Book Reviews Rating

[Seadog]

Is it possible that members can agree on a simple rating system which will allow those who post reviews here to allocate marks out of 10 in respect of various aspects of the publication in question. I pose this following my posting on the thread regarding the book "ARRAS" by Peter Barton etc and my views regarding a similar publication PASSCHENDAELE THE UNSEEN PANORAMAS which I possess. In that posting I remarked that the weight of that book at almost 5Ibs and its size caused very practical problems when trying to actually read it. I also stated that in my opinion this was one of those books which certainly in my case are not read cover to cover but randomly referred to on an irregular basis. Given that in my opinion there are a lot of books on the subject of WW1 that fall into this category including HIGH IN THE EMPTY BLUE" the history of 56 squadron by Alex Revell I propose that the following ratings out of 10 could be adopted on a voluntary basis.

1.0 Price

2.0 Content

3.0 Readability

4.0 Overall

Recommend Yes/No

Members will no doubt have their own views about this and it may be possible to agree a format which we can then suggest to the Mods and if they agree this will be Pinned at the head of the topic. There will of course be no compulsion for members to rate the book but I believe that such rating will be of use to prospective purchasers.

Regards

Norman

[sajackr]

Norman,

Excellent idea.

R'ds

sajackr

[David Filsell]

Sorry to be negative, matropn's not been round with my medication yet.

I think to enshrine books in any kind of rating on the Forum is pretty impractical. Not least all reviwers have different criteria. One man's unreadable doorstop may be another' prize book on a neglected subjet. I regularly review for Stand To and have learned from feedback that my criticisms on books that I have found of little interest have been balanced by those who greatly valued the works. Who's wrong the reviewer or the reader? I also want to know the status and expertise of the reviewer when I read reviews.I turn down reviewing books in areas in which I have limited knowledge

I have a thing about the quality of the graphic design, maps, pictures; has the book a bibliog, notes and refs. If I know a subject well enough (or venture that I do) then I'll write about that.

Equally, however knowledgable one may think one is, its rarely of value to rubbish another's research just because you think you know better or just didn'ty like the book. I've seen scores settled by regviews too - no names no pack drill.

I admit that I'm frankly boored by reading soldiers recently discovered diaries. Mostly they are of interest others than to those with a particular thing about the battalion or regiment. Frequently they are insufficiently supported by background material (a good editor's job) and become a list of "At rest today..... or Marched 25 miles today". And then one comes along with a knowledgable editor (rarely a "family historian") and they are transformed into works of value.

So. Not for me. I'd rather see other reviewers' news of publications and their opinions and sift through the replies, somewhere on of the many real experts on the forum will add their comment. That's the real value I think reviews on the Forum.

[truthergw]

I have to agree with David.A rating implies( to me ) an objective standard and I do not believe that there are any. If I post a review it is strictly my opinion on the day I typed the review. It is not unknown for my opinion to change over time.

[Moonraker]

I agree with Tom and David, including David's comments about published diaries.

Moonraker

[Seadog]

I agree with Nick, whoops sorry wrong forum!

Norman

[squirrel]

Agree with Mr Filsell entirely.

[gem22]

Norman

I will have to vote no along with some of the other posters; for the following reasons -

I don't buy a book if I cannot afford it.

I don't buy a book if the content doesn't interest me and I usually read the blurb before I buy.

I'm reading 'Arras', and I've read 'Passchendaele' and 'High in the Empty Blue', and I don't have the problem that you have.

Having said that then I think that your 4th category becomes redundant. I am not against people posting their views on this forum but I reserve the right to follow my own instincts and buy or not buy as I see fit. I cannot see how an arbitrary numerical system can improve my ability to select books that I want to read.

It will be interesting to see how others feel.

Garth

[hazelclark]

Couldn't have said it better! A typical example for me is that most of Lyn Macdonald's books which were very highly rated by most people I found to be "okay" and only actually purchased one of them. The others I borrowed from the library.

H.C.

Sorry to be negative, matropn's not been round with my medication yet.

I think to enshrine books in any kind of rating on the Forum is pretty impractical. Not least all reviwers have different criteria. One man's unreadable doorstop may be another' prize book on a neglected subjet. I regularly review for Stand To and have learned from feedback that my criticisms on books that I have found of little interest have been balanced by those who greatly valued the works. Who's wrong the reviewer or the reader? I also want to know the status and expertise of the reviewer when I read reviews.I turn down reviewing books in areas in which I have limited knowledge

I have a thing about the quality of the graphic design, maps, pictures; has the book a bibliog, notes and refs. If I know a subject well enough (or venture that I do) then I'll write about that.

