Comments on reviews

Few people (myself included) want them. Others do not. Zoe and I would like opt-out if it's instituted. Others want opt-in.

Tim, Chris, and others, please check out this thread. That's basically what the almost 500-post thread is about. Is this something on your back burner or something you do not want at all?

lol You summed it up very nicely!

And yeah, I guess it would be a good idea to find out if the admins are even interested in the idea, instead of arguing back and forth endlessly.

Hehe! You found me here... :)

Actually, Tim has posted in that thread several times, see particularly #74, 94, 113, 118, and 217. My impression from his comments is that he's open to the idea but thinks it needs a lot more discussion and thinking-through -- hence I assume he's simply letting the thread play itself out.

Play out?! Tim hasn't been there for a while, and that thread has 498 posts on it at this time. Perhaps he just wants to see how long we'll debate the issue.

I'm curious to see if he is any more decided about the issue now than when he made his last post (some 200+ posts back).

Now they're getting into analogies over there. This could go on for weeks as different people think up a myriad of analogies. I wonder how long that thread can go before it hangs my computer?

*Portia Ponders*: "What is the length of thread necessary to hang SqueakyChu's computer?" "How many angels ..."

That thread can go on a LOOOONNNG time (how tall is your computer?) Pretty much everyone has had their say over there thrice over - no one is going to be convincing anyone else of the error of their thinking - if it hasn't happened in the first 498 posts, it ain't gonna happen in the next 498...

LOL at Portia!

Are you not entertained by the analogies? I think some of them are pretty funny, but I think I've said all I want to on that thread.

BTW, we should offer a prize to whoever makes the 500th post! :)

>1 SqueakyChu:, Madeline, thanks for making a new thread. The life of that other thread is amazing but I have found the tone tiring.

I personally am torn about the idea of comments on reviews. I understand that the impetus behind this idea is twofold - (1) to spark discussion about books and reviews, and (2) to possibly get some feedback about the reviews themselves. The thing I like about the review pages now is that they are clean and clutter-free. I worry that unless comments on reviews were compressed somehow (like on Amazon), the review pages might quickly become cluttered with meaningless - to me, at least - comments like "great review!" rather than discussion of the book itself. And since there is no way to restrict the content of what people say, I wonder what the value of comments would be.

Let me pre-emptively say, lest I start some sort of war with my comments, that I am NOT intending to insult people who leave comments like "great review" - I do the same thing myself, in threads. I guess I just think that there is already a mechanism for calling out a noteworthy review - green thumbs, profile message, note in a thread - and forums already provide a way for further discussion of books and reviews. Is the issue that Talk search is - frankly - so bad that discussions of specific books are hard to find?

The thing I like about the review pages now is that they are clean and clutter-free

There's no reason why those pages could not remain that way. There could be a link to open the comments. If they are not opened, they simply won't be seen. Voila! The pages remain clean (except for the extra link).

For me, it's not the issue that Talk search is so bad - although it is bad. It's just that sometimes what is written sparks me to want to make a comment. The comments are about different things each time.

I sometimes do post comments on Amazon (although much less often now). Here's an example of a comment I made. A dad reviewed his son's book, gave it 5 stars, and revealed he was the dad. I could relate to that so I told him so. A simple comment. It was not intended to start a book discussion, do a thumbs up or thumbs down about the review, or to offer agreement or disagreement with the tone of the review. It was what it was. A simple comment. I love being able to do that at Amazon. Wish I could do it here on LT as well. .

I don't think this is a good idea. I think the flags are good enough. Now If I review a book and have six points and you agree with 5 of them, but not one, do you write a comment just for that?

Write your own review and address the generality of the other reviews, or your own impressions of the book.

A review is a critical viewpoint. Everyone has different viewpoints. To me I think it is better to have more reviews of books showing the differing viewpoints.

I don't think writing a review that follows on to another review is a good idea since the order of the reviews can change. And looking at a review in someone's library that addresses some other review that you can't see from there would be odd. I think reviews should stand alone and comments on reviews should be something else.

I wouldn't take much notice about responses about the comments on the thread in #1. The thread's title is Inane Reviews and I stopped reading it when it was still about "inane reviews" and not about commenting on reviews. I am sure I'm not the only one who did that.

#11

A reviewer with any talent should be able to write a review that addresses a point (or two) from another review which will read well in isolation. It is more difficult than just a he said, I said reply though. Of course it wouldn't be a direct reply but a review putting an opposing POV.

Like DWWilkin I think comments on reviews isn't worth doing.

1) What percentage of the users are clamouring for them?
2) How many reviews are going to attract comments?
3) If you put the comments into a special Talk Forum how many will spark discussions?
4) What percentage of comments will be along the lines of "You got it wrong, you suck, loser!" or "Cool" or "LOL"? I would count SqueakyChu's comment on Amazon (post #9) in this group. It adds nothing of our understanding of the book or the review.

Oh and if there were to be a comment on a review then that reviewer could alter the text of the review to make it look like the commenter has a completely contrary position to that which they originally espoused.

>13 andyl: On that point, Talk posts have a 'history' now that Tim et al can use to look back on in cases of such a dispute. Reviews/review comments could possibly be so fitted.

Having said that, let me say this,* I'm not in favour of comments on reviews either.

*Blatantly stolen from the ramblings of Bob Hawke.

Heck,

I'd love to see comments on not just reviews, but book and author pages too. Maybe even CK pages. And not just a single thread. I want each object to house something like a group, or at least be able to handle multiple topics.

And tags, too. I want to tag the world! (insert meglomaniacal laugh here)

Now If I review a book and have six points and you agree with 5 of them, but not one, do you write a comment just for that?

Sure, why not?

But the point of comments isn't just to argue out opposing positions; it's to foster conversation in general.

>12 andyl: I think it's also important to consider how difficult the feature will be to implement in relation to how much benefit people will get out of it. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone uses a feature if it only takes five minutes to develop. I'm not saying, of course, that this is a five-minute feature, but that smaller projects that fewer people are interested in are still potentially worthwhile.

If you put the comments into a special Talk Forum how many will spark discussions?

I was imagining that reviews would have a number showing how many comments they had, and if you clicked on it, the comments would appear right there, rather than in a separate Talk forum.

--> 12

I really cannot see why, if someone does not want comments on reviews, that *others* cannot be allowed to have them. There are some members who would find it a fun feature. It is not meant to replace "Talk" or "Reviews Reviewed". It would only be an optional feature. Same as the Twitter link. Not everyone tweets what they read, but those that do find it fun.

The assumptions I'm making are these:
1. The comments will not show up unless chosen by the reader. Clicking on an "option" button will open them.
2. They can be turned off even after having opted in.
3. People are allowed to remark "lol" or "Cool" as a comment if they want. By the way, if you find a discussion in the Talk section with "lol" or "Cool", you "x" it out, I'm pretty sure. It's gone for good and will not return. The difference with comments on reviews is that just choosing opt-out once makes sure it never returns again (unlike new talk threads with "lol" or Cool").

If you put the comments into a special Talk Forum how many will spark discussions?

I was imagining that reviews would have a number showing how many comments they had, and if you clicked on it, the comments would appear right there, rather than in a separate Talk forum.

Great idea, Zoe!

Now I have to leave for work. I'll read the other 480 responses later this evening. :)

I'll read the other 480 responses later this evening. :)

Hehehe

--> 17

It would really be fun to comment on people's tags. Somehow, I just don't think that's something that Tim will let slide by. :)

I still don't like the idea of comments on reviews, but if it were opt-in only, I could choose to not opt-in and I'd be okay with that. I just don't think they're particularly productive as compared to true discussions of the books themselves.

I prefer Richardderus' #171 message on that thread, which is much more conducive to actually having meaningful discussion of a book.

There were several people who didn't like the idea of getting spammed with invites to discussions of books they'd reviewed under Richard's scenario, so I guess you could have an opt-in for allowing invites too.

I don't want comments on reviews, whether I saw them or not. If someone could comment on my reviews, I'd not be inclined to write my reviews up on LT. So. An emphatic no vote.

>22 SqueakyChu:.

I meant, rather, that I'd want COMMENTS and TAGS on everything. So, in some ways, you'd have comments on tags, but in the same vein, you'd have tags on comments.

>24 amberwitch:.

Do you write Amazon.com reviews at all? Those have comments.

#25 - I don't write amazon reviews. I think I may have written one or two many years ago, back when the comment option didn't exist.
Regardless of what can or cannot be done on other sites, my vote is a no.

If someone could comment on my reviews, I'd not be inclined to write my reviews up on LT. So. An emphatic no vote.

But would it bother you if other people had comments on their reviews? No one has said that people would be forced to have comments on their reviews; the debate was mostly centred around whether they should be opt-in or opt-out. Either way, if you didn't want comments, you wouldn't have them.

#27 - I can't imagine that being able to comment on some reviews and not others could become a userfriendy experience without a lot of explanatory text - which LT is not particularly generous with - so I don't really se much future in the feature unless it is generel.

That's a sad comment on the state of LT's help system, but I think there's a lot of truth in it. I also think they're working on improving, though. So, while I would encourage LT staff to provide more easily-accessible explanations of how things work, I don't think the current lack of such explanations should be the determining factor deciding whether a new feature is worthwhile.

7: BTW, we should offer a prize to whoever makes the 500th post! :)

Oops, I think I just won that. (I hadn't read this, so I didn't do it on purpose.) What is it??

The thing I like about the review pages now is that they are clean and clutter-free....might quickly become cluttered with meaningless - to me, at least - comments like "great review!" rather than discussion of the book itself.

See, I think review pages now are full of clutter. Meaningless (to me, at least) things like URLs to defunct blogs, or "reviews" like "great book!" I don't think there's any reason to assume comments-on-reviews are more likely to be useless than reviews themselves are -- meaning a lot of them will be useless, but not all.

As far as clutter is concerned, I do think that some reviews (of, say, Twilight, the Harry Potter books, etc.) are likely to generate a lot of comments, and it would be both unwieldy and definitely cluttered to see all of them.

However, should review comments ultimately be allowed, why could there not be a link that said "(see comments)", which one could then open - and close - at will?

>32 lilithcat:.

One option, then, would be to allow the owner of the item with the comments attached to it to "freeze" threads, or disable comments entirely. Or maybe comments could be an opt-in thing, for people who are hell-bent on not having any comments any of the time.

I would imagine that by default comments would be hidden. Maybe under each review it would say "comments (#)" and that would result in showing the comments and enabling you to leave one.

>musing:

What would be nice is an "object-centric" LT, such that for each object you own (that is, things you can edit, delete, modify, so forth), you could attach certain widgets, like tag widgets, star widgets, talk widgets, so forth, at will, and only then would other people be able to contribute socially to that item owned by you.

But that's just what I'd do if I had my own social cataloging site.

I don't see it, still, after more posts trying to let me think that only those reviewers who click, "comment on my review' will then start a sub thread of discussion.

So I review The Da Vinci Code (Which I did) and I skewer it for a variety of reasons, or I read a review that praises for no reason i see as valid, and that person does not opt in, as neither do I. With two opposed views, already for the book, do we need to comment on my discussion of how the book is over-hyped with items that people took for truth, or how the other viewpoint think it is the best written work of the last 100 years...

If someone want to discuss a review with me, then can send me a comment. Then if our back and forth has developed into something more, we can start a thread. Often we have threads about books or writers that have come from our reads, whether we have reviewed them or not, that let us express all our thoughts of the book and thus it has become a thread on the review of the book even though no review may have started it.

> 34

Agreed. I don't see that commenting on reviews will do much towards starting discussions, except, possibly, between one reviewer and one (or a couple of) commenters. It seems to me that if someone wants to generate a conversation about a particular book, and open it up to the greatest number of people, the best option is to start a group about that book or to start a thread in the Book Talk forum.

If I get this correctly

I write a review. I post it by saving, and then I gather somewhere displayed only to me, is an 'allow comments' button.

If I use that, who sees the comments? are they displayed following the review in a long diatribe of back and forth? Are they displayed on the book page, as you scroll down into the review section.

Do we have anything similar already in LT.

Not that I have changed my mind, still NO, but I can't even see how this goes from a feature you want to how you propose to Tim to make it work.

I occasionally find comments on Amazon reviews helpful when they correct something factually wrong about a review.

There's one potential source of conflict I see regarding optionally allowing comments on one's reviews. What happens when person A allows comments, person B writes a comment that A doesn't like but doesn't violate the TOS, and then A turns off comments?. Does B's comment disappear? Does it stay forever? Either way one someone's going to be annoyed.

Hmm, I wonder how long this thread is going to take to reach the 500 posts mark...

>37 lucien:.

I would think it would freeze the thread.

I can't wait for the rantings of irate authors who don't like the reviews they find.

If I use that, who sees the comments? are they displayed following the review in a long diatribe of back and forth? Are they displayed on the book page, as you scroll down into the review section.

Isn't this the one point that most people actually seemed to agree on? The review would show the number of comments, and clicking on the number would show the comments on the work page.

If someone want to discuss a review with me, then can send me a comment. Then if our back and forth has developed into something more, we can start a thread.

Yes, but a back-and-forth between two people doesn't add anything to the site as a whole. And a quick back-and-forth (say, 3 messages each) can be of interest to others even if it doesn't merit its own thread.

Also, it sounds plausible in theory for someone to start a new thread because their conversation with one other person was so interesting, but how often does this really happen? It seems like the conversation would be much more likely to remain in profile comments, disconnected from the work and unnoticed by those who might be interested in it.

I like the idea better if the comments are "hidden" and presented as a link that doesn't clutter up the reviews page.

>42 fannyprice: You mean a link to a separate page, rather than a link that reveals comments on the work page?

43 _Zoe_

If this is going to happen (which I'm not excited about, but that aside), I would prefer a separate page.

>44 bluesalamanders: How would a separate page be better?

Reviews already can take a while to load, especially if there are lots of them, and the page is already busy if there are more than a few reviews, particularly if the reviews are long. Adding goodness knows how many comments on top of that (even if you can show/hide them) would only make it worse, longer and busier.

If there were only ever one or two short comments, it might not be an issue, but what about that one conversation in a dozen that has twenty+ comments? A separate page would make it clear where everything begins and ends, it would be easier to navigate, and it would look better.

I should make it clear that I was hoping for show/hide on individual comments, not for all comments together.

Also, I think there's a technical solution for loading hidden things so that they come up quickly when you click on them without hindering the overall loading of the page. But even if each review's comments had to load when you clicked on it, I'd much rather have it load on the page than be navigated away. I regularly see people complaining about blog links as reviews, and I think it's a similar issue. If a review only had a couple of comments, I certainly wouldn't bother going to a new page to read them unless the review were really interesting. If I could just click to see them in place and then move on, I would do that more often than not.

I don't think it would be hard to see where everything begins and ends, though. If the comments were indented under the review that they referred to, I don't see where there would be confusion.

So if we have a popular book, say The Fellowship of the Ring which has a lot of readers, and not only now, but over the course of time gets hundreds of reviews, and say ten to twenty percent opt in for commentary, can this not escalate to getting out of hand?

Every so often, a professionally written review, in the paper, or in a magazine with have a rebuttal in a letter to the editor and the editor will feel the need to publish it.

That is rare. Very rare.

Some of what one can do with the internet and computers and social networking doesn't mean that the system in place before this was a bad thing.

I believe that a book discussion is one thing, but there is no need to discuss a review. The writer of the review puts his opinions out there. They don't need to be second guessed, critiqued, applauded.

I really think this would turn into a "You got it all wrong," verbal slug fest.

There are only so many states about how one feels about a review when you read it that I can see where this plays out.

1) You haven't read the reviewed book, so you want to thank the reviewer.
2) You want to ask why he disagrees with other reviewers that are either here on LT, or elsewhere.

(Could be handled as comments to the reviewer.)

3) You have read the book and agree with the reviewer.
4) You have read the book and agree but the reviewer forgot to add somethings you want to point out.
5) You have read the book and agree about some things but disagree about others
6) You have read the book and disagree about most things
7) You have read the book and disagree about all things.

Where can not all of the above be handled by the disagreeing person, or agreeing person, writing their own review and covering the points that there is disagreement, or agreement about.

Even if you have already written a review, and you forgot a point, that this person calls out, you can go back to your review and edit it.

I just don't see the need for this. Lets stay with flags and + I like the review flags, and - I don't like or agree with the review flags.

47 Zoe

So if there are twenty comments, there should be twenty links under that review, so every comment can be shown and hidden separately? That would get insanely cluttered, really fast.

>49 bluesalamanders:.

I doubt that if this was implemented, it would preload all the comments and then just give then a visibility: hidden style. This would make all review pages load insanely slow.

The most likely solution for this case would be for the link to pull the comment data from the source and then insert it into the page on demand.

Of course, a hide button would be nice too.

Or (addressing the separate page method), if you surfed to the permalink for the review, it could have the comments visible, with the review at the top of the page.

50 aethercowboy

The mechanism doesn't matter; there would still be twenty links for twenty different comments, which is just way too much.

Why? I'd imagine that there would be just one link to show or hide all the comments (for each review) just once.

ETA: That is, each review would have a 'show comments' button below it that would show just the comments for that review.

ETA: Given the average length of comments I don't think adding a line to each would be too bad. And there might be a way to incorporate the link into the comment box so that it doesn't increase the length of the page at all.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course I meant that you would click once to see the 20 comments. I was trying to say that you would click once per review, so that choosing to show comments wouldn't load 20 comments for each of 200 reviews all at once.

>48 DWWilkin: Do you really think all book discussion can be reduced to one person stating some opinions and other people saying either "I agree" or "I disagree"? Communication is a lot deeper than that. Do you think RSI would be better if discussion were prohibited, and the only options were to give a thumbs-up to someone else's suggestion or to write an entirely new feature proposal yourself? That just isn't an effective way to exchange ideas.

aethercowboy, thanks for weighing in about the more technical side of things.

>53 _Zoe_:.

No problem. Web design is one of those things I do from time to time.

Thanks for clarifying that it would be one link per SET of comments per review.

Not sure I know what RSI is?

We have many discussions of differing opinions that go beyond a book review in other parts of LT. We have threads devoted to authors, and devoted to specific works. A review is not a discussion though. It is not written to be the grounds for a debate of the merits of the book.

I think that now what i am hearing is that these comments are to be used for just that. But we already have that mechanism. You can look at a book page and find the discussions about it.

You can post differing viewpoints from other reviewers.

I think that the space and frivolity of this feature are not worth it. In amazon I found a book that was a plagiarism of another character. Nowhere did the book suggest this prior to my purchase or after in the remarks. It was poorly written and horribly edited. I pointed that out. The author, bless his little black heart, thought I was out of line for noting the plagiarism, and the horrible writing. He is the only person to ever comment on my reviews.

That doesn't bother me so much, but I as a reviewer have my taste and my integrity. If I want to talk about my taste, I will. (I understand the opt-in, opt-out) but that is just a complication. If I do write a review and I get something wrong, and I have not opt-ed in, then another review posted can correct it. If I review some chick-lit and tell the world that the young authoress just does not understand us middle aged men's perspective at all and it is just fantasy... Some twenty year old reader can write back saying that even though the book may have been ruined for me, plenty of twenty year old readers think the work is spot on. But it should be a review. Not a comment on my review.

As an aside Zoe, i went through your list of books reviewed and found one that I had read. I think your review was fine and agree with much of what your wrote so I gave you a thumbs up.

>55 DWWilkin: DWWilkin
Not sure I know what RSI is?
Recommended Site Improvements

LT could do what IMDB does: attach a "group" (or mini-forum) to each LT item: books, authors, etc.

So at the book page, on the left side perhaps, under the list of how many descriptions, reviews, discussions, a link to a forum solely for that instance of the book?

What happens when it gets CK'd and combined with other copies of different editions?

I do like the idea of a forum link though for the book. Then someone who wants comments on their review can go to the forum and cross post a reference and say please comment. Or another lover a book can go to the forum and say I don't believe this review...

One of the things I fail to get beyond is that the percentage of positive comments and positive discussion of a review will be far outweighed by negative and disagreement with the reviewer. (Is that just me???)

>58 DWWilkin:.

In that instance, I would assume (a) that it would be on the work level, and (b) upon merging, the threads for the merged work would be relocated to the parent work (also assuming (c) that the talk groups are threaded, and that multiple threads may be made per item).

The problem is when the two works are wrongly combined and it gets separated again. But that problem already exists for all of CK.

Here's an interesting twist.

Ron Charles, a book reviewer for The Washington Post gave Dan Chaon's new book, Await Your Reply, a positive review. Then he got hit with three "haughtily negative comments". His response on Twitter? "My tiny taste of what slammed novelists must feel..."

It works both ways.

>40 ThePam: "I can't wait for the rantings of irate authors who don't like the reviews they find."

I've seen an author or two use Amazon's comments to take exception to a review, but the practice doesn't seem prevalent, nor does it seem that the practice, when it occurs, typically involves more nastiness than the reviews themselves.

>48 DWWilkin: "So if we have a popular book, say The Fellowship of the Ring which has a lot of readers, and not only now, but over the course of time gets hundreds of reviews, and say ten to twenty percent opt in for commentary, can this not escalate to getting out of hand?"

Do the comments on the reviews of The Fellowship of the Ring on Amazon seem out of hand to you?

So I just went to The Fellowship of the Ring and doing some digging, the LT connection takes us to our page, where the amazon connection takes us to an unreviewed Spanish copy of it. Finding an english copy there are 862 reviews, but you can't see all the comments, you have to look at each review to see if there is a comment. I have up after scanning two pages of reviews. Though a lot of people found those reviews helpful.

So far we have over 100 reviews here in LT.

Doesn't a discussion thread for the book sound like a better resource for all of LTers then the ability to comment on a review. (Not my idea, but I'm liking it more and more.)

Doesn't a discussion thread for the book sound like a better resource for all of LTers then the ability to comment on a review. (Not my idea, but I'm liking it more and more.)

Wouldn't this be far more overwhelming than smaller conversations based off individual reviews? I'd imagine that one thread for LoTR would be pretty chaotic.

Personally, I'd prefer different kinds of touchstones to one single thread for each work. There's a separate thread somewhere about the work discussions issue.

Why would a forum option for the book be harder.

When a book is created a button for the thread is listed, and until someone activates it to start a thread for that book, no space is given in the database for the thread. Then once created, it is there, like this thread. So one button on the book page, not one button to opt-in to comments on each review. And if you do opt in, several different threads on each review that has asked for comments. If I understand the proposals so far.

I mean harder in terms of actually following the discussion. Having everything in one place doesn't really make it easier to communicate--there's a reason groups have multiple threads, not just one each.

Anyway, here is a link to the book discussions thread. I think the different ideas (comments and discussion threads) should be considered on their own merits; it doesn't have to be either/or.

Why would a forum option for the book be harder.

I don't think there's a universe where this would be harder. It's a lot of posturing to be able to leave "notes" on all sorts of reviews. In that 500+ thread, there are even statements leaving notes to individuals as to why someone took the time to flag a review, so folks are already thinking beyond "generating discussion." And, yes, there would be plenty of nasty comments on reviews - I think the whole Pureheart fiasco more than demonstrates what an unhinged publisher will do with a bad review.

And then there is the most obvious problem with attaching comments to reviews - what of the moment when a conversation is started on a review, a user sees it, says, "I never wanted this!" and deletes the review and takes the whole conversation with it? They never participated in the conversation, but this imaginary "wonderful conversation" is now gone?

Or what of people that delete their books and take away conversations without realizing that those would leave as well? I mean an entire "meaningful" conversation just zapped away with the immediate deletion of a book. It all just goes *poof.*

Unless, of course, this feature is now going to demand that any reviews with comments now get to be "preserved" for the sake of keeping the conversation - and then you're basically saying that the desire to comment on the review overrides the desire of the original reviewer to delete their own data.

I think review comments should be stored independently from reviews. In Talk, the OP can delete his post, but that doesn't take the whole thread with it.

--> 65

But, but, but...

a discussion of a book is different from a comment stimulated by a review. Why can't we have both?

So Now let me get this...

I write a review. Two thoughts are that perhaps we have a forum page (which perhaps should be a seperate discussion thread for that idea) or we allow comments on reviews.

Since i write great reviews of course ;-) no one will ever leave me a bad comment, but I allow comments.

Then it starts a thread of comments. But one day I give the book away and delete it out of my library, which takes the review away.

But the comment thread stays there? Tied to what? In what context do comments make sense when the review has flown away...

'In your third paragraph you said that it makes no sense for the killer to have a pocket knife with a spring, since they have not been invented yet (or better one of my reviews faults a very good writer for allowing intimate conversation in a historical dance, when the rooms were small, the dancers didn't get close so that you could have a private conversation like waltzing would allow you, etc... Someone actually could comment on that in one of my reviews...) and thus that knife, which of course comes out later in the book as a red herring (oops that would be a spoiler in a comment as we nitpick a point) would be in the killers hands... But all you get left is the comment if the review goes poof...

Certainly you can have both, provided Tim and the crew have the time to program it, money to purchase the space, and the desire to do it. But part of this thread is for us to discuss its pros and cons. Its viability, its negativity, its positives. I just think that comments on reviews are to the downside.

Reviews are not blogs with a long comment thread from your fans or well wishers saying that they feel sorry that you got stuck with leaded coffee instead of decaf because you wrote that in your review as a parralel to something in the book.

If we are going to have comments, we are going to want something more than "I agree..." Oh there goes a line of data entry on the server. An ID point to index the book, the commenter, a space for the comment. Some kilobytes gone.

Or as we get on YouTube "First."

Or something more then "Wrong man"

I fear though we would get that in a comment log. And then if it is your review, should you be allowed to kill individual comments, if you were allowed to opt in, or opt out, should that only be in LT's control? And if so, then is the burden on you to see who is leaving ambivalent comments, or derogatory comments, and notify the LT team so they can kill it? Do you get an email everytime you get a comment on a review? Do you get a comment on your profile that you have a comment on your review, and then have to go look at the review and the comment there.

I hear your wants. I don't hear alot about what to do when I or others querry about some of these points. I think the response is because we who think it would be a bad idea have pointed it out, we just don't get it (and we probably don't) and so answering some of the objections is not something to do.

While writing this response and generating some new objections to the idea the biggest objection clarified itself to me, and I did mention it. Our Reviews at LT for Books, and at Amazon, are not Blogs for either site. We can have other avenues for blogging. Let us not make our reviews into a mini blog slice of life... I think the ideas for the comments on reviews would, as it is currently described here, be that.

The way I see it would be that, if the reviewer deleted the book (hence the review), the comments would disappear as well. After all, they are tied to the review and would make no sense if they were not attached to anything.

I think that inappropriate or overly nasty comments can be flagged away (or hidden and clicked on "to show") in the same way that reponses on threads are. The reviewer would only get to do one of those flags. Anyway, a reviewer who invites comments is sure to get some with which he does not agree and some he dislikes. His option then would be to disallow further comments.

How are inane comments such as "I agree" on book review comments any more of a waste of space than a Scrabble game on LT? Or any other non-book-related message on LT for that matter? If wasted kilobyte space is an issue, limit the comments to paid members only. If commenters waste even more space, raise their annual LT membership fee! (Just kidding, but I don't think space is an issue here.)

Furthermore, some people do book blogs with reviews. Comments are indeed invited there. I do not do a book blog nor do I want to (although I tried starting a gardening blog). Yet I still would like comments on my reviews here at LT. Here...because this is where I post my reviews. I have the option of moving them to Amazon, but I'd rather not.

I may or may not read the comments on my reviews. There is no burden on me to either read the comments or respond to them as the reviewer. I'll do so only if I want to.

I personally would not want an email when I get a comment on my review. Perhaps others would like that option. It should be up to them.

Squeaky, I just went to your reviews and fourth one down, Yiddish Policeman's Union I find that I have reviewed a book that you have. So looking around, I try and imagine how I want to talk to you, especially if we are friends and talk about things, about how I disagree with you or agree.

Perhaps all we need while looking at reviews is a link to leave comment for author so it goes directly to their page with a preformat that references the book review and I the commenter.

Thus the system would be

Write your review
Opt in for a link for comments (Link gets placed on bottom line)
Someone reads review, clicks link the comment box on the profile page with a header already placed there "Comment re: Your review of XXX"

If the comment is worthy of a later thread or book discussion, then it can become one.

#72 How are inane comments such as "I agree" on book review comments any more of a waste of space than a Scrabble game on LT? Or any other non-book-related message on LT for that matter?

For me it isn't the space issue but the invisible separators that exist in LT. The reviews seem much closer to the core data of the catalogue than just some jibber-jabber on Talk. Personally I think that comments on reviews are a step too far in blurring the line.

The concept does not really connect well with me. When you place a review on your blog you might expect comments - it is read by a very particular audience (usually) and in a very different mental construct, environment if you will, to a review in a newspaper or magazine, or on LT. For me reading a review on LT is more akin to reading a review in a magazine of fanzine (albeit one which functions as an APA).

There are a couple of use-cases being talked about
1) You just want to say a word of encouragement, or point out a factual error in the review.
For me this is best done with a comment to the reviewer's profile page. Either private or public I don't mind as long as you are polite.

