Please separate Reviews and Ratings

It is really annoying to click on the "reviews" link, thinking you'll actually find reviews, and there are only ratings.

>1 lilithcat: I think I can easily find a "reviews" link three different places in LT. Please explain which one you mean and give an example.

I agree with >2 bnielsen:. I'm not sure which "reviews" link you have in mind, and the experience you describe is unfamiliar to me.

>2 bnielsen:

Sure. Go to a Work page such as https://www.librarything.com/work/33491531/t/Le-ventisette-sveglie-di-Atena-Ferr... Either from "Member Reviews" under "On this page", or "Reviews" on the left, you see only ratings. The former opens a module with no reviews, the latter you are taken here: https://www.librarything.com/work/33491531/reviews Again, no reviews.

Ah. As someone with little use for ratings, I don't see why it's problem to have them on that Work Reviews page, where they appear below Member Reviews. That link populates whether there are any reviews OR ratings, and shows both to the extent that they are available. Here's an example of a work with neither:
https://www.librarything.com/work/3049944/reviews/15581589

>5 paradoxosalpha:

I have no use for ratings, which is why I find it troublesome to be given ratings when I think I'm going to get reviews.

>4 lilithcat: The bar under the title on the work overview page shows “# reviews” if there are any. For the work example you gave, reviews aren’t mentioned because there are none, so no need to look for reviews by clicking the Reviews link.

>7 Charon07:

That's not helpful, though. Who would necessary expect that? I see a "reviews" link, I expect it will take me to reviews. The absence of a number does not suggest to me "no reviews".

>8 lilithcat: What would you expect to happen when you click a link for reviews when there are no reviews?

>9 Charon07:

But I don't know there are no reviews until I click the link! If it said (0) after "reviews", that would be a different story

>10 lilithcat: How would separating ratings and reviews help with that?

Because it seems ratings are showing up in the count for reviews which they plainly aren't.

>11 Charon07:

It would help because if I saw "reviews", I'd know that was what I was going to get. I'd assume that if the link isn't there, there aren't any reviews, but if it is there, there are reviews.

I want to see the ratings with the reviews. I like knowing in advance which way the review is going to go. I can see asking to be warned in advance when there are no reviews, however it would not tell us whether or not there are and useful reviews. I find it difficult if I am promised 2 reviews, and one of them is a price, and the other says 'review coming'. At least if there are ratings I get some idea of whether others enjoyed it or not.

I want "Will you like it?" back. It may not always have been right, but it was a good first aproximation.

>14 MarthaJeanne:

it would not tell us whether or not there are and useful reviews.

That's true, but it would definitely be an improvement. I just want to know that there are reviews, not just ratings, before I go to the link.

Clicking on the No of Reviews at the top bar on the work page actually takes you to just reviews. It does not open a new page with just reviews and ratings, it simply scrolls down to the reviews section.

What I personally find annoying (and made a so far disregarded RSI about) is that the number includes reviews flagged as not reviews or TOS violations. Often when there's only 1 or 2 reviews, there's no actual review to see. I'd be happy if it said zero when there's no valid review.

>16 SandraArdnas: Using the link in the top bar is how I usually get to the reviews. The added benefit is if there is no such link, it’s clear that there are no reviews. I agree it would be nice if the flagged reviews were not included in that count.

>17 Charon07: Yes, me too. No point going to reviews if there's none, so that's where I check first and go from there

>17 Charon07: There is not complete consensus here about what is or is not a review, however. I flag “reviews” along the lines of “Read in high school but don’t remember” but others have defended them.

>19 booksaplenty1949:

Yeah, you really shouldn't flag those reviews. It's not a "review" I would ever write, but “Read in high school but don’t remember” expresses a genuine subjective characterization of the text.

>20 paradoxosalpha: Maybe, but usually “reviews” of this kind are posted by members who feel obligated to review every book they enter, if it has been read. This usually results in scores of “Concerns Russia”-type reviews.

>21 booksaplenty1949:

And? Tim said that "No" was a review. I myself feel obligated to review every book I read. It doesn't make my reviews bad, let alone "not reviews."

Flagging is for things like shelf numbers that have been put in the review field.

I've been using LT since early days, and if I have a problem with the culture here, it's that users tend to be flag-happy and thumb-stingy on reviews. The way to sort out "bad" reviews that are merely terse or thoughtless is to give thumbs to the reviews that are helpful. Remember, flagged reviews aren't hidden anyhow, just sorted to the bottom.

>22 paradoxosalpha: Just chiming in to say that I appreciate topics like these. It gives me a better sense of the LT perspective, with which I often agree like in this case. You've clarified the purpose of flagging is to prevent us from having to scroll through misplaced data blurbs. And opinions are legitimized as what they are: personal opinion reviews of one's own reading. I like it!

>22 paradoxosalpha: I remember when Tim's "No" review was discussed, and I remember thinking that I would have had more problems with it if it had been by some random member. From Tim, not because he owns the site, but because I knew him to be a passionate classicist, it said all I needed to know about the book.

Some reviews are for the specific users, to record what they might need to know about their own reading of the text. Some might be for friends and connections, and be useful to them without being universally helpful. Some really are helpful to random readers. Others are more detailed and will be more than the random reader wants to see, but be useful for others.

These are all valid uses of the field. A repetition of title and author, or a price listing, or copying the publisher's blurb aren't.

Do I get frustrated by some of the short reviews that don't tell me anything and by the really long ones that try to rehash the whole book? Of course I do. But I recognise that these are valid responses to having read the book. Even 'Read this at school, can't remember anything,' might be useful to a teacher considering using it for her/his class. If there are several of those, it might be a good idea to choose something else.

>24 MarthaJeanne: copying the publisher's blurb

Ah, yes. Cut and paste of a publisher's description is definitely flaggable, and perhaps the most common of these.

>25 paradoxosalpha: RED flaggable.

>22 paradoxosalpha: Reviewing as you read is one thing. I am talking about people who enter every book they own. I read at least a thousand of my books long before I joined LT. No need to try to remember what I thought of every one of them and share, IMHO.

>24 MarthaJeanne: “No.” is a review, as is “OMG.” It’s a statement of opinion. “Gift from Grandma,” is not. It’s a fact. I would put “Remember nothing” in this category unless reviewer had just set the book down. But one is always free to counter-flag.

>28 booksaplenty1949: I can think of one classic that I have not reviewed. If I did, it would probably be "Read this for school, can't remember anything other than I hated it." Would you like that better?

>29 MarthaJeanne: Yes, of course. (Negative) opinion stated.