I think what deb wants -- is not a name so she can go say hi , but a name so she can use the info. If joe who reads her books and loves her books suddenly gives her a bad review - she should pay attention.

a reader from washington dc - could be anyone in dc - so what they say could be from anywhere - a one time thing, the hate ghost stories, or someone who reads a lot-- just didn't like her book if they have somesort of name - she can see what otherthings they reviewed and get a feel for how much attention ( good and bad ) she should pay.

I generally pay noattention to review names - unless the review was very well written and makes me think I might like other things this person liked.

No, I understand, Deb.

But for the purposes of devil's advocate, I'd say that most of the people writing those reviews don't even realize it's a matter of someone else's livelihood. They hated the book and they wanted to tell someone so.

I never read those. Most people=deeply stupid.(/arrogant)

'suela, exactly. I write for a living. This is my job. I don't get to confront reviewers or discuss their takes, and I likely wouldn't want to; all criticism is useful. The thing is, if you're someone who read a book and you liked it or disliked it enough to take pen in hand and put your thoughts about out on the net where people who may be considering buying that book will theoretically read the review, well, you are presumably hoping your review will have an effect of some kind. Yes? Because otherwise, repeating yet again: why bother?

So if rank_tyro from Fort Collins TX reviews Weaver, I make a note of it; I look at the points he/she raised and remember them. And if, a year down the road, rank_tyro from Fort Collins TX reviews FFoSM and has points, I have a reference. This is useful to me.

But reader from Fort Collins TX is presumably someone else.

So yes, the inconsistency is useless to me. And as said several times, personally I don't get the mindset. Then again, I'm late to the internet party and there's a lot about it I don't get.

I don't want a reputation among strangers. I think it's weird.

Then why post reviews? Answer: you don't. So we aren't talking about you, even hypothetically, right?

(edited to throw Roses of Gratitude at beth for stating it so simply. I should never discuss with a headache, ever ever.)

Though they get repetative ( if I have read one book by an author, I am smart enough to look for other books by them ) I go through my amazon reccomendations a least once a week. If something new comes Up I read the reviews. As part of my job as a librarian I have to read theings like pw. after reading proffessional reviews I reliezes that they often miss things ( like emotional response) or just like anyone else what is important to one person is not important to another. One opinion isn't enough.

( this was in response to erika -- and why I read reviews)

Why? I mean, why bother? Why would you or anyone write a series of reviews using a thousand different names, unless schizophrenia was somehow involved? I don't get that, I don't understand why you'd do it.

Personally, I probably wouldn't. Too much bother. But I absolutely don't want my real name up there, and I really can't see the difference between having one pseud or a thousand or just being "a reader." Any of those ways, it's not linked to me as Hillary Lastname, which would be the point.

Looking at amazon now, I can see that, if you write a review with a pseud or a name, there's a link from there to other reviews you've written, which there isn't if you review as "a reader." But I guess that, when I read reviews, I just read them. If there are a whole ton of negative ones with a similar style, I think there's something suspicious going on. If there's one negative and a bunch of positive, I figure that's it's probably a pretty good book that, for whatever reason, someone out there didn't like.

When I post a review (which I never have, but if I did), it would be pretty much as "here's what one person thought about this book." I don't really see how that's different than "here's what one person who came up with a made-up name thought about this book."

I think what deb wants -- is not a name so she can go say hi , but a name so she can use the info. If joe who reads her books and loves her books suddenly gives her a bad review - she should pay attention.

Ah, OK. That makes sense.

I don't really see how that's different than "here's what one person who came up with a made-up name thought about this book."

See previous posts. A, the review can damage my income stream, or possibly affect it positively. It isn't theoretical to me, bebe. It's my life.

And B, because I'm neither an idiot nor arrogant enough to think I write perfection ever? I want to be able to look at crit in reviews, and link them to patterns that will make me better at what I do.

So what beth said, about how so-and-so from Knoxville loving Weaver and then giving Famous Flower a bad review? Is totally it. It's useful to me as a writer. I want continuity; I want less random.

So your real name, or the real name of any reviewer who isn't paid to do it, is irrelevant. I want the continuity. I can use it.

There are also interesting reviewers on Amazon, whose reviewing careers you can follow, and sometimes those lead to interesting books you hadn't come across otherwise. If someone goes to the trouble of writing a review, if it is intelligent, pro or con, I'm likely to have a look at other reviews they've done to get a sense of how they look at things and how that applies to my interest in the book they have reviewed. If they are totally anonymous, they go to ignore, for me.

I respect people's right to privacy on the freak show that is the internet, but I need something to attach their opnion to. A consistent pseud is plenty.

I respect people's right to privacy on the freak show that is the internet, but I need something to attach their opnion to. A consistent pseud is plenty.

Our hearts beat as one. I don't give a damn about their real name or their street address. Continuity is vital to me.