2) You hope to come up with an insightful comment on the review that sparks a conversation.
This is best handled by the Talk system. A comment can be left on the reviewer's profile page to entice them into replying. Admittedly the touchstone feature needs work, and Talk search needs work which makes this less than ideal at the moment. So those need fixing - but then they need fixing anyway. Visibility of the current link to find talk articles may also be an issue - but that is fairly easy to deal with.

3) You want to write a witty and insightful comment on the review to show how clever you are.
Well you can do that by writing a proper review.

Yet I still would like comments on my reviews here at LT.

and

I may or may not read the comments on my reviews.

So let me see if I have got this right - you are one of the stronger proponents of having comments on your reviews but you aren't necessarily going to read them. That doesn't sound to me like an overwhelming case for spending developer time to me.

I think andyl has made some pretty good points.

But the comment thread stays there? Tied to what? In what context do comments make sense when the review has flown away...

Yes, comments would obviously make less sense if the review were taken away. But I still think it would be better to keep the comments without the context than to give the reviewer the power to take away other people's posts; that would be a huge deterrent to commenting. So I'd rather see the links to the orphan comments at the bottom of the review section, with "review deleted" in place of the review text.

If we are going to have comments, we are going to want something more than "I agree..." Oh there goes a line of data entry on the server. An ID point to index the book, the commenter, a space for the comment. Some kilobytes gone.

I really don't think comments would be particularly server-intensive. LT has plenty of features that are much more complex. And the periodic suggestions of deleting old Talk posts are always shot down with the defense that the storage space is pretty insignificant.

And then if it is your review, should you be allowed to kill individual comments, if you were allowed to opt in, or opt out, should that only be in LT's control? And if so, then is the burden on you to see who is leaving ambivalent comments, or derogatory comments, and notify the LT team so they can kill it?

I think comments would function in the same way as Talk; users could flag inappropriate posts.

Do you get an email everytime you get a comment on a review? Do you get a comment on your profile that you have a comment on your review, and then have to go look at the review and the comment there.

I'd say notifications should be optional.

Our Reviews at LT for Books, and at Amazon, are not Blogs for either site. We can have other avenues for blogging. Let us not make our reviews into a mini blog slice of life... I think the ideas for the comments on reviews would, as it is currently described here, be that.

Could you explain this objection further? I don't understand what is so undesirable about a similarity to blogs.

Someone reads review, clicks link the comment box on the profile page with a header already placed there "Comment re: Your review of XXX"

Personally, I'd have no interest in this feature. It's easy to click on the person's name and write a profile comment, if you want to. But profile comments are exclusionary; they limit the discussion to two parties and shut others out.

For me it isn't the space issue but the invisible separators that exist in LT. The reviews seem much closer to the core data of the catalogue than just some jibber-jabber on Talk. Personally I think that comments on reviews are a step too far in blurring the line.

I think this comes down to a key difference in viewing the site. I agree that it's about blurring the lines between the social and cataloguing sides of the site, and I think such blurring would be desirable. Those who wanted to could still catalogue in isolation, but on the whole, I think LT would benefit by increased interaction.

You hope to come up with an insightful comment on the review that sparks a conversation.
This is best handled by the Talk system.

I disagree that this is best handled by the Talk system. I think discussions work best in context. If the discussion is inspired by a particular review, it should be attached to that review.

1) You just want to say a word of encouragement, or point out a factual error in the review.
For me this is best done with a comment to the reviewer's profile page. Either private or public I don't mind as long as you are polite.

"The error should be corrected, of course; I did correct it --- in a private letter to the author, which is the proper medium for trifling corrections." - H. de Vine, in Gaudy Night, by Dorothy L. Sayers

--> 73

I think you're making it too complicated. Since (in theory), I allow comments, all you have to do is post your comment. I (or others) will either respond or not.

If you do not wish others to see your comment, send me a private profile message.

If you think the fact that Chabon's book is either so widely hated/loved that it's worthy of it's own discussion, start a discussion of it on the Talk page in lieu of posting a comment to my review. Ideally, we'd have a link on the work page to go to a discussion of the book (but that has not happened yet, although I also like that idea).

What I'm saying is that once I post a review, I want to be out of the loop to have to respond. I don't want messages or reminders about them.

Lots of people tend to disagree/agree with me on my dislike of The Yiddish Policemen's Union (I love Michael Chabon though), and those opposing viewpoints make for lively discussion. (I've engaged in exactly that on some reading challenge threads). However, I don't want the interchange to only be restricted to the two of us. I want everyone to be able to see the comments. I also want to be able to see comments that are attached to other reviews.

Let's play for a bit here. If you could have attached a comment to my review of The Yiddish Policeman's Union, what would you have said?

Personally I think that comments on reviews are a step too far in blurring the line.

Comments can be turned off. You never have to see them. With them turned off for you, would you be upset just knowing they were there? Isn't that a bit elitist (not meant as an insult because I greatly love the (usually) intelligent discourse that takes place here on LT as opposed to other book cataloging sites).

or point out a factual error in the review

A point in favor of comments:
If it is done in comments, others will immediately know that the error has been pointed out and others will not continue to point out the same error.

You hope to come up with an insightful comment on the review that sparks a conversation.
This is best handled by the Talk system.

I agree!

You want to write a witty and insightful comment

Why does a comment have to be witty and insightful? It's just a comment! It need not be read by everyone. Not all people who post on LT are witty or insightful. That does not preclude them from being members or posting anywhere on this website. After being here on LT for a while, one learns to turn off or avoid features that he or she does not like.

you are one of the stronger proponents of having comments on your reviews but you aren't necessarily going to read them.

I indeed will read them. I just don't want someone to *mandate* what I must do by sending me messages (unless I opt for that).

--> 75

I think andyl has made some pretty good points.

He has! I had to do some deeper thinking there for a while. :)

--> 76

So I'd rather see the links to the orphan comments at the bottom of the review section, with "review deleted" in place of the review text.


That actually makes sense as that's what's done on Talk posts.

If someone were to copy an entire review to the first post of a new talk thread in order to start a discussion, would that be considered bad form?

My 2c on all the foregoing:

Most of the potential problems with commentary on reviews would be resolved by allowing people to turn off comments at a certain point, and / or moderation of comment threads on their own comments. The ability to invisibilify or delete a comment or turn off comments henceforth or not have comments on a thread are all standard features on blogging software which is basically what "comments on a review" would look like.

Add in the nice public flagging of spam we have in the forums to allow group / user community clean-up of threads where the review owner is no longer active.

On opt-in or opt-out I personally think opt-in is the way to go for almost everything.

Lastly, user review/comments is clearly a different feature than book-tied group threads. They wouldn't serve the same purpose, and there's no reason for there to have to be an either / or. In terms of diverting traffic from the current forums, I'm not sure why they would have to be separate systems: use the current forum system. Clicking "start new thread" from a book with no existing threads would (a) start a group for that work/edition, and (b) start a thread with that user's post at the top. Then all the existing threads would be listed, and people could go to the existing threads too. And these could be accessible through the current Groups / Talk pages. Add the ability to link to a particular group thread for discussions primarily on that work that are generated from Group / Talk, and you've taken care of being able to find those discussions and distinguish them from mere mentions.

So there. I only had 2c so now my pockets are empty.

There has been some lively comments in the should we allow comments thread...

I still don't see that if it were to go forward (still against, I still think it turns our reviews into blogging) an author of the subject matter, the review, deciding to at some point to reverse comments on his/her review would still see all the comments remain.

I think the arguments put forward that there are comments and there are discussions.

If the comment thread is so great, that it is a discussion, then it probably should have been one from the get go. If the comments thread has caused the reviewer to turn it off, is that not like an author telling LT that their copywrite is no longer available to LT. How happy would an author be if we talk about their work behind their backs...

If this were to go forward and an author of a review decides to kill the comment thread. Then it would seem logical to take down all the comments. I think SqueakyChu and I see it in the same vein, but I think Zoe sees the comments as literary footprints of where people have been and that they must remain in cyberspace. I see it as ownership and privacy issue.

But i still think it is a discussion thread issue and not a comment issue.

Surely the person who writes a comment is the owner of that comment?

It is true, but would there not be an implied usage based on the review? I am sure there are instances where the work that a thing is based on, once pulled, makes all the subwork void.

The example of Blogs, where the Blogger can flick off comments and they all go away should the blogger choose, or even edit ones they want out, as if they were in control of the website, which to an extent they are, shows this.

Just because a thing is on the internet does not mean that a thing is true, or in good taste...

Surely the person who writes a comment is the owner of that comment?

Therein lies the rub. The commenters are theoretically entitled to their comments, but the reviewers are absolutely entitled to their reviews.

Which is why an overall discussion area for the work makes far more sense - it's visible to everyone, no one has to worry about a review disappearing, you don't have to worry about the presence of a review to start a discussion, you can start a discussion unrelated to a review and the discussion remains forever.

Plus, you don't have comments directed at an individual, you have discussions directed at the work. And you can always reference something you saw in the reviews.

Starting an isolated discussion on the work like, "Why are so many reviews on this book intent on attacking the fans of this series?" will be much easier and probably lead to better discussion than attaching it to one of the so-called "attacking" reviews.

86> Bloggers may be able to turn comments off, but once something has been published to the internet it can't really be removed.

85>

Sure, but that doesn't mean that each and every copy of that comment has to be preserved for posterity. They own the copyright, and can post that comment wherever they want; but if they post it in someone else's space, the owner of that space gets to do whatever they want with that copy.

It's like a blog comment -- you may have the copyright, but if you want to make sure it stays around you'd better keep a copy, in case the blogger decides the delete the one you've posted to the blog.

> 85

Surely the person who writes a comment is the owner of that comment?

Maybe, but he may also be trespassing. I would view comments on my reviews the same way I view comments on my LiveJournal, my book blog, and my Flickr account, and I can delete those. (I doubt I would allow commenting on my blogs if I couldn't. I've had to delete a couple of rather rude ones.)

I surely didn't intend to have so much to say about this subject, but I guess I was like an avalanche waiting to happen, or a rock rolling down hill. Got started and just kept finding things. But now I am going back and taking out all my multiple postings to try and find where the issue is in terms of support for it and those not for it.

I don't see comments as widely supported...

If the comment thread is so great, that it is a discussion, then it probably should have been one from the get go.

Something doesn't have to be a great discussion to be worth being said. A couple of comments attached to a review can still be interesting and worthwhile, but starting a whole new thread might seem like overkill. It's not always apparent from the get-go whether some casual remarks are going to turn into a great conversation.

And as I've said a million times, I think review comments are better in context. If I read a review about a book, I would probably click to see the comments about it. I wouldn't necessarily read all the discussion threads about a given book, especially if they had only two posts in them (incidentally, this relates to the issue discussed above of opening comments in place vs. opening them on a new page). I probably wouldn't pay attention to the reviewer's name and then skim through all the discussions to see whether there was a thread called "comments about X's review". Fragmenting the discussion just makes it harder to follow.

On the issue of comment ownership, I think the issue of group ownership is relevant here. There was a lot of discussion when a group owner chose to delete a popular group, taking all the member-contributed content with it. I think it was ultimately decided that the groups belong to the members as much as to the owners, so that groups of a certain size should no longer be able to be deleted.

To deal with the issue of offensive comments, I would suggest that comments flagged by a certain number of users should really be removed, with no "show" option. (I would also suggest that these be paid users, to prevent people from using sockpuppet accounts to delete comments that they just don't like.)

Which is why an overall discussion area for the work makes far more sense - it's visible to everyone, no one has to worry about a review disappearing

There's always the possibility of the original post in a Talk thread disappearing. If the comments remained for a deleted review, then the situation would be no different.

you don't have to worry about the presence of a review to start a discussion, you can start a discussion unrelated to a review

Even if comments were allowed on reviews, it wouldn't be forbidden to start other discussions about the work in Talk or via a specific work-discussion feature!

To deal with the issue of offensive comments, I would suggest that comments flagged by a certain number of users should really be removed, with no "show" option. (I would also suggest that these be paid users, to prevent people from using sockpuppet accounts to delete comments that they just don't like.)

So, if I'm a free user, I can be abused with zero recourse to flag the users that are making offensive comments towards me?

Conversely, if I'm a paid member, I can willfully put up the 4th flag on a comment that may not really ever be a TOS violation, but just may be something a friend of mine here didn't like? And then no one will be able to view the comment to see that folks weren't abusing the flagging system?

There's always the possibility of the original post in a Talk thread disappearing. If the comments remained for a deleted review, then the situation would be no different.

This is actually not true. In talk, the original post doesn't disappear. The subject and post number always remain. The only thing that a person can do is edit the post out - and even then, the edit message remains and the admins are able to retrieve the original post very easily to see what was edited away. The history is actually always there and the original post's shell is anchored.

This is not the case for deleted reviews. There is no "anchor" - it is deleted and the data is gone for the original reviewer - this is not a mere edit of the text body. All of the book data has to go away, especially for those where the 200-book limit is an issue. Keeping the "shell" would actually be quite different. You'd be asking to somehow keep around a "ghost" of the original review, suppressing the original review and not tying it back to the original counts of the original reviewer's library. You're basically asking for a roundabout way to review books not in a person's library to keep some sort of comment system going.

Zoe, Review comments would be better in context, but if the reviewer wants to take down his review, then the context goes away and so should the comments if comments were to be even allowed.

Nothing that has been said changes my mind on that. I have been opened to thinking that some form of start a discussion for a book and perhaps a way to post your review of that book into the discussions for that book should be doable.

But still I don't want niggling little comments on a review. In order to get the meaty comments over at YouTube, you have to put up with the juvenile ones which is already disconcerting enough.

I have been on the internet a long time and have watched the children grown into it, they never having known the old dial-up services, or before that things like MCI-Mail, or before that a time when we used 300 baud modems... Or before that...

And as more people propagate the internet, more inanity crops up. Why encourage it? Why allow it to be there without a quick recourse to get rid of it.

You really want this... Are you already practicing this by doing what you can do with reviews you like or not? Are you or Squeaky sending to the authors of reviews your comments?

I remember once being advised if you want to be regarded as a ____ then act as a ____... So if you want these comments, does anyone know of LTers who are already commenting on reviews?

So, if I'm a free user, I can be abused with zero recourse to flag the users that are making offensive comments towards me?

Conversely, if I'm a paid member, I can willfully put up the 4th flag on a comment that may not really ever be a TOS violation, but just may be something a friend of mine here didn't like? And then no one will be able to view the comment to see that folks weren't abusing the flagging system?

Because paid users have friends, but unpaid users don't?

There are always going to be fringe cases. Occasionally there are problems in Talk, too. That doesn't mean that the system as a whole is dysfunctional.

When I compared review comments without reviews to Talk comments without the original post, I was speaking from the point of view of the end user. I admit that I don't know how difficult it would be to replace the review as anchor with something else. But I do think it would be possible to find a technical solution.

But still I don't want niggling little comments on a review. In order to get the meaty comments over at YouTube, you have to put up with the juvenile ones which is already disconcerting enough.

Yes, but on boardgamegeek the standard of review comments is extremely high. It all depends on who the site users are. I'd certainly expect a higher level of discussion on LT than on YouTube.

You really want this... Are you already practicing this by doing what you can do with reviews you like or not? Are you or Squeaky sending to the authors of reviews your comments?

No. One-on-one conversations on LT are clunky and inconvenient, and I don't always have the energy to respond to everything, so I prefer not to leave one individual waiting for a response. I like the conversation to be able to go on without me.

The ability to create, "one-click" discussion threads on books: YES.

The ability to comment specificially on user-submitted reviews: NO. An emphatic no.

>94 DWWilkin: "does anyone know of LTers who are already commenting on reviews"

Here are some.

In order to get the meaty comments over at YouTube, you have to put up with the juvenile ones which is already disconcerting enough.

Well, if you have YouTube Comment Snob, you don't have to deal with the worst of the worst, but then I don't think I've ever seen anything that I would call "meaty" as a YouTube comment. "Properly spelled" is about as good as it gets over there in my experience.

(And oh, how often I've wished for an Internet Comment Snob. Just make the worst of the stupidity go away!)

#95 Yes, but on boardgamegeek the standard of review comments is extremely high

YMMV. Often the review comments are inane.

However that site is completely different in implementation and mental setting to this one. There reviews are forum posts - albeit well signposted forums - which are separated out in the UI. They are not connected to ownership of an item in the same way that reviews are connected to our catalogue entry of a book. Also the very nature of the reviews tend to be different - reviews there tend to be more about the components and mechanics with a relatively low level of engagement of critical review.

>99 andyl: You beat me to it.

Not to mention, that if you look at the way boardgame geek sets up the forums, each game has its own forum to start discussions. And while everyone can comment on a review, the bulk of discussions for any game are independent of the reviews.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/822

This is one of the top-rated games on the board - and it's difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison. Because the bulk of the discussions are also about game mechanics. It's a different environment. Unless, of course, I'm missing some different mechanics on reading that we've yet to tap into - is there something I should be trying with my toes?

>94 DWWilkin: "But still I don't want niggling little comments on a review."

And I don't want niggling little reviews without comments.

If I look at this as a balance, or a t-account with the pro arguments vs. the neg arguments, or those who would like it, versus those who do not like the idea, I just don't see the support.

I think some have gone as far as as agreeing that threads for book discussion should be started at a book level. Which has more support then comments on reviews even by itself. If you had three choices,

Comments on reviews
No comments on reviews
Thread discussions indexed from a book page (Where of course all reviews are found for a book)

then the last choice has become the most popular of the three, mostly because those who don't want comments on reviews are willing to put there two cents in on saying that a thread discussion would be nice.

--> 101

And I don't want niggling little reviews without comments.

You have a point there. Adding interesting comments would negate the niggling reviews. :)

And I don't want niggling little reviews without comments.

And I think that's one of the reasons people don't want comments on their reviews.

The solution seems obvious, then:

If there exist people who don't want comments on their reviews, make it an opt-in feature.

Then, you don't need to allow it if you don't want to, and if you really want it, you can opt into it.

That is, of course, assuming that LT staff does in fact want to implement this.

I've written a lot of rather substantial reviews on LT. My idea of reviewing, by the way, is not "good book or bad book," but what sort of book, who would like it, where did I have trouble with it, where did it shine? Did it give me any new ideas? What do I hope other readers can take away from it? This sort of review is actually intended to start conversations, even if they are indirect and circuit out through a larger discursive sphere so that usually I don't know who my interlocutors are. Comments would allow those conversations to precipitate directly in LT.

That said, I'd probably be satisfied with the compromise suggested by DWWilkin (at 73) where a user could click "comment to reviewer," and it would allow a direct post to the comments on my profile page, automatically creating a subject head to identify the specific book review. (Yes, knowledgeable users have gone to the greater bother of clicking though to my profile to leave a comment on a review, and I have done the same for others, but LT doesn't actually invite that.) Thumbs are nice, but I really enjoy actual comments, where I can get a sense of what it was in my longish review that a reader found valuable. I'm not afraid of occasional disagreement, either.

I have no great desire to comment on reviews or have mine commented upon, but I have no objection either. I do feel that having posted my thoughts in a public forum they are fair game for discussion, regardless of my intent in posting them.

Although I have not written that many reviews, a few people have taken the time to send me private comments on them. These comments were polite and thoughtful. The practice might increase if the structure were easier. I might also feel more inclined to respond if the discussion were public, but just as with the profile comments and discussion posts, I would feel no obligation to respond.

I have no need to be protected from negative comments. My usual response to unhelpful discussion is to walk away. I find this especially easy on the internet. In my opinion unhelpful comments (whether of the vacuous or the vicious variety) would reflect negatively on the commenter, not on me. But more than that, I am generally suspicious of the argument that something shouldn't be allowed because some people might abuse it.

# 104 105 Your solution would be very difficult to implement in a userfriendly way. I am involved in delivering software solutions to a limited audience of ~700 users, and in my experience the confusion that arise from features only being available in some situations, and not in others, will be difficult to explain to users. And since LT relies heavily on being 'intuitive' and according to the newbie questions fails miserably, I wouldn't expect it to be done in a useful fashion.
This will end up annoying users, and lead to false bug reports. Not a good result.

ETA right comment number

105 That is, of course, assuming that LT staff does in fact want to implement this.

It isn't just a case of that. There are a hundred and one outstanding fixes and new features all sitting in a pot. A lot of the thinking of Tim (or anyone else running a complex system) is - "Is this something that needs to be worked on now or is there something better to work on".

Developer time isn't infinite - not even close. Do you spend what we have on fixing bugs, better author subsystem, reading dates / currently reading, comments on reviews, simpler progressive UI or something else? (*)

I think amberwitch's point about a consistent UI is also a good one. I'm not sure how much pain Tim suffers from being nagged by annoyed users but I don't think optional features will lead to a decrease in pain.

(*) Note all of these (apart from the something else) have been mentioned over the past few weeks.

Amberwitch, I don't think christiguc was thinking of a software solution to not allow little reviews such as Great read, or horrible. I think that the Pandora's box has been opened on that already.

>108 amberwitch:.

I'm assuming that was directed at me.

I too am a software/web developer, with 8+ years of GUI design experience. My take on the situation is to treat it like a power user tool. Put it in the user preferences and document it. Maybe even announce it. No matter how intuitive it is, it still needs to be documented.

I once created a website with JUST a pulldown list and a Submit button, and people still had trouble with it... The interface, no matter how intuitive, also needs to be documented and supported.

I don't see how it gets any less userfriendly than a checkbox somewhere in options that says "allow comments on reviews." I also don't see how this can be annoying.

>109 andyl:.

One simple solution: Open source the platform, and leave the more sensitive algorithms and queries blackboxed. If LT is already being controlled in SVN, this is theoretically trivial to get started.

That way, developer time is infinite (for the sake of argument) and free.

But that's just one of many solutions.

#111 - sorry, wrong post number.
And I am not referring to the opt-in/out setting, but to the fact that some reviews thus will be 'comment-able' and others not, confusing users who uses the review comment feature.

And I am not referring to the opt-in/out setting, but to the fact that some reviews thus will be 'comment-able' and others not, confusing users who uses the review comment feature.

Some profiles are "comment-able", some not. Some threads anyone can post in, some you have to join to post. I don't think it's that different from many other areas on LT that it would unduly confuse new members.

#114 - I see a big difference between having several reviews on the same page, and only being able to comment on some of them, and having different options on different profiles and groups. The options on the latter are consistent over the same page, whereas on the review page they wouldn't be.

It's a simple interface issue.

For comment-able posts, have text that says "comment (#)" and for non-comment-able posts, have in grey italics, "comments disabled." Or some such similar thing.

That way, there's no "it's missing" report, and you have a consistent L&F.

I would definitely support being able to comment on reviews. Another Librarythinger directed me to this thread after I complained about a book review I had just read that was a pack of lies from start to finish -- the reviewer's plot summary got EVERYTHING wrong, and anyone who reads the review would believe it unless someone could comment saying, um, this isn't how it was.

#117
Well, in your example, there are several other reviews which get it right, and in any case, you can write your own review.

> 117

Dreadful idea. Why not just write your own review?

> 117

Splendid idea. But it's not going to happen.

>119 lilithcat: So, I've written a review for a book. It's well-structured and complete in itself. Then someone else says something about the book, and I think their point is deserving of further discussion. Rather than engaging with it directly, I should add on a disconnected postscript to my own review, or rewrite the entire thing? Repeatedly, each time I have something to say about another person's review? And rather than ending up with a coherent discussion for people to follow, there will be random-seeming points scattered throughout different reviews? How does this make any sense at all?

121: I agree with lilithcat here. Not saying that you should re-write your review (I don't think reviews should reference other reviews at all, personally), but that the best way to combat a "bad" review is to write one yourself.

Everyone reads books differently. Interperates things differently. To see a comment on a review I wrote, saying how WRONG I am about it all, would make me VERY mad. It's called an opinion, people.

Reviews often contain facts and various forms of reasoning as well as opinions. If I wrote a review saying that I disliked a book, and someone came back with "You're wrong, this is the best book EVAR!!!", they would look silly and it would have no impact on me. If they had something deeper to say about the problems with my review, I'd be interested in engaging with them.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has said that allowing comments would be mandatory (leaving aside for now the issue of whether it should be opt-in or opt-out...).

What would you think if comments were optional, but only those reviews with comments enabled were displayed on the Work pages? So that if you wanted to present your opinion to others, they would equally be able to present their opinion of your review?

123: If I'm understanding your last paragraph right, my reviews wouldn't be visible on the work pages unless I agreed to let people comment on them? HELL NO. Just because I don't want random strangers commenting on my reviews and telling me all the things that are "wrong" with my reviews doesn't mean I don't want them visible! That's two completely different things.

If I've misunderstood what you mean, please help me understand.

I agree with Heather on this one. It seems unfairly punitive to ban comment-free reviews from the work pages. Not to mention, would that mean that all ER reviewers would have to enable comments? I'm sure publishers wouldn't be too excited about ER book reviews being squirreled away where people can't find them easily.

This wasn't a novel, though, it was a work of history. There wasn't a whole lot to misinterpret -- the review was simply incorrect. The book was about a ship of convict women transported from Britain to Australia in the 1700s. The reviewer said the women took over the ship and tossed out all the men, basically became pirates, and prostituted themselves and roughed up and stole from their clients until they saved up enough money to move to America and become respectable. NONE OF THAT EVER HAPPENED. The women simply traveled to Australia and then started new lives for themselves in the penal colony. There was no piracy and nobody moved to America.

I will probably write my own review when I can think of something to say about the book itself -- it's one of those books I liked but can't think of much commentary on.

HELL NO. Just because I don't want random strangers commenting on my reviews and telling me all the things that are "wrong" with my reviews doesn't mean I don't want them visible! That's two completely different things.

Have you seen those shirts, "Everyone is entitled to my opinion"? So, it's okay for you to impose your views on others, but not for anyone to respond?

You've said earlier that you don't want other people interfering with your data in your catalogue. So, I've suggested a solution to that. But since when do you have a God-given right to have your data displayed prominently for everyone else to see?

edit: ER is an interesting problem. But I'm more concerned at this point with getting at the attitudes that lie behind the "no comments" hysteria.

#123: _Zoe_ "What would you think if comments were optional, but only those reviews with comments enabled were displayed on the Work pages?"

Do you mean that they would be on the review page, but not on the main page?

I hadn't actually thought about the review page, but that's a good idea.

I (in favor of comments on reviews) think they only belong on the review page and not on the work page.

>130 SqueakyChu: Because of clutter, or for some other reason?

I had envisaged that reviews would have an inconspicuous (X comments) button that you would click to actually see the comments, regardless of whether you were on the Work page or the Reviews page.

Coming to the discussion late, and not having read the bulk of the thread, I'm just going to throw an idea into the pot. Now, this may already have been discussed, but the only reference to 'reviews reviewed' that I've seen was in Squeaky's post 19.

Allow Thingamabrarians to opt-in, such that if they do, their reviews get a 'Start a review of this review' link that starts a new thread in the Reviews Reviewed group. (Once a thread has been kicked off, the link changes to 'Join a discussion of this review'.) Review authors get a comment on their profile when comments are made.

I think that the work page should be facts about books and not discussion about them. Discussion would more appropriately be handled elsewhere (reviews page, fora, etc.)

In addition, the comments are *not* about the book per se, but rather about the review. I, too, see that "inconspicuous button that you would click" - mainly so as not to make others angry. :)

Thinking about it now, I'm not sure how they could be eradicated from the work page if they are attached to the review - which *is* on the work page. Hmm?

Anyway, Tim doesn't seem to be too much in favor of them so what is the chance of ever getting them? :(

--> 132

Your idea is brilliant!!!

I think comments on reviews are a bad idea, as I've said before. If they should be implemented they should be opt-in and have no effect on how reviews are displayed.

The idea of a discussion thread (attached to the work, not a review) as previously suggested is interesting though.

> 132

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the Reviews Reviewed group.

"We focus on the review rather than the reviewed book, on the language of the review more than the reviewer's opinions. Among other things, this is a place you can try out, polish and refine your review before or after posting it."

"Reviews reviewed" seems a bit restrictive to me. Ideally, a review could also generate discussion about the book, not just about the review.

So in general I think it's a reasonable idea, but one that would be best based on a new group created for the purpose. And I'd like to be able to see from the Work page how many threads there are in the relevant discussion.

--> 136

I think a review would not be good if the facts in it were entirely wrong.

However, on further reflection, I worry about the harm it would do by moving someone's review to the Reviews Reviewed page. Doing this might prevent people from freely posting reviews for fear of their review being not only commented upon but also being dissected into very little pieces and thoroughly examined.*

*I'd love it, but most others would hate it, I think! :)

--> 137

on a new group created for the purpose.

Now *there's* an idea that might work!

Yes, I could see that a new group could be home for comments on the works, and comments on the reviews. I've long thought that each work could do with its own thread.

However, such a group could end up being absolutely enormous. If only for scale, then perhaps the group could be author based ... but then what happens about works with multiple authors ... and combined works ... and combined authors.

