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.

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.

have to say I misunderstood what you were saying -- because pseud to me is annoynomus. I am trying to hide my identity. but I have to admit i don't want you ( general ) confuseing me with another reader from Fremont , Ca . If I review more books.

but I have to admit i don't want you ( general ) confuseing me with another reader from Fremont , Ca .

YES. Exactly that.

I have to admit i don't want you ( general ) confuseing me with another reader from Fremont , Ca

I don't mind. And not just because I'm not from Fremont.

I may be nursing a delusion, but I feel I'm keeping some sort of privacy the fewer through lines there are to assemble my persona. It's why I have four livejournals, for starters.

And that's more important to me than the author or other people that read the reviews.

In the extremely unlikely event I'd review a book, that is.

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.

I don't really get what you're saying here. If I sign it as "Joseph Rotman from Washington, DC" (just grabbed a name off a textbook), how is that different than "A reader from Washington, DC"? All it means is that I took a second to type the name of the author of Galois Theory. The name Joseph Rotman doesn't connect to anything else about me. The next time I write a review, I might sign it Richard Stanley.

I understand how you feel ,ita. I just have a little ego invovled, - mostly because i don't want pooly constucted reviews connected to me.