Personal attacks on authors in reviews?

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but is it okay to say things about authors in reviews that would be forbidden as personal attacks if directed at other members in Talk? ("Stephenie Meyer is insane and/or mentally retarded.... Fuck her.")

Lacking any general way to express disapproval of a review, it would be nice if there were at least some minimal standards of decorum.

Zoe, this is the internet.

That hasn't prevented LT from having standards in other areas.

It would be one thing if these sorts of reviews just existed, but when LT actually advertises them on the homepage, it makes the whole site look bad.

I agree with _Zoe_. It's one thing to attack an author's views, or writing, but not the person themselves. Even if the author is not on Librarything, things that are unacceptable toward other members should be unacceptable toward any person on this site.

I might have let the "insane" dig slide (as some people might use that phrasing when disagreeing with, say, political viewpoints), but "mentally retarded" is beyond the pale.

I'm adamantly against any censoring of speech. "Fuck her" appeared on LT's main page? In that worthless infantile "review"? Who cares? If your baby pukes all over you, are you suddenly a morally reprehensible slob? Babies will do as babies do; the main page changes constantly, as far as I know.

I disagree.

Remarks about "public figures" are held to a different standard. If I can't say bad things about, say, George W. Bush if he were to write a book, that's really a chilling effect.

>5 LolaWalser: What if your baby pukes on you, and you frame that shirt and hang it in the front hall so that all your visitors can see it?

I don't think it's censorship to avoid publishing this sort of thing on the homepage. Even reviews with red flags don't actually go away, as far as I know.

And of course, my preferred approach would be something entirely different. I think the main problem is the positive/negative feedback imbalance. Why is censorship only bad when it comes to the review itself, while restricting the opportunities for dissent is okay?

>6 lorax: Why do you need to say bad things about the person rather than their actions and ideas? I really don't think the level of discourse here would be raised by comments like "George Bush is mentally retarded. Fuck him." That just avoids the need for actual thought.

I'm with _Zoe_; I think the terms of service say it all: "be nice".

I don't think throwing an f-bomb on the front page comports with "being nice", and suspect Tim would change it if noted.

Besides which, it's just not very insightful.

If part of the purpose of LT is provide information (reviews) for libraries and children, then I think certain anglo-saxon verbs should not be allowed in reviews.

For one thing, there's lots of parental software out there being used by libraries, parents, and schools that will ban a site from use for language unbefitting small fry.

It's interesting, I don't even object to the use of the word in general, just to its being directed at an individual. "Mentally retarded" is actually what bothers me most.

My vote goes in the LolaWalser/lorax corner. (Presuming that lorax isn't disagreeing with LW ;) )

v

10: All the reviews in LibraryThing for Libraries are automatically filtered for length (more words) and then manually filtered by staff.

Maybe I'm not with _Zoe_.

Mentally retarded does indeed strike me as a rather, well, stupid ad hominen attack, and the use of profanity then takes it to a more gratuitiously infantile level. If the reader hasn't turned their switch off before getting to the profanity.

But while one can electronically screen reviews for profanity I think screening for inanity, and particularly inanity focused at individuals, would have to be done manually and would entail a level of effort better spent elsewhere. So mentally retarded strikes me as inane, and ad hominen in context, and better avoided all around, but perhaps not avoidable, on a practical level.

Zoe, I don't think any reviews are "framed" on LT's main page. They come, they go, in matter of--what, minutes? Seconds?

If part of the purpose of LT is provide information (reviews) for libraries and children, then I think certain anglo-saxon verbs should not be allowed in reviews.

And I think this is a piss-poor fucking idea. Said libraries surely contain works of anglo-saxon literature containing said anglo-saxon verbs? Perhaps even works of non-anglo-saxon literatures in non-anglo-saxon languages containing synonymous verbs?

Here's a different one--a Miss Manners version of LT for little children and their minders, selectable like, say, LT in Piratical. If that's too much work, I could live (and ridicule it forever) with a filter for cuss words on the main page--but members' reviews, comments etc. remain sacrosanct (that is, in the limits of already existing filters of flagging and blocking.)

>14 A_musing: I was thinking it would take minimal effort in the form of a ToS flag or negative thumb, at least for Hot Reviews (there's a lot of opposition to negative thumbs in general). So instead of having something like this appear on the Hot Reviews page and stay there as it gained thumbs, other users could do something to counteract it.

>15 LolaWalser: I think Hot Reviews generally stay for about a day; they're certainly not gone in minutes or seconds. I'd imagine this one would be there longer than average since it's continuing to attract thumbs at a pretty rapid pace.