Glad it's Tim & co that's would end up deciding, and not me!

>127 _Zoe_: "But since when do you have a God-given right to have your data displayed prominently for everyone else to see?"

Well, it wasn't God-given, it was Tim-given (I'm old-fashioned enough to still believe those are two different things, though the gap is narrowing ...)

It seems to me that LT considers reviews not to be one user's data, but rather more like Common Knowledge, in that it is provided for the enjoyment and edification of the commons, not to remind a single user what they did or didn't like about a book.

Review comments may or may not have the same "commons" value, but the lack of them does not diminish the value of the review itself.

I thought we had finished this discussion a while ago.

If a reviewer does not want comments on their reviews, they should not have it. In professional papers, you never had this, for years. Certainly people disagreed with the critques, most likely the authors if it was bad, and they had the recourse to write a letter to the review, or to the editor of the publication.

Would that commentary be published? How rare is very very rarely? If there was a factual misstatement certainly. But a difference of opinion, since reviews are subjective, I doubt that it happen as often as such happens here on the internet.

I have left rebuttal reviews on Amazon where I caught a few glowing gushing reviews, one for plagiarized material. Which is a gross abuse by the author. (An entire book plagiarized but since there was a generation or two between the original, who remembers except us very well read people...)

Write your own review if you disagree. Send a letter to an reviewer either way. Use your thumb up!

Comments on reviews--NO!

It seems to me that LT considers reviews not to be one user's data, but rather more like Common Knowledge, in that it is provided for the enjoyment and edification of the commons, not to remind a single user what they did or didn't like about a book.

This is the approach that I prefer, but the discussions about review comments have shown that it's actually otherwise. The emphasis is on people not wanting comments on their reviews, even when those reviews are used in a public context. That's why I thought it might be useful to draw a stricter line between when a review belongs to the user and when the review has been contributed for the public good.

Review comments may or may not have the same "commons" value, but the lack of them does not diminish the value of the review itself.

I actually disagree here; I think a review that's open to discussion is much more valuable than a review that stands in isolation.

you never had this, for years

Better get rid of LT altogether and return to the card catalogues. If it didn't exist in the past, it must be bad; no further discussion needed.

As current administrator of the Reviews Reviewed group, I would like to agree with #136: lilithcat that that group is not a good place for general comments by just anybody on any review.

A rather different group ("Comments on reviews", as it might be), whose members invite comment of any sort by both members and non-members, could well be a viable idea. I see no virtue in permitting or encouraging comments on reviews whose authors do not want them.

>143 _Zoe_: But a comment-free review isn't stopping anyone else from expressing their opinion; they can write their own review. Frankly, it's much harder to write a review than to critique someone else's work. And if the comment is going to be much more than just a sentence or two, it should be a review of its own.

I could support the idea of linking to a separate Talk group specifically for comments, as in #145. Frankly, I'd probably enable comments on my own reviews. But I'm still against punishing people who choose not to with banishment to some review netherworld.

> 141

Well, it wasn't God-given, it was Tim-given (I'm old-fashioned enough to still believe those are two different things, though the gap is narrowing ...)

Very narrow, indeed!

Frankly, it's much harder to write a review than to critique someone else's work.

Which means that, without comments, users are less likely to contribute their opinions to the work page. It's also less interesting to read through many disconnected and often redundant reviews than to read through a coherent discussion.

And if the comment is going to be much more than just a sentence or two, it should be a review of its own.

I don't see why this should be the case.

But I'm still against punishing people who choose not to with banishment to some review netherworld.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the best solution, but I do think it would be fair.

You may be giving commenters too much credit if you're expecting a coherent discussion. Comments by their very nature tend to be knee-jerk, reactionary, and not very well thought-out. Whereas reviews tend to be given a bit more care in crafting and writing.

Obviously these are not absolutes — I've read some thoughtless reviews on LT, and I don't doubt that some comments would be carefully crafted. But I think the generalities would hold over a large sample size.

I think we're dealing with a fundamental difference in how reviews are viewed. I see reviews as, well, reviews of the work. And for discussion, there's Talk. Why do we need a mash-up of the two cluttering up the work pages?

I think the quality of comments is more related to the community on a given site than to the intrinsic nature of comments. Looking at the LT blog, for example, the level of the comments is often quite high.

I see reviews as, well, reviews of the work. And for discussion, there's Talk. Why do we need a mash-up of the two cluttering up the work pages?

This is a site about books. Ideally, the work pages should be the core of the site; they should be interesting and dynamic. Talk is great for what it is: making people-based connections rather than book-based connections. For a newcomer, though, Talk can be pretty overwhelming. Rather than being forced to wade into a massive discussion forum in order to become engaged in the site, it should be possible to start from the Work pages. I know what my favourite books are, but it's not immediately obvious what my favourite groups will be.

I considered the quality of LT's community when I referred to the quality of comments, and you may be right. But then, there are those crummy reviews ...

Anyway, I don't disagree with what seems to be your goal: To stimulate the actual discussion of books (as opposed to simply listing titles of what you're reading now, for example, as so many Talk threads become). And I definitely don't disagree with the idea that Talk is overwhelming for newcomers; I'm still bewildered by the vast numbers of groups. But a link from the reviews on work pages directly to a group dedicated to commenting on reviews could be a win-win: facilitate a dialogue about books, and give newcomers a gentle introduction to Talk.

But a link from the reviews on work pages directly to a group dedicated to commenting on reviews could be a win-win: facilitate a dialogue about books, and give newcomers a gentle introduction to Talk.

I certainly wouldn't object to this; it is, in effect, comments on reviews, with the only distinction being where those comments are found. Personally I'd prefer to avoid being directed away from the work page, but that's a fairly minor detail.

127: I have a feeling we just aren't going to agree on this one.

Who gave me the right to have MY data displayed? TIM DID. Having reviews on the Work page is something Tim did and something LibraryThing has done forever. You are proposing to change that, simply because I don't like the prospect of this new feature we are talking about? You suddenly want to HIDE all my reviews, all the work I've put into them, just because *I* don't agree with *your* opinion about this feature? Pot calling kettle, much?

And despite what you may think, I'm not *against* commenting on reviews. I'm against it being a mandatory thing. I'm against being PUNISHED because I don't want it.

You suddenly want to HIDE all my reviews, all the work I've put into them, just because *I* don't agree with *your* opinion about this feature?

Yes, I decreed it as a random punishment because you don't agree with me. Also, we should cut off access to Talk for people who don't use the date fields and prevent anyone who disapproves of spoiler markers from adding more books.

/sarcasm

Your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy makes no sense. I didn't say that you should be prevented from expressing dissenting opinions in Talk, or suggest hiding comment-disabled reviews because you disagreed with me. I suggested it in the name of consistency.

If people want their opinions to be published for all to see, it's reasonable to expect that others will talk about those opinions, and even express disagreement.

If people don't want others expressing disagreement with their opinions, it's reasonable that they'll keep those opinions to themselves.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the best of both worlds for yourself: to expect that you can present your opinions in a public place and simultaneously keep them safe from the horrors of disagreement.

There's a big difference between knowing that someone, somewhere, might disagree with my review, and being forced to allow that person to tear down my review in public comments attached to said review.

I don't care if people don't agree with my review. If they want to talk about it, let them. That's fine. I just don't want their comments attached to my review.

Reviews have been public, on Work pages, for a looooong time now. Why do you suddenly want that to change, just so it will be "consistant" with this new feature you want?

And if you want all work-page reviews to be able to have comments, why not let all work-page tags have comments too? Or all member-uploaded covers? Why is it that *reviews* must be allowed to have comments if they are on the work page?

--> 155

You always have the option to not allow comments on your reviews. This will most likely be an opt-in feature if it ever takes place.

Reviews have been public, on Work pages, for a looooong time now. Why do you suddenly want that to change, just so it will be "consistant" with this new feature you want?

I've focused on consistency in the hopes that it would lead to a more rational discussion, rather than automatic dismissal of the idea in terms like "terrible", "NO!" or "HELL NO!"

Do I think that Tim would actually make comments mandatory? No. Do I think that it would be entirely reasonable for him to do so? Yes. Basically, my goal was to point out that you don't have righteousness on your side. You said before that you considered reviews part of your sacred catalogue data, and I suggested a way to allow comments without touching your data, which you immediately and forcibly rejected. The intention was to see if there was more to your argument than just your personal preference: is there a reason why your preferred situation should be so, beyond the fact that it has been in the past?

why not let all work-page tags have comments too? Or all member-uploaded covers?

If I thought there was the potential for worthwhile discussion developing out of tag or cover comments, I would certainly be arguing that they should be possible as well. I just don't think that that's the case.

Yes, there is a reason, which I've stated before. I don't want people commenting on my review to tell me how "wrong" it is, whining about something I said that they don't agree with, correcting my grammar, etc etc.

It seems like you think that allowing comments will bring about these great discussions that otherwise wouldn't happen. I'd hope so, but I know from experience that a LOT of people wouldn't be interested in a serious conversation and would basically just yell and put down the reviewer.

I think there would be far more comments of a "THAT'S WRONG, you suck!" nature then there would be serious, interesting discussion. And that's why I don't want comments to be mandatory. That's why I don't want comments on my reviews. And if you take a look at the Book Talk thread, I think my reasons are completely reasonable.

It's entirely reasonable to take a feature that's been around for a while and look at it again from a fresh perspective. And if you look at the review field it's more than a little strange that it exists in your private catalog but it's added to the work page like CK data. Yet CK data is public and can be changed by anyone, but while reviews are publically viewable they are only modifiable by their owner. In fact this inconsistency is probably the cause of so many people assuming that their reviews are not tied to their catalog so that they can remove the book without losing the review.

In any case, there isn't a chance in hell that Tim will ever implement any of this so there's no point getting hot under the collar.

>159 jjwilson61:
there isn't a chance in hell that Tim will ever implement any of this

I dunno. Back in the first thread (linked at the top of this one) Tim made some positive sounding noises. Though it's not a good sign that he hasn't posted in this thread.

>158 Heather19:
I think there would be far more comments of a "THAT'S WRONG, you suck!" nature then there would be serious, interesting discussion. And that's why I don't want comments to be mandatory. That's why I don't want comments on my reviews. And if you take a look at the Book Talk thread, I think my reasons are completely reasonable.

I'm certain you have some examples of bad behavior in mind, but my casual reading of the Book Talk forum is that the only posts that receive sarcastic responses are those that include so little information you can't figure out what the poster was trying to say. And Twilight related posts. But, well ... that's a special category. (And even the latest Twilight posts{here's one and another}got some constructive responses.) So my expectations are essentially the opposite. I'll also stick by my assertion up in 107 that review comments would reflect on the comment poster not the reviewer.

It would be great if folks would argue about the likeliest proposal -- optional comments on reviews. It seems to me that very few if any support mandatory comments on reviews, while I have yet to hear any real objections to optional (original reviewer's discretion) comments on reviews. Thus, there has been very little useful discussion of the real question: opt-in or opt-out as a default for turning comments on for new reviews.

> 142 "I have left rebuttal reviews on Amazon . . ."

Amazon says that reviews are supposed to refrain from "commenting on other reviews".

>162 cpg:.

Also, Amazon does have comments on reviews.

>161 lquilter: O.K. Although how you lean on this question will be decided mostly by how useful vs. bothersome you think the feature will be.

Opt-in vs. opt-out mainly impacts users and reviews of users who only visit the site intermittently. Regular users will quickly make their choice in either case.

Disadvantage of opt-in:
Users who are fine with comments won't get them until they sign in and notice the new feature. Many, if not most, reviews will not have comments turned on making the option to leave a comment sporadic and unintuitive.

Disadvantage of opt-out:
Users who do not want comments may have comments left on their reviews before they sign in and notice the feature.

As I think that review comments would be more useful than bothersome I favor opt-out.

One more thought: when a user turns off the feature what happens to comments that have already been made? Can the user who left a comment still access his/her writing?

Too bad I can't turn on "intelligent and thoughtful comments only". Engaging in conversation about a book, great. "You suck this is a great book", not so much. (Maybe that will come after the "intelligent and thoughtful reviews only" flag. ;) )

Well, if a user is given delete privileges like on flickr, I don't really see a problem w/allowing comments & conversation. I don't want my "wall" f-ed up with all sorts of crap I have no control over.

>164 eromsted: Disadvantage of opt-out:
Users who do not want comments may have comments left on their reviews before they sign in and notice the feature.

I guess I don't see it working this way. In my mind, a user's reviews shouldn't receive comments until and unless they give their permission. I thought was what the opt-in/opt-out was about, not about whether a user can view comments. If it's only about viewing, I'm much less in favor of the whole scheme.

I support opt-out, for the reasons eromsted already explained.

Also, I think it would be reasonable to have a one-month decision period, like for whether reviews will be used for libraries, commercial purposes, or nothing, after which the decision will be made for you.

Rosalita, I think the opt-out vs. opt-in discussion is about what will happen to the reviews of people who don't specify a preference: will comments be enabled there or not?

Well, if a user is given delete privileges like on flickr, I don't really see a problem w/allowing comments & conversation. I don't want my "wall" f-ed up with all sorts of crap I have no control over.

This is the other big issue. Personally, I'd prefer community policing (like the current flagging we have now) rather than deletion by the review writer. There have been objections that not enough people would notice and flag offensive comments, but I think that could easily be remedied by a Talk thread.

I do think the standards for review comments could be higher than the standards for Talk (something along the lines of "intelligent and thoughtful comments only", though probably not quite so strict--I'd imagine that dumb and thoughtless comments would be allowed as long as they were friendly).

>168 _Zoe_:: Ah, thank you for explaining, Zoe. I realize now we are talking about how to handle the situation for users who are already using LibraryThing, not new users (who presumably will be presented with the option at sign-up?)

In that case, opt-out for current users would be OK with me, provided there was the waiting period you mention and a sincere effort to publicize/make people aware of the change. Yellow "new comment" banners for everyone!

new users (who presumably will be presented with the option at sign-up?)

As far as I know, the sign up is pretty minimal (i.e., you don't really have to do anything at sign-up). Ideally there would be encouragement to choose an option the first few times you wrote a review. But I think it would be more LT's style to eventually default new users to something (after, say, a month) rather than forcing them to pick an option.

Yellow "new comment" banners for everyone!

Definitely!

If new users are presented with the option to allow comments or not when they first write a review, wouldn't that choice "stick" until/unless they changed it? And wouldn't they have to choose one or the other?

Or do you mean if someone didn't happen to write their first review until after the 30-day waiting period was over, that they would have defaulted into the "allow comments" pool (assuming opt-out becomes the default)? I think presenting the choice at first review, whenever that is in the timeline of a user's LT experience, is better than just putting new users into whichever option becomes the default. I base this precisely on how minimal sign-up is on LT; it can take folks a good long while to feel their way around and figure out all the wonders that are possible here, including reviews.

And wouldn't they have to choose one or the other?

I don't know--I can't remember another place on LT where we're absolutely forced to make a choice. I wouldn't really object to it, but it seems inconsistent with the way the decision about library/commercial use of reviews is handled.

I think presenting the choice at first review, whenever that is in the timeline of a user's LT experience, is better than just putting new users into whichever option becomes the default.

This sounds reasonable to me.

Well, they'd have to make a choice, wouldn't they? I mean, either they allow comments or they don't. But I'm not familiar with the issue of library/commercial use of reviews, so there's probably a subtlety here that I'm missing. Certainly, there's much to be said for handling things consistently, so I defer to your position on this.

ETA: I just went and read the reviews bit in my account settings, so I'm up to speed now. Somehow I missed all discussion of that, but I've only been actively participating in all aspects of LT for less than a year. Which is an argument for deferring the decision point on comments until a user first posts a review.

Which is an argument for deferring the decision point on comments until a user first posts a review.

I'd definitely support deferring the decision until a user posts a review (no point in deciding before then, unless it's technically complicated). I'm still not sure whether at that point they should be forced to make a decision or just given a certain timeframe until a decision is made for them, but I don't particularly care either way.

Would the comments be visible in a catalogue? On a profile review page?

I'm basically in favour of comments, but I do see the disconnect between MY reviews, written by me, for me, that I look at on my pages, and LT pages such as the work page where all sorts of information is available.

On the work page, each review could have (Comments 0) as a link. I'm not sure I'd want that in catalogue view, and maybe not in profile reviews either.

And let's be honest and clear here - given the non-prevalance of flags very few of anybody's reviews are read, let alone by someone wanting to comment on them.

#175: reading_fox "given the non-prevalance of flags very few of anybody's reviews are read"

I don't see that that follows. I, for example, read a lot of reviews, but flag or thumb rather few.
I do agree, however, that there is probably far less general interest in writing comments than some of both proponents and opponents think.

> 175

given the non-prevalance of flags very few of anybody's reviews are read

I think that has more to do with the fact that most reviewers are writing actual reviews, and are not violating the TOS, rather than that people aren't reading the reviews.

174>

I'm still not sure whether at that point they should be forced to make a decision or just given a certain timeframe until a decision is made for them, but I don't particularly care either way.

At that point, either they make a decision or one is made for them -- there's no way around it. Once a review is posted, either comments on it are permitted or they aren't. If the user doesn't make that decision, the system has to. For once, I don't really have a strong opt-out / opt-in preference -- unlike most people, I view the point of reviews as primarily being for other people's benefit, so I think I would lean toward opt-out, with the poster of the original review having full powers to delete undesired comments on their own reviews. But "no decision" isn't an option, technically speaking.

175>

And let's be honest and clear here - given the non-prevalance of flags very few of anybody's reviews are read, let alone by someone wanting to comment on them.

I'm not clear how that follows. I flag anything that I encounter that isn't a "review" by the extremely liberal standards of the site (i.e. "this is cool" is 100% legit), and I thumbs-up anything that I think is outstanding, but that's still less than one in ten of the reviews I read.

Well, there's the option of not allowing you to post a review until you've made the choice. It could even be a pop-up at the time the review is submitted. But then the problem is what to do with existing reviews.

Those of us who don't want comments on our reviews could always delete all of them or move them to comments. Once the idea has been set that people 'ought' to be able to comment on reviews, I would certainly stop writing them.

>180 MarthaJeanne:: Would you remove your reviews even if you were able to set an option to never have comments allowed on your reviews? If so, why?

162, clarifying that my reviews in rebuttal were not a review of a review. It was a review of the book that had been reviewed, in a different conclusion. (Generally rebutting a fan boy's gushing praise of how great a book is with my critique of how lousy the book is, not how fan boy had written a brown nosing review.)

It seems about the posts in the 150's we got the heart of what all this discussion has been. To create more discussion of the book.

For that you do not need to comment of reviews. And surely the best way to get your thoughts about a book is to review it yourself. Otherwise it smacks to me of cowardice. Or the great two words reviews, Its Great, It Sucks...

No for those who want to discuss books, we have these great threads that you can open up. Then the discussion thread is shown in how many conversations about the book are happening on the works page.

So why comment on reviews? Do all those in favor really think it is a system that will not be abused? That a person who has spent some time writing a thoughtful review and has found points to bring up won't have some fan boy jump all over them.

Perhaps we should test it out with just one book to see if it would work, and if it doesn't we can put this to bed. Let's use The Da Vince Code and see if all those who have written reviews about Dan Brown and his work will not have their reviews praised or trashed for the wrong reasons but only to lend deep thought and add to the discussion of the book. Or perhaps we should give a moment and do this test with the Bible, or the Koran, or any religious text...

I am only partially sarcastic here. I think you open up this Pandora's box and you ruin the experience of being a reviewer.

>181 rosalita: - I'd likely delete all of my reviews and willingly give up ER participation as well.

That's how bad I believe comments on reviews would be for LT. 182 summed it up nicely. I'm all for a comment forum underneath each work if this is really about discussing the book. But not on someone's review. Reviews are reviews - not open invitations for discussion. If you really want to discuss it with the reviewer, you can always message them on their profile if they've not opted-out of profile comments.

>182 DWWilkin: "And surely the best way to get your thoughts about a book is to review it yourself. Otherwise it smacks to me of cowardice."

Cowardice? How so?

"So why comment on reviews?"

So why write reviews of books?

"Do all those in favor really think it is a system that will not be abused?"

Do you think the review system is not currently being abused? Or do you think that telling fans of a book that they "wouldn't know quality if it punted them in the vagina" is what a review system ought to be used for?

"Let's use The Da Vince Code and see if all those who have written reviews about Dan Brown and his work will not have their reviews praised or trashed for the wrong reasons"

There's no more reason to expect that the reviews will be praised or trashed for the wrong reasons by commenters than that the book itself will be praised or trashed for the wrong reason by reviewers.

184: Well, in the case of Twilight (a review of which the line you quote appeared), pretty much yes.

And that review demonstrates, to me, why we don't need comments on reviews. People who wanted to comment on the review did so via profile comments, which is already a perfectly suitable method for doing so. Adding review comments would just add another layer of junk to what is currently a pretty streamlined system.

And I note that balletgurl (the most vocal objector to the review in question) hasn't written her own review of Twilight, instead piggybacking on comments about someone else's review. I would think it would be better for LibraryThing if people were to write their own reviews, which would be discouraged under a system in which people can comment on reviews. If you have an opinion about a book, write a review about it. Don't kvetch about someone else's.

>185 StormRaven:

I see, so in what other instances do you think it is appropriate to cast vulgar insults at those who like what you dislike? And why limit this to book reviews? Why not open up LT to these sorts of attacks in Talk, in Profile comments, everywhere?

"If you have an opinion about a book, write a review about it. Don't kvetch about someone else's."

If you have an opinion, write a book about it. Don't write a review to kvetch about someone else's.

186: Well, when a book is ridiculously bad (in the reviewer's opinion), they should be free to use the language they feel appropriate. I'm not sure why this should be a surprising kind of stance.

It is also entirely unclear how the ability to make comments on reviews would affect this in any way.

And your analogy fails. You see, someone reviewing a book doesn't just have "an opinion", they have an opinion about the book. Hence, they are writing about the book. Someone who is kvetching about a review is effectively complaining about an opinion about a book. If they have a varied opinion, they should write their own review because that would be best for LibraryThing as a whole.

You see, LibraryThing gains value from reviews - LT for Libraries uses them for example. LibraryThing would likely gain almopst no value whatsoever from comments on reviews. Why would (or should) LibraryThing install a feature that would (1) likely create regular, massive, flame wars, (2) discourage the production of things with value to LT (i.e., reviews) and (3) add next to no value in and of itself from LT's perspective?

If it was not clear, if a comments provision was added to LT, whether opt-out, or opt-in, I would turn comments off. I simply don't care what others think about my reviews. If I want to know what others think about the book, I'll read the reviews attached to the book.

I suspect that, after the first big flame war on one of their reviews, most other people who post reviews would do so as well.

It seems about the posts in the 150's we got the heart of what all this discussion has been. To create more discussion of the book.

For that you do not need to comment of reviews. And surely the best way to get your thoughts about a book is to review it yourself. Otherwise it smacks to me of cowardice.

It seems that there are vastly different ideas here of what constitutes a discussion. To me, having hundreds of people make standalone statements is not a discussion.

No for those who want to discuss books, we have these great threads that you can open up. Then the discussion thread is shown in how many conversations about the book are happening on the works page.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that touchstones actually work, and even that there's an easy way to distinguish between discussions and mentions of a book (say, two different kinds of touchstones).

Still, having a discussion isn't as easy as starting a new thread and saying "Let's discuss this book!". I've seen attempted LT group reads that were pretty unsuccessful because no one really had much to say. It's a lot easier to have a discussion if you have a starting point to build from--like, say, someone's interesting ideas that they've already taken care to present in a well-thought-out form.

You see, LibraryThing gains value from reviews - LT for Libraries uses them for example. LibraryThing would likely gain almopst no value whatsoever from comments on reviews.

Well, this depends on your interpretation of value. If you're only talking about things you can sell, sure. A library probably isn't going to pay for the review comments. But as a user rather than a potential purchaser of data, I'd much rather read a few reviews with comments building off of them than 100 different, isolated reviews of the same book.

Why would (or should) LibraryThing install a feature that would (1) likely create regular, massive, flame wars

Well, they installed Talk. I'd say it's done more good than harm in the long run.

If you really want to discuss it with the reviewer, you can always message them on their profile if they've not opted-out of profile comments.

Individual profile comments really don't contribute anything to the site as a whole. They're hard enough even for the participants to follow, and 99.9% of the people interested in the book wouldn't even notice that the discussion had taken place. Plus, profile comments are pretty much of necessity restricted to two participants.

Perhaps we should test it out

I think it would be reasonable to do a test run by allowing interested users to enable comments on their reviews. No need to do it only for the most controversial books, though.

>187 StormRaven:

"when a book is ridiculously bad (in the reviewer's opinion), they should be free to use the language they feel appropriate"

Then when a review is ridiculously bad (in the commenter's opinion), they should be free to use the language they feel appropriate. Thus, vulgar insults in a comment would not constitute abuse. So what sorts of abuse could a comment system lead to that our review system hasn't already led to?

"someone reviewing a book doesn't just have 'an opinion', they have an opinion about the book. Hence, they are writing about the book. Someone who is kvetching about a review is effectively complaining about an opinion about a book. If they have a varied opinion, they should write their own review"

Someone commenting on a review doesn't just have "an opinion"; they have an opinion about the review. Hence, they are writing about the review. Someone who writes a review to kvetch about a book, if they have a varied opinion, should write their own book instead.

"You see, LibraryThing gains value from reviews- LT for Libraries uses them for example. "

Indeed. The fact that LT makes money off of reviews would explain why its owners have implemented policies that are asymmetrical with respect to reviews. It does not, however, imply that those asymmetrical policies are best for their customers.

Speaking of LT for Libraries:

(1) Why didn't that deeply insightful (129 thumbs up) Twilight review make the cut?
(2) Why does LT for Libraries allow users to vote "No" to the question "Did you find this review useful?" while LT itself doesn't?

> 189

To me, having hundreds of people make standalone statements is not a discussion.

That's exactly what you will get from having review comments.

190: And when a review is ridiculously bad (in a commenter's opinion) they can use language they feel appropriate - in profile comments and in their own reviews.

As to comments, I simply disagree with you. Reviews have value, both to LT and in general. Publishers send books out to get reviews. They don't send reviews out to get random comments on those reviews. Comments on reviews are little more than parasitic piggybacking of no value. If you disagree with a review, write your own. Add value to LT.

I would note that except for a handful of lines similar to the one you are so hot and bothered about, the Twilight review is pretty comprehensive and insightful. But he used "vagina" in a sentence. Heaven forfend! You might get the vapors in shock!

(Plus there's already a way to register your disapproval of the review for foul language. Flag it).

And why should LT do things that don't benefit LT? Comments on reviews add no value, create yet another arena to police, and serve no real function other than to have people bitch and moan that their favorite book has been dissed or make "great review!" comments concerning books they love that get favorable reviews.

In any event, I think this is a moot argument, so I will likely bow out here. Tim isn't going to install comments on reviews so long as he has a controlling interest in LT, so you can bark at the moon atll you want but it simply isn't happening. (And I consider that to be a good thing). There's simply nothing he would gain that would compensate for the headache that it would engender, and he's philosophically opposed to the idea to begin with.

To me, having hundreds of people make standalone statements is not a discussion.

That's exactly what you will get from having review comments.

Sure, there will be some disconnected comments, but there will also be some continuous threads of discussion. Even the dreaded Amazon, which I thought was supposed to epitomize the terrible effects of comments, has some connected back-and-forth.

For an example, I looked at the first Amazon review of the most recent book I read. The comments, despite getting into politics, generally seem to contribute more good than bad, and don't dissolve into a flame war.

Plus there's already a way to register your disapproval of the review for foul language. Flag it

I don't think foul language is a flaggable offense.

>192 StormRaven:

"Publishers send books out to get reviews. They don't send reviews out to get random comments on those reviews."

That's because publishers tend to publish books, not reviews. Those who do publish reviews (literary magazines, Amazon, etc.) often do make those reviews available to be commented on.

"He used 'vagina' in a sentence. Heaven forfend! You might get the vapors in shock!"

He, of course, did not just use it in a sentence, but used it in sexually violent imagery directed at people he dislikes.

"Plus there's already a way to register your disapproval of the review for foul language. Flag it."

There's not a flag for that.

"Tim isn't going to install comments on reviews so long as he has a controlling interest in LT"

As Zoe reminded us, Tim expressed openness to the idea in the thread linked to by the OP in the present thread. I do recall Tim saying that he would never allow "thumbs downs" on reviews, but (as I just pointed out) they're effectively allowed on LT for Libraries.

195: Literary magazines rarely provide for comments on reviews. Newspapers rarely provide for comments on reviews. When they do, it is generally a big deal. Amazon does it, and it is a mess. Many of the comments devolve into flame wars and nasty sniping, or become massive love fests that add nothing to the review.

"Punted in the vagina". Oh my god! It is so violent and horrible! All I can do is be amazed at how very easily offended you are.

