Week Five prompt

Do you think it's fair that one type of book is reviewed to death and other types of books get little to no coverage? How does this affect a library's collection?  And how do you feel about review sources that won't print negative content? Do you think that's appropriate? If you buy for your library, how often do you use reviews to make your decisions? If not, how do you feel about reviews for personal reading, and what are some of your favorite review sources?

I mean, this started out a self-published ebook.
Need I say more?

It isn't fair that an digital-born book doesn't receive the same coverage as a physical book.  I feel there's a stigma against ebook-only formats, because that often meant self-published.  I don't know if that's the case anymore...in the last year, I've started to receive requests for ebook-only books from big(ger) name authors.  Investigating read-a-likes for this class, I've seen some small publishers that seem to publish only ebooks for new authors.  Ebooks are still a relatively new thing, with a specialized industry only just starting to grow around them (as opposed to being seen as a companion to physical books), so I'm sure we'll eventually see this stigma and inequality in review coverage fade over time.  But for right now, this lack of coverage probably keeps many librarians in the dark about what to purchase for their digital libraries.  Authors may have written something great, but unless a patron specifically requests their work, they miss out on the publicity a library can give them.  And we miss out on adding that something great.


I'm a big believer in "if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it at all."  But when it comes to products we might spend our money on...!  My first thought when I read "review sources that won't print negative content" was well, who paid them not too?  Although when I put some more thought into it, I became more ambivalent about it, especially if it is a publication specifically meant for librarians.  Why waste resources publishing a negative review?  Instead of urging librarians NOT to buy something, publish glowing reviews of things they SHOULD buy.  It is probably just as effective.

I do not buy for my library, but I took a collection development class last semester, so I've become familiar with how our purchasers think.  For a book to 'pass muster,' there need to be at least two positive reviews from authoritative resources (SLJ, Booklist, Kirkus, etc.) or simply a heavy demand.  Negative reviews aren't an 'official' part of the process, but in an interview, a department head admitted that if they came across negative reviews, or even one really vehement one, that could tank a book's chances.

And I'm all for reviews for personal reading.  My 'to-read' stack would be huge otherwise!  (...I say that as it's not already insurmountable...)  My go-to is Goodreads.  The users there are typically big readers themselves, or at least experienced with whatever particular genre, so I'll skim reviews to get a good general impression.  Occasionally I write reviews myself!  If I feel the need for a secondary review source, I'll check Amazon.  Amazon reviews fluctuate in quality and may focus on Amazon's delivery service instead of the book itself, but since it's such a popular site, it's pretty much guaranteed there'll be reviews.  If an obscure title doesn't have a review on Amazon, it probably won't anywhere else.