What's needed, obviously, is self-censorship. But that will never happen, because some people don't have the slightest care what bothers others. And it isn't ignorance. Use of "certain anglo-saxon words" are used because the user knows they will hurt others, and that is the point.

I took a look at the whole review; in context, the comments are not quite as inane as they are taken out of context. The review was trying to be clever in an over-the-top kind of way. I can see, however, why a pretty sophomoric review of a rather sophomoric book would attract some thumbs-up - the irony, of course, is that the review pans the book, though more for its vacuity than its sophomoricness.

Taken as a whole, while that review isn't LT's finest hour, it is a review of Twilight, isn't it?

6>

You're not talking about banning those specific words, though. (And, really, I find the use of "retarded" as an insult problematic, not because it's an insult but because it's insensitive. I have no problem with "Fuck"). You're talking about forbidding things like "George Bush was a stupid, mean-spirited little man".

I guess I just have this sad idealistic view that the Hot Reviews should represent LT's finest hour. But maybe I should pay more attention to the use of the word "hot" rather than "good".

Even worse, I think this review does make a lot of interesting points that would lead to a good discussion, if only review comments were allowed. I just don't think it stands alone as a good representative of LT.

And, really, I find the use of "retarded" as an insult problematic, not because it's an insult but because it's insensitive.

I think this is actually my main problem too, but we know arguing on those grounds is a lost cause.

What about making an exception for authors, but continuing to allow any sort of insult for politicians and other public figures? I think it's important for LT to seem like a welcoming place for authors, but not so much for politicians.

What about making an exception for authors, but continuing to allow any sort of insult for politicians and other public figures?

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama wrote books and would potentially fall under your "author" protection.

Edited to say: Authors are public figures just like politicians, etc. I don't think writing a book should grant specific protection.

Whether you find the wording and sentiment offensive or not, I think it's a slippy slope when imposing regulations on how you can/cannot phrase your criticism of authors and their works. OK, so most people would think that a rude and infantile review ... and in my opinion they'd be right. If you bar criticism of authors from reviews then I could have my Stephenie Meyers reviews flagged down for criticising her religious views and how they affect the plots of her novels (OK, more eloquently put than the original review you cited but a criticism of the novelist nonetheless and also one that some people might be offended by ... but hell, I stick by it). If you restrict people from swearing in their reviews, that's another form of censorship that I would also object to. The only point where I would find it acceptable to take down a review would be if someone actually called for physical violence against an author ... and then only at a stretch.

I guess I would go by their main profession--if they're a politician who happened to write a book, I'd count them as a politician.

I don't think authors in general are nearly as much "public figures" as politicians. But also, I think it's more important that a book site treat authors well--there's always the faint hope that the authors will actually show up here, so I'd rather treat them like real people from the start. And I don't think there's much risk of a chilling effect from telling people to attack the book and its ideas rather than the author. Is it really necessary to say that Author X was a stupid, mean-spirited little man?

Is it really necessary to say that Author X was a stupid, mean-spirited little man?

Sometimes yes, if only to put into context the criticism of the book and explain where you believe it was, shall we say, less than honest. An example of this springs to mind with The Double Helix where a dissection of Watson's character and the man he has become over time is integral to an understanding of the individual who wrote the book and where the failings of his account lie. I'm sure there are others too where it is legitimate to pass personal comment on the character of the author.

>24 klarusu: I'm not interested in barring that sort of review in general, just in reducing its chances of appearing as a Hot Review. (And I wouldn't even mind having it as a Hot Review if there were a way to disagree with it there.) I'm focusing on the ToS aspect because that's currently the only legitimate grounds for criticizing a review.

>26 klarusu: I wouldn't have considered your review of The Double Helix a personal attack, though.

27>

I guess I find Hot Reviews to be of so little interest that I never even glance at them anyway (since every one I've even glanced at falls into the "snarky review of a bestseller" mode), so this seems to be a "solution" where the 'side effects' dwarf the 'intended effects'. Are Hot Reviews really that big a deal to other people?

I stopped paying attention to hot reviews when one of the groups I belong to started emphasizing the number of reviews by members of that group, which seems to have led to voting for reviews because someone was a member of that group.....

I wouldn't have considered your review of The Double Helix a personal attack, though.