The one thing that I am still left try to figure out is exactly what value having comments adds to LT. What I see is a bunch of people who want to whine about reviews or give a pile of attaboys. What value does this add beyond what can already be done on the system? What non-selfish impetus is there to allow for comments directly on reviews?

>196 StormRaven: "Literary magazines rarely provide for comments on reviews."

That's simply false. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of comments on reviews in their "letters" sections.

"Amazon does it, and it is a mess."

I disagree. On a related LT thread, I posted a detailed enumeration of the comments I've received on my Amazon reviews. No mess.

"'Punted in the vagina'. Oh my god! It is so violent and horrible!"

So people insult women that way in your law office, and you have no worries about hostile workplace complaints being filed?

"All I can do is be amazed at how very easily offended you are."

Yet you're not amazed at people's claims that an "unhelpful" vote on their reviews would offend them. I don't think you have a very objective sense of amazement.

Literary magazines rarely provide for comments on reviews. Newspapers rarely provide for comments on reviews. When they do, it is generally a big deal. Amazon does it

Yes, you've hit on one of the main differences between print and online media. It's much easier to allow user input in an online format. The main Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, doesn't publish user comments on reviews in the print version (with the possible exception of letters to the editor), but comments are permitted online.

LT is online.

What value does this add beyond what can already be done on the system? What non-selfish impetus is there to allow for comments directly on reviews?

See my #189 above.

I think it would be reasonable to do a test run by allowing interested users to enable comments on their reviews.

I'd volunteer to do it on all my reviews. I hardly think they're controversial, though.

Speaking of LT for Libraries:

If LT wants to sell the reviews minus the comments, I think that would be possible.

I looked at the first Amazon review

Before I joined LT, I used to post reviews to Amazon. I liked reading the comments that were attached to my reviews. In one case I remember responding to a comment. It was a fun communication; nothing negative at all.

>195 cpg:

I do recall Tim saying that he would never allow "thumbs downs" on reviews, but (as I just pointed out) they're effectively allowed on LT for Libraries.

Just curious as to why he would allow it there on LTFL but not here on LT itself. Odd...

>196 StormRaven:

What value does this add beyond what can already be done on the system?

In the same way that talk threads often lead me to want to respond, reviews sometimes have that effect on me as well. To move my response (to a review) to a personal message or to a talk thread would take it out of context.

Just curious as to why he would allow it there on LTFL but not here on LT itself. Odd...

I think the theory is that thumbs-down is good for the readers of the reviews but not for the writers of the reviews. LTFL is at a safe enough distance from the review-writers that they can be essentially ignored, and all attention can be focused on what's best for the review-readers.

That makes sense, although I don't know how people can be so thin-skinned in the on-line world. It's rough out here. :)

> 204

As I mentioned on the other thread, it may also have to do with the fact that I can decline to have my reviews given to libraries, but I can't prevent them being seen on LT (other than by not reviewing at all).

196: Please cite these literary magazines that devote hundreds of letter responses to written reviews. Most won't bother to waste the pages.

Yes, you have hand-picked a handful of comments from a handful of reviews. Go look at the comments on Amazon on reviews of polarizing books like Twilight, Eragon, and Angels and Demons. That is the mess.

And this isn't a law office. Perhaps you missed that.

198: Umm, your post 189 doesn't actually outline a non-selfish reason to allow comments on reviews. All of your arguments in favor of comments are based entirely on what you want (i.e. they are entirely selfish reasons).

And just because it is "easy" to do something doesn't mean it is a good idea. One of the reasons many internet fora aren't taken seriously is the free-for-all atmosphere that things like review comments engenders.

And people will engage in vitriolic flame wars over anything. Just as an example, you basically cannot post a video on YouTube featuring martial arts activity without the comments section turning into a massive flame war over which style is the best. Why do you think commentary on books of all stripes won't get as contentious?

"Why do you think commentary on books of all stripes won't get as contentious?"

Because LT isn't Youtube, fortunetly. Mostly, with he exception of an occasional specific group, LT users are above the lowest common denominator of the internet. They're genuinally interested in books, and in other's thoughts about books.

One of the problems with using talk to discuss books is the time frame - thread sink into oblivion. With comments the review is always "live", and although the discussion may move slowly, it would at least exist.

What I love is that the people so in favor of comments keep explaining why they're necessary in this thread to the point where they'll never be implemented? Why? Because this is what you sound like:

Various concerns about user experience

Response: None of that matters - I think it is necessary!

Concerns about LT's ability to maintain a revenue stream when reviews may no longer be written

Response: None of that matters - I WANT this feature and my wants and desires are philosophical income. This is more important than actual income!

Options given to discuss books at the work level given

Response: That would never work! The only way to discuss books and keep it neat and organized is to discuss the reviews on books. Now don't talk to me about how people will have to search through individual reviews for the comments, how the system will have to take away the ability for the original reviewer to control their original review/data. Offering the ability to discuss books at the work level is stupid, unlike my genius and perfect idea of commenting on reviews which clearly has no downside whatsoever!

You've said that you want to correct user's 'mistakes" in reviews, counter bad opinions and offer everyone an alternative to 'bad' reviews. You've said you don't want to write your own review - because you shouldn't have to do something so horrible as review-writing. Clearly, you intend not to use such a feature to discuss reviews, but to run around and tell people what they did wrong in their reviews. That's not discussion, that's being a stranger with a red pen.

Response: How dare you imply I have to write my own reviews! You're so mean!

****************************

Honestly - I find it laughable that every objection is essentially marginalized, alternatives are dismissed as absolutely unworkable and the clear demonstration here that individuals will use it to correct "mistakes" in reviews shows that comments will be abused out of the gate.

And, honestly, who cares if someone got something wrong in a review? It's one review. I don't know what's sadder - that people think so little of everyone else on the site that you think that one review will influence everyone over the other reviews, tag clouds, CK data and summaries OR that some egos are so big that you believe everyone on the site is waiting to be rescued by some comments of correction.

Either way, I've yet to see a compelling argument that tells me that comments will do anything other than kill reviews and revenue for the site.

And, by the by - Tim also acknowledged after 300 posts in that thread that he knew negative comments on reviews would be felt more deeply than they would be felt in Talk. So what was an initial "interesting" was being weighed against the potential negativity.

I realize it's fun to quote everything and say, "but I want my pony!" So have at it - it doesn't mean you've overcome any of the rather serious objections. Failing to demonstrate an actual understanding of the concerns (saying it's just like talk is dismissive and takes away the active participation in Talk vs. the passive participation of the review), failing to acknowledge that individuals are already demonstrating that they'll abuse the comment system in this thread and not acknowledging the risk against LT for Libraries actual revenue stream simply shows that this is simply a "but I want this no matter the cost" request.

It's not a demand for the betterment of all - it's a demand to make a few feel powerful - and a way for those who don't have a book logged to comment at will in the review section over books they don't own.

Comments on reviews? No, it's not a good idea. No, I'm not going into the reasons why again just to counter yet another thread bashing the issue over the head by the pro-camp. Just piping up in case silence is taken to mean complicity with the principle (which it's not).

Umm, your post 189 doesn't actually outline a non-selfish reason to allow comments on reviews. All of your arguments in favor of comments are based entirely on what you want (i.e. they are entirely selfish reasons).

Okay, you can claim that "It would make the site better" is a selfish reason. So anything anyone ever suggests is selfish, because it comes from their own opinion about what's best for the site. The people who don't want review comments are selfish too.

So, what insight has this given us about the issue? Has your claim that everyone is selfish contributed to the discussion in any meaningful way, or does it just represent an attempt to dismiss the opposing viewpoint without going to the bother of addressing any particular points raised?

Various concerns about user experience

Response: None of that matters - I think it is necessary!

How does making comments optional not address the user concerns?

Concerns about LT's ability to maintain a revenue stream when reviews may no longer be written

Response: None of that matters - I WANT this feature and my wants and desires are philosophical income. This is more important than actual income!

Actually, there hasn't been much discussion about this issue because you're pretty much the only one so far who's expressed a desire to cut off their nose to spite their face.

People who want comments on their reviews will continue to write reviews with comments allowed--I've even stated before that I'd be encouraged to write more reviews if I had a greater sense that people were reading them, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed with my point of view.

People who don't want comments on their reviews will not allow comments on their reviews, but will continue to write them.

People who are extremely stubborn and unwilling to accept site usage different from theirs will delete all their reviews just to express disagreement with the general concept, even though they aren't forced to have comments on their own reviews (In the same way that, because I don't like the wishlist implementation, I could delete all my books rather than just choosing not to use the wishlist). Fortunately, you represent a very small minority of users.

Options given to discuss books at the work level given

Response: That would never work! The only way to discuss books and keep it neat and organized is to discuss the reviews on books. Now don't talk to me about how people will have to search through individual reviews for the comments, how the system will have to take away the ability for the original reviewer to control their original review/data. Offering the ability to discuss books at the work level is stupid, unlike my genius and perfect idea of commenting on reviews which clearly has no downside whatsoever!

To prevent "searching through individual reviews for the comments", we could sort reviews by number of comments.

Reviewers who wanted to remain in full control of their review would not have to allow comments.

You've said that you want to correct user's 'mistakes" in reviews, counter bad opinions and offer everyone an alternative to 'bad' reviews. You've said you don't want to write your own review - because you shouldn't have to do something so horrible as review-writing. Clearly, you intend not to use such a feature to discuss reviews, but to run around and tell people what they did wrong in their reviews. That's not discussion, that's being a stranger with a red pen.

Response: How dare you imply I have to write my own reviews! You're so mean!

I've explained before why I'd prefer review discussions to hundreds of separate reviews, and it has nothing to do with an unwillingness to write my own.

Honestly - I find it laughable that every objection is essentially marginalized

And by "marginalized", you mean "addressed"? I know you love to misrepresent people's arguments so that you can better ridicule them, but I don't find that that contributes much to the discussion.

At least half of what you said can be dismissed with the simple remark that review comments would be optional, something that has already been stated repeatedly and that you've deliberately ignored.

Making your argument longer by sticking in easily-refuted straw men doesn't actually make it any more convincing. Though it might give you more fun targets for your biting sarcasm, it does so at the cost of obscuring any real points you have.

a way for those who don't have a book logged to comment at will in the review section over books they don't own.

So maybe only people who have catalogued the book should be allowed to comment?

210: a way for those who don't have a book logged to comment at will in the review section over books

Good point - and contrary to the basis of how library thing works regarding reviews now.

(edited to close italics)

>204 _Zoe_:

The theory does bring a sort of local consistency to LT policy concerning book reviews, assessment of book reviews, and author chats, with the principle being something like: It's better to criticize someone behind their back than in their presence.

>207 StormRaven:

(1) For starters, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Isis, The New Criterion, NYRB, NYTBR all publish letters commenting on their book reviews.

(2) I just spent some time looking through Amazon review comments on Twilight, and I don't see anything messier than LT reviews.

(3) Right, this isn't your law office. But what principle justifies being so much less sensitive about offending people here than there?

I'm another against comments on reviews. The points made against them seem , to me, to greatly outweigh the points made for them.

209: You are right. LT isn't YouTube. Why then should LT go about emulating YouTube?

214:

(1) A handful of vetted letters once in a while. Hardly "hundreds or thousands" as you claimed. You still haven't given examples of the hundreds and thousands of comments on reviews you claim to have seen.

(2) Then you weren't looking very hard. Every Twilight review is accompanied by a pile of comments that amount to either "well done" or "you are evil for posting this". How does either add to the value of the review? Further, the (rare) comment that goes beyond this would be much better served as a review in its own right - why would LT put in a feature in which the only positive value serves to detract from the value of something that has actual use for LT?

(3) Because this isn't a law office, and a review isn't a brief. Different standards apply to different fora and different forms of communication.

212: Okay, you can claim that "It would make the site better" is a selfish reason. So anything anyone ever suggests is selfish, because it comes from their own opinion about what's best for the site. The people who don't want review comments are selfish too.

You aren't understanding. Your longing for comments on reviews is based in arguments that show that the primary concern you have is for value for you, and you alone. You (and others who want comments) want to assuage your desire to make sure your opinion about a review is front and center, so it doesn't "sink into oblivion".

This isn't about improving factual accuracy in reviews - that can be accomplished right now (and more effectively) via profile comments to the author. This isn't about discussion - if people want discussion on reviews there are talk groups for that and they can go there. This is about making sure that your discussion can't be ignored.

Many other suggestions are not entirely selfish, though almost all have a selfish component. They are aimed at improving the accuracy of information about works, or improving the speed of the site, and so on. And thus have value beyond the selfish desires of the advocates. The arguments in favor of comments on reviews simply don't have this flavor. They are narcissism in action.

HI.........

212: I've explained before why I'd prefer review discussions to hundreds of separate reviews, and it has nothing to do with an unwillingness to write my own.

And why would this benefit LT? LT gains value from having hundreds of different reviews, and no value from having a stream of comments.

This is why I point out that your desire for comments on reviews is rooted in entirely selfish concerns.

I don't understand why so many of these comments have to mean-spirited. I think calling someone narcissistic for making a suggestion to improve the site is way out of line.

Why exactly is a feature that would encourage book discussion bad, or at least not good, for the site? I know that you are concerned for the possible negative consequences but it's all hypothetical at this point, and I very much doubt that comments on reviews would turn LT into YouTube.

Can everybody just take a few deep breaths and try to return to a discussion of the issues and not motives?

It seems a better solution for some of the problems would be to put comments on books.

Basically, for each work page, there could be a mini-forum. Huh? huh? Sort of like how IMDB has a mini-forum for every element for which there's a page.

And if it turned into YouTube (and, wow, does my one video get some weird comments!), we could all just get a modified version of that one Firefox plugin that renders all YouTube comments into random Feynman quotes. :)

221: It doesn't have to be "bad" to be a bad idea. Thus far, there haven't been any arguments that (to me) suggest they would add anything of value to the site. Hence, and extra work they create for the LT staff is a net negative.

Amazon comments (which seem to be the baseline people are using to determine what comments here would be like) are by and large useless fluff. They aren't even discussions about books, they are personal sniping, personal kudos, and, once in a while, a review relegated to the comment section. If Amazon is the model, there really isn't any reason to expect any discussion about books engendered by comments on reviews.

And why wouldn't comments on reviews take the YouTube route? If you think that the people here are, as a group, smarter or nicer than those on YouTube, I think you are fooling yourself.

(By the way, if one wants discussion about books, then perhaps the suggestion that each book should have a discussion thread attached to its works page would be the way to do that. It results in the same thing, but without attaching discussions to personal reviews).

#223 Your point about book discussions has been suggested - I let the idea drop while Tim had to deal with the Amazon situation.

As this debate has been resurrected maybe it is time to look for the old thread.

Gosh that was a while ago here's the thread I started

http://www.librarything.com/topic/71022

Ideas and support welcome.

>222 aethercowboy: It's actually been brought up and in the original thread IMDB was presented as an example.

Apparently, though, it will never, ever work. Even though it's neutral, would be on the work page, easy to find and encourage discussion about the book...

223> Can you tell me that you see zero value in being able to comment on reviews? I think you just see more danger in useless fluff and derogatory comments that outweighs the value.

I think that being able to attach a thread to a work page is a good idea and addresses the book discussion issue. But it still bothers me that there could be a factually incorrect review that goes unanswered on the page itself. Adding a factually correct review is only a partial solution, but I can see that the solution of adding comments directly to the review is distressing to some people, although I'm not sure why being able to opt-out doesn't alleviate that concern.

Can everybody just take a few deep breaths and try to return to a discussion of the issues and not motives?

Thanks for this call to sanity.

You aren't understanding. Your longing for comments on reviews is based in arguments that show that the primary concern you have is for value for you, and you alone. You (and others who want comments) want to assuage your desire to make sure your opinion about a review is front and center, so it doesn't "sink into oblivion".

The problem with focusing on motives rather than the ideas themselves is that you're often just wrong. My primary concern is not to make sure my opinions are displayed prominently--the review feature itself already offers that option. I want to read other people's comments.

And why would this benefit LT? LT gains value from having hundreds of different reviews, and no value from having a stream of comments.

I said earlier that I'd prefer to read a few reviews followed by comments rather than 100 standalone reviews. I'm not interested in getting the plot summary over and over again, for one thing.

"Can we sell this?" isn't the only concern here. Value for the site users is important too.

If you think that the people here are, as a group, smarter or nicer than those on YouTube, I think you are fooling yourself.

Maybe not nicer (no need to look beyond this thread for evidence of that), but I certainly do think LT users are smarter.

It seems a better solution for some of the problems would be to put comments on books.

Basically, for each work page, there could be a mini-forum.

I like the idea of a mini-forum, though I do think it's more complicated to attach comments to a work rather than a review because of combining issues.

Also, I think discussions that have a good foundation (e.g., a review) that they can build from naturally tend to be more successful than discussions that people start from nothing for the sake of having a discussion.

I like the boardgamegeek approach, where the reviews and the mini-forum are completely integrated....

>214 cpg:

"(1) A handful of vetted letters once in a while."

No, a handful of vetted letters on a regular basis. Just like book publishers stick (excerpts from) a handful of vetted reviews on the backs of their books. Analogy sustained.

"Hardly 'hundreds or thousands' as you claimed."

I said: "I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of comments on reviews in their 'letters' sections." I did not say that each issue of a magazine contains hundreds or thousands of comments. Do you see the difference? I've read more than one issue of one magazine.

"Every Twilight review is accompanied by a pile of comments that amount to either 'well done' or 'you are evil for posting this'."

If that's what constitutes a mess, then LT reviews are currently a mess.

"Further, the (rare) comment that goes beyond this would be much better served as a review in its own right"

I disagree that such comments are rare, and I disagree that they'd be better served as a review in their own right.

"Different standards apply to different fora and different forms of communication."

So something so offensive that it would have you hauled into court if it were said in your law office, is so benign when said on LT that you are flabbergasted that anyone would take offense? Such grossly disparate standards require justification, not mere assertion.

> 221

Why exactly is a feature that would encourage book discussion bad, or at least not good, for the site?

As we lawyers like to say, your statement that this feature "would encourage book discussion" assumes a fact not in evidence. Proponents of review comments say that it would, but, frankly, I think it's unlikely. Amazon allows for comments, yet I rarely see any real discussion there. It's mostly "I'm right, you're wrong, he's an idiot".

(P.S. Thank you for providing a perfect example of what is meant by "begging the question".)

229> Yet your assertion that comments would not lead to serious book discussion is also just an opinion. Zoe's opinion that people on this site, if not nicer, are at least smarter is just as valid.

> 227

And why would this benefit LT? LT gains value from having hundreds of different reviews, and no value from having a stream of comments.

I said earlier that I'd prefer to read a few reviews followed by comments rather than 100 standalone reviews.

How does what you would prefer equate to value to LT?

>230 jjwilson61: If this were about serious book discussion, then advocating a work-based discussion forum would be at the heart of this discussion - it wouldn't break down based on "combining."

Frankly, that CK and touchstones can move over with combining should be a pretty good indication that a "forum" would move over with relative ease. That a hard-coded link continues to work because behind-the-scenes the various individual work IDs all stay assigned to the books even after combining under the master ID should be an indicator that is a red herring.

Commenting on reviews has all sorts of downsides - concerns that have been brought up numerous times. Reviews are an income generator for the site we enjoy.

So we're willing to risk income revenue for the right to leave snippy correction comments? And think of the other comments - comments about why I flagged your review. Comments about your TOS violation. The comments one user here is very keen to leave on a review they consider over-the-line regarding Twilight. None of which will facillitate discussion.

No one thinks they'll be rude in these comments. None of them will start serious book discussion. All of them will, at best, be ignored. At worst, it will leave the impression that a group of individuals who have nothing better to do run around the site and look for reasons to nit-pick reviews. Just a handful of things like this will poison this little "glorious discussions of books."

Not to mention - once people are done reading a book, a lot of them move on to the next book. I'm not always keen to discuss the last thing I read. I'll delete my reviews if this every goes in, but for those that leave their reviews in, you're going to be spamming users with random comments until someone bites - so great...you're stuck hoping someone will answer you. Sure, the ego has been mentioned ("your review was great, tell me what you thought of...") but you know what? If I've moved on, I've moved on...you can blow smoke all you want. Not to mention, you're hoping others are watching that SAME review and dying to comment on it as well.

Where in a work-based forum discussion, everyone is welcome. If someone wants to comment on The DaVinci Code, there can be a thread for "Worst Book Ever!" and "Best Book Ever!" side-by-side and anyone can immediately join in without someone worrying about finding the ONE review to start the discussion. Not to mention, for books without reivews, work-based forums means no one even has to write a review yet to have the discussion.

231> How does what you would prefer equate to value to LT?

Because if someone would like a feature there are probably others who would like it too.

232> Commenting on reviews has all sorts of downsides - concerns that have been brought up numerous times. Reviews are an income generator for the site we enjoy.

I don't understand how comments on reviews would keep those reviews from being harvested. If it's because some people wouldn't post reviews if they might get comments, why doesn't an opt-out solve that problem?

>233 jjwilson61:.

It's because (for some reason beyond my understanding) some users would cease to be reviewers, and would also delete their reviews, if comments were allowed.

I too wonder why opt-out (or better yet, opt-in, so it's transparent to all the nay-sayers) wouldn't solve this issue.

231> How does what you would prefer equate to value to LT?

Because if someone would like a feature there are probably others who would like it too.

232> Commenting on reviews has all sorts of downsides - concerns that have been brought up numerous times. Reviews are an income generator for the site we enjoy.

I don't understand how comments on reviews would keep those reviews from being harvested. If it's because some people wouldn't post reviews if they might get comments, why doesn't an opt-out solve that problem?

Exactly.

I'll delete my reviews if this every goes in, but for those that leave their reviews in, you're going to be spamming users with random comments until someone bites - so great...you're stuck hoping someone will answer you.

You've missed my point entirely. The point is not "discussion for the sake of discussion", spamming comments in the hopes that someone will say something. The point is discussion when there's something to say--which is exactly how review comments differ from general work comments.

Also, I really don't understand your threats about deleting your reviews if other people can have comments on their reviews. What's the connection here?

And think of the other comments - comments about why I flagged your review. Comments about your TOS violation.

Personally, I'd rather have these comments on my reviews than flags without comments. If someone's going to flag, better that they give an explanation.

All of them will, at best, be ignored.

I know you love to exaggerate to prove your point, but it might help to give at least some consideration to the truth of your statements. Not one single comment would have any positive outcome? Right....

>232 stephmo: "Frankly, that CK and touchstones can move over with combining should be a pretty good indication that a "forum" would move over with relative ease."

Are you claiming that CK behaves nicely with respect to combining and separating? My experience has been that it doesn't, and I just performed an experiment to see if it's better now. It apparently isn't.

230: An opinion that is backed up by the evidence at hand (i.e. the Amazon comments). The comments sections aren't "encouraging book discussions". They are encouraging "you suck/"you're awesone" banter.

And that is useless fluff. Not book discussion. It assumes a world of unicorns and rainbows to assume that things will be different here because we are all so awesome and want to engage in deep philosophical discussions about books based on people's reviews.

Zoe's opinions regarding the relative intelligence of users of LT and YouTube, by contrast, are baseless speculation.

234: And because some people would probably modify their reviewing habits to avoid flame wars, hence the value of LT reviews (they are an unadulterated opinion of users) would be degraded for every single review.

228:

Cool. Let's have vetted comments for LT reviews. I'm sure Tim will get some staff right on that. because that's the only way it would be equivalent.

You've never told an off-color joke in an informal setting? Maybe you should get out more. And I would disagree that it would have you "hauled into court" is said at a law office. It would be inappropriate, but almost certainly doesn't rise to the level of a tort.

Of course, your wild hypersensitivity on this is exactly why comments on reviews would be useless. The reviewer in question made a somewhat crude analogy. You've gotten your panties in a twist. Of course, I'd like you to explain how "quality" could actually "punt them in the vagina" because that's the only way the line could be taken seriously.

And this is on a site in which books about all kinds of violence, sexuality, and other decidedly adult (and non-work appropriate topics) are catalogued and discussed in a decidedly adult manner. Do you not see how this is radically different from a work environment?

Yet you run screaming about like the reviewer suggested butchering women and barbecuing them for dinner. Yeah, I could see how your comments on that review would be insightful, useful and something other than "I am offended by this and you are evil for posting it". Well, probably not.

235: Also, I really don't understand your threats about deleting your reviews if other people can have comments on their reviews. What's the connection here?

Perhaps because a site which allows for comments on reviews is not a site that he wishes to participate in? One of the (many) reasons I do not bother to post reviews on Amazon is the comment feature.

Although I agree that LT users are more civil/thoughtful than YouTube and Amazon commenters, I don't think they're much different than GoodReads users. GoodReads allows comments on reviews and they are certainly abused. Mostly in the sense of "this was my favorite book ever and you will burn in hell for giving it 3 stars!" And not just teen books. That potato peel pie book provoked flame wars. One reason I'm spending much more time on LT instead.

I know you love to exaggerate to prove your point, but it might help to give at least some consideration to the truth of your statements. Not one single comment would have any positive outcome? Right....


You could not take a comment out of context as well - read my post again and try not to insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that my comment wasn't about the negative comments. And that it was explaining how those would impact your positive ones.

But it's far more fun to pretend I didn't say any of that, isn't it?

This thread is filled with people for this feature that will mis-use the feature. There's no denying this. And denying that it will harm the review system is absolute folly. To say that it will make it better when you already have individuals chomping at the bit to do public corrections is an indication that it will go very bad, very fast. After all, public corrections in comments is akin to walking into the lobby or commons at work or school and having your boss or professor berate you about some minor mistake in front of everyone and walk away. If you're saying you'd prefer that humiliation in public over a private chat (i.e. profile comment), I've got a bridge for sale real cheap.

Are you claiming that CK behaves nicely with respect to combining and separating? My experience has been that it doesn't, and I just performed an experiment to see if it's better now. It apparently isn't.

I'd love to know what work and what problemns, because I call shenanigans. The biggest "issue" with CK combining is that it literally brings over everything which is exactly what you want. You don't want it to auto-combine any CK assuming that Sally and Sally are the same and dumping one Sally over another or things that could be "close."

Separating, CK stays with one record. It has to - the information is on one record, not both.

But if you'd prefer to say that Tim & Co. are morons and couldn't put together a forum for each work that could handle combining, I'd be more than happy to quote you.

>239 StormRaven:

"Cool. Let's have vetted comments for LT reviews."

Sure. Right after we have vetted reviews.

"You've never told an off-color joke in an informal setting? Maybe you should get out more."

Right. Wasn't it Socrates who said that a life not spent telling dirty jokes is not worth living?

"Of course, your wild hypersensitivity on this is exactly why comments on reviews would be useless."

Yes, I'm wildly hypersensitive because I'm offended by a vulgar insult that you admit would be "inappropriate" for you to make to your secretary.

". . . you run screaming . . ."

I've been neither running nor screaming, but you did get the "you" part right. One out of three ain't bad.

243:

Then basically, you are now saying that comments is a bad idea because they aren't vetted? (By the way, note that reviews for LTfL are vetted. Perhapos that's why they are treated differently).

You are wildly hypersensitive because the comment in question wasn't even that vulgar. And yet you've spent post after post marking it as the reason you think comments on reviews are needed. Why? So you can tell the person who wrote it what a bad person they are? Never mind that there's already a far more effectvie tool for doing that (a profile comment that they are much more likely to read). What benefit does LT gain from giving you a place attached to the review to berate the reviewer on this topic? What would you gain over a profile comment other than the supposed public adulation you'd gain from being the first one to run into the room and shout "vulgar"?

"I've been neither running nor screaming, but you did get the "you" part right. One out of three ain't bad."

I get it now. You are unable to differentiate between the literal and the figurative. That explains a lot.

>242 stephmo: "I'd love to know what work and what problemns, because I call shenanigans."

Philosophy for Dummies and Superheroes and Philosophy. Check the helpers log.

"Separating, CK stays with one record. It has to - the information is on one record, not both."

I see. It's not a bug; it's a feature. So work A and work B's comments will all end up with work A after combination and separation. How is that a good thing?

"But if you'd prefer to say that Tim & Co. are morons"

I didn't call them morons. I said combination and separation messes up CK.

>244 StormRaven:

"Then basically, you are now saying that comments is a bad idea because they aren't vetted?"

No. I'm saying that vetted reviews on book jackets are to vetted comments in literary magazines as vetted reviews on LT are to vetted comments on LT.

"By the way, note that reviews for LTfL are vetted. Perhapos that's why they are treated differently"

I can't see why unvetted reviews would be less in need of negative feedback than vetted ones.

"You are wildly hypersensitive because the comment in question wasn't even that vulgar."

If it's not vulgar, why do you think it would be "inappropriate" for you to say it to your secretary?

"And yet you've spent post after post marking it as the reason you think comments on reviews are needed."

I've never said that this review is evidence that comments on reviews are needed. I've said that it is evidence that LT reviews are in such a state that nothing likely to arise in comments would be objectively worse. Check the transcript.

