Yup. And there's my question again: if they're going to that levl of trouble - hey! look at me I have an OPINION! - what on earth is the point of not wanting people to know who it is they're supposed to be lsitening to?

Well, from my point of view they don't know that anyway. If I wanted to build, I don't know, a brand name of reviewing - look, I reviewed ten books, if you agreed with my opinions about those you might agree with my opinions about the eleventh - then, yeah, it makes sense that you need to have a name attached to those reviews.

I don't read reviews that way, though; I honestly couldn't care less whether someone puts their name on them. I don't even look at the names. *shrug*

not wanting people to know who it is they're supposed to be listening to

Who is Naomi Forrest? Or capoeira_girl? Or ita myreallastname?

The only people that care are those that know me. That's some teeny fragment of the readers of the review. It's not verifiable or very usable information.

I don't read reviews that way, though; I honestly couldn't care less whether someone puts their name on them. I don't even look at the names. *shrug*

Your mileage may definitely vary. I kind of have to pay attention to the reviews and who writes them, but believe me, I'd really rather not.

And I don't get anonymous fan mail; never had an email saying "a reader from Knoxville" as the return address. Anonymity, in its own way, is traditionally paired with negatives, not positives. Think "anonymous letters".

I take it back -- the one review I have written on amazon does have my pseud - but it is divorced from the rest of my profile. - it is with my name that people could get things like my email and into my wishlist - which could lead to my address eventually.

anyway - the one book I have reviewed was on diabetes. and the reason I revieded it was because 1) it dealt only with type 2 and 2) it deals with two aspects of diet that Fiber - which is really helpful in controlling blood sugar and it understands the concept of low sugar instead of artifical sweetners. I reviewed it in order to be helpful, not to hear myself talk.

edited because although I can't spell I'm not really stupid either

The only people that care are those that know me.

Well, that makes me a freak, then. Because I do care; I do want something with which to connect in a review.

There's a standing policy among writers, that you should send thank-you notes to your critics, whether they like you or not.

I just feel a lot happier saying "Thanks for the nice review" or "Thanks for the heads-up on what you didn't like; you gave me something to think about" to someone when I'm not having to feel as if I'm dragging them out from behind a tree, screaming. You know?

Anyway. I've exhausted my take on the topic and am officially saying the same thing over and over. Taking a moment, and moving on.

Your mileage may definitely vary. I kind of have to pay attention to the reviews and who writes them, but believe me, I'd really rather not.

Oh, sure. You're naturally going to have a different POV, since the question isn't, you know, strictly academic.

Anonymity, in its own way, is traditionally paired with negatives, not positives.

On the internet, I associate anonymity with security. I've already had one credit card stolen through Amazon (and several thousand dollars charged to a PayPal account opened in my name) -- I don't value credit for my 150 word opinions that much.

I do want something with which to connect in a review.

What do you connect with in "rank_tyro" that you can't get from "reader from Los Angeles"?

Because you are not getting my real name. That's not even vaguely negotiable. I've gone to a lot of trouble to make sure there's no automatic openly available connection to my last name.

Well, that makes me a freak, then. Because I do care; I do want something with which to connect in a review.

No, I hear you, Deb. As a reader, I'm much more likely to give credence to a review if I can identify the reviewer (even a familiar pseud) and place it in the context of previous reviews. I want to know their agenda. Some anonymous hack slagging off a book I have an interest in is going to have to be a pretty clever writer to convince me unless they have cred with me.

But then, you are one of the few people here posting without a pseud (at least one connected with your professional identity), so your view may be a harder sell in the deliberately-secretive interbunnyland. I'm shielded here too, although it doesn't take much of a scratch to get my real identity from me. Even though my pseud here is more humour/tribute than a hideyplace, I too benefit from the barrier. I try to stand by the dorky things I say where and whenever I've said them. I may be wrong, but I don't mean any malice.

What do you connect with in "rank_tyro" that you can't get from "reader from Los Angeles"?

Someone who took the trouble to somehow differentiate him or herself from seven million other people.

I don't want your real name, unless you're being paid to do the review, which I believe I've already said. I want *A* name.

So if I see "rank-tyro" again, I have a reference.

Wandering off now.