Most critical reviews aren't but I'd be wary of allowing people to flag down reviews as 'personal attacks' because, while there are obvious cases like the first one cited that appear to cross boundaries of decency, once the option is there it would enable people to flag down reviews purely because they disagreed with their perspective on the author. I know the majority of users wouldn't take advantage of features like this to practice a form of censorship just as the majority of reviewers wouldn't post reviews like the one above but once a feature is there, the control of how it is used has gone and you effectively give someone who would take advantage a censorship tool.

28>

That's part of the problem, then; the terminology is so vague that it would end up, as I said, having a chilling effect. How are we to know that harsh, arrogant and lacking in scruples is okay, but stupid, mean-spirited is a "personal attack"?

>31 klarusu: But can't the people who would be inclined to do so already abuse the not-a-review and ToS-violation flags?

I'll be interested to hear what other people think about the importance of Hot Reviews. I think they're more important than they might seem to regular users because they're one of the first things a new user would see on the site.

I have noticed that they tend to be based on threads in groups, but I thought that was just because that's how people notice reviews.

>32 lorax: That's not the key distinction. He "comes across as harsh, arrogant, and lacking in scruples", while she "is insane and/or mentally retarded". One is a statement about appearances, and one is a statement of fact.

Since Tim has in the past proved quite resistant to curbing attacks on anyone other than specific LT members, I doubt that anything is going to be done in this corner. (I agree with Tim on this matter, for the record. I'm also against "minimal standards of decorum" for just about anything, including reviews on LT.)

Now, if those authors cared about the personal attacks, they might be able to stop them by joining LT. Just sayin'. :)

I don't think it is too much to ask that members exercise appropriate standards of behavior. I, for one, find the example first given as offensive, as I believe any properly educated individual would. May I suggest that the following would be more appropriate:

"Stephanie (sic) Meyer suffers from a psychiatric disorder and/or is developmentally delayed.... Fornicate her."

Perhaps it is time for LT is develop a style manual.

Fornicate her.

Too sinful. Should read, "Marry her, then consummate."

Is fornicate transitive?

Don't get me started. I've been down this road before. And was thoroughly trashed for my efforts.

There's a lot of tolerance on LT for attacks on authors like Meyer. Once, say, some racist starts posting reviews using the N-word to attack black authors, will LTers suddenly decide that "minimal standards of decorum" are a good idea after all? I wouldn't bet against it.

If I had seen crude language on the 'front page' of LT when I was deciding whether or not the site was one I'd want to join I would definitely not have become a member. To me it is saying 'This is the sort of language you can usually expect here'.

>40 cpg:

There is a great deal of difference between a vile attack and an expression of opinion and desire. The question of Meyer's sanity and intellectual capacity is certainly fair game. They are both in question, as anyone who has had the misfortunate of attempting to read one of her screeds will certainly attest.

Hopefully this thread won't grow too long in just the few minutes it takes me to formulate my thoughts.

As I see it there are at least three seperate areas of consideration:

1) can/should personal attacks be permitted in reviews?
Yes. With cavets of course; that the review is a review as LT defines it (remembering that the bar is as low as just "No."). Swearing is not a TOS violation. In terms of reviews just about the only violation is spamming links. It is after all someone's personal opinion entered into their catalogue as their data - pretty much sacrosanct in LT interferance.

2) Should such reviews make it through into LTFL? Probably not. But there is a manual oversight here already in addition to automated filters

3) Should such reviews make it onto the rest of LT- front page and Hot reviews for example? Maybe not. As a transitory Front page ticker, they only exist for a few seconds while other activity replaces them. Hot reviews can sometimes last for weeks as new people continually find them funny. This I think is a genuine reflextion of LTs userbase, and so shouldn't be prevented - although possibly requiring them to pass through the LTFL filter may be a reasonable comprimise.

The grey areas: LT authors. Can you insult them freely? What level of insult do we permit? after all some people will feel insulted by even a very mild criticism of their writing style.

Just some thoughts. In my Humble opinion.

"I'll be interested to hear what other people think about the importance of Hot Reviews."

As a regular user I find them very informative. I check them every day when I log in, looking for members whose opinions and styles I agree with, and interesting books too.

creativegirlz suffers from a psychiatric disorder and/or is developmentally delayed.... Fornicate her.

>43 TubeRider:

"There is a great deal of difference between a vile attack and an expression of opinion and desire."

No, there isn't. A vile attack can certainly be an expression of opinion and desire.

>46 cpg:

My apologies, old chap. Of course, I meant "gratuitous vile attack."

I notice that you are from Utah. Are you, by chance, a polygymist?

>47 TubeRider:

'My apologies, old chap. Of course, I meant "gratuitous vile attack."'