246: If you can't get the difference between conversation in and out of work, then I can't help you. (Note also that I didn't say it wasn't vulgar, I said it wasn't that vulgar). Its a peccadillo rather than even a venial sin.

The difference is that comments are likely to engender flame wars in a way that reviews themselves will not. And comments won't add anything of any real value (a point you seem to concede in your last post). So why should it be added?

I've seen justifications that range from "I want to say that I think this review is mistaken" to "I want to nit-pick errors" to "I want to say what a good job the reviewer did" and so on. None of these need comments to be added, the only thing comments does is make them public and prominent. Do you truly think that's desirable?

The only justification that makes any sense is to "create discussion about books". But comments on reviews doesn't do that. Comment on reviews creates discussion about reviews. On Amazon the bulk of comments boil down to "your review sucks"/"your review is awesome". Why would one think comments here would be any different?

>247 StormRaven:

"comments won't add anything of any real value (a point you seem to concede in your last post)"

Which sentence did you think conceded that?

This thread was so dead and now it is so volatile.

Let me see where we are. And just to set the record straight, Stormraven and I have been seeing each others post for about a year and think a like on some things and not on others, and in other threads he is often called out for his opinions about a book, just as I am. But those are in threads, not one shots at a review.

Now Zoe, has 40 reviews, so how is that going for you, getting comments at all? Do your reviews differ in any way from others who have reviews of those books? Do you feel the need to start a discussion on any of those books you have reviewed?

Cpg, well you have one review, so why are you in this thread. I keep hitting highlights and can't really tell.

Comments on reviews is like picking the fly-shit out of the pepper to my mind. That was vulgar but in no way as vulgar as the V----a quote that has been used here. If I was a woman I would be offended I think. Did a woman write that originally?

My reviews, I hope, have been thoughtful critiques, telling the reader what I think is right, what I think is wrong, not giving too much away, and a recommendation whether to read it or not.

There however is no format for reviews. You can write a great one word review and post it. BAD, GREAT, FUN, WASTE.

Tells you a lot.

I will stand by my comment that a comment on a review, is cowardice. You are a coward with your time and mine as the reviewer. I spent twenty minutes to write a review, an hour. I read the book, the whole book. What do you the commenter do? You read my review, well thank you. But you decided that somewhere along the line, one comma is out of place and you hit me with it. Or you decide to attack me for my opinion. Write your own opinions. You are entitled to them. I don't rule the world. If I did and you didn't like my reviews, I would take your books away from you and burn them... (Sarcasm-but a great picture of Farenheit 451 and Pleasantville and Nazi's)

If you want a discussion about a book, start a thread. I've done it. You can too. It is just that our several hundred thousand membership is not interested. We have how many millions of books and how many reviews? Cpg has 1.

There is a small minority that wants to review books. I think there is a much smaller minority, or a minority of this minority that would like to see comments. So far i think if you look at the actual names of people who are pro in this thread, and the number against, you would find that their are more against.

The last thing that I have now seen, and again ties to pepper and fly-shit picking is all this slicing and dicing. I even looked at some of my sliced and diced posts and it sure makes it seem out of context. Perhaps I should run for the senate and could hire some of the people in this thread to be my publicity hacks...

No comments on reviews. Write your own. Start your own discussion threads on a book. This last I would think would be good, and that could be something that the work page has. Link to the works discussion thread.

Maude Lebowski: Does the female form make you uncomfortable, Mr. Lebowski?

The Dude: Uh, is that what this is a picture of?

Maude Lebowski: In a sense, yes. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.

The Dude: Oh yeah?

Maude Lebowski: Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.

The Dude: Johnson? »

>249 DWWilkin:

"Cpg, well you have one review, so why are you in this thread."

Because I think the arguments against review comments are weak.

"You are a coward with your time and mine as the reviewer."

I don't think "coward" means what you think it means.

> 241

Good heavens. I went and looked at the GoodReads comments on Guernsey Potato Peel book. People actually thought a reviewer shouldn't say negative things about the book because the author is dead! Astounding.

Honest to god, I wasn't as dead set against review comments as some others (I thought an "opt-in" would be okay), but that thread changed my mind. I'd hate to see LT degenerate to that level.

"I don't think "coward" means what you think it means."

Man up and write some reviews. Put your money where your mouth is.

I will propose the following comments-on-review system:

(1) You must opt-in before people are allowed to comment on your reviews.

(2) You may opt-out at any time, and all previous comments are hidden (but still squirreled away somewhere in case you change your mind).

(3) An optional setting after opting in is "screened comments," in which (a) anybody, (b) new accounts, (c) not your friends, (d) etc. must wait for you to approve their comments before they appear.

(4) The owner of the review, the poster of the comment, and LT staff have the ability to delete comments.

(5) Comments may be flagged for a violation of terms of service, just like in talk.

...

I suppose it's an argument between two sides:

One side sees LT as a loosely connected, cross-referenced series of annotated book containers, while the other side sees LT more as a pool of books (sure, there's a third side that sees every single half-baked idea they have as a wonderful panacea they'd love to shove down your throats, but I digress...).

Side one says: "Why can't I pee in my own container?" to which side two says, "because it's part of OUR pool."

>252 lilithcat:, I just had a peek over there too and I agree with you.

edited to add:
I didn't just look at The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society. I also gawked at the (300!) comments on a review of Twilight.

>253 StormRaven: "Man up and write some reviews. Put your money where your mouth is."

That's a non sequitur. Writing a review is no more of a requirement for commenting on a review than writing a book is a requirement for reviewing a book.

256: Exactly what do you bring to the table here? What would adding comments to reviews add? Thus far not one argument has been made with any supporting evidence that comments would provide anything other than a big list of "you suck/you're great" responses.

Since you have nothing at stake here (i.e. you don't bother to participate in the review process), why exactly should anyone pay any attention to your views?

read my post again and try not to insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that my comment wasn't about the negative comments.

When you start a new paragraph referring to "these comments", it's not clear that you mean only the negative ones, especially given your overall attitude toward comments.

This thread is filled with people for this feature that will mis-use the feature. There's no denying this.

Well, it depends what you mean by mis-use. If someone posts a comment on one of my reviews pointing out that I got a fact wrong, that seems perfectly legitimate to me. Then the correct information is where it needs to be, and I don't have to rewrite my review.

The only justification that makes any sense is to "create discussion about books". But comments on reviews doesn't do that. Comment on reviews creates discussion about reviews. On Amazon the bulk of comments boil down to "your review sucks"/"your review is awesome". Why would one think comments here would be any different?

Beyond minor grammar nit-picking, I think comments about reviews will tend to include references to the book as well. Yes, the discussion will be about people's opinions of the book--what book discussion isn't?

Looking at places where people talk on LT--Talk, and blog comments, and profile comments--I've gotten the impression that LT users tend to operate at a higher level than your average internet user. But then, I've also read worthwhile comments on Amazon.

Now Zoe, has 40 reviews, so how is that going for you, getting comments at all? ...Do you feel the need to start a discussion on any of those books you have reviewed?

I think this comes to the crux of the matter. I love discussing books with people on LT, but that discussion doesn't come from the Work page. I post my reviews both in the Reviews field (hence, on the Work page) and in my various challenge threads. Despite posting the exact same thing in various places, it's invariably only the challenge threads that lead to discussions about the books--and yes, I have had plenty of interesting discussions there that started with my review of a book. These discussions often involve multiple people. And while they may not be long, I find them very much worthwhile.

On the other hand, no one has ever sent me a profile comment about one of my reviews or started a new Talk thread just to talk about what I said. The way reviews are presented on the Work pages just doesn't encourage any sort of interaction. And yet, as I've seen in the challenge threads, it's not because people aren't interested in discussing the ideas raised in reviews.

I will stand by my comment that a comment on a review, is cowardice.

I've been trying to avoid responding to the many remarks about cowardice here, but I think it needs to be said: don't you think it's at least as cowardly to agree to present your opinion publicly only on the condition that it's safe from public disagreement? Saying "I'm putting my review out here, and I'm willing to hear what you think, good or bad" seems like the less cowardly position from my perspective.

Good heavens. I went and looked at the GoodReads comments on Guernsey Potato Peel book. People actually thought a reviewer shouldn't say negative things about the book because the author is dead! Astounding.

How did you find these comments? I'm not very skilled at finding my way around GR.

Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing a discussion about whether dead authors should be safe from criticism. I know where I stand on the issue, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious to see what justifications are given for the opposite position.

I will propose the following comments-on-review system:

(1) You must opt-in before people are allowed to comment on your reviews.

(2) You may opt-out at any time, and all previous comments are hidden (but still squirreled away somewhere in case you change your mind).

(3) An optional setting after opting in is "screened comments," in which (a) anybody, (b) new accounts, (c) not your friends, (d) etc. must wait for you to approve their comments before they appear.

(4) The owner of the review, the poster of the comment, and LT staff have the ability to delete comments.

(5) Comments may be flagged for a violation of terms of service, just like in talk.

I'm not sure (3) adds enough value to be worth the complication and programming time.

Personally, I'd rather emend (4) to "The poster of the comment and LT staff have the ability to delete comments." I don't particularly like the idea of one user controlling another's words, especially if the goal is to promote thoughtful discussion. I'm not going to spend half an hour writing a thoughtful response of someone else can just get rid of it on a whim.

However, I'd also emend (5) so that comments with enough flags were actually removed, not just hidden. I think this would better address the potential flame-war issue, and it would also be nicer for the author of a review if abusive comments weren't left hanging around.

>257 StormRaven: "Exactly what do you bring to the table here?"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you asking about my credentials? I'll show you my helper badges if you show me yours.

"Is it that important for you to be able to piss on other people's work?"

A comment on a review is no more "pissing" on the review than a review of a book is "pissing" on the book.

Thus far not one argument has been made with any supporting evidence that comments would provide anything other than a big list of suck/great responses.

I think the closest analogy on LT itself is the blog. Comments are allowed, and they don't tend to be of the suck/great variety.

When people comment on reviews in challenge threads, too, they often have more content. They're certainly overwhelmingly friendly and positive.

(The Revised and Extended) 257>

"Since you have nothing at stake here (i.e. you don't bother to participate in the review process), why exactly should anyone pay any attention to your views?"

Since you don't bother to participate in the book-writing process, why exactly should anyone pay any attention to your book reviews?

Ahh, this grows tiresome. I think this will be my last substantive contribution. Perhaps I should go look at that other thread on work page linked discussions. That seemed somewhat more interesting and less controversial.

I certainly hear the fact that there are a number of people who would be totally put off by the prospect of comments appearing on their reviews. I also hear a great sense of doom, as if there is a great reservoir of venom out there held back only by the cumbersomeness of replying on the reviewer's profile rather than on the review itself. I don't know. Either my tolerance for heated and sometimes pointless discussion is higher than others' or I'm not looking in the right places for all of these raging flame wars.

And spurred by this thread I have looked a bit. I grant that YouTube comments are a wasteland. But that site seems to have developed its own special culture of pointless one-liners that I don't see duplicated elsewhere. I poked around Amazon a bit. Wading through all of the Twilight review comments would be impossible, but I did look at the comments on the top three reviews displayed on the main page. I found nothing objectionable and if I actually cared a whit about Twilight some of it might have been interesting. I also looked at the reviews of a few books on Israel/Palestine, always a subject to cause argument. There were some heated exchanges, but little that struck me as personal attacks. Sometimes the review writers participated sometimes not. The discussions were not terribly enlightening, and certainly no one convinced anyone else, but you do come away with a sense of the terms of the debate and points that are frequently raised. And it might be interesting to look at the books originally reviewed to see if these points are addressed. I also tried to follow up kristenn's reference in message 241: That potato peel pie book provoked flame wars {on GoodReads}. I assume kristenn was referring to The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peal Society. There are too many reviews to check them all, but I did notice a negative review with a large number of comments. There were some people upset with what they felt was the reviewer's dismissive tone. The reviewer responded amicably and I would hardly characterize the whole exchange as a "flame war" (Again, kristenn may not have been referring to this review). These exchanges may not be up to lilithcat's standards of literary excellence (or my own), but clearly the people participating feel they are getting something out of them.

Perhaps I looked in the wrong places, but I have a hard time understanding where these predictions of disaster should LT allow review comments are coming from. But granting that there many some people who will not want to deal with even the possibility of negative or vapid comments, what is the objection to an opt-in structure for those who do not mind? (I stand by my endorsement of opt-out above, but I can be flexible on practicalities.)

I would also like to respond to the idea that there can be no good reason to comment publicly on a review. I can think of several.
•The review struck a chord with me and I would like to share my thoughts not only with the reviewer but with other readers of the review.
•I have a question regarding something the reviewer said. Perhaps other people have the same question. Perhaps someone other than the reviewer can answer the question.
•I have a suggestion regarding some points raised by the reviewer and I would like to share it with a wider audience.
•I have further reading suggestion based not so much on the book under review, but on points raised by the reviewer. I would like to share them with anyone else who might read the review e.g, "If you didn't like this book for those reasons, perhaps you would like..." or "If you were frustrated that this book didn't have the information you were looking for you might try..."
•And yes, perhaps because there is something I believe to be mistaken in the review. But pointing out errors need not be an attack.

Do I expect review comments to be the great answer to spurring substantive discussion on LT? No. Do I expect they would be dominated by vitriolic personal attacks? Also No. I expect they would be generally pedestrian, occasionally interesting and occasionally nasty. I am willing to put up with the nastiness for the sake of the interesting. I have heard no arguments for the harm of allowing comments for reviewers who would welcome them.

>262 eromsted: Great post, eromsted.

I've been reading this discussion with interest.

> 252 and 255, I just had a peek as well, and I agree.

> 260

I think the closest analogy on LT itself is the blog. Comments are allowed, and they don't tend to be of the suck/great variety.

True. It is also true that the owner of the blog can delete comments if he so chooses. Which may have something to do with the quality of the comments.

> 262 "The discusions were not terribly enlightening, and certainly no one convinced anyone else ...." I think you've summed up why there isn't a need for comments.

I think the closest analogy on LT itself is the blog. Comments are allowed, and they don't tend to be of the suck/great variety.

True. It is also true that the owner of the blog can delete comments if he so chooses. Which may have something to do with the quality of the comments.

If he ever appears in this discussion, we'll have to ask.

I'm still not convinced that allowing the reviewer to delete comments would improve the comment quality, though. While it might get rid of the negative comments (which could also be accomplished by community policing), I think it comes at too great a cost--why put my time into writing a thoughtful comment of a stranger's review if they could delete it on a whim?

"The discusions were not terribly enlightening, and certainly no one convinced anyone else ...." I think you've summed up why there isn't a need for comments.

I think it's worth listening to opposing viewpoints even if you don't ultimately change your mind.

Talk isn't generally "terribly enlightening" either, but I still think it's valuable.

>268 _Zoe_: But Talk has its place.

Once I've read a book I've made up my mind about it, I might tweak a review later for grammar or coherence, but someone commenting 'this is the best book ever written' when I hate it or vice versa, frankly isn't going to change my mind or engage me in a debate. If I want to discuss a book I'll go and find, or start, a discussion about it.

To quote from one of the comments on the GoodReads Guernsey thread "How you review something, and what you put into that review are choices personal to you." ("Kirsty" from GoodReads)

And that just about sums it up for me.

My opinion of a book is just my opinion - I might read your review of a book and be incensed by it - but what gives me the right to comment and tell you I disagree? If I haven't reviewed the book I can write my own review. Then anyone checking out the book reviews can make up their own mind. Simple.

I don't particularly like the idea of one user controlling another's words, especially if the goal is to promote thoughtful discussion. I'm not going to spend half an hour writing a thoughtful response of someone else can just get rid of it on a whim.

Heh. But you're allowed to say whatever you want to their review in your opt-out system that allows you to drive-by and dump on their thoughtful review just because you feel like it? Talk about giving power to the thoughtless.

And all because starting your own discussion on a discussion where every book had its own dedicated forums would be, what, too hard? You know a dedicated forum where one could start a thread entitled, "About Zoe's Awesome Review of this book!" or how about all of these discussions that don't always fit well with reviews but would make an awesome-looking work forum:

- Who was your favorite character?
- What did everyone think of the film adaptation?
- Dream film casting for this book?
- News on the sequel!!!
- Publisher put up dedicated blogs for all the main characters - links inside
- Recommendation on translations?
- Did anyone read the retelling - want to compare and contrast?
- Anyone own the Hyperion Special Edition - is it worth the $150?
- Cryptogram corner - list all your finds here
- Who tried and cooked the recipes in the book?

But according to what I keep getting told - this type of forum would be worthless and only comments on reviews could generate any decent discussion. Really? That only finding what someone else started in a review is the only way to get discussion going?

You can't even organize it - or preserve old discussion that way. It's even implied in the whole "I'd rather read discussions than 100 reviews" that you hope to have fewer reviews! Which is the only way you'd find these old discussions...

I can't even imagine how annoyed I'd be as a reviewer seeing that I was the 3rd or 4th or 20th try for a question like, "who was your favorite character?" just to get this "discussion" started. Or the threads from people going, "I wanted to discuss this, but I can't leave comments on reviews, why not?" Ugh...

Heh. But you're allowed to say whatever you want to their review in your opt-out system that allows you to drive-by and dump on their thoughtful review just because you feel like it? Talk about giving power to the thoughtless.

There's a difference between the freedom to express your view and the freedom to suppress someone else's view. Someone "dumping on my thoughtful review", especially someone "thoughtless", doesn't detract from me in any way. The reader can easily make up their own mind. Someone literally deleting my words is a different matter altogether.

And all because starting your own discussion on a discussion where every book had its own dedicated forums would be, what, too hard? You know a dedicated forum where one could start a thread entitled, "About Zoe's Awesome Review of this book!"

It seems like you just don't have a good understanding of how ideas and information are effectively exchanged in this sort of setting. Connectivity is key. There's an overwhelming amount of information out there, and it doesn't help to keep every piece isolated. If I'm willing to let people talk about my review, why should the discussion be separated from the review itself? That just doesn't make sense. The discussion is meaningless without the review, and the people who are reading the review won't notice the discussion if it's somewhere else.

I can't even imagine how annoyed I'd be as a reviewer seeing that I was the 3rd or 4th or 20th try for a question like, "who was your favorite character?" just to get this "discussion" started.

You seem fixated on this idea of discussing just for the sake of it, rather than discussing in context when there's something to say. I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway, the kind of discussions that you're proposing for the Amazing Work Forum seem like they could be handled just as well by properly-functioning touchstones that distinguished between discussions and mentions.

It's even implied in the whole "I'd rather read discussions than 100 reviews" that you hope to have fewer reviews!

No, it's not. If I read the three best reviews by thumbs, I'm more likely to read good ones if there are 100 reviews than if there are only three.

#258: _Zoe_ "no one has ever sent me a profile comment about one of my reviews"

Some (many?) of us are cautious about imposing by posting possibly unwelcome profile comments. Your profile gives no indication that comments about your reviews would be acceptable.

I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse.

Now you're just being rude.

Let me ask this point blank: Do you honestly think that you're so important that the mere presence of a comment from you on a review will make someone want to be in a discussion?

Because this is what you imply when you seem to believe that everyone "opted-in" will willingly participate in every discussion on reviews. That while individuals are publicly called out for perceived factual errors (as already promised), and others are chastised with every flag (as also promised), that the bright light of the "let me tell you why your review as worthy of comment and let us discuss this" will just always lead to discussion about books?

And this:

Connectivity is key.

Funny - it was about a place to have book discussion before. But if it is now all about connectivity with that person who has written the perfect review that you must comment on, now I want to know just what is wrong with a profile comment? Because if you're looking to connect, why not discuss it on their profile?

Or are you now saying that you're going to be the person that will bring everyone to the magic review?

To quote Judge Judy - don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I'm not being obtuse. I believe I understand perfectly well. It's those that want to publicly humiliate with corrections, tell people that vagina made them upset in a review, that they violated the TOS and that they simply can't believe they did something else terrible in a review. Oh - and the occasional discussion. All of which can be done via profile comments today - just not with the ability to have individuals publicly rally around you to let you know that you were right to let that person know that they'd done the wrong thing in their review.

But, hey, what do I know, I believed you when you kept saying this was about book discussion.

Some (many?) of us are cautious about imposing by posting possibly unwelcome profile comments. Your profile gives no indication that comments about your reviews would be acceptable.

Thanks for pointing that out. It never occurred to me that people would think comments were unacceptable; I figured if I didn't want comments, I could turn them off.

I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse.

Now you're just being rude.

No, I'd really like to know. I find it surprising that after I've explained my position to you at least ten times, you seem to have absolutely no understanding of it. I'm happy to keep trying if you're actually interested, but given the sarcastic tone of a lot of your responses, I hope you can forgive me for suspecting that you might be misunderstanding on purpose.

Let me ask this point blank: Do you honestly think that you're so important that the mere presence of a comment from you on a review will make someone want to be in a discussion?

Of course not.

Because this is what you imply when you seem to believe that everyone "opted-in" will willingly participate in every discussion on reviews.

Again, of course not. Does everyone who uses Talk participate in every discussion? No. Does it follow that Talk is a failure? No.

Connectivity is key.

Funny - it was about a place to have book discussion before.

I don't think these two points are contradictory. Unnoticed discussions existing in isolation aren't particularly effective. It's better to build the discussions off of something that people are already looking at. If you're going to use a book review as the basis of a discussion, it's pretty logical to connect the review and the discussion.

I'm talking about connecting the various parts of the site, not about connecting individuals.

now I want to know just what is wrong with a profile comment?

Surely I've answered this a million times before? Profile comments are awkward, restricted to two participants, and not connected to the review in a way that would lead someone else reading the review to notice them.

Or are you now saying that you're going to be the person that will bring everyone to the magic review?

Um, no.

I'm not being obtuse. I believe I understand perfectly well.

This is the problem. You insist that you understand my position even when I tell you repeatedly that you don't.

It's those that want to publicly humiliate with corrections, tell people that vagina made them upset in a review, that they violated the TOS and that they simply can't believe they did something else terrible in a review.

And then we come back to ignoring everything I've actually said and focusing on my evil ulterior motives. Sigh.

This message has been deleted by its author.

Oh, now I'm curious! ;)

Zoe, I listen to you, I just don't buy anything you're saying. You seem to think that if you quote selectively and respond selectively and sort of say what was kind of in theme, that you'll always be saying what you started with at the beginning.

And then we come back to ignoring everything I've actually said and focusing on my evil ulterior motives. Sigh.

Oh, please. You know what the problem is? It's everything you and your group won't give up in order to get to your "connections" or "book discussion" or whatever you want to call it next. It's the features you won't give up that are contrary to connections and book discussion that make all of this very suspect.

If this is about connections and goodwill and building up the site and making reviews a fully interactive experience that brings books and talk and people together rather than leaving reviews on books as a thing that you abandon to maybe see thumbed up once in a while - and whatever else you want to throw into your song and dance, I'd buy it if you weren't asking for a system that didn't have tight controls in place.

After all, if this is really about the site, why is it so focused on an individual review?

If it is about build the discussions off of something that people are already looking at then how does one not get overwhelmed at the 1300 reviews of Twilight? The most-thumbed one of which is rather negative and won't lead to fruitful discussion if you're a fan?

You call it sarcasm - I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking you questions you constantly dodge and seem to think that if you answer about 1/8 of it while squinting that you've successfully overcome the objection.

So, you really, honestly believe that having to click through all the Twilight reviews searching for one with a discussion, or clicking through them to get to the one discussion appended to it - would lead to a greater connection and interactivity on the site?

Even though you want to also allow the following to appear:
- Corrections of factual errors (which, by the by, will remain long after anything is corrected)
- People's missives on why saying "punted in the vagina" was inappropriate
- Individuals leaving notes about how your review was dumb because you've read one of the greatest books of all time and rated it 1 star

BUT - and this is the part you constantly dismiss as Unnoticed discussions existing in isolation aren't particularly effective. A from right under a Twilight - attached to the work - in a single click - would reveal all sorts of active discussions and a way to start a new discussion and folks to discuss that very book, right on the book page - is crap?

Really, I'm the one deliberately misunderstanding? When that is just like your precious and awesome boardgamegeek boards - who by, the by, don't comment on reviews anywhere near as much as they prefer to start their own discussions! IMDb.com has the same setup and you were shown examples of that before...you constantly pretend that that will somehow be this disembodied thing that will be so hard for anyone to find.

What I find mind-boggling is that you want this "connection" or "book discussion" or whatever it might be - but at any cost. There's absolutely zero compromise.

Heck, I might even accept comments in an opt-in and in a world where I had complete control to approve the comments on my reviews before they were published. And one where Tim would tell people that nit-picky junk like calling out factual errors, passing along LT "policy" on flags (should be employees only), saying why they didn't like your phrasing or even saying, "your review was bad" were not the intent of review comments.

But the frustrating part is that you can't consider compromise and you won't consider the other side. You want what you want and the risk doesn't matter.

Look what happens when I go to work. I come back and there are 60 more comments on this thread!

Here are my thoughts:
>223 StormRaven:

Amazon comments (which seem to be the baseline people are using to determine what comments here would be like) are by and large useless fluff.

Why must comments be worthwhile, useful, or “heavy”? That’s not a requirement for talk or a review nor should it be a requirement for review comments.

By the way, if one wants discussion about books, then perhaps the suggestion that each book should have a discussion thread attached to its works page would be the way to do that.

I would be very much in favor of that. In addition, I would like comments on reviews.

>231 lilithcat:

How does what you would prefer equate to value to LT?

Because Zoe is not alone. I’d be willing to bet there are others who also would like to see comments on reviews but will not speak up here because this entire thread is so intimidating.

>232 stephmo:

So we're willing to risk income revenue for the right to leave snippy correction comments?

I don’t see why the reviews can’t be sold without the attached comments.

I'll delete my reviews if this every goes in

I don’t see why a threat needs to be made if review comments are opt-in and you never have to even see them unless you choose to do so.

>234 aethercowboy:

It's because (for some reason beyond my understanding) some users would cease to be reviewers, and would also delete their reviews, if comments were allowed.

So who does that harm? Other users would create additional reviews.

>235 _Zoe_:

Personally, I'd rather have these comments on my reviews than flags without comments. If someone's going to flag, better that they give an explanation.

I agree.

>238 StormRaven:

And because some people would probably modify their reviewing habits to avoid flame wars,

That’s not necessary because comments on reviews can be turned off. They’re optional.

>258 _Zoe_:

Despite posting the exact same thing in various places, it's invariably only the challenge threads that lead to discussions about the books--

I’ve had the same experience. The difference is that, with comments allowed in the reviews, I’d have the conversation open to more people. Relatively few people follow my challenge threads. More people read my reviews on the reviews page.

>260 _Zoe_:

When people comment on reviews in challenge threads, too, they often have more content. They're certainly overwhelmingly friendly and positive.

This has been my experience as well.

>262 eromsted:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

>273 stephmo:

Because if you're looking to connect, why not discuss it on their profile

Because there are only two people involved in that conversation.

*Stops to take a breath*

Zoe, I listen to you, I just don't buy anything you're saying.

Right. So you're listening, but not actually understanding. I'm not sure how we can get any farther if you're not even willing to accept that I'm speaking in good faith.

You seem to think that if you quote selectively and respond selectively and sort of say what was kind of in theme, that you'll always be saying what you started with at the beginning.

Actually, I have no interest in "always saying what I started with at the beginning". I'm perfectly happy to make modifications to my position. This is the compromise that you speak so highly of.

Oh, please. You know what the problem is? It's everything you and your group won't give up in order to get to your "connections" or "book discussion" or whatever you want to call it next. It's the features you won't give up that are contrary to connections and book discussion that make all of this very suspect.

This is just an introduction to your specific points, which I'll address individually later on (e.g., the features that I "won't give up"). Failure to respond to every individual sentence doesn't mean I'm not trying to address all of your arguments.

If this is about connections and goodwill and building up the site and making reviews a fully interactive experience that brings books and talk and people together rather than leaving reviews on books as a thing that you abandon to maybe see thumbed up once in a while - and whatever else you want to throw into your song and dance, I'd buy it if you weren't asking for a system that didn't have tight controls in place.

Again, I'm talking about connecting the different parts of the site, not about connecting people. I don't think I actually said this is about goodwill. There are a lot less controversial ways to spread goodwill (maybe each review and occurrence of a user name should come with a button called "spread good karma to this user"?).

To me, fostering discussion and imposing "tight controls" are about as contradictory as you can get.

After all, if this is really about the site, why is it so focused on an individual review?

Reading reviews is one of the most obvious things to do on the site. If you want to encourage discussion, one of the easiest ways is to integrate it with what people are already doing.

If it is about build the discussions off of something that people are already looking at then how does one not get overwhelmed at the 1300 reviews of Twilight? The most-thumbed one of which is rather negative and won't lead to fruitful discussion if you're a fan?

You call it sarcasm - I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking you questions you constantly dodge and seem to think that if you answer about 1/8 of it while squinting that you've successfully overcome the objection.

