Honestly? I stopped reading reviews years ago. They're just incredibly unreliable (I swear the majority of reviewers are paid directly by the publishing house) and/or have completely different tastes/standards than mine. I just take recommendations from friends now.

The most that reviews do for me is they let me know that everyone's raving about Some Book. Then I wait until a friend tries Some Book, and then I ask friend "Hey yeah - is that as good as they say?" And even that's not terribly reliable.

I hate reviews, and I only read them after I have read the book or seen the movie.

I feel that reviews give too much away, and frankly I don't care what other people think about something - I only care what I think. Furthermore, if a friend (or even my husband) tells me about a book or movie I want to know only one thing - "Did you like it?" Yes or no. Even then, I will make my own decision on whether I want to experience it.

If I bought a book it is because I like the author, or I liked the combination synopsis and first few paragraphs of said book.

After I have read a book, I read reviews to crystallise my impressions of it, to see whether someone more talented than I can articulate the delight or uneasiness or boredom that book induced in me. I want to see if there is something someone else saw in it which I missed, and which I might appreciate by more careful reading. If I particularly enjoyed it I want someone else to express more plainly and elegantly than I could the elements which I like and encourage others to read it, and if I thought it was poorly written or disturbing in some way I want someone to express my unease. But I don't enjoy vilification or malice in a review, or personal comments. A book comes from someone's creative imagination, and scorn poured on it seems to me to be rejection of a person's inner self. Maybe this is too fanciful on my part, but I believe that reviewers should be respectful of an author's vision, no matter how well or badly they think it has been realised.

I don't enjoy vilification or malice in a review, or personal comments. A book comes from someone's creative imagination, and scorn poured on it seems to me to be rejection of a person's inner self. Maybe this is too fanciful on my part, but I believe that reviewers should be respectful of an author's vision, no matter how well or badly they think it has been realised.

I read reviews for a few very different reasons:

1. I want to find out if a book is going to be any good. No, to be more specific: I want to find out if I'll enjoy reading the book. (Because let's face it, it's perfectly possible to have a fun time reading awful books.) In this case, humor, etc. are immaterial. I'm just looking for the facts, ma'am.

But the reviews can't come close to my 15-page test when it comes to accurately determining whether I'll like a book or not. Hell, even my 15-page test isn't failsafe, though it works better than other systems I've tried.

2. Entertainment. Reviews are opinion pieces, and I like reading them for their own sake--if they're by a select few reviewers. Mrs. Giggles, for example. Bam, for another.

When I read reviews for entertainment, I don't use them as any sort of buying guide. Much as I'm a fangirl of Mrs. Giggles, she hasn't inspired me to pick up any book she's reviewed. Well, OK, her review of The Thief's Mistress by Gayle Feyrer made me look it up, but it's out of print, and it was the premise (I'm a sucker for Robin Hood re-tellings) that drew me in more than anything else.

Given how ineffective reviews tend to be in helping me gauge whether a book is worth buying or not, nowadays I read them mostly because I enjoy somebody's voice.

I do like having a rating next to a review. Why? Because sometimes I'll get impatient with a long review, and all I want is a quick-n-dirty assessment of what the person thought. A grade and rating helps me and my urge for instant gratification, heh heh.

Well, I want two different things from a review. I read reviews before I have read a book to get an idea of briefly what the book is about, what sort of genre the books falls into (in the broadest sense), and how good a writer the author is (in the reviewer's opinion). In short, whether it looks like the kind of book I would appreciate and whether I should actively look for a copy or not.

But after I have read a book, I read reviews to crystallise my impressions of it, to see whether someone more talented than I can articulate the delight or uneasiness or boredom that book induced in me. I want to see if there is something someone else saw in it which I missed, and which I might appreciate by more careful reading. If I particularly enjoyed it I want someone else to express more plainly and elegantly than I could the elements which I like and encourage others to read it, and if I thought it was poorly written or disturbing in some way I want someone to express my unease. But I don't enjoy vilification or malice in a review, or personal comments. A book comes from someone's creative imagination, and scorn poured on it seems to me to be rejection of a person's inner self. Maybe this is too fanciful on my part, but I believe that reviewers should be respectful of an author's vision, no matter how well or badly they think it has been realised.

I'm with you Sara - what you want from a review just about sums it up for me. Also, if it takes me longer than 1-2 minutes to read it is way too long.