If the practice is for everybody to not give one star reviews, then the reviewing scale is effectively reduced in range to four stars, and then the two-star review becomes as 'awful' as the one-star review. Not that I think people will pay much attention to that pathetic suggestion
Exactly. Harriet is always the prime example but there are others like her as well. When you give four and five stars to very good books as well as very bad books, how can you even consider that review worth while? This goes for other sites, blogs etc. as well. If every review you've ever given is a gush fest, well I tend to discount those reviews after a while.
Prime example for me, if I had been wise enough to look at the critical reviews of Pillars of the Earth and not all those glowing ones, I probably would have realized it was not the book for me and saved my time and money with it. Not every book is for every person, so what one reviewer didn't like I might love and vice versa.
What I can't understand is why we can criticize movies, restaurants, plays etc. to our heart's content without all this *don't hurt my baby* business but we must never ever do the same about books. You put your work out there, you have to realize you take the good with the bad.
Publishers now report that back-cover blurbs from other authors are almost useless.
Most readers I know are pretty much feeling the same. Honestly, after you see the same authors blurbling over and over again on various books that I find fair-mediocre, I give them about as much consideration as I would a Klausner review.