So, you really, honestly believe that having to click through all the Twilight reviews searching for one with a discussion, or clicking through them to get to the one discussion appended to it - would lead to a greater connection and interactivity on the site?

The problem is, you raise the same questions again and again while ignoring the answers. It's not that I deliberately ignore your points, it's that I get tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I do try to address any new or different points that you make.

So, I said earlier that sorting reviews by number of comments would get around the supposed overwhelming difficulty of finding the comments among all the Twilight reviews.

I don't see any problem with the fact that the most-thumbed review is negative. Fans can talk to non-fans; there might even be more interesting things said there than in a conversation where everyone agreed about everything.

As for the general fact that there are an overwhelming number of Twilight reviews that could make it difficult for people to find ones they agree with (assuming this is a desirable thing), I don't see why this is more of a problem in the context of this feature suggestion than it is just in general. I don't even think it is a general problem, though--based on the number of thumbs on Twilight reviews, there's no overwhelming barrier to reading and interacting with them.

Even though you want to also allow the following to appear:
- Corrections of factual errors (which, by the by, will remain long after anything is corrected)
- People's missives on why saying "punted in the vagina" was inappropriate
- Individuals leaving notes about how your review was dumb because you've read one of the greatest books of all time and rated it 1 star

It's true, these don't seem like the end of the world to me. In fact, I suspect that the person who wrote the "punted in the vagina" review may have been looking to get a rise out of people, and would be happy to see that he had succeeded.

I'd certainly rather be faced with the trauma of a comment like "This review is dumb!" than an instruction to say only positive things or the knowledge that my words could be deleted at the whim of the reviewer. There comes a point when, in trying to stifle anything potentially controversial, you end up stifling any talk at all.

BUT - and this is the part you constantly dismiss as Unnoticed discussions existing in isolation aren't particularly effective. A from right under a Twilight - attached to the work - in a single click - would reveal all sorts of active discussions and a way to start a new discussion and folks to discuss that very book, right on the book page - is crap?

No, I'm pretty sure you added the "crap" part. I'm definitely in favour of expanded touchstones (mention/discussion, maybe even with a third kind in the middle for "brief discussion"). I think that existing discussions should be better connected to the work page and that new discussions should be facilitated in context.

Really, I'm the one deliberately misunderstanding? When that is just like your precious and awesome boardgamegeek boards - who by, the by, don't comment on reviews anywhere near as much as they prefer to start their own discussions! IMDb.com has the same setup and you were shown examples of that before...you constantly pretend that that will somehow be this disembodied thing that will be so hard for anyone to find.

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There's no competition between writing reviews and writing comments.

The fact that people still start threads despite the ability to comment should assure you that comments won't mean the end of reviews.

And there are plenty of comments too. On the six reviews I've written, there are 5, 9, 11, 13, 26, and 97 comments.

It's true, I don't use IMDb so references to that site are less meaningful to me. They have the same setup as BGG?

What I find mind-boggling is that you want this "connection" or "book discussion" or whatever it might be - but at any cost. There's absolutely zero compromise.

What do you think opt-in/opt-out is? I'd be perfectly happy to have comments enabled on all reviews.

Heck, I might even accept comments in an opt-in and in a world where I had complete control to approve the comments on my reviews before they were published. And one where Tim would tell people that nit-picky junk like calling out factual errors, passing along LT "policy" on flags (should be employees only), saying why they didn't like your phrasing or even saying, "your review was bad" were not the intent of review comments.

You would have complete control to prevent comments on your reviews. I think asking for complete control over what other people say is a bit much, though it would certainly help fulfill the predictions about how all comments are inane. Why would I put time into writing something that might just disappear?

Likewise, I think a guideline like "Positive comments only--No X, Y, or Z" would just prevent anything meaningful from being said. Tim is always very careful about avoiding judgment calls and slippery slopes in site guidelines. Where would you draw the line between saying "This review is bad" and writing a thoughtful response about why you disagree? Or should thoughtful responses about why you disagree also be forbidden?

Disallowing discussion about flags seems like a straightforward enough judgment, though pretty silly. If this is really the critical point, sure, I'll say that no flag discussion is allowed. But why is it better to flag without an explanation?

As for factual errors, I'd hope that people would point out factual errors in my reviews.

But the frustrating part is that you can't consider compromise and you won't consider the other side. You want what you want and the risk doesn't matter.

Again, you haven't addressed the much-repeated point that the opt-out/opt-in is entirely in consideration of the other side. People who don't want comments don't have to have them. Their reviews will be exactly as they are now. How much more compromise can you get?

>277 stephmo:
stephmo, you were writing to Zoe but you tend to associate her with everyone else who thinks that comments on reviews could be a positive addition to LT, so I'll take the liberty of responding. (I also note that Zoe beat me to the punch for a response but we say somewhat different things. I hope this doesn't feel like we are ganging up on you.)

I'd buy it if you weren't asking for a system that didn't have tight controls in place.
It is true that I tend to favor a more open system, but I think that on several occasions I and others (including Zoe) have considered various systems like opt-in, reviewer control of comments, a more powerful flag system etc. (see for instance messages 254 and 258).

After all, if this is really about the site, why is it so focused on an individual review?
I'm note certain I understand what you mean, but there are over 900,000 reviews on LT. I think some of them are probably worthy of discussion.

If it is about build the discussions off of something that people are already looking at then how does one not get overwhelmed at the 1300 reviews of Twilight? The most-thumbed one of which is rather negative and won't lead to fruitful discussion if you're a fan?
I agree that it would be difficult to have a discussion of certain books, like the latest teen fad or the latest partisan political diatribe. But there are over 9 million works on LT. Should a feature be rejected for all of them because of problems with a small handful. And, as I said above, I've been looking at some Twilight comment threads on Amazon and on GoodReads and I don't really see the problem. In fact, the existence of all the comments seems to me to be evidence that people find the comments useful, whatever you or I might think of their value. Finally, many (though not all) of the longer threads are long precisely because the original reviewers take part in responding to the comments, and they don't sound to me like they are overly burdened by the effort.

Even though you want to also allow the following to appear:
(Examples of bad behavior clipped to save space. We're all familiar with them.)
I admit that negative comments are possible, I simply don't see them as being as harmful as you do. I "allow" them in the sense that I am generally wary of rules that restrict speech out of fear for bad behavior and because I'm not sure how to prohibit them without prohibiting most everything else. And I think that's a bad trade. As I said above I am open suggestions here, although I think restrictions have real downsides. I also object to the constant implication that comments are only about being negative (see 262 above).

I'm not quoting the next section for sake of space, but I think you were saying that a dedicated discussion thread or group would be better and that that suggestion is being rejected.

I simply consider the two ideas (review comments & dedicated work discussions) to be different. Both have merit. The complaint is against the current system of collected touchstone links that I think many people see as awkward.

Heck, I might even accept comments in an opt-in and in a world where I had complete control to approve the comments on my reviews before they were published. And one where Tim would tell people that nit-picky junk like calling out factual errors, passing along LT "policy" on flags (should be employees only), saying why they didn't like your phrasing or even saying, "your review was bad" were not the intent of review comments.
Is this just for your own participation or are these a minimum standard for anyone to opt-in to review comments. If the latter, why should everyone be bound by your comfort level?

I actually hear a great deal of room for compromise. I'm game if people are willing to discuss any of the actual proposals for how a comments system would work.

{edited for two minor errors}

"Well, it depends what you mean by mis-use. If someone posts a comment on one of my reviews pointing out that I got a fact wrong, that seems perfectly legitimate to me. Then the correct information is where it needs to be, and I don't have to rewrite my review."

Except that there already exists a better method for bringing factual errors to your attention - profile comments. These are much more likely for you to actually see to boot. Other than the person doing the correcting getting public acknowledgement, exactly what does comments on reviews add here?

"Looking at places where people talk on LT--Talk, and blog comments, and profile comments--I've gotten the impression that LT users tend to operate at a higher level than your average internet user. But then, I've also read worthwhile comments on Amazon."

Worthwhile comments on Amazon are, in my experience, few and far between. And not worth wading through the chaff to find. I still find your belief that users here are smarter and nicer than those elsewhere to be unsupported. LT has 850,000 users, even if many of them do not participate. Reduce that to a tiny fraction (say, 2-3%) and you still have tohousands of users. Many of them will be smart, thoughtful, and considerate. Many others will lack one, two, or three of those attributes, just like everywhere else on the internet. I've seen examples of all of these types of posters on LT.

259: I'm talking about a guy who doesn't bother to post reviews himself insisting how great it would be if he could comment on other people's reviews.

You're like the one guy in the neighborhood of pool owners who doesn't own his own pool insisting that it is important to implement a policy that everyone must be allowed to piss in everyone else's pool.

Zoe, I think that your "connectivity" argument to stimulate discussions about books is pretty weak. Why? Because there 's already connectivity between talk and books. If you touchstone a work in your thread, it shows up on the work page as a conversation. In other words, if people want to find discussion threads about books, they can go to the work itself and click on a link that takes them to every discussion in which that book has appeared (or at least been touchstoned).

How would posting comments in reviews engender more discussion about a book than that? Like I said before, comments on reviews engenders discussion about the review, not the book. And we already have a way to highlight discussions about the book. Your hoped for feature, it seems, is already implemented, just not in the way you want. And the way you want would (in my opinion) just add personal pissiness to the equation.

I actually hear a great deal of room for compromise. I'm game if people are willing to discuss any of the actual proposals for how a comments system would work.

Dare I say, I think it might be useful to start a new thread about this....

Except that there already exists a better method for bringing factual errors to your attention - profile comments. These are much more likely for you to actually see to boot. Other than the person doing the correcting getting public acknowledgement, exactly what does comments on reviews add here?

I'm not saying that review comments would be the best place for pointing out factual errors, only that it doesn't seem so out of line as to necessitate special restrictions on what can be said.

Worthwhile comments on Amazon are, in my experience, few and far between. And not worth wading through the chaff to find.

That's okay. As eromsted pointed out, the fact that these comments exist means that someone finds them worthwhile. You wouldn't personally have to read them.

I still find your belief that users here are smarter and nicer than those elsewhere to be unsupported.

I don't think users here are nicer. As for smarter, I'm sure someone can dig up statistics about general connections between books and intelligence. Maybe Tim has more particular information.

Zoe, I think that your "connectivity" argument to stimulate discussions about books is pretty weak. Why? Because there 's already connectivity between talk and books. If you touchstone a work in your thread, it shows up on the work page as a conversation. In other words, if people want to find discussion threads about books, they can go to the work itself and click on a link that takes them to every discussion in which that book has appeared (or at least been touchstoned).

I think it's pretty commonly accepted here that the Conversations feature in its current form just isn't very good. In particular, it doesn't distinguish between discussions and mentions--and the majority of touchstones are just mentions. I do think touchstones can be improved, and have said so here.

But I don't think that would negate the value of review comments. Reading a review brings up thoughts about the book (and also about the review, but I don't think the review is as disconnected from the book as is often claimed). The easiest way to capture those thoughts is to allow them to be expressed right there, in the context in which they arose. Then other people will have the benefit of reading both the review and the ideas that the review stimulated in others. If the comments were separated from the review, they might still manage to grow into an interesting discussion, but taken out of their initial context the readers most likely to be interested in the discussion probably wouldn't notice it. I know I don't read through all the reviews and then look at the conversations to see if there's anything related to the reviews. But I would read comments following an interesting review if they were right there (I mean if I could see that there were X comments about the review and click to see them--I'm not suggesting that comments should always be visible).

Maybe its commonly accepted by you, but I don't see it. After all, it is pretty easy to distinguish threads that "just mention" a work from those that discuss it - the conversations list shows the thread topic name (a good indicator), and includes the text immediately surrouding the reference to the work.

More importantly, it puts all the discussions that include the book in question right there. No need to wade through six dozen reviews to find a particular discussion about a book. It's there to be looked at and joined. If you really cared about discussions about the book, you would check the conversations link. The fact that you don't tells me that you don't care so much about connectivity, or engendering book discussion, or any of that. Because if you did, you would.

I wonder how messy it would be to have a discussion page attached to each work and people pasting their reviews into that if they want them discussed.

Because just like it would never occur to me to post a comment on someone's profile page, if someone commented on another's review, I don't know how often that would turn into a *discussion*. Because a lot of us would consider that a private conversation between those two people. Not private as in unviewable, obviously, but it would certainly feel odd to just butt in. But if the review is in the discussion forum, then it is more like discussing the book, including how the review fits in, rather than actually discussing the reviewer. Much more comfortable.

283> Touchstones are worthless for finding discussions about a work. Any time I've tried it I've found many many links to passing references and challenge threads but finding any substantive discussion is very rare. I think Tim agrees since he hasn't bothered to fix touchstones which have been broken for as long as I can remember.

288: How are touchstones broken? I haven't noticed this.

And how is it impossible to figure out from the thread title and the text given (which includes basically a sentence on either side of the touchstone on the conversation page) whether a thread is discussing the book or not? (Also, if a book shows up multiple times, I think the conversations link has the thread on it multiple times, also a good indicator).

I've been reading this thread with interest.

If comments were enabled on reviews (in whatever shape or form) , what do we think would/should happen to the comments if the reviewer deletes either their review OR the book in their library?

As it stands now on LT, if the book is deleted, the review vanishes too. From what's discussed here, it seems logical for me to assume comments 'stuck' onto a particular review would vanish if the review was erased.

I don't know GR: so am not sure what happens to comments there if a review is deleted, or if it has the same catalogue-->review relationship that LT uses.

To me, it would be a philosophical change to the LT site if either the book or the review had to 'stay' in order to keep some review comments live.
But I'm seeing some posters want their comments to stay even if the reviewer wants them removed...

Also re comments about the LT blog - I'm not sure it's a good example of thoughtful comments any more. Although there are good comments, there's fewer than there used to be pre-Talk. Plus, the blog seems to have more frequent spammers than it used to. That means follow up work (by the original poster?) to delete or hide the spam.

Giving another spamming option into LT (via comments) is a risk I think should be considered in the value prop discussion about having comments on a review.

>289 StormRaven:
For many books it is impossible to leave a touchstone. Putting brackets around the title simply gives a title in brackets in red in the touchstone column. Also many titles default to the wrong book (from the point of view of the writer). It is possible to switch to the correct one but many people don't. And, of course, not everyone uses touchstones. For all these reasons the conversations page is a rather poor listing of mentions of a book.

Then there is the other point that the list is usually dominated by simple mentions of the book, not discussions. With effort you can pick out threads that look more substantial, but it's definitely cumbersome and not a very good way of organizing discussion.

But this really belongs in the thread on having a dedicated discussion group for each work. I don't see the question of review comments having much to do with organizing book discussion per say, but rather as one more potential way to discuss books.

291: The reason that the conversation links belongs here is that the only even semi-cogent reason that has been given for allowing comments on reviews is that it would engender discussion about a book. Talk threads supposedly can't do this because people supposedly can't find them easily from the work.

On the other hand, as I've pointed out, if someone wants to start a talk thread about a book, they already have a very viable way of doing this and making it easily findable: start a clearly titled thread in talk and link it to the conversation page. I find myself asking why this is so difficult to do, and wonder why having review comments (which if things like Amazon and Goodreads comments are any indication, would mostly engender discussion about the reviews, and not the book) would do the job better.

More importantly, it puts all the discussions that include the book in question right there. No need to wade through six dozen reviews to find a particular discussion about a book. It's there to be looked at and joined. If you really cared about discussions about the book, you would check the conversations link.

You're missing the part about context. I'm not talking about seeking out discussions for the sake of discussions. I'm talking about having discussions right there when they're relevant. I don't want looking for discussions to be a separate aspect of site usage (and despite what you say, I find it very unproductive to look through the long lists of mentions in the hope of finding an actual discussion); I want that to be integrated in what I'm already doing. So if I'm reading reviews, I'll read review comments.

The fact that I don't use the Conversations feature currently is evidence for how awkward and disjointed it feels, not for the unimportance of discussions in general.

How are touchstones broken?

They frequently just don't load, for one.

I wonder how messy it would be to have a discussion page attached to each work and people pasting their reviews into that if they want them discussed.

I'm not sure this would help with the integration; I think it's while reading reviews on the work page that people would be inspired to comment. My other concern is the difficulty in following one thread that consisted of a bunch of separate review copies, comments on the separate reviews, and general discussion of the book.

I wonder if there would be some way to emphasize that comments were open for everyone to participate in?

If comments were enabled on reviews (in whatever shape or form) , what do we think would/should happen to the comments if the reviewer deletes either their review OR the book in their library?

My preference would be for comments to remain even after the review was gone, though I'm not sure how feasible this would be from a programming perspective (maybe if the comments were somehow based on the Talk format, so they could be stored however Talk posts are stored?). There could be some simple "Review deleted" text in place of the review, and any deleted reviews would be at the bottom of the work page--possibly in a whole separate section, depending again on whatever's easier for programming.

Giving another spamming option into LT (via comments) is a risk I think should be considered in the value prop discussion about having comments on a review.

This is why I think flagging of review comments should be more powerful than flagging of Talk, with the ability to make comments actually disappear rather than just hide. Then, to prevent flag abuse, I would argue that flags from recently-created or possibly all free accounts should not count toward deletion.

The reason that the conversation links belongs here is that the only even semi-cogent reason that has been given for allowing comments on reviews is that it would engender discussion about a book. Talk threads supposedly can't do this because people supposedly can't find them easily from the work.

Adding another place for discussion doesn't exclude all other discussion. No one is suggesting that we should get rid of Talk and move book discussions solely to reviews.

How often do you use the Conversations feature? You can refuse to believe that people often talk about how useless it is, but that doesn't change the facts.

294: How often? Pretty much every time I check a work page (and I'm not there for a specific reason like editing the work in my library or something like that) I click on the link. Is that often enough?

And now your argument has morphed from "people couldn't find the talk threads I started" to "we need immediate gratification to have book discussions". I wonder though, if it is too much of a pain in the ass to wade through a bunch of threads to find a discussion that is interesting, how many people will wade through a bunch of reviews to find the one that happens to have an interesting set of comments? It seems like you want to argue both sides here, but only when the side complements your desired outcome.

291: The reason that the conversation links belongs here is that the only even semi-cogent reason that has been given for allowing comments on reviews is that it would engender discussion about a book.
Perhaps you missed some of the other possible reasons I gave up in 262. Comments that would be most appropriate and sensible if attached to the review that inspired them

start a clearly titled thread in talk and link it to the conversation page.
And then some of the time the touchstone won't load and the rest of the time no one will see it anyway because the conversations page is too messy to be practicable. {edited to add in response to next post} O.K. maybe you'll see them but I have the feeling given the number of complaints that page has received, that many people won't.

But again, I don't see review comments as "the way" to organize book discussions, but one more way to talk to other people about books.

review comments {,} which if things like Amazon and Goodreads comments are any indication, would mostly engender discussion about the reviews, and not the book
Why are discussions of reviews bad? And I'm being serious. I've read all of the above posts and I hear the people who don't want comments on their own reviews, but I mostly see a knee jerk response that all comments on reviews are either malicious or vapid. Well, I've looked around at other sites, specifically searching for worst-case scenarios and I frankly disagree. Some comments are that way, but many are quite thoughtful and many do address the book under review.

If you don't expect to find anything interesting in review comments, don't read them. If you don't want comments on your own books, turn them off. I found many reviewers on other sites participating in conversations with people who commented on their reviews. Why should that not be an option here?

> 291

Putting brackets around the title simply gives a title in brackets in red in the touchstone column.

Really? I've never had that happen with titles. Authors, yes, frequently. But never a title.

297: I've had it happen with a title, but it is so rare that I can't remember the last specific time it happened to me.

I also don't consider the occassional failure to be an indication that the touchstone system is "broken".

>297 lilithcat:
That was my memory. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly. I probably should have left the point drop because either way I consider it to be unrelated to the merits of the review comments suggestion.

296: I saw post 262. Note that I said semi-cogent reasons. I don't find any of your suggestions to be remotely worthwhile reasons to include comments on reviews. All of the reasons you gave could be much easier and more effectively dealt with using profile comments, talk threads, and responsive reviews.

(The problem with the conversations link (in my opinion) isn't that they are messy or hard, but that people simply don't care about having discussions about books. They just don't want to bother to join in.)

Finally, if you missed all the vapid "awesome review" fluff and "your review sucks" flames, then you must have gone to a different Amazon than I did (heck, one specific flame war on Goodreads was referenced in this thread). And I just don't see that the useful comment/vapid fluff/flame bait ratios will be worth the trouble (especially since most of the "useful" uses you cited are doable right now using existing LT features).

299: If your memory is that book touchstones usually work, why have you argued that them not working is an argument against using the conversations link?

I wonder though, if it is too much of a pain in the ass to wade through a bunch of threads to find a discussion that is interesting, how many people will wade through a bunch of reviews to find the one that happens to have an interesting set of comments?

The point is not to seek out discussions as a separate aspect of browsing the site, but to come across and participate in discussions naturally as a part of what you're already doing on the site (in this case, reading reviews).

Eromsted's point is worth repeating here: I don't see review comments as "the way" to organize book discussions, but one more way to talk to other people about books.

heck, one specific flame war on Goodreads was referenced in this thread

Do you mean the GR review actually linked to from this thread? Maybe I didn't read far enough into it, but I didn't see a flame war there.

You say that I want to argue both sides, but it's interesting how reviews that people find particularly offensive ("punted in the vagina") are dismissed as incredibly mild, while any sort of disagreement in review comments is suddenly a "flame war".

OK we are just going round and round in circles here. So how about we put this all to the test and a few of us from both sides of the divide test out this system on GoodReads.

Its simple, for the next three months you review every book you read and post the reviews on on LibraryThing and GoodReads, linking the reviews to a group or thread here on LibraryThing and at the end of March we see how the experiment has work. Everyone has to aim for at least four reviews a month so we have a minimum of 12 reviews each.

Zoe, SqueakyChu and eromsted as the most vocal supporters of this idea I am assuming that you are automatically in. I'm definitely in, even though this means that I'll have to join GoodReads. We need a few more participants, from both sides of the divide, who are open minded enough to give this a go.

I know it won't be truly scientific, but it does at least give some kind of idea of how much discussion, flaming etc is likely to happen if LT introduces comments on reviews. The one downside is that it will artificially increase GoodReads traffic for a couple of months, but IMO it may be worth that sacrifice in order to try and settle the argument.

#260

Very early on in this thread I dealt with the blog issue. Mindset, (mostly) limited audience, and comments being under the blogger's control would be differences.

#303

But we will ten have a further argument on whether a particular comment is worthwhile - see SqueakyChu's post #9 and my post #11

Can nay of the naysayers clearly explain, why exactly, comments on reviews - when you are given an opt out, and LTfL won't see them - is a bad thing?

I accept that you don't personally expect to find it useful, fair enough. Other people think they will. (this is true of every single LT feature, from talk to collections) Assuming for the minute that there is staff resource to code it, what is lost?

For many reasons but if I had to pick one, I'll pick the wide reaching fundamental principle objection I have rather than the many objection I have to the specifics of the implementation of such an idea (which is as far as I'm willing to go on this fairly circuitous discussion thread):

It makes the interaction about the review not the work - I would have no objection to work-level fora where there could be actual intelligent (or not) discussion of a work but I don't believe the discussion point should shift to a review-based discussion. It's not about useful, it's about the principle of maintaining work-based interaction not personal comment on an individual's review. This is a social site based around published books not a social site based around the critique of the writing or opinions of the site members. Once you shift commenting to individual reviews rather than attaching it to a work, it shifts the onus of the site and whether you opt in or out, the fact that it's there means that LT is stepping down from being a work based site (and I think that is a downward step). By all means have a work based forum but not a review based one.

>306 reading_fox: Honestly, it's been said a million times, why does it have to be repeated? In bullet format:

- Most people don't change defaults, which means the vast majority are in for comments even if they don't want them.
- You have people in this thread promising non-conversational comments which will diminish the experience of the LT user and the experience of writing a review.
- It's not that people are worried about comments going over on LTFL, it's that the diminished experience will lead to less reviews being written per user as they avoid comments on factual errors, quality of review and having to defend borderline flag cases. That's not a question - the question is whether or not the comments would bring about an offset positive user experience that is great enough to attract new users that would write more reviews.
- You run the risk of homogenizing reviews as people don't want to have negative comments on their reviews.
- Tim & Co. will see an increase in requests for comment suppression/deletion - or calls for people to come and flag people on their behalf for negative comments. There will be a lot of debate on what constitutes attacking behavior in review comments when the real ones come in - and it won't end.

Assuming for the minute that there is staff resource to code it, what is lost?

For me, all of my reviews and participation in the ER program. I'm one of 1 or 2 or 3 reviews in many cases. I won't be brow-beaten into being the catalyst for participation. I prefer to take them all down rather than risk the flag coming down or being called out even once or having one well-meaning individual ever say, "you should really turn comments on." I'm not the only one.

I'll also find another place to read reviews. I don't read Amazon's today because the comments make them unreadable. Sure, I have to click on them, but I also know that the top reviewers get there because they adjust their reviews to their commenters. They're no longer their reviews - you can see by the tone of the sycophantic comments.

But, other than that...smooth sailing.

Yeah, and everything that stephmo said too ... ;-)

And before Zoe pops up and tells me I'm dissing the 'social' side, I'm drawing attention to the fact that I'm just dissing the focus of the social not it's presence. Work based fora would be great. ;-)

Ditto for what klarusu said - I'm all for work-focused discussion that does better social interaction for the books rather than random groups. I think that would be much better social interaction.

I just feel like the comments on reviews as social is a bit like grabbing someone at a party and shouting, "you're the center of attention and shall take any interaction we demand of you NOW - so entertain me and interact with me!" rather than trying to reach out and feel the room of guests (fans) with your own query.

It's not about useful, it's about the principle of maintaining work-based interaction not personal comment on an individual's review.

I think this is a false distinction to begin with. You can't have discussion of a book without discussion of people's opinions of a book.

Most people don't change defaults, which means the vast majority are in for comments even if they don't want them.

This has nothing to do with whether comments themselves are actually good or bad. You could equally argue that public catalogues are bad, because that's the default so people end up with public catalogues whether they like it or not.

You have people in this thread promising non-conversational comments which will diminish the experience of the LT user and the experience of writing a review.

I don't understand this point at all. I don't mean the reasoning behind it; I literally don't know what you're trying to say. Why will non-controversial comments diminish the experience of the LT user? Who says this?

I may be interpreting this wrong, but again, it seems like you're saying "comments are bad because they're bad". Rather than stating that they'll diminish the user experience, you need to say why that's the case.

the diminished experience will lead to less reviews being written per user as they avoid comments on factual errors, quality of review and having to defend borderline flag cases. That's not a question - the question is whether or not the comments would bring about an offset positive user experience that is great enough to attract new users that would write more reviews.

So, let's consider who these people are. They're writing reviews full of factual errors and borderline non-reviews/ToS violations?

On the flagging side, it's not unheard of for someone to start a Talk post deliberately to find out why their review has been flagged. I don't get the sense that people prefer to be flagged without explanation. Why would people be more afraid of a comment about why they have a flag than they are of the flag itself? I suspect that the people who would immediately stop writing reviews at the thought of a flag comment have already stopped at the introduction of flags themselves.

Then, factual errors. I'm not concerned about a loss of variety caused by people including fewer factual errors in their reviews. What makes factual errors such a great and important part of reviews?

I'm not sure what to say about quality of review. I know not all of my reviews are great, but I'd be happy to defend my right to write them however I want.

You run the risk of homogenizing reviews as people don't want to have negative comments on their reviews

Having read a lot of snarky reviews on this site, I really don't get the idea that everyone wants to hide from controversy.

or calls for people to come and flag people on their behalf for negative comments

So? This would require a single Talk thread, and the necessary action could easily be taken.

Assuming for the minute that there is staff resource to code it, what is lost?

For me, all of my reviews and participation in the ER program. I'm one of 1 or 2 or 3 reviews in many cases. I won't be brow-beaten into being the catalyst for participation. I prefer to take them all down rather than risk the flag coming down or being called out even once or having one well-meaning individual ever say, "you should really turn comments on." I'm not the only one.

So, being told "You should really turn comments on" is the most terrible thing in the world, but being told "you should really not delete all your reviews just to protest a feature that would have no impact on your reviews, because that gives the impression of a childish tantrum" is no problem at all?

I'll also find another place to read reviews. I don't read Amazon's today because the comments make them unreadable. Sure, I have to click on them, but I also know that the top reviewers get there because they adjust their reviews to their commenters. They're no longer their reviews - you can see by the tone of the sycophantic comments.

Amazon has considerably more incentives than LT to change reviews to meet what readers want. There's a ranking system and possible Vine invitation, for example. On LT, there isn't really any benefit to changing your reviews to meet someone else's standards. But I also didn't realize that listening to user feedback was a heinous crime--better insist that Tim disband that Reviews Reviewed group immediately.

I think this is a false distinction to begin with. You can't have discussion of a book without discussion of people's opinions of a book.

