Why would people share work online? Why would indie bands give music away for free? Why do crowds at online voting sites (the ones that attempt to predict winners of elections) do so, despite no monetary reward? Economics, as a discipline, has always dealt with the issue of incentives, and not all incentives are monetary. Fame and influence are powerful, compelling reasons, especially online.

Why should reviewers work for ego so that writers can work for money?

-J

Second, you have the non-weblit people who are interested in a certain niche, and who are technologically-savvy enough to see there’s an untapped community working in their area that they can build a base from. Become the bridge between the readers and the writers. They need to see an easy platform, and they’ll start taking the leap. If they see enough rewards (and not necessarily monetary), they’ll buy in. These reviewers are almost the most important of the bunch, because they’re actively expanding the weblit world.

In the end, these are all regular people who we (the writers) need to upgrade into Super Users. We just need to keep our eyes open, and they should appear quite regularly.

Let me see if I can ask my original question another way: Who are the “king” reviewers? Who are the Bobs and Jens?

plus it’s not necessary…

collaborative filtering will do the grunt-work of
connecting authors and fans together, thank you.

-bowerbird

WFG=genius

*looks at Chris*

See?! I told you so!

*finds a nice rock to hide under*

Niche sections (ie. Mystery, Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy) with their own differently designed page and an expert/specialist reviewer sounds like a good idea.

That is all :)

The problem is with elevating them in a centralized location. I’m thinking WFG, because that’s all we’ve got at the moment, and also because it’s reaching critical mass. We already have reviewers there, and some (very rudimentary) form of a ranking system for them. This can be a start.

Now I may have missed it in the discussion. (If so, please point me to the comment.) Where do we find Bob the Niche Reviewer? Is he in the fanfiction sites?

And Jen the Reviewer On Top Of Bob? Is she also to be found in the fanfiction sites? Or is she elsewhere?

I think there’s a place for writer-to-writer critiquing, but in the end, letting typos and other glitches slide (while still giving glowing reviews) only delegitimizes the process. Maybe we need some kind of system reviewers can hide behind, so they don’t have to feel bad? Every star is worth 20 points, and every typo costs you 1 point (with a max of 2 stars sacrificed to typos)? That way you can say “sorry, it’s just the way the system works…” I dunno. I know I’d have trouble ruining someone’s dreams over typos, but I may just be the odd one :)

@Alan: Yes, it’s the positive feedback loop in action! The more people participate, the stronger the loop becomes. Nobody can operate in isolation, or they’re weakening the whole. We just need to make everyone aware of that somehow…

I have one more post in me this week on this subject, about the need for a poppy support structure for the reviewers… but I’ll save that for Thursday. It’ll take some time to jot down…

I think the fundamental things that people are alluding to time and again are:

1. Review sites need to attract readers, not just writers;

2. Reviewers need to be seen to be equally stringent with all work, regardless of how it reached them. Whether it’s a new hardback from Random House or a web serial self-published by Joe Bloggs, it needs to be treated the same;

3. Certain reviewers need to be recognised as experts in their chosen genre/niche;

3. By managing to achieve 1., 2. and 3. above, both reviewers and writers will achieve an equal legitimacy and a cycle of trust will be born.

Things like WFG and eFiction Book Club are starting this process. By those sites maintaining their integrity and having the support of us as a writing community we start to achieve the things talked about in this article. Then it’s up to us as writers and those sites as reviewers to attract readers not just more writers and the slow burn should pick up pace.

The one thing that might smash the online (and self-publishing) gas pedal to the floor is the day that a non-traditionally-published work rises to compete toe-to-toe with mainstream works for something like a Pulitzer. Which means the shortest distance between then and now may be in focusing the online filtering process onto the best of the best of the best, then getting word out about those few select works.

On a related note, I put up a post tonight –

http://www.ditchwalk.com/2009/09/29/feedback-and-distortion/

– dealing with problems inherent in the review process, and how online reviews and sites like Richard Nash’s Cursor project might even out the playing field for everyone.

I also noted on e-Fiction Guide’s site, in this thread –

http://efictionbookclub.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/why-you-should-self-publish-and-general-thoughts-on-reviews/

– that:

“…I want reviewers to demand as much of self-published works as they do of any other. No more, but absolutely no less. In fact, I can’t imagine anything that will do more to legitimize self-published authors.”

Which goes back to MCM’s point that we need recognizable reviewers not simply to filter content, but to legitimize it.

Good thread.