A gratuitous vile attack can certainly be an expression of opinion and desire.

I get a little... irritable... when the best/worst possible "acceptable" insult someone can think of is to compare their target with a certain type of disabled person, using a term which is commonly used to insult this type of person (the R-word), and often signals an implied or explicit endorsement of eugenics ("people like you should be..."). As someone else said, what if it was the N-word?

41: If I had seen crude language on the 'front page' of LT when I was deciding whether or not the site was one I'd want to join I would definitely not have become a member. To me it is saying 'This is the sort of language you can usually expect here'.

First, it is the sort of language you can expect here, because it is very specifically not a violation of the TOS.

Second, despite the implications of post 3, that particular passage did not appear on the homepage. You have to click through to the full review to see it, as the review is very long and the remarks in question do not appear at the beginning.

As your Founding Fathers realized, the determination of acceptable speech is quite a slippery slope. Just as you have admirably shown in your civic life during the present healthcare debate, community standards should not be determinative of the right to express opinions in whatever form they may be formulated. I certainly come down on the side of accepting the risk and discomfort of distasteful expressions of opinion as preferable to regulation. I am, of course, aware of the difference between a private venture, such as LT, and the heavy hand that sometimes accompanies governmental action. However, I think the principle is one which is worth emulating.

49> The problem with comparing the "R-word" to the "N-word" is that the R-word actually means something. (Should we stop using the word "dumb" to avoid offending deaf-mutes?) The N-word, however, has only ever existed as a racial slur.

>52 saltmanz:

'The problem with comparing the "R-word" to the "N-word" is that the R-word actually means something.'

So your preferred minimal standard of decorum would be that insulting words are okay as long as they mean something?

"The N-word, however, has only ever existed as a racial slur."

Section A.I.1.a. of the OED entry for the N-word disagrees.

52: I know they're not perfect analogues. (Neither the N-word nor "dumb" is.) And I'm not talking about offending individuals. I'm talking about going along with a cultural tendency towards the dehumanisation of certain groups of people.

As the author, I thoroughly agree w/ post #19.

And I'll let you know, dear _Zoe_, that I did not like putting "mentally retarded" in there, even tho I'm not, to be exact, talking about the mentally handicapped that one might carelessly & insensitively call a "retard" but as in: her mental (cap)abilities are literally retarded. I'll take #36's brilliance into consideration, esp. if I completely revamp the review as originally intended--tho if I do that it'll likely be 2x as long as I relax and stop trying to cram everything into as short a space as possible--, maybe make it as nice as the Antrim rev. from a few days back, because, frankly, it's a fucking mess. (EDT: I certainly don't think it should be a hot review, but it's understandable because it's a) snarky & b) about Twilight (& c) has a noticeable beginning).)

& I gotta laugh at the fact that I didn't know how to spell her name, even w/ the book in front of me. Ho ho ho haw haw ho.

55: Are you saying that by "retarded" you meant "slow"?

>44 reading_fox: possibly requiring them to pass through the LTFL filter may be a reasonable comprimise

Aren't LTFL reviews actually screened by humans, or did I imagine that?

>50 nperrin: Second, despite the implications of post 3, that particular passage did not appear on the homepage.

I don't think post 3 is misleading. The review is certainly advertised on the homepage.

>51 TubeRider: I certainly come down on the side of accepting the risk and discomfort of distasteful expressions of opinion as preferable to regulation.

My main issue is that there's only half regulation--reviewers can say whatever they want, but no one else is allowed to address their points directly (though I've tried).

>55 tootstorm: I'll take #36's brilliance into consideration, esp. if I completely revamp the review as originally intended

I hope you'll also take into consideration the as-yet-unaddressed issue of whether "fornicate" is transitive. ;)

Well, Mirriam-Webster says it has a transitive use, and it does seem like the kind of word that shouldn't be left with just a lonely little subject, but it still seems odd to me.

What an interesting thread! I wish that all were nice, TOS nice that is. But I am distressed about these -word euphemisms. They are too evocative of the original. Can we please use 'x-word' for any and all if we go to a style guide?

Just as piss (only occasionally vulgar according to sources), an example of onomatopoeia, is too evocative for some, replaced by pee (first letter), still too evocative for others, can be replaced by hmmm.

BTW, I question the conventional anglo-saxon source attribution of the x-word. I believe it is French, as in, pardon my French, used to soften the blow when the word escapes one's mouth. A perfectly good word, representative of the guttural moans of ecstasy. Onomatopoeia, anyone?