You can have a discussion about a book centered around the book with people exchanging opinions on that book (work based interaction) or you can have a discussion of someone's review of a book which digresses into the territory of work based discussion but is ultimately focused on a single review, a single opinion point and the style and opinions therein and thereof. It's an important distinction - exchange opinions of the work at source not in a half-baked second hand manner debating the finer points of a single reviewer's opinion.

>303 riverwillow:

So how about we put this all to the test

No need for me to do any more of this. I have many, may reviews on Amazon, most from the time before I joined LT. In addition, I already have some reviews posted on Goodreads. I often post reviews on multiple sites as a thank you to publishers who send me Early Reviewer material.

Among my many, many reviews posted elsewhere, I have received only two comments. Both were thoughtful responses to the content of each review itself.

What I did, at one time, find offensive at Amazon was an email from an author who disagreed with my review of his book. My review was my opinion. His response properly *should have* been a comment on my review. It could have started an interesting discussion of both our differing points of view.

ETA: I don't think that differing points of view or negative responses are things to be avoided. If differing points of view can provoke intelligent conversation, at least some people should come away from such discussions with food for thought.

You can't have discussion of a book without discussion of people's opinions of a book.

Yet why do you feel the need to attach your conversations about a book to someone else's review in a parasitic manner? Like I said before, I've yet to see any non-selfish reasons given for having comments attached to reviews as opposed to using the existing tools for stimulating book discussion or even having a fora attached to the work and not individual reviews.

308: Any person who said "you should really turn comments on" to me would get a big "f-you and the horse you rode in on" response. And they'd get blocked. Just for spite, I'd probably find all their reviews and nitpick them to death. I'm sure it would make the whole comments on reviews thing truly enjoyable for them.

>282 StormRaven: "I'm talking about a guy who doesn't bother to post reviews himself insisting how great it would be if he could comment on other people's reviews."

(1) You've said yourself that the proposition that "those who have not written a book cannot therefore review them" is an "ancient and completely bankrupt canard", and you've given no reason why writing reviews is any more of a prerequisite for commenting on reviews than writing books is a prerequisite for reviewing books.

(2) Nowhere have I insisted how great review comments would be. What I have claimed is that the arguments against review comments are weak and if applied consistently would be arguments against reviews, as well.

"You're like the one guy in the neighborhood of pool owners who doesn't own his own pool insisting that it is important to implement a policy that everyone must be allowed to piss in everyone else's pool."

You haven't explained why you think commenting on a review is akin to micturating. In your review here, you make the following comments on other reviews of the book:

(1) Review A has grammatical errors in its first three sentences.

(2) Review A has an incomprehensible third sentence due to a bizarre construction.

(3) Review A makes a comparison between the work's author and J.K. Rowling that is silly.

(4) In general, Review A is semi-literate, and uses grammar that would flunk a fifth grade class.

(5) The only charitable way to interpret Review A is that its author was paid for it.

(6) Review B has a comma splice.

(7) Review B uses the word "format" in an unclear way.

If a book review is like a pool, and review comments are like urine, then you appear to have put a substantial amount of urine in your own pool. Does the fact that it's your own urine make it much better?

> 314

Among my many, many reviews posted elsewhere, I have received only two comments.

It seems, then, that this entire discussion is pointless. Why bother to institute a system that's going to generate such an infinitesimal return?

#316 - that (in my opinion) is misleading!

The link leads to a review of a book - including the blurb; synopsis and reviews that the publisher chose to have on the cover of the book. This is not a review out of context (as I believe attaching comments on reviews here would be).

I wasn't intending to get drawn into this debate but this is one of my reasons for why comments on reviews is inappropriate on LT they would be attached to ephemeral data.

The person who wrote the review can withdraw, edit or otherwise change the review so that any comments are no longer in context.

>317 lilithcat: you got there first with my point.

> 311 & 313 I absolutely agree - I'm as up for a discussion about a book I am passionate about as the next person, but this does need to be book related as a discussion about a particular book focussed on an opinion expressed by one particular reviewer feels distasteful.

Oh yes and I am not surprised that none of those who are determined that LT should have the facility to for comments on specific reviews are up for my little experiment.

Edited as the cat sat on the keyboard and managed to hit send before I'd had a chance to review my message.

>318 calm:

"This is not a review out of context"

Why would a comment on a review attached to an LT work page be like urine, while a comment on a review printed on the back of a book would not be like urine?

Okay, I've read most of this thread, although I've just skimmed a bit where it got nasty on both side.

In general I'm against this idea. Have opt-in/opt-out could work, but it seems the UI might get confusing if you can comment on some reviews and not on others, although I could well be wrong and that probably isn't insurmountable.

It seems odd to me initially that I'm against this, since I'm a book blogger and I get - and want, even - comments on all my reviews on my blog. I think that part of my hesitation is that I don't feel like LibraryThing needs to be the blog-like atmosphere, that's not why I put my reviews here. Of course, that's totally personal and not an argument that is going to convince anyone one way or the other. As a note, as a blogger I have control over the comments that get attached to my reviews, some of which ARE quite nasty. I don't delete any except those that get spammy and neither do any of the bloggers in my circle, but I think it is easier to accept those comments when you know you have the control over them to delete them if you want to do so.

The biggest reason I don't think it is necessary to have comments on reviews comes from my experience book blogging. I think it is quite applicable to this debate because many of the bloggers I read and see commenting are also on LibraryThing. I just very rarely see review comments actually engendering any discussion. It happens from time to time, but usually only very short discussion. Usually comments on reviews on book blogs fall into one of the following categories:
-Oh, I really liked this book too! (possibly with the addition of "Good point about...")
-This one didn't do it for me
- Oooh, this looks good. Going on the wishlist!
- Good to know this wasn't as good as it looked. I'll avoid it.

I find it likely that comments here would run along the same lines, and I don't see that as a big payoff for developer time.

I took the time to link through to what you described as a review containing comments on reviews. What I found was what I see as perfectly justfiable remarks about the work - "it had glowing reviews; the synopsis was interesting but when I read it I thought it was rubbish" (my synopsis of what I just read).

In what context can you say that this is a comment on a review.

>322 calm:

"In what context can you say that this is a comment on a review."

By "context" do you mean "sense", and by "this" do you mean numbers 1 through 7 in #316? Those were the things that I claimed were comments on reviews, and the sense in which that's true is the standard dictionary definitions of "comment" and "review". I did not say that the entire review consisted of comments on other reviews. By StormRaven's analogy, that would be a pool containing only urine, not a pool containing a substantial amount of urine.

Trying to get this discussion out of the cesspool :o) here's a link to a book discussion away from reviews that I found through the work page http://www.librarything.com/topic/75023#

It may be pointed out that in the past, I've moved people to such strong emotions with my reviews (good or bad) that they've left comments on my profile. I also make no indication that I welcome comments (unless I wrote something there when I was asleep or something).

To be honest, I'd rather siphon those comments to the review itself. But, that's just me.

But, what's the difference between a comment on my PROFILE and a comment on my REVIEW? Shouldn't I be able to delete/archive them both, since they, in effect, represent me?

Additionally, would people who threaten to delete their reviews were comments enabled also delete said reviews if people used Google Sidewiki to comment/make annotations/etc.?

Also: sorry for likening this to urine in a swimming pool. Now it's turned into a pissing contest. :|

315> Yet why do you feel the need to attach your conversations about a book to someone else's review in a parasitic manner? Like I said before, I've yet to see any non-selfish reasons given for having comments attached to reviews as opposed to using the existing tools for stimulating book discussion or even having a fora attached to the work and not individual reviews.

Zoe addressed this point many times, the last being msg 302.

Yet why do you feel the need to attach your conversations about a book to someone else's review in a parasitic manner?

I don't feel the need to attach all conversations to reviews. As I've said before, adding a new place for discussion does not exclude all other discussion.

Like I said before, I've yet to see any non-selfish reasons given

Right, because when I suggest something that I think would improve the site, I'm the only one who could possibly want it and it's therefore selfish. Suggestions that you support, on the other hand, are of benefit to users other than yourself and are therefore unselfish, despite the fact that you're equally taking the side of what you think would be best.

Any person who said "you should really turn comments on" to me would get a big "f-you and the horse you rode in on" response.

Reasonable as this response might be, it doesn't have the dramatic effect of threats to remove your content from the site entirely, thereby taking away revenue and crippling operations entirely.

It seems, then, that this entire discussion is pointless. Why bother to institute a system that's going to generate such an infinitesimal return?

There seem to be plenty of review comments elsewhere. There can be a small percentage of reviews with comments but still a large number of comments in absolute terms.

Oh yes and I am not surprised that none of those who are determined that LT should have the facility to for comments on specific reviews are up for my little experiment.

Honestly, there are a lot of posts here and I've spent a lot of time responding to them. I'm sorry if I fail to address some points immediately (for example, I don't have time now to respond to any of the comments after yours, even though DevourerOfBooks has made a lot of good points). I'd be happy to post 12 reviews on GR, though I'd rather just take my 12 most recent reviews now and get it over with, rather than posting one every week.

There's no point in an experiment just for the sake of an experiment, though. If SqueakyChu has already done what you're asking, what value would there be in having her repeat it?

327 "There's no point in an experiment just for the sake of an experiment, though. If SqueakyChu has already done what you're asking, what value would there be in having her repeat it?". I wasn't just asking SqueakyChu I was asking you, eromsted, as the main advocates for comments on reviews, and anyone else whose interested to participate on GoodReads rather than on Amazon, as GoodReads is a similarish site to LT rather than a site geared up for commercial gain - I believe that Amazon.com can unilaterally remove reviews and comments which makes me suspicious of the whole thing (I should add that I'm not sure of this as I'm an Amazon.co.uk customer it seems that their review system operates differently to Amazon.com, probably because of certain EU regulations, but I don't know the answer so please don't ask me).

The reasoning behind my suggestion is that as GoodReads is a similar website to LT if we get enough people to take part and post reviews on both sites we may get a reasonable cross section of comments on GR which we can compare with the number of "thumbs up" received and any discussions on Talk, which may, you never know, change my mind and help those who are currently on the fence form a reasonable opinion and maybe give Tim et al some decent data to play with. Its interesting to see that those who are most vocal in wanting comments on reviews aren't willing to try this out, wonder why?

Sorry I'm having to edit everything as my cat is being very distracting.

There are too many posts to address everything that has been brought up, but on a couple of the new points I've seen:

- That the comments on reviews will be about reviews and not the books, I can see your point, but I disagree. There will probably be some of that, but other comments *will* be about the book. Things like "You said that Fred is a coward, but he stood up to Georgie when he ...", or "Isn't forgiveness as much a theme in this book as retribution."

- I did find the comment on the ephemeral nature of reviews to be valid criticism of the idea. Reviews hold kind of a weird place among the data in LT. CK fields are fully public and bibliographic data is private. Reviews are private data that is displayed prominently on the work pages (other catalog fields make it to the work page but only as conglomerated data). As such, attaching comments to reviews is complicated and, as I said earlier, I doubt Tim is going to put in the effort to do it.

"You haven't explained why you think commenting on a review is akin to micturating. In your review here, you make the following comments on other reviews of the book:"

Reviews that the author (who is also the publisher) of the book decided to put on the book. Reviews that they chose to use to as part of their work, hence, part of the book itself. This is substantially different than commenting on random reviews unattached to the work.

And note the kind, reasoned responses that pointing out those reviews drew. Now replicate that a thousand times across LT. Doesn't sound that wonderful now, does it?

326: No, she didn't. She addressed why having book discussions is good, but not why attaching them to reviews is good. There's a difference.

Right, because when I suggest something that I think would improve the site, I'm the only one

Really, you should quote an entire sentence rather than hacking it off. And then you should respond to the entire point. I could make snarky comments about how you are now claiming to be the "only one", and that proves how self-centered you are. But that would be taking your comment out of context, just like you did with mine.

How about dealing with my entire point, not just the portion that you chopped off?

331> No, that's exactly the point she was addressing and has many times now. I suggest you read it again (msg 302).

332> Actually, until you drop the selfish bit, I don't think she should spend the time responding to your posts.

333: No, she didn't. She has given reasons why engendering book discussions are good, but those reasons don't support the idea that book discussions on reviews are good. 302 gives a reason that would support the idea of having a forum attached to a work for discussion (since if you are reading a review you would probably be on the work page already, and thus would be "right there", and it would be more generally accessible), but not why it would be worthwhile to attach it to the book.

334: When she (or anyone else) suggests a non-selfish reason for attaching comments to reviews, then I will stop pointing out that all the reasons given in support of the idea are entirely selfish.

How about dealing with my entire point, not just the portion that you chopped off?

Why bother going further with your point, when it's based on the premise that everything I say is selfish? No matter what I respond, you can just say "that's what you think and therefore it's selfish and invalid", so we need to move beyond the selfish issue first. Sure, it's a nice way of avoiding real discussion and dismissing opposing viewpoints, but it doesn't actually get us anywhere.

Like I said before, I've yet to see any non-selfish reasons given for having comments attached to reviews as opposed to using the existing tools for stimulating book discussion or even having a fora attached to the work and not individual reviews.

My response to your overall point is "read what I said earlier". But of course, none of that counts because it's all selfish. And anything else I might say would be selfish too.

Try responding to the actual ideas raised rather than dismissing them all with a blanket claim that they're selfish.

Oh yes and I am not surprised that none of those who are determined that LT should have the facility to for comments on specific reviews are up for my little experiment.

I wasn't just asking SqueakyChu

Still, I don't think SqueakyChu counts as no one.

I am interested in the experiment, I just haven't had a chance to fiddle around with GR this morning. It's been less than half a day since you made the suggestion. I can barely keep up with the one thread as is... I still need to respond to the good points in 321.

302 gives a reason that would support the idea of having a forum attached to a work for discussion (since if you are reading a review you would probably be on the work page already, and thus would be "right there", and it would be more generally accessible), but not why it would be worthwhile to attach it to the book.

We have different ideas of what "right there" means. If I'm in the process of reading through the reviews, I'm not simultaneously looking at other parts of the work page. I'm not going to alternate back and forth between reading reviews and going to look at the Conversations; there's no connection between the two, despite the fact that they're both based on the work page. I would, however, read discussion based on the review that I was currently reading, if it were obvious from the review that that discussion existed.

I support creation of a work-specific discussion group linked from the work page. Social interaction centered around books is a GoodThing. I do not support comments on reviews. Why? The content will be more than half about the review and the reviewer, instead of the work itself. Much like this talk thread has been overwhelmed with point-by-point meta-discussion of the argument...how many of these people spent as much time this week discussing books as they did in this thread? For that matter, even reading books? Do I want to wade through all this every time I go to read reviews? Will the people who avoid Talk (and hence this discussion) want to do so? Exactly!

Back in an old thread Tim noted that review comments "will change the character of reviews. They will introduce a new medium to the site--a new forum with different rules and expectations. There are many users who are happy to review on LT, but stay away from the forums; I don't want to create a feature that discourages people from the reviews section—or encourages people mostly interested in a fight."

Amen.

335> OK, now you've forced me to copy and paste. Here is what Zoe said:

The point is not to seek out discussions as a separate aspect of browsing the site, but to come across and participate in discussions naturally as a part of what you're already doing on the site (in this case, reading reviews).

At first you said you didn't address the point at all. Oh dear, it looks like I'll have to find the "point" and copy it to. Here it is:

Like I said before, I've yet to see any non-selfish reasons given for having comments attached to reviews as opposed to using the existing tools for stimulating book discussion or even having a fora attached to the work and not individual reviews.

As I said, at first you said she didn't address the point at all, and then you modified it to this:

302 gives a reason that would support the idea of having a forum attached to a work for discussion (since if you are reading a review you would probably be on the work page already, and thus would be "right there", and it would be more generally accessible), but not why it would be worthwhile to attach it to the book.

First of all, I'm just going to ignore the word 'selfish' since it doesn't mean anything in this context. As anyone can see, Zoe *did* give a reason that reading reviews attached to a review is better than having to jump somewhere else to read them.

In your modified response you claim that comments on the same page are "right there" and just as accessible, but they aren't. To have to jump somewhere else on the page is obvously not as natural as just continuing reading comments attached to the review. And they wouldn't serve the same purpose anyway. A review comment would jump off from something said in the review and book comments would have to start out with something like "Some people think ... about this book which I would like to elaborate on." Not nearly so natural and flowing as being able to attach the comments to the reviews.

You'll probably say that I didn't give any reasons for my opinion, but I clearly just did. You may not like them or agree with them but they're there as are Zoe's.

When I post a review, I admit, I like the idea that somebody might like it enough to post a thoughtful response on my profile. I WANT to talk about my reviews, with anybody who has something interesting to say about them. But I don't want review comments attached to my reviews. Why? Because I spent an hour or more crafting the review, polishing it and putting its best face forward, making all the points that I thought were important, and on and on and on. When I post it, it's complete. I don't want others to attach their comments to it, thus coloring the way future readers of my review will respond to it. I don't want it presented to future readers with all that baggage.

Likewise, I don't want to have to opt out of comments, or fail to opt in. If I elect to forego comments on my reviews, which is what I will do if they are introduced, I fear it would send the message that I don't want to talk about my reviews at all, in any capacity. Which is just false; I would love to talk about my reviews.

340: No, I didn't modify my point. The reason Zoe gave for attaching comments to reviews is entirely selfish - because the only reason to attach comments to reviews (and not to the work) is to be able to nitpick the review itself, which is a selfish reason. Not to engender book discussion. If you want to engender book discussion, attach the comments to the book.

Talking about how comments on reviews would engender book discussion is a non-starter. We already have plenty of tools to engender book discussion. We have alternative proposals that would serve this purpose better, and would be just as accessible. How "accessible" is it to have to go through the reviews, find one with an actual discussion about the book (as opposed to a bunch of "great review", "your review sucks", and similar blather that would predominate these comment sections), and then follow that discussion by finding that particular review again and again as opposed to having a fora attached to the book, clickable from the main work page that would be right there to the left of the review you are presumably reading, and would always be accessible through the work page in the same place every time?

"Engendering book discussion" is not a reason to add comments to reviews. First off, because it wouldn't do that very much, second, because it would be inconvenient to use, and third, because there are much better ways to do it. Which leaves only the selfish resons - to nitpick people's grammar, to fact check people, to talk about flags, to give public attaboys, and so on, and so forth. And the only reason to have a comments forum to do those things is so the commenter can be publicly seen to be doing those things, because all of them can be done now via profile comments (since you can explain flags, point out errors and so on that way already, and the one person who matters, the reviewer, would be certain to get them).

Basically, demanding comments on reviews is asking for the ability to stand up and say "me, me, me, me". That's the only thing it would add to the site that we don't have already.

336> 334: When she (or anyone else) suggests a non-selfish reason for attaching comments to reviews, then I will stop pointing out that all the reasons given in support of the idea are entirely selfish.

As has been said before, anyone's new feature request could be considered selfish, so I must conclude that this is just a tactic that you are using to stifle debate.

I was surprised to see so much activity again on a thread that was DEAD. We had argued this all to the death point before. But there are a very few vocal people who want the thing.

I have pointed out that to me it seems a minority, just as the last time. But when I opened up and saw that there was a question of being obtuse, I thought to myself, things are going to get nasty.

I had to look at profiles and remember when I was young. When i was in my early twenties I thought I knew everything. Really, you old people then were just plain dumb. You didn't understand computers. You were stuck in the mud.

Now i am twice the age of one of the vocal adherents for this feature. I think I am wiser. I think I know even more now then I did before. What i have learned in those 20+years is something about people. Something that I know you do not know when you are young. Your world as a youth is so limited that you do not know people. You know kids from school who were all your age. You know your parents who protect you though you don't know enough to know that is what it is.

You know teachers, but you don't know teachers because they spend three hours with you a week and they don't tell you about their children and their dog and their husband getting a divorce and their worrying about bills and doctor visits and how to cook a souffle... You know your boss except you are so young that he also has not told you all the things that adults start talking about. You don't know the sixty three year old close to retirement with no savings who now thinks he will work till 80 and death. You haven't given too many or any eulogies at a funeral and realized you need to find out about the life you are talking of, not of our own. Not of your own.

In your early twenties you know you. You don't know people. And you don't know you have as well as you will later, but that is something all grownups always tell you, you'll understand when you are older.

This thread has the flag waving that it does because there is another level of obtuseness here. That those who think that the internet has changed our lives and that other sites do something so Pandora's box is open everywhere, don't seem to see that some things on the internet don't work. We have had this for over 40 years now, and the world wide web for over 15.

I buy my underwear with a visa card, that information is stored in a computer. Do you all want to know about what brand, what size, what color and if it is Boxers or Briefs? No. Not everything on the Internet has worked, or needs to work. Or will work. We used to sign on through AOL or Prodigy or Delphi only. Now we have easier access. Why did we have to get rid of the old way? You can still do it if you want. And people do. I should imagine many LT'ers still enter the internet through a portal controlled by one of the old dail-ups. In some part of the world it is the way.

So what are we talking about in this thread. I keep getting confused. Comments on Reviews, which only a very few seem to want. Forget your arguments trying to sway those who do not want it to your cause. Forget it. When you understand people, when you are older, you will see that when a person makes up their mind, for all the reasons that they have, shouting at the wind might be more effective.

An alternative has been discussions on books, which you can do already. I supported that and still would.

In that case, this thread after another 200 posts from where it was first idled, is the same.

Note that quoting out of context, defending a point by slicing and dicing, which I am sure my comment here will be done too death is counter productive and has made these two hundred posts probably double then it should.

Let me summarize what i see in this argument, it is an argument, from the beginning. We don't have a feature that some want. They are vocal. Others say don't add this feature. They also have been vocal. Each side articulates the reason for their view. Neither side wants to hear the other.

So Tim has to be as wise as Solomon.

One proponent says the idea is to create discussion of the subject work. There is a mechanism to do that. Thus Tim and LT need not do anything but let us all rant at one another. I am thinking that we should generate another 100 posts in the next forty minutes alone. :-)

because the only reason to attach comments to reviews (and not to the work) is to be able to nitpick the review itself,

Well, that's just ludicrous and if you won't listen to opposing viewpoints there's no point to continue debating with you.

343: Except that "any new feature request" could not necessarily be considered selfish. Many have easily defined non-selfish components. This one, though doesn't.

So you'd be wrong in your conclusions.

345: I've listened to the opposing viewpoints. I don't find them persuasive. Just because I don't find what you say to be wisdom from on high doesn't mean I didn't listen to what you said. And when you strip everything away, the only reason that has been articulated for comments on reviews (as opposed to existing tools) is to nitpick reviews.

>344 DWWilkin:

Right on.

I'm still not convinced that review comments would be as big of a deal (positive or negative) as some people, including Tim, seem to think. My whole position has been based on the notion that review comments (especially if opt-in) would be a small, though occasionally interesting addition.

I think there are two reasons for this:
First, through participation in some other discussion boards where people actually know each other and are having real fights with consequences I am fairly inured internet antagonism. So what other people see as obnoxious flame wars, I see as unfortunate digressions.

Second, I don't really read the books that seem to attract the most comments on other sites so I anticipate being able ignore those threads. But who am I to say that people should not have chatty discussions of reviews if the reviewer is willing?

As to riverwillow's experiment, I think that as described it would be biased toward LT as here I would be actively soliciting comment, while on GoodReads I would be passively posting my review. Without a "friends" network on GoodReads it is unlikely that the reviews would pick up many comments in the short run. And I'm not really in this to fish for discussion of my reviews. It's more that I'd like to be able to discuss it in a public place if it comes naturally.

A better experiment would be to take off from StormRaven's suggestions and try out both leaving comments on reviews in GoodReads and sending private messages to reviewers on LT with an invitation to take the discussion to a talk group if the reviewer is interested. Perhaps I will try this out at some point.

But for now, as to this discussion, I give. Enough. I was hoping by my comments that I might discover a bit more about what struck me as a surprisingly level hostility to this feature suggestion. Beyond what I said above I'm still not sure I get it. But I accept it. And as caffron says, I've spent too much time on this already.

I don't get the hostility either. I understand that some people feel that their reviews will be attacked if comments are allowed, and I understand that. But they also seem to feel that the mere idea of proposing such a system is an attack.

>341 polutropon: Amen.

If Tim & company's development time was infinite, I'd say some of the suggestions might be harmless. As it is, however, I can think of so many things I'd rather they were working on - and I'll bet most of the people posting in favor could too.

Like *really* splitting identically named authors. Editions. Work-level privacy. Multiple authors. Progress on the container-contained problem. And a lot of other things we discussed six months ago on this thread.

Compared to that, comments-on-reviews is pretty small stuff.

(edited to put the last sentence back after it mysteriously disappeared.)

I agree, there are a lot of other features I'd want ahead of this one and I never thought that Tim would give this a high priority even if he agreed to do it. So why have people been arguing so hard against it?

353: I'd turn it around: why are some people arguing so hard for it?

350: As has been noted before, Tim has pointed out that review comments "will change the character of reviews. They will introduce a new medium to the site--a new forum with different rules and expectations. There are many users who are happy to review on LT, but stay away from the forums; I don't want to create a feature that discourages people from the reviews section—or encourages people mostly interested in a fight."

I agree with Tim. Adding comments to reviews would, in my view radically change the character of the review function on LT, and in not a good way. Its monkeying with a function of the site that works and works well. And what's the upside? People can add comments telling the reviewer they got some fact wrong? Or why they flagged the review? Or that they thought the review was good? Or flame the reviewer because they said someone's favorite book was actually crap? And once in a blue moon get some book discussion that will be lost when the review drops off the first page? Is that worth changing the nature of the review process and potentially discouraging reviwers from reviewing at all, or reviewing without restraint?

And don't go into the opt-in/opt-out stuff as immunizing the idea. Just having the opt-in/opt-out process would serve to change the nature of reviewing. Making the choice to opt-in (or opt-out) of comments would be a statement in and of itself. There would be lots of pressure to "opt-in" for fear that people would bypass reviews that didn't do so, making it mostly a false choice.

>317 lilithcat:

It seems, then, that this entire discussion is pointless. Why bother to institute a system that's going to generate such an infinitesimal return?

And then, conversely, why are so many people getting so upset about what negative effect it "might" have?

>341 polutropon:

would love to talk about my reviews.

My suggestion (until "Comments on Reviews" ever happens on LT) is to post links to your reviews on your own thread. For example, I post links to my reviews on one of my Challenge threads. I enjoy reading the responses I receive from others and respond to them.

Not all of my reviews are that well written. I take advantage sometimes of the "Reviews Reviewed" group to help improve my writing and my focus. It's time well spent.

I guess the reason I would like comments on reviews is that, with comments, one knows (and sees) that the posted reviews are truly shared with others.

Lastly, I don't think age is a factor in this argument because I'm on the other end of the age spectrum than Zoe. I see this issue from her point of view.

No, I didn't modify my point. The reason Zoe gave for attaching comments to reviews is entirely selfish - because the only reason to attach comments to reviews (and not to the work) is to be able to nitpick the review itself, which is a selfish reason.

No, this is not the reason I want reviews. I know it's a lot easier to make up positions for other people and then refute them by name-calling, but it doesn't really get anywhere (unless, of course, your plan is to make the idea disappear by dragging any discussion of it away from the actual issues and into less-friendly terrain of personal accusations).

You were so close to getting to the point when you mentioned the accessibility of comments on the review pages. As jjwilson and I have both pointed out, having discussions in a separate, though nearby, place isn't the same as having them right where you're already looking. Comments on reviews could be integrated into the review-reading process, while going elsewhere on the work page to look for discussion would be a whole separate process.

The point isn't to seek out discussion by randomly reading through the reviews looking for comments. The point is to have the relevant discussion at hand without breaking off from what you're already doing.

>344 DWWilkin: DWWilkin

I can't say I appreciate the ad hominem attacks. Why not focus on the ideas raised rather than the generalizations about who is qualified enough to have an opinion? Would you care to explain further how it's counterproductive to address specific points raised, and better to dismiss the whole argument on the basis of your superior wisdom and a collection of fabricated statements about other people's life experiences? What do you mean by productive, for a start? Is something "productive" only if it shuts down the discussion, resulting in a continuation of the status quo that you support?

Also, I see that you're quick to lay blame about who started the "nastiness", but I'd like to point out that the accusations of selfishness were flying maybe 100 posts before I suggested that anyone was being obtuse.

Finally, in your immense wisdom, you've summarized the argument to say that some people want the feature and others don't. You've neglected to mention the key fact that those who support the feature are constantly repeating that it will be optional, while the most vocal opponents insist that if they don't want it, no one else should have it either.

>352 gwernin: gwernin I can think of so many things I'd rather they were working on - and I'll bet most of the people posting in favor could too.

Like *really* splitting identically named authors. Editions. Work-level privacy. Multiple authors. Progress on the container-contained problem.

It's true, I can think of things that I want more, but none of the ones on your list would make the cut. There's a reason many of these big issues haven't been resolved in all these years: they're really complicated and would take a massive amount of developer time. I'd rather see smaller improvements that would have a higher return on time spent. Also, I'd generally rather see social improvements than database improvements.