Equally, however knowledgable one may think one is, its rarely of value to rubbish another's research just because you think you know better or just didn'ty like the book. I've seen scores settled by regviews too - no names no pack drill.

I admit that I'm frankly boored by reading soldiers recently discovered diaries. Mostly they are of interest others than to those with a particular thing about the battalion or regiment. Frequently they are insufficiently supported by background material (a good editor's job) and become a list of "At rest today..... or Marched 25 miles today". And then one comes along with a knowledgable editor (rarely a "family historian") and they are transformed into works of value.

So. Not for me. I'd rather see other reviewers' news of publications and their opinions and sift through the replies, somewhere on of the many real experts on the forum will add their comment. That's the real value I think reviews on the Forum.

[yelob]

I think there is some merit to the suggestion in that it can give a reader an idea quickly enough if there is a book

worth considering. For instance if I see lots of 5 star reviews on Amazon in a book category I am tempted to check more

but I don't go on the number of stars alone as I like to see the 'meat' of the review and why the 5 stars are awarded. So I think they are helpful at least in part.

Liam

[lenandoliver]

I must admit I too prefer a `proper` review on a book from this forum. I have recently purchased `The Quick and the Dead`, `Fear`, and `Arras`. and many more. It really does help me when choosing a book. As i am visualy Impaired, i think it would be nice if the reviewer could mention about this size of print (please).

Fran

[Steven Broomfield]

Just think - we could become the GW's very own Tripadviser.com ...

[Dragon]

If a ratings system were to have value for me, I would want to know:

1. Do I know enough about the person doing the rating to trust her or his opinion? People who have been contributing to the forum for a long time tend to have track records and may be perceived as reliable and trustworthy, whereas someone who has made a handful of posts or recently joined may be extremely insightful but not yet shown it, or the author's best mate. But even track records may be flawed, because...

2. Does this person think similarly enough to me for me to know that if she detests or admires a book I can be reasonably sure that I will too?

3. What do these terms mean? I don't think my thoughts on readability correlate with others, as many times I've seen a military history or book of diary entries raved about on here, whereas to me the prose style is turgid and unengaging. And just look at the wild variety of opinions on 'Birdsong' or 'Regeneration'; the stars awarded would be so disparate as to be meaningless.

4. What effect has people's general wish to avoid the bottom ratings categories had on this evaluation? It's known that many people will tick in the neutral bands rather than tick the bottom rating. This would particularly apply if a writer was actually a member of the forum and as such was e-known as a person. Most people don't like being hurtful.

5. What about the author's reputation? A poorly implemented rating system could be damaging to authors' reputations.

I think a format of expanded prose reviews, enhanced and developed by the thoughtful comments of other readers, works fine on an Internet forum like this one. I wouldn't find a set of stars helpful at all.

Gwyn

[David Filsell]

I did try posting a few reviews on the forum, feedback was pretty helpful too. I often comment on books that I know about and have strong opinions on. Why did I stop? I got into a message brawl with a user. I dont need that.But let me try again.Let me have your thoughs, helpful or not.

AT LAST

MARK OSBORNE HUMPHRIES AND JOHN MAKERS (EDITORS)

Germany’s Western Front: Translations from the German Official History of the Great War, Wilfred Laurier University Press. $85 (but see copy below) 413 pp, 3 Appendices. Selected bibliog., index, 35 maps, sketches and figures. ISBN 978-1-55458-051-4

This is neither full, formal review a formal review, for which I do not feel adequately qualified. Nor is it simply news of publication of a very expensive and very important new book; one which I never expected to see published in English. Its buyers will probably be few and, as I know from my credit card, on sale at a hand wringing “academic” price. (but see note below).

Although Jack Sheldon and a number of other good military historians have shown us glimpses of German Official Histories in their writing, Germany’s Western Front offers non German readers the very first opportunity to read the German Official History of the Great War on the Western Front.

That nation’s official history in its original form covered, chronologically, the nation’s war on all fronts. This volume, No 2, covers 1915 and is, strangely, the first to be published, offers only translation of the original material about war in the west. Volumes covering 1914, 16, 17 and 18 volumes will follow in the course of an extended publication programme.