I don't think post 3 is misleading. The review is certainly advertised on the homepage.

I didn't go so far as to say it was misleading myself, but at least two people on this thread, and probably more, have assumed those words were on the homepage, and at least one person assumed the text you quoted in the OP was the full review. So I apologize, "implication" may have been too strong.

I'm not a big fan of snarky reviews directed at soft and easy targets. While they are entertaining to write and momentarily diverting to read, they ultimately stretch neither the mind of the reviewer or the reader.

However, I'm with Lola on this, and categorically against any form of censorship on LT. There's enough of that going on in the real world.

If something offends you, look away and get over it.

but is it okay to say things about authors in reviews that would be forbidden as personal attacks if directed at other members in Talk?

Yes, and this will remain so as long as I have any control over the site. I would add that, if Meyer joined the site, she would still be subject to criticism that was qua author, not qua member.

Lacking any general way to express disapproval of a review, it would be nice if there were at least some minimal standards of decorum.

Are we to assume that no author is insane, or to whom "fuck you" is appropriate? Shall we allow attacks on Hitler but not Stalin? Stalin but not Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck but not Dan Brown?

It would be one thing if these sorts of reviews just existed, but when LT actually advertises them on the homepage, it makes the whole site look bad.

Don't vote them up. In my experience, Hot Reviews is a mixed bag but rarely includes four-letter words.

Even if the author is not on Librarything, things that are unacceptable toward other members should be unacceptable toward any person on this site.

It would be unacceptable for me to call you a racist liar. Can I say it of Hitler or no? He's an author, after all. I call Godwin, btw, and move past him.

Remarks about "public figures" are held to a different standard. If I can't say bad things about, say, George W. Bush if he were to write a book, that's really a chilling effect.

Lorax, we agree!

If part of the purpose of LT is provide information (reviews) for libraries and children, then I think certain anglo-saxon verbs should not be allowed in reviews.

Reviews for libraries are screened, both manually and through an anti-four-letter word algorithm. LibraryThing does not exist for the use of children. See Terms of Use.

I think Hot Reviews generally stay for about a day; they're certainly not gone in minutes or seconds. I'd imagine this one would be there longer than average since it's continuing to attract thumbs at a pretty rapid pace.

Hot reviews are recalculated every ten minutes (600 seconds) or whenever a LibraryThing employee hits the home page. Of course, recalculated doesn't necessarily mean changed.

Is fornicate transitive?

Not if you wear a condom.

If I had seen crude language on the 'front page' of LT when I was deciding whether or not the site was one I'd want to join I would definitely not have become a member. To me it is saying 'This is the sort of language you can usually expect here'.

Sorry, but get over it. The site has 800,000 members. For our size there is no site that compares in terms of the general level of discourse. Even if we had strict rules, they wouldn't be applied instantly. If you want an absolutely safe website, start your own internet.

Second, despite the implications of post 3, that particular passage did not appear on the homepage. You have to click through to the full review to see it, as the review is very long and the remarks in question do not appear at the beginning.

Details, details...

the R-word actually means something

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing!

I'm talking about going along with a cultural tendency towards the dehumanisation of certain groups of people.

LibraryThing will probably not solve cultural tendencies. If it does, it will by allowing free discussion, not by forbidding it.

Aren't LTFL reviews actually screened by humans, or did I imagine that?

Yes, quickly. They are pre-screened by algorithms.

My main issue is that there's only half regulation--reviewers can say whatever they want, but no one else is allowed to address their points directly (though I've tried).

Hogwash. Just because you can't tack comments onto other people's reviews doesn't mean you're prevented from talking.

Bravo Tim! I agree with everything you've stated. Except about the condoms.

Chiming in on the anti-censorship side.

If LT wants to change the algorithm for Hot Reviews so that, as part of the public "face" of LT, it must past an LT PR filter (like LTFL) that's fine with me (I don't use it so I have no opinion on how it should be structured).

I disagree with the idea of censoring the content of the reviews themselves. If it is a review - not an ad, not spam, not a picture of your puppy - then it is a review. It may be an offensive, lousy, racist, dumb-ass review - but it is still a review (and I will henceforth consider you a cretin - but if you don't care about that...). Everyone who is here without supervision should be 13+ - they have certainly heard swear words.

I'm not a fan of _Zoe_'s "comments on reviews" but if we had the, somewhat related, function of work-specific discussion threads one could certainly lament/criticize a specific review there to get the "angry" out of their systems. If the reviewer allows comments on their profile you could let them know your opinion of their review (which could conceivably cause them to rethink their wording) - taking the "high road" of course *grin*.