>341 polutropon: polutropon If I elect to forego comments on my reviews, which is what I will do if they are introduced, I fear it would send the message that I don't want to talk about my reviews at all, in any capacity. Which is just false; I would love to talk about my reviews.

I think SqueakyChu is right that starting a challenge thread is a good way to encourage discussion about your reviews. Not all of the challenge groups are really concerned about the "challenge" aspect, if that's something you prefer to avoid, and there are also groups like Club Read that don't have any stated challenge goals at all.

You could also start a thread in some relevant group for comments on your review and then put a link to that thread at the bottom of review, with appropriate verbiage of course.

>360 jjwilson61:
That's an interesting thought. It has come up in response to polutropon's concern about not being able to get review responses with comments off under a review comment system. But it could also be done right now by those of us who want comments and can't have them. It doesn't meet Zoe's criteria of placing the comments right next to the reviews (something I would also like) but it could be an interesting test case.

You want to try it? We could start a new group for review comments. Can someone come up with a catchy name? I'm no good at that kind of thing.

Then, per your suggestion, anyone who wants to participate links their reviews to discussion threads in the group. We'd have to decide whether to have one thread per person or one thread per review. The latter would be messy on the group page but make for better threads if anyone actually responds.

I suspect, for my reviews at least, that I wouldn't get much traffic. But who knows?

>361 eromsted: I think one thread per review would be better. Otherwise the discussion really could end up being more about the user than about the books.

It seems like a fun thing to try either way. One petty concern, though: does editing reviews mean that thumbs no longer count for sorting? I can't remember what the current status of this issue is.

This is way too complicated!! I wanted comments on reviews for the simplicity of making a comment as soon as I saw a review that was begging for one.

Trust me. Rather than begin a whole new group, it's much easier to do on a challenge thread where you already have a captive audience, and everyone is wanting to know what other challengers are reading. Links to reviews there are frequent. Comments on reviews there are many. The challenges don't have to be fulfilled. They're all about setting a goal and having fun attempting to reach it. There are no Challenge Police. There are just friendly people ready to jump in, read your reviews, and comment on them.

Here is one example of a Challenge I'm doing this year. I'll never finish it, but so what?

Just pick a challenge which interests you. A good time to start is now as most challenges run for a full calendar year. Set up your challenge and begin the new year having fun with people who *will* comment on your review. :)

>362 _Zoe_:

If you edit reviews, the thumbs stay. Don't worry! I do it all the time.

Here is the thread I was thinking of.

>363 SqueakyChu:
Well of course it's not what we were asking for, just something to try.

As to the challenge threads, I write reviews rather infrequently and I would be at least as or more interested in linking my old reviews (going back several years) as in linking new reviews going forward. Is there a challenge thread where that would be appropriate?

Second, like Zoe I think I would prefer a thread for each review as it would most simulate the idea of review comments we have been asking for. Do the challenge groups do one thread per person or per book?

Is there a challenge thread where that would be appropriate?

I can't think of any.

Do the challenge groups do one thread per person or per book?

None that I can think of.

I'd be interested in following your idea to see how it works, though.

>365 _Zoe_:

I'll go test it.

I made a small edit in a 1-thumb book I didn't particularly like. The thumb remained after I saved my edit.

No, this is not the reason I want reviews. I know it's a lot easier to make up positions for other people and then refute them by name-calling, but it doesn't really get anywhere (unless, of course, your plan is to make the idea disappear by dragging any discussion of it away from the actual issues and into less-friendly terrain of personal accusations).

But when you strip away the things you can already do that you say you want comments for, the public nitpicking is pretty much all that's left. Which results in your position being that you want to be able to nitpick and get public credit for it.

You were so close to getting to the point when you mentioned the accessibility of comments on the review pages. As jjwilson and I have both pointed out, having discussions in a separate, though nearby, place isn't the same as having them right where you're already looking. Comments on reviews could be integrated into the review-reading process, while going elsewhere on the work page to look for discussion would be a whole separate process.

Except, you had said that your primary reason for wanting comments was to get discussion about the book. Now you change your tack, and your argument seems to be that you want to generate discussions about reviews themselves, which people have pointed out is (1) a clear path to fluff and bad feelings, and (2) counter to the spirit of how the review process is intended to work (as elucidated by Tim).

The point isn't to seek out discussion by randomly reading through the reviews looking for comments. The point is to have the relevant discussion at hand without breaking off from what you're already doing.

So its the immediacy now. But the problem is that's not going to generate discussion about the book. That's going to generate a bunch of "one and done" shots. Do you really think that after they fire their shot into the fray and go on to other stuff, people will go back to the work, track down the one review with a discussion, and continue commenting? I think you are just engaged in wishful thinking there.

And I think that if what you want is continuing discussions about the book, then having the forum for such discussion attached directly to the book itself would be better suited, since it would be easy and intuitively obvious where to find the discussion again.

Comments on reviews, on the other hand, likely wouldn't do this. People rarely revisit reviews. People will lose track of particular reviews, as new ones are added and old ones move around on the page. It would be more bother than most people are willing to take to go back and find the review they read last week and commented on so they can continue the discussion today.

And at that point, what are you left with? A bunch of one-shot comments just like most comments threads on other sites with reviews and comments: "great review!", "you don't know what you are talking about, XXX is a great book!", "you suck if you like XXX!", "looks like I should read that", "Batman is actually left-handed", and so on. Talk about useless.

I have thought of one circumstance under which I might opt-in to comments on reviews: if the original reviwer has the unimited power to delete comments on reviews they have written. And to block particular members from the comment thread if they choose to.

I don't give a rat's ass how much love and care you put into your comment. If I don't like it, I want it gone, and I want to be able to do it myself, without needing persmission, without having to give a reason, and without having to let you know why, or even without having to give you notice. And if I think you're contributions aren't what I want, I want to be able to lock you specifically out of commenting on my reviews, without having to give a reason or justify my decision. If you want to parasite on my review, those are the only conditions under which I'd opt-in for it.

#361 " We could start a new group for review comments. Can someone come up with a catchy name? I'm no good at that kind of thing.
"

Review Comments?
Review discussions?
Thoughts on Reviews?
I wish I could comment on a review - now I can?
More power to the reviews?

Please link here if you do decide to create it. I'd be interested in joining.

#370 "the public nitpicking is pretty much all that's left"
Logical fallacy #4 - Argument from incredulity.

>8 fannyprice:
I agree, the 'green thumbs' are great to signify is someone likes your review, or comments, etc.

Fact is, if I write a review, I am happy to be contacted this way. But what if the person commenting on my review is angry about it, or that someone keeps stalking you for something you wrote? Many times I have seen people stalk posts and forums, with angry replies to people's comments, and they clutter the discussion with really bad, angry, talks and make me run away from the post.

In my opinion, I think that allowing people to comment directly to reviews can lead to difficult situations, where you can be harrassed by, say, an angry author, or the publisher, or other LT member with issues. Reviews are honest, and people who are more likely to comment on them are the ones who have issues with them, rather than people who are fine with them. Talks and forums are best for discussing issues.

For these reasons, I am against the idea of allowing comments on reviews, because it would not encourage reviewers to post them in the first place.

#373 - opt out then. You wouldn't have to have comments. That's no reason why others would gain some benfit from them.

Thanks to everybody who suggested creating a challenge thread. I've been considering it for a while, and with the new year just around the corner, the time is becoming auspicious. That seems like a good way to invite feedback on a review without allowing the feedback to change the tenor of the review as it appears on the reviews page.

I agree with a lot of what StormRaven said in >371 StormRaven:; I might agree to review comments if I had unilateral authority to moderate comments on my own reviews. Preferably, I'd like to have to approve them before they're made public. For the record, I'd be a lot more likely to approve a comment that contained a respectful and thoughtful objection than one that just said, "Great review."

But when you strip away the things you can already do that you say you want comments for, the public nitpicking is pretty much all that's left. Which results in your position being that you want to be able to nitpick and get public credit for it.

Actually, all this means is the fact that you don't find my arguments convincing, not that my position is something other than what I've stated.

Except, you had said that your primary reason for wanting comments was to get discussion about the book. Now you change your tack, and your argument seems to be that you want to generate discussions about reviews themselves

No, I haven't changed my tack. I think that comments on reviews will generate discussion about the book. I don't think that this is the only possible way to have discussion about the book, but I think it will add to the overall book discussion on the site.

It would be more bother than most people are willing to take to go back and find the review they read last week and commented on so they can continue the discussion today.

The obvious way to deal with this would be notifications like we get for profile comments. "Someone has comment on the review you commented on; click here to see." No tracking down necessary.

I would also be in favour of adding a section called "Your Review Comments" somewhere on the Profile page or the Reviews subpage, so that people could easily re-find the discussions they were interested in if they missed the initial notification. This might also dissuade people from nasty hit-and-run type comments, since they would be stuck with a public record of all the comments they'd made.

And to block particular members from the comment thread if they choose to.

I would assume that members you had blocked from your profile/Talk would also be blocked from your reviews. Given the fact that profile and Talk blocking are one and the same, though, I don't imagine that Tim would implement review-by-review blocking.

I don't give a rat's ass how much love and care you put into your comment. If I don't like it, I want it gone, and I want to be able to do it myself, without needing persmission, without having to give a reason, and without having to let you know why, or even without having to give you notice.

The problem with this is that it would take away the incentive to put love and care into a comment, especially if you didn't already know the person whose review you were commenting on.

I'd be willing to support all sorts of other harsh measures to prevent nasty comments, though, maybe starting with forbidding comments entirely for accounts created less than a month ago. Or if you have X comments that get flagged away, you're entirely prevented from commenting in the future, unless staff decide otherwise.

Basically, I'd support general measures to prevent ToS-violating comments (possibly even with stricter ToS for comments) and to enable community enforcement of the ToS. I don't support individual member ability to remove the comments of people who disagree with them or who have displeased in some way.

But what if the person commenting on my review is angry about it, or that someone keeps stalking you for something you wrote?... you can be harrassed by, say, an angry author, or the publisher, or other LT member with issues

If the person is angry that you didn't like your favourite book, you tell them that that's too bad for them.

If someone is actually stalking you, you contact Tim or Abby--no different from how that sort of violation would be handled in Talk. If there's actually harassment going on, these people can be removed from the site.

Thanks to everybody who suggested creating a challenge thread. I've been considering it for a while, and with the new year just around the corner, the time is becoming auspicious

For friendly (and high-volume!) conversation, I'd recommend the 75 Book Challenge.

For the record, I'd be a lot more likely to approve a comment that contained a respectful and thoughtful objection than one that just said, "Great review."

The problem is, that's just you. Without a way of knowing beforehand whether a respectful and thoughtful objection would be "allowed", why bother spending half an hour to write it? It would be a lot safer to leave comments of the "Great review" sort, which is why I think giving the reviewer such power over other people's comments would encourage inanity.

Of course, if I know beforehand what kind of comments you allow, that's all well and good, but it places the focus on personal (user-to-user) connections rather than book connections. It should be possible to engage with someone's ideas about a book without knowing them first.

>375 polutropon:

I'd like to second Zoe's suggestion re the 75 Books Challenge. One caution, however. Due to the high number of members (650 plus), it is prudent to make liberal use of the red x to eliminate threads which are of no interest to you as well the use of the yellow star to highlight those that most interest you. This will keep the volume of threads available and highlighted for you the most manageable and fun. Then, comment away!!

>371 StormRaven:

I like the idea of being able to delete review comments that I find offensive. That sort of censorship would *never* happen here, though, without deleting my entire review because that's inconsistent with the way LT handles such posts. Most likely an offensive comment would have to be "flagged" away by several people. I could live with that. I usually agree with the flaggers. Sometimes they seem a bit too aggressive for my taste, but that's okay, too.

>375 polutropon:

I also like the idea of the (optional) ability to turn on email messages for "comments on your reviews". Then it would be possible, as the writer of the review, to provide timely feedback to the comment. Other websites which allow comments often have this option.

In addition, if a comment can be construed as harrassment or violation of the ToS, this can be reported to admin fairly quickly. I would try very hard not to do this because I can see this becoming a burden on admin. I believe this was mentioned earlier in this thread as a negative for comments on reviews.

How hard is it to be at the works page. Click on conversations and there in the list that displays have "COMMENT ON REVIEWS:Name of BOOK" because those who have written a review and want to have such also start a particular thread with just that title and post their review to it. Also posting the other reviews who wish to have comments also. Thus everyone who wants a comment can start seeing the reviews that want to be commented on also...

Is there is no COMMENT ON REVIEWS:Name of Book when you write your comment, you get to be the thread starter! Woo Hoo...

You can even create a master list in the GROUP that you create for all these threads that have the name of the book so one can just scan down the touchstones and see if it is time to start a new thread for a book you just reviewed...

How hard is it to be at the works page.

That misses the point. Sometimes I want read the reviews page alone. If I would wish to comment on one review and then move on to the next review, I most likely would not want to follow a tangent to the "works", then "conversations", then "threads" bypass. Comments on reviews, to me, are brief comments that relate to a review, not an in-depth conversation about either the review or the book. Appropriately, for that, I would actively seek the "bypass".

>379 DWWilkin: It depends what you mean by hard. Would someone actually have difficulty doing this? No. Would it be inconvenient and awkward enough that people probably wouldn't bother? I think so.

So, you're reading a review that provokes further thought. In Situation A, you notice immediately upon reaching the bottom that there are 4 comments, so you can immediately read those as well and leave your own remarks if you wish. Then you continue down through the reviews. In Situation B, you start by either losing your place in the list of reviews, opening a new window, or noting down the name of the reviewer so that you can do a ctrl-F to get back to where you were. You load the conversations page, and search through a few pages of threads before coming to one from the Comments on Reviews group. You read through a jumble of comments about different reviews, half of which you haven't even read yet (since you were only partway through the user reviews at this point) and many of which just weren't interesting enough that you wanted to read discussion of them. At the end of all this, it turns out there was nothing about the review you were initially interested in anyway. You leave your comment and move on.

Is any individual step of the second process particularly challenging? No. But is the overall process streamlined enough that you would repeat it next time you came across a thought-provoking review, or would you dismiss the whole thing as a waste of time?

I've read through the thread and believe I fall into the category of people opposed to this feature for a couple of reasons.

I agree that a better place to engage in substantive discussion of a book is on the work page; if we get a great discussion going about a book that is tied to my review, and then I decide to delete the book or the review, that discussion is lost forever.

I first learned that Amazon allowed comments on a review when I posted a very negative review of a popular book and it generated hundreds of comments. The comments fell into a few basic categories: 1) Thanks- I too hated this book, 2) You obviously didn't understand the book if you disliked it so much, 3) You obviously didn't understand the book because you are too consumed with your narrow view of religion, and 4) You are obviously a small-minded person who hated the book because you are so jealous of the author's exciting opportunities. Given my knowledge that both 3 & 4 are absurd, I was able to laugh off the comments and move on. I never responded to any of them and certainly don't think any of them helped further a substantive discussion of the book.

Now, looking back on that review I will admit it was colored by my intense irritation at the book and the author at the time when I wrote it. Do I think it is my best review? No. Do I leave it untouched because it was an honest representation of how I felt about the book? Yes.

I do believe this book could be one that sparks interesting and substantive debate, but in my experience, allowing comments on the review just led to nasty sniping back and forth among two groups of people who obviously were never going to come to common ground.

"How hard is it to be at the works page. Click on conversations and there in the list that displays have "COMMENT ON REVIEWS:Name of BOOK" because those who have written a review and want to have such also start a particular thread with just that title and post their review to it. Also posting the other reviews who wish to have comments also. Thus everyone who wants a comment can start seeing the reviews that want to be commented on also..."

Oh you poor benighted soul! Don't you understand how impossibly hard it is to click on the "conversations" link and look through the thread the reference the book! And how it is impossible to look at the thread titles and figure out what the threads are about?

We need comments on reviews because we have to have immediate reactions to reviews, and clicking one or two clicks will make it less immediate! Unless we can click right away our thought processes will be derailed and we won't be able to vomit up our thoughts in seconds, because it will take even more tedious seconds!

That misses the point. Sometimes I want read the reviews page alone. If I would wish to comment on one review and then move on to the next review, I most likely would not want to follow a tangent to the "works", then "conversations", then "threads" bypass. Comments on reviews, to me, are brief comments that relate to a review, not an in-depth conversation about either the review or the book. Appropriately, for that, I would actively seek the "bypass".

In other words, your idea of why we should have comments on reviews completely undermines Zoe's argument in favor of comments on reviews.

> 384

So you're suggesting two different kinds of review comments, then? "If you want your comment to create a discussion of the book under review, click here. If you don't want to discuss the book but just want to comment on this review, click here."

~carefully removes tongue from cheek~

>384 StormRaven:

I agree with lilithcat. :)

Don't you understand how impossibly hard it is to click on the "conversations" link and look through the thread the reference the book!

See my earlier post about the distinction between "impossibly hard" and "too inconvenient to be worth the trouble".

See my earlier post about . . . "impossibly hard"

See!! Even Zoe says it is impossibly hard!!

(I can snip quotes too, just like you. Isn't that fun!)

Storm, it is time to leave this conversation. Some think we are too old to have acquired wisdom, or too old to see that the internet has changed everything and we just don't get it... Our arguments aren't worthwhile because they want what they want.

That we actually may have lived through the experiences we talk of, or know that privacy and the internet still can mix, aren't worth continually citing since now we begin to sound like we are shouting at the wind.

But take heart, we are the majority of the thread. I can see only three ardent supporters of comments on reviews. Even with opt-in, which is still very minority here in this thread, there is still only a few handfuls of comments for it.

What this has done, all this moaning and shaking of fists, has led me to change my opinion on opt-in. I am now against it.

You want to comment on reviews. Start a thread. Since I posted an impossibly difficult solution that no one can possibly ever do (tongue poked through cheek) I just have to remember the other things I want that Tim and team don't have. Series searching, didn't work, so I had to tag all my series, some 1200 of them. Boy that was an impossible task, but I did it, and so should I want to find my details on MASH for instance, I can get it instantly. (Since there is so much tongue in cheek, MASH is probably a good example.)

No, this is an issue that has run its course, but so few want it, how it can contribute to the community, i will never see. Must be the current middle ages.

See!! Even Zoe says it is impossibly hard!!

Very witty. I wish I had your brilliant sense of humour.

(I can snip quotes too, just like you. Isn't that fun!)

Where is this quote-snipping that you accuse me of, anyway? The only instance that I can think of is when I said that your constant dismissals on the grounds of purported selfishness needed to be addressed before the conversation could progress any further.

Or have you taken up DWWilkin's position that responding to specific points is an invalid form of argument?

>389 DWWilkin: Yes, when you base all of your arguments on invented assertions about other people, you are indeed shouting at the wind. Or did you really expect that by dismissing opponents as unqualified to have an opinion, or by filling space with various falsehoods, massive generalizations, and claims about your overall superiority, you would make a persuasive case?

Of course, it's a lot easier to promote falsehoods and stick to the insulting generalizations when you reject the idea of actually addressing any specific points. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to the same philosophy.

Some think we are too old to have acquired wisdom

No, you've made a mistake in basic logic. This is the sort of thing that can be avoided by paying attention to details.

You claimed that because of your age, you automatically had great wisdom (and, moreover, everyone should automatically defer to your opinion in all things because of it). I said that this was mistaken. It doesn't follow that I think your age actually prevents you from having wisdom.

Our arguments aren't worthwhile because they want what they want.

Actually, the reason your arguments aren't worthwhile is because they focus entirely on attacking the qualifications of your opponent and not on the issues raised.

we actually may have lived through the experiences we talk of

Sorry, I hadn't realized you had lived through my life. Or weren't you aware that your experiences may not be exactly the same as everyone else's?

Your world as a youth is so limited that you do not know people. You know kids from school who were all your age. You know your parents who protect you though you don't know enough to know that is what it is.

You know teachers, but you don't know teachers because they spend three hours with you a week and they don't tell you about their children and their dog and their husband getting a divorce and their worrying about bills and doctor visits and how to cook a souffle... You know your boss except you are so young that he also has not told you all the things that adults start talking about. You don't know the sixty three year old close to retirement with no savings who now thinks he will work till 80 and death.

Let me just say that you know nothing about my life experiences. These statements are wrong on so many counts. And, frankly, they're incredibly insulting.

privacy and the internet still can mix

I never claimed that privacy and the internet can't mix.

What this has done, all this moaning and shaking of fists, has led me to change my opinion on opt-in. I am now against it.

See, it's comments like this that make me question your supposedly great wisdom, acquired through years of experience interacting with people. You still act like a child in making decisions out of spite rather than reason.

Incidentally, it's the people who were against comments who started taking this to a personal level, questioning people's motives rather than addressing their arguments. You yourself were quick to begin with the accusations of cowardice. It sure is convenient to drag down the level of discussion and then use that as justification to dismiss the whole idea.

Since I posted an impossibly difficult solution that no one can possibly ever do

I'll be sure to remind Tim that the main principle of UI design is to make sure everything is technically possible, regardless of how inconvenient.

Where is this quote-snipping that you accuse me of, anyway?

Pretty much every time you have quoted me, you've done so incompletely, and then responded to something entirely different than the point made in my post.

But I'm sure that will be better when you are responding to actual reviews. Because no one would ever get annoyed if you did that on one of their reviews. ::rolls eyes::

Pretty much every time you have quoted me, you've done so incompletely, and then responded to something entirely different than the point made in my post.

I ask again, can you show me an example of this?

You know Zoe, all the experiences I put in recent posts were true. And part of growing old and finding that you are wiser is that you can see kids who are only 24 and really don't know a whole lot, which by your last attack post is all you know, kiddo (I chose kiddo deliberatly dear child--That too)

If you go back through this stupid attempt to get something that most people do not want, you will find I had a lot of posts that supported different things to help along the way... Not just saying how it has become inane.

But now, since you do snipe and quote so often, another stupid thing that further shows us old foggies how you will use comments on reviews should you ever get them. The reason many know it won't be a discussion but a flame war.

So here it is. I have posted my reasons against but you don't want to listen. I have been good about trying to supply you young person who knows TRUTH at such a juvenile age, that we who have lived through a whole lot of life know that your TRUTH is a lot different from other people's TRUTH, certainly my own, with viable work arounds in the current format.

But that is not good enough. Nothing has been good enough but for you to whine at us and tell us these are ideas that you are stating your opinion and that you are right. That all the rest of us who disagree, who want our reviews to not be commented on for whatever reason we have chosen are wrong.

Well it is gratifying to know that someone who has not lived can tell those of us who may be no wiser but certainly have seen a whole lot more are really truly not entitled to our opinions even when we defend our opinions. We are not entitled to a difference of opinion if it gets in your way.

We are suppose to continually see how you find new ways to tell us that we are wrong, obtuse, stupid, ununderstanding, and lie. Let me be clear. Everything I have seen shows me that you are a child. Not only your age, but all the attacks, all the refutation of anyone who disagrees with you.

There is no kindness for those who have been helping on the position, a major reason why you, you ZOE, not any of the others who were for this idea, changed my support of opt-in. People will abuse it, because people are people. You can't see that. You continually write that it won't happen. Yet other sites are given as examples that it happens.

You snipe yourself, so how are we to think that you will not do that when i misplace, a comma, in my, reviews, .

No, this is a horrid idea, and the more we discuss and give those who are proponents of it, it shows more that wiser heads (I know Zoe you do not trust anyone to be wiser, whether by age, life experience, calling, or inherent ability then you, but I assure you there are many wiser then you) will take out the animus that such a system would open up.

My biggest gripe about the time waster that this argument which we had placed into dormancy is that you say you want discussion of the book more then anything else, if I have read this thread correctly. Comments on reviews do not do that. The ferment discussion on the review, not the book. Find another way. I have taken pains to supply you with such an idea.

But now come on, attack me back. Call me a liar again for having lived. Call me just naive for reading through the long list of your cut and pasted responses that read like out of context sound bites by any politician and tell me that I have the sentiment of the members of LT who have posted in this thread wrong. That overwhelmingly people have not said no, while a handful of called for it.

To the others in this thread, I apologize that I can't leave without getting hit by that snowball in the back. Everytime I try to do so, I keep being told of my faults when doing so.

Wow that was quite a tirade. But it makes you look more childish than the youngsters.

Yeah I should have sent it as a comment to her profile...

>393 DWWilkin: You don't seem to understand that all the experiences you insist are true do not universally apply to everyone. Even as generalizations, they more accurately reflect the life of a teenager than someone in their mid-twenties. For example, you claim that my only friends are people my own age from school. This may have been the case in high school, but certainly not anymore. You say that I see my teachers for three hours a day and know nothing about them. This really doesn't apply in a place where there are three professors and only three students (incidentally, the other students are both married and in their thirties, not the same age as me at all as you claim). I'll refrain from giving specific examples of things that I know about my professors' personal lives.

You say that I don't know the sixty-three-year old close to retirement who has no savings and will have to work until death. I can't speak for the ages of everyone I know, since to me this isn't the defining characteristic of a person, but I certainly know many people in worse circumstances who visit the soup kitchen where I've volunteered for five years. In another aspect of my life, one of the people I spend the most time with overall is the woman in her forties with two children who worries about losing her job in the recession.

On another note, you haven't convinced me of the stupidity of quoting. I'm still waiting for StormRaven's examples of when this contorted the meaning of his posts. I'd even go so far as to say that responding to what someone has actually said rather than what you claim they said demonstrates a higher degree of respect for them.

Nothing has been good enough but for you to whine at us and tell us these are ideas that you are stating your opinion and that you are right. That all the rest of us who disagree, who want our reviews to not be commented on for whatever reason we have chosen are wrong.

I haven't said that you're wrong for not wanting your reviews to be commented on. Throughout this whole discussion, I've supported some sort of opt-in/opt-out. People who don't want comments on their reviews shouldn't be forced to have them. It doesn't follow that people who do want comments on their reviews shouldn't be allowed to have them.

We are suppose to continually see how you find new ways to tell us that we are wrong, obtuse, stupid, ununderstanding, and lie. Let me be clear. Everything I have seen shows me that you are a child. Not only your age, but all the attacks, all the refutation of anyone who disagrees with you

So, let me get this straight. If you "attack" someone older than you, it demonstrates that you're a child, but if you attack someone younger than you, it's merely a demonstration of your superior wisdom?

Refuting people who disagree with me has nothing to do with age, but with the quality of their arguments. If someone takes an opposing position and presents a weak argument to support it, why should I suddenly take their side rather than refuting their argument?

And again, let me repeat that I haven't said that those who don't want comments should be forced to have them. I understand that different people have different preferences. I haven't been the one trying to impose my opinions on others here; those who want to stick with the status quo can stick with the status quo. It's the people who oppose comments who have said that if they don't want them, no one else should be allowed to have them either.

Comments on reviews do not do that. The ferment discussion on the review, not the book. Find another way. I have taken pains to supply you with such an idea.

I've said before that I don't think discussion of the review and discussion of the book are such different things. Discussion of the book is going to involve people's opinions of the book regardless of where it takes place. Some people will disagree with others, and will say so.

I've considered the idea that you proposed, and I just don't think it would catch on with LT users. It's not convenient or natural enough; it's not integrated enough with what people are already doing on the site. This isn't a personal attack; I just don't think that your idea, while technically possible, is very workable in practice.

At the same time, I do support other improvements to promote discussion as well. For example, it would help if there were different kind of touchstones to distinguish discussions of the book from mere mentions. I don't think there's one single way to foster book discussion on this site; the different approaches are complementary and supporting one doesn't imply a rejection of all others.

I really think that the rhetoric could be toned down here. A significant percentage of the conversation is now thoroughly in the "noise" column of signal-to-noise ratio.

So, setting aside the various impugning of motives, critiques of judgment, complaints about ill-mannered conversation, and the like, here's the substance.

(1) We have a suggestion about comments on reviews. This is not a completely bizarre and off-the-wall suggestion; similar features are implemented in various forums, some to good effect, some to less. People can very reasonably suggest this and think it's a good idea (as I do).

(2) We have some objections to the comments-on-reviews suggested feature. Some people's objections would be met by having an opt-in (or opt-out) mechanism. Other people object to the concept entirely and prefer discussion not directly tied to or about another person's review.

(3) We have some points of agreement, to wit:
a) We all appreciate ways to discuss works and start conversations with other people on the site. (Or at least acknowledge that fostering conversations is a desirable feature for the site.)
b) We all agree that Tim et al have a lot of balls in the air & will need to figure out more and less productive suggestions to spend their time on.

(4) We also have some points of disagreement between some of the for-comments and anti-comments people. Some anti-comments people think that not only would they themselves want to opt out of such a feature, but that it runs the risk of harming the collegiality, number of reviews, or quality of discussion currently on the site. Some pro-comments people think that on balance it would be a helpful addition.

So, I propose that folks just unilaterally lay down their arms on this "you said", "I did not" stuff. Second, acknowledge that we can individually have different opinions about the likely outcome of a new feature, and there is no way to prove it short of running the experiment -- so on some issues people will just have to agree to disagree.