Worldcat's Reviews (was tagging)

> I think you're dead right. Not to go too far afield but here are some
> other quick throughts on why WorldCat's reviews have never gone
> anywhere:

Oh oh, you got me wound up on this again! ;> I'll piggyback my own thoughts
about the problems with WorldCat reviews:

> 1. They aren't posted right away; there is an approval process.

There is a *highly evident,* snotty-in-the-worst-kind-of=librarian-way
review process (I almost wrote "problem"). Amazon has a review process. You
just don't notice it.

> 2. WorldCat gives detailed directions on how to write your review.
> It's patronizing and a turn-off to most visitors. Amazon doesn't do
> that; it just sorts by how many people like a review. LibraryThing
> even allows people to even post URLs. There is a deep lesson here
> about the differences between how library science traditonally thinks
> and how search engines and much other new media does: Filter on the
> way out, not on the way in.

Yes, and yes on 3 (reviews hidden), 4 (Worldcat not designed to compensate
for the fact that you go there for stuff you haven't read), and 5 (it's not
yummy or colorful or fun... or social in any way; it feels like you're doing
it for The Man).

Also, you don't get any reward for sharing a review. You can't subscribe to
a feed to see the reviews on things you've reviewed, you aren't plunged into
a social network of people-who-tag, you don't get a big gold star for being
a top reviewer, you can't find a plugin to blog from it, you can't go back
and reread your reviews as a group (yes, I do this; I love to see how my
reviews are rated, preen over my spotlight reviews), etc. As several of us
say, it falls into an abyss; it's as if you're reviewing entirely for THEM,
not also for YOURSELF, and that's a huge tactical error. Call me a selfish
me-gal, but there's a transaction happening with Amazon reviews. It's not
just a question of critical mass: it's a feature that doesn't really want to
be there.


Karen G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com