PS. If no one gets offended that I used the word "cretin" in this post I will be gravely disappointed - don't you have any sympathy for the victims of untreated congenital hypothyroidism?

ETA: I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Tim had not yet posted when I started to compose my reply. Damn - either he types fast or I get distracted easily.

ETA: double-dog-damn, I am in agreement with Tim and Lorax in the same thread? *PortiaLongs looks up expecting falling pigshit...since apparently they have wings now*

If no one gets offended that I used the word "cretin" in this post I will be gravely disappointed...

The politics of name-calling is very tricky. Non-pejorative terms for despised groups tend to slide, one-by-one, into pejorative status. There is nothing pejorative about negro, for example, but it's been utterly unacceptable for decades. (My French grandmother, whose English was imperfect and who was not entirely "there" at the end, died in the early 80s believing "negro" was still okay.) Occasionally they slide back out again—witness "idiot."

"Mentally retarded" has seen some of the same effect. It says nothing that "developmentally delayed" doesn't, even as one is a slur and the other not. (See nice treatment in Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation).

I'm not saying people should use either term, but I have some sympathy with people whose word use is a few years old.

Flagged messages get a "show" link until the number of flags tips over into the truly lopsided. Then they get hidden. Can't remember number, but it's high. This is a longstanding thing.

Bravo Tim! If for nothing else than using 'hogwash' as a response. But seriously, bravo!

#62

If part of the purpose of LT is provide information (reviews) for libraries and children, then I think certain anglo-saxon verbs should not be allowed in reviews.

Reviews for libraries are screened, both manually and through an anti-four-letter word algorithm.

Ahh, should have thought of that. A reasonable approach.

LibraryThing does not exist for the use of children. See Terms of Use.

I was assuming if the reviews go to libraries that children were using them. But maybe not.

I checked our neighbor's censoring software, btw, and it didn't look as if LT had been banned for use by his teens.

Personally, I have turned the 'hot reviews' feature off on my home page as I find it misleading in that in my opinion only:

Thumbs on reviews are self-perpetuating, in that friends add them, groups add them, regardless of the actual value of the review; and then they show up on one's home page. And as someone mentioned they may be 'hot' as in lots of thumbs, but not necessary 'helpful', nor a good review.

Negative reviews seem to attract lots of thumbs.

Popular books attract more reviews and aren't as helpful as maybe a review about a not-so-known book.

So, as I have this turned off, I don't consider what appears there all that important. If it upsets someone, may I suggest they do the same.

I find reviews much more helpful after I have searched for a book on this site, and to give me a useful consensus or cross-section of opinion about a book. And I like looking at the reviews about books in my library, on my review page, and most of these have very few thumbs. Interestingly, I often thumb a review I find helpful and find others are then added, even though the review is not so new.

Overall I don't find thumbs very helpful any more as I think they are used too subjectively (as in who wrote it, rather than what was written), and now that the review disappears in the votes list if someone edits it, even by only fixing a grammatical error, then they are even more useless to me.

edited for grammar

Thanks for the sanity, Tim.

v

LibraryThing will probably not solve cultural tendencies. If it does, it will by allowing free discussion, not by forbidding it.

Just because you can't tack comments onto other people's reviews doesn't mean you're prevented from talking.

No, but it sure makes all the claims about free speech a lot less convincing. Especially since the oft-stated main reason for disallowing comments is to protect reviewers from dissent.

(Did you read the discussion about the review? Do you really think it contributes nothing and would be better off disappearing into the never-read history of Book Talk?)

I think the discussion of the review is interesting and is in its correct place in Talk - sorry, but I don't really see any major value of attaching this to reviews on work pages in any definitive way other than possibly to pull LT further and further over to the social networking side of book loving (is that like literary porn .. sorry, just couldn't resist picking at my own terminology). I think, if you are constantly under the threat of having possibly negative, possibly positive criticism permanently 'attached' in some way to your review of works in your own catalogue, it changes the philosophy behind how you write them and why you write them. Talk is available for discussion of reviews, let's leave it that way.

I'm not saying that the original review mentioned was one of my favourites but, once I took a look at the whole review, it didn't come across as anywhere near as sensationalist as the severely truncated and decontextualised quote in message one implies. And no, that's not a reason to have this kind of discussion on the work pages either before some bright spark chips in.

I also agree with Tim. (I was trying to educate, not legislate.)

OK, I'm convinced that personal attacks against an author should not be considered violations of the TOS.

