Regarding published book reviews

Am I failing to save reviews from James Nicoll Reviews.com properly? He doesn't just review books for his own site. He also reviews books for professional publishers. Please note his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll

Mr. Nicoll's reviews have inspired me to read quite a few books and buy them for myself. Seven of the 41 books I've gotten this year have been because of his reviews (or are later entries in a series I had already started because of his reviews of their first books). That's not quite one sixth of all the books I've gotten in 2026.

I believe that published reviews are supposed to be in major media, not a personal blog.

Reviews in Publishers Weekly would be appropriate.

>2 MarthaJeanne: Reviewers who both have a blog and publish them in standard media outlets are a special case IMO. These are often, though not always, carried by some paper, but it can be difficult to track which one for any particular review. I post reviews from Cory Doctorow's blog because that's what I follow and will see them there first, but then I'll see some appear in the Guardian and occasionally stumble onto others in random media, but his blog is where you'll find all of them in one place. I believe 'no personal blog' is meant to limit it to professional reviews, not exclude professional freelance reviewers.

>1 JalenV:

That's a personal blog, they are not published reviews.

See https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/HelpThing:Work/Published_Reviews Do not add links or excerpts to reviews on personal blogs, customer reviews on Amazon, personal reviews on GoodReads, book descriptions, etc.

>3 SandraArdnas:


But if someone posts a review from "Joe Jone's blog" as a "published review", how is anyone else supposed to know that it was also published in the New York Times? If the person publishes the same review in both places, it is better practice to use the "established publishing outlet" as the source, so there is no confusion.

Frankly, there's a lot of garbage posted as "published reviews", and I wish people would read https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/HelpThing:Work/Published_Reviews before posting. The link is right there next to "Add a review".

There is a lot of misuse of this feature. I don't go looking for published reviews. I'm not really interested. If I see one posted by the book's author that includes several paragraphs, even from a standard publishing outlet I will delete the whole thing. I'm certainly not going to bother to try to establish which part of it could be a useful 'snippet'.

When you enter any common knowledge you need to realize that anyone else can remove it. I think you have to expect that any published review is going to be looked at with suspicion unless it is clear that the source is legitimate. This goes double if there is a long excerpt.

>6 MarthaJeanne:

This goes double if there is a long excerpt.

I've seen the opposite as well. No "snippet" at all, just a link to the review. And, worse, I saw one the other day that just said, "positive review"!

>5 lilithcat: My point is the reviewer is a professional reviewer and known as such by being published often in standard media outlets. It's precisely because I do NOT know who published it that I link to the blog. I do not follow a myriad of media publishing Doctorow's reviews and I don't go out of my way to find them. It is not 'a personal blog' in the standard sense of the term since the majority of the things posted end up published, be they reviews or articles on some topic. It's personal in that it only contains his articles, but he is a professional writer and reviewer, so it's a freelance professional source.

If in doubt, quick search can resolve it. For one, they will normally have a Wikipedia page and it will mention outlets that often carry their reviews. So, though I'm not familiar with Nicoll, I wouldn't delete those published reviews.

Is there a home page widget for the published reviews? I can't seem to find one.

So far, there does not seem to be anyone here who specifically goes out looking for reviews to delete. Nor do we have links to any examples. We are guessing at what might be the issue.

>10 MarthaJeanne:

I do check them from time to time, as so many people post Amazon/Goodreads user reviews, and the like. And I have noticed, too, that spammers like to use that field.

>5 lilithcat: I was looking for such a link and failed to find it. Thanks.

>2 MarthaJeanne: How about Kirkus Reviews?

>8 SandraArdnas: Thank you. That's why I included his Wikipedia page.

>17 JalenV:

Kirkus reviews are specifically exempted from the prohibition on paid reviews.

>19 lilithcat: Thank you.

Consensus, please: Is posting from the blog of Mr. Nicoll, professional reviewer, to be allowed or not?

>21 JalenV:

i think staff should clarify that. But I also think that if it is allowed, there should be some way to indicate that the blogger is a professional reviewer.

I would err on the side of caution. Until the staff clarifies if a pro reviewer blogger works in the field, consider the option as not a valid source.

>21 JalenV: A consensus of those posting in this topic doesn't really mean anything. A staff decision as >22 lilithcat: suggests, would be useful, but even there, it doesn't stop other members from deleting such reviews. I foresee battles over who counts as a 'professional reviewer'.

There was an old RSI from February 2025 asking for a stronger definition of Publisher's Reviews:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/368776

I agree that a conservative definition is the best course here.

I am a published author and I have written over 1400 LT reviews, many of them quite substantial, and these are sometimes even "syndicated" out to other sites by third parties with my permission. I wouldn't consider any of those to be "published reviews" for LT purposes.

When I post "published reviews" (and I have done it a lot), it is nearly always for reviews that are in print media or in the online counterpart of a print publication.

Thank you. What a shame. Mr. Nicoll's reviews are entertaining as well as informative.