review?
36lilithcat
>35 AnnieMod:
As long as she did not write or publish the book, how she got the book is irrelevant.
Even if she did, it's relevant only to the extent that, if she's a LibraryThing author, the review will be marked. What Goodreads does or thinks about it is their business, and my feeling about GR is that they promote author self-promotion and wouldn't care.
As long as she did not write or publish the book, how she got the book is irrelevant.
Even if she did, it's relevant only to the extent that, if she's a LibraryThing author, the review will be marked. What Goodreads does or thinks about it is their business, and my feeling about GR is that they promote author self-promotion and wouldn't care.
37AnnieMod
>36 lilithcat: Yep - that’s where I was going with that thought. Too early in the morning to finish my thought I guess :)
38MarthaJeanne
>35 AnnieMod: As long as she is not being paid for the review.
39gilroy
>33 booksaplenty1949: Is she specifically saying "I charge $XX for a 5 star review or $YY for a 4 star review"? Is she specifically asking for money?
If not, there is no real advertising. She's just getting free books and writing reviews.
If not, there is no real advertising. She's just getting free books and writing reviews.
40booksaplenty1949
Apparently nothing more to say here except isn’t it interesting how different people have different points of view.