However, I will retain the opinion that they are cheap shots, and the authors of such are not able to articulate their actual problems with an author. I.e, for the review we've been discussing, "Her grammar, word choice, and sentence structure are at the level of a third grader, while the plot manages to rise all the way to the level of a pre-adolescent girl still in love with unicorns." There, I think i've conveyed the same general feeling, while not actually attacking the author, but her work.

66: Message 42 appears to have been flagged by numerous people, and then deleted. I assumed that the message's author had deleted it, probably after seeing it was flagged.

ETA: since the user has also been removed, I'd also guess that this person was either an under-12'er posting a nonsense post, or a spammer. In that case, since the user was removed, it's possible that TPTB were the ones that deleted the post, but I'm not sure they do that.

#66/76 I wish I could remember what the message concerned was but I would assume it was probably someone plugging their own book or commercial enterprise and which had no place on the site. I'm sure if it had been truly offensive I'd have remembered.

Spammer. Looking to get a clink through to a site that advertised viruses.

But it didn't use any foul language. I don't know why people shouldn't be free to infect their computer with viruses if they see fit. We're all adults here.

Message 66 was just spam. I "obliterated" the account, since it was spam--that also kills messages they've posted.

>79 ablachly:

Ah...

>62 timspalding:

"if Meyer joined the site, she would still be subject to criticism that was qua author, not qua member."

Say that Meyer joins the site, makes an appearance in a hangman thread, and is promptly told to go f*** herself. Is she being insulted as an author or as a member?

"Are we to assume that no author is insane, or to whom "[f***] you" is appropriate?"

Are we to assume that no LT member is insane, or is a person to whom "f*** you" is appropriate?

>81 cpg:

As a member. If someone reviews her book, making no pointed reference to her membership on the site, they can say what they want against her.

Are we to assume that no LT member is insane, or is a person to whom "f*** you" is appropriate?

We are to assume the former is false, and the latter true.

I am in favor of leaving things the way they are, unless authors are actually being threatened by someone, which I don't think this is the case here. It is unfortunate that some people review books by spewing filth and hatred at authors just because they don't like the book (we are talking about Meyer, not Hitler, here). I assume this is usually done for dramatic effect, as it has no intellectual value. But trying to navigate different levels of offense is going to be impossible and this is the internet. I think it is simply unrealistic. I confess I don't look at the hot reviews very often, so it doesn't bother me that much. Also, I find LibraryThing far more tame than other sites I have visited.

>82 timspalding:

"If someone reviews her book, making no pointed reference to her membership on the site, they can say what they want against her."

Interesting. Could they address her directly in the review, as long as they don't mention her LT membership: "I despise Twilight. F*** you, Stephenie Meyer."? Could they paste an excerpt from that review as a talk post?

>84 cpg:

Yes. The point is, you can review a book or an author. Personal attacks on a member is not allowed. Obviously you can dream up all sorts of silly edge cases—What if George Bush married Stephanie Meyer and they both worked for LibraryThing? But the principle is clear. You are allowed to say what you want about a book and its author. You are not allowed to personally attack a member. If the two are simultaneously true—never happened, but whatever—then we consider what sort of role the person is playing at the time, author or member.

>85 timspalding:

The hypothetical I've posited hardly counts as an "edge case"; that people will be simultaneously LT members and authors is a scenario LT explicitly recognized when the category of "LT author" was invented. What's silly is not this scenario but the double standard you've invented that requires you to discern whether an LT author is more "LTer" or more "author" at a given moment in order to decide whether it's wrong or AOK to call her a f***ing c***.

Your claim in Message #62 notwithstanding, LT is not unequivocally devoted to "free discussion". LTers can be as vile as they want to be towards outsiders but can't even politely suggest to an insider that he should spell "Charles Dickens" with two c's, lest his feelings get hurt. While the principle of privileging insiders over outsiders may be a way to keep the locals happy, it has a pretty lousy track record when it comes to its broader impacts.

Charles Dicckins is a flitting clam.

I suppose evolution has endowed clams with a lot of abilities, but flittng isnʻt one of them.

>88 MrAndrew: - "was", not "is", unless you believe he was buried at sea and has become one with the clams

>88 MrAndrew:, 90 Or believe in reincarnation.

Who is (or was) Charles Dicckins? Related to Jane Austin or JRR Tolkein?

Charles Dicckins wrote The Complete Works of Earnest Hemmingway.