The translation, undertaken by a team of experts, and edited by Humphries and Makers, have been published by Wilfred Laurier University Press and financially supported by an historically aware government. Unsurprisingly, not that of Britain, but of Canada. In addition to the original text the work offers fascinating supporting detail about the original publication of Der Weltkreig, 1914 bis 1918, between 1925 and 1944 (one of, and the most important, of three different sets of German Official Histories of the Great War) as well as details of the destruction of the majority of the papers used in its publication by RAF bomber on 14th April 1944

The importance of this first volume could not be better underlined than by repeating the words of Hew Strachan, Chichele Professor of History at Oxford, in his introduction to the book:

“This volume will transform English-speaking historian’s understanding

of a crucial stage in the first world War.”

He adds:

It might even make Germans view their own operational military

history seriously”.

Invaluable only starts to underline the value of this book to those interested in Germany at War 1914-1918.

(Wilfred Laurier University are offering a useful discount for on-line sales)

Now, how for do you work ratings on that. Its costly and I know why. It has a limited audience - I think it important others simply wont give a toss Its well edited and produced, the maps barely adequate. Others may "know different", and that's wher the problem lies. If my reviews are in Stand To or other publications, it takes a bit of an effort for the critics to get at me. On the forum I'm an easy target. I just don't want that. Life's too short.

[Dragon]

I often comment on books that I know about and have strong opinions on. Why did I stop? I got into a message brawl with a user. I dont need that. ... On the forum I'm an easy target. ...

Oh dear. I do hope you don't mean a brief disagreement you and I had in about 2004 about the merits of 'Birdsong' and 'Regeneration', David. I didn't think that was a brawl.

That aside, I think your post underlines the problems of easy publishing of strong opinions on Internet forums and the anonymity the Internet provides.

Gwyn

[David Filsell]

Dear Dragon,

Oh no. This guy was offensively rude. It was not the polite clip round the ear you gave me (and which was probably deserved). It even doubted my fatherhood. For some reason I am told I become quite irrational when birdsh1te crops up. Irrational moi? and I must say I thought the dirty bits were well done. Don't even get me started on Warehorse either. Saw the play hated it. (although I have great regard for Private Peaceful. So no offence taken.

regardezes

David

[themonsstar]

Hi David

Do you have a link for Wilfred Laurier University or the book.

Are you going tonight.

Regards

Roy

[Staffsyeoman]

I am with David. I review books for the National Army Museum and a learned society. The worst kinds of books reviews are thus:

- They review the author

- They review the subject matter of the book, not the book itself

- The reviewer is 'the world's greatest expert' on a tiny element of the subject in the broad, finds a minor [perhaps even forgivable, or for reasons of space, or conciseness] error then trashes the whole endeavour*.

It pains me sometimes - knowing that the path to research is a grinding one - to make negative comments about a book, but I always go back to 'is it worth buying'; 'does it add to the sum of knowledge' . Praisingly faintly or faintly praising a book in order to avoid conflict or offence is almost worse. Your credibility as a reviewer can be dented on this. Some examples (off WW1 topic, indulge me).

A recent book about operations in Afghanistan (mid-00s) with a Unique Selling Point (no, not SAS or SF). Clearly, a work of catharsis for the 'author' - the book was clearly ghost written - but I am not going to rubbish such a work entirely. But. Read like a man down the pub telling you his story, only not as vivid; badly edited. Second, a volume on holders of a gallantry award by an author with a good record. It was incomplete; riddled with errors and lacked even the simplest of research rendered easier in the electronic era. It pained me to say 'no good'. A biography of a WW2 General. It lacked academic sources, was pedestrian and overly short, and veered dangerously towards hagiography. This General had a very distinguished post war career. I said something like... the subject deserves and merits a modern, considered biography. This is not quite there. I get a letter from the author, piqued, who tells me that the subject's widow, son, gardener, batman... etc thought it was marvellous. I did think as I read this litany that 'as soon as he hits an objective witness I may think again' - but it never did.

* I do know a fellow, a fine chap otherwise, who re-enacts a specific aspect WW2 Arnhem. A recent book misidentified armaments in a photo caption, so to him - the whole book was junk. I thought it had considerable merits to the non-specialist.

[Staffsyeoman]

Meanwhile, back at the point... a ratings system (stars, points and sos on) is utterly subjective, for good reasons or ill; I could not bring myself to support one. You only have to see the frequent battles in cinema magazines over star ratings as an illustrative point. (One magazine - Empire - often revises its view between the cinematic and home release; more difficult with books, unless the paperback is rearranged*).

* Two examples of late: Christopher Andrew's 'Official' History of the Security Service. Considerable revisions for the paperback - so you had to buy both. Keith Jeffrey's 'Authorised' History of the Secret Intelligence Service to 1949. Plans not/not to revise it for the paperback. But it was...so you had to buy the p/b too... No animus to either Professor there.