When a reviewer throws personal attacks at an author or filmmaker or artist or any sort, it is time to realize that the reviewer has issues and is hardly being professional; there are professional reviewers out there and they have set the bar high and they do have standards by which they work and name calling is not among them. The worst offenders against me have shown up on Amazon.com which is completely unregulated and without standards, where anyone with a personal grudge for whatever reason can and do attack authors on silly and frivolous "facts" that are often not even in evidence as when the reviewer confuses your book with another book! Or when he states a "fact" that is not a fact at all. A proper review sticks to the caliber of the writing, the setting, the plot, the characterizations, and all the plates in the air the author is juggling while on the unicycle of pulling off a dramatic story, and a story is only as good as the long term effect it has on a reader or viewer.
Robert W. Walker, author who has been reviewed all to hell and back.

It is the same with any professional criticism Robert, in any aspect of life. One should address the criticism to the action NOT the person - that, to me anyway, is being professional, rather than personal. In fact, it is a mantra at my workplace...

You must need to grow a thick skin, methinks?!

#94 the point being of course that at both Amazon and here, there aren't any professional reviewers. The reviews are written by readers. Those people who have paid to obtain a copy of your words. This earns them the right to say what they feel about them. It would help indeed if they were accurate, but that's people for you. Of course if you'd written the latest holy grail there wouldn't be as much negative criticism. But there would be some.

-----What if George Bush married Stephanie Meyer and they both worked for LibraryThing?

Geez, Tim, I haven't laughed that hard in a very long time. I thank you for that!

"Stephenie Meyer is insane and/or mentally retarded.... Fuck her."

Ten words.

So the above would work for an Early Reviewer review?

98: First, ER reviews must be 25 words long. Second, that is only an excerpt from a very long review.

Another 15 words and it would be acceptable for an ER?

Yes.

So, for example, "Stephanie Meyers is insane and / or mentally retarded... Fuck her and her husband, George Bush, too - I don't know why Tim hired them do any of you?" would do it.

I believe I got that right.

I just wanted to add my input although the conversation seems to have died out a little...

#96 my english teacher would disagree with you because she believes that if you do not have a degree in evaluating and literature, your opinion is crap and you are not capable of saying what you feel about the book and if the AUTHOR did well at writing... if others have that opinion than yea, their point about censorship would be valid. But seeing as how most open minded people believe that each person's voice has some significance (if not just to argue about on a forum, like the one first mentioned here).

I personally believe that reviews are reviews and we really need to, as a whole, learn to be more accepting but at the same time attempt to teach others to mature. If we had not blown this review out of proportion, than the significance of that review would have been small. Ignoring or giving polite comments to horrible reviews can both 1) not give the reviewer the attention and 2) maybe help them realize that people truly do not desire their low based intellect.

On a reference waaaay back, if you avoid a site because it has swearing than maybe you should grow up because honestly, it's hard to avoid and hard to regulate. Librarything is a great website and it does not mean that it's awesomeness is any less because one of it's almost 1 million reviewers lacks class... come on, if you dont like it, ignore it. Imagine if someone came to your house and burned your books because they didnt like them... same principle.

On a side note, timspalding is hilarious and perhaps he should write a book about the people of librarything :)

>101 A_musing:

A_musing: I'm afraid that review is only 23 words - not enough for an ER review. Bonus points for hilarity, though.....

;)

fixed

> 92

There is, in fact, an author named Jane Austin, who is a different person from the author named Jane Austen. That's not always a misspelling.

#103 - should some reviews 'count' in some way more than others. Sure, that's why professional reviewers get paid - their opinions are based on a greater realm of experience. It doesn't however deny anyone else the option of writing out their thoughts on a given production. And places like LT and amazon, choose to make such thoughts visible in the form of reviews. And authors, of whatever calibre, just have to accept that their readers will sometimes dislike them personally, for what they have committed to writing. This remains distinct from a professional, paid for, review; and it is perhaps confusing that the same word is used for both.

should some reviews 'count' in some way more than others

Ultimately, though, Tim allows you to weight the reviews yourself. You're the one that gets to decide how much a given review counts.

Thing I notice about people who want to change other people's posts -- a lot of them exhibit what seems to be the belief that all opinions are created equal. So when they say something really stupid and somebody else makes fun of what they said, they jump up and scream about how 'my opinion is just as good as anybody else's!'

I'm just here to say "It ain't so." Everybody has a right to say whatever they like and everybody who says what they like has the right to be taken to task for what they said. Free Speech has consequences. If you can't live with the consequences, don't speak freely.

Thank you very kindly.

Deke Solomon