I totally agree. Totally. I don't mean to be, well, rude, but why would anyone reblog a review by someone else (unless, I suppose, the author of the reviewed book is reblogging the review for marketing)? I mean, yes, a really well done review is a thing of beauty, indeed, but it was written by someone else. Someone who wants to credit other reviewers for awesome reviews could do a weekly post on "hey, everyone should totes check out these awesome reviews by my friends" with some links to particularly amazing reviews, but aside from that, don't reblog other people's reviews. I have no issue with reblogging fun images that people got off the internets - silly cats and the like, or quotes, or whatever, but reblogging other people's work seems a little bit like stealing, but even more like cheating. If you want people to follow you, generate your own content. Don't "borrow" content that was written by other people. Basically, it's lazy. I'm out there on the limb with you.
I'm glad I'm not alone. I totally get wanting share great reviews. I mean, that's part of the purpose of book social networks. But the way it's done as provided by the site is wrong. It takes too much from the reviewer. I'm not saying don't share in your own feed, but to do it in a responsible way that doesn't take from the reviewer you're ostensibly complimenting with the reblog.
I can understand wanting to share a review you find particularly well written and interesting, but there is a way to do that without reblogging by creating a post with a url to the post with the review.
I sometimes have 3 or 4 reblogs of the same post in a row. Not reviews, just posts. Drives me crazy. I’m sure some of you who follow hundreds of people could potentially get dozens of reblogs of the same post. The only posts I can think of that need to be reblogged that much are this one and the one about adding a page break!
That's always a problem with social networks. Because we all have our pages and want something on it, but then it flows into someone else's feed and they see it quite a few times. The same thing drove me nuts on Goodreads. I would have been more okay with it if it weren't a constant
barrage of gifs and gifs and more frigging gifs in a row, in the same review or status (or the people who think their every update requires a gif). But, yeah, it gets annoying everywhere.
I know you don't, I don't think anybody does, really (other than the jerkasses who actually do plagiarize reviews, but they're a different breed). And I want to see reviews from people I may not be following, but I just feel like we can do better than straight reblogging this way.
If I reblog something, I take the time to go back through the reblogs to find the original poster. I then place a link to the original poster at the beginning of the re-blogged content.
I now try to do that with anything I reblog, but I still don't feel like that's enough with reviews. Because even with the link at the beginning, if the entire review is there people will more likely like and comment on the reblog instead of the original review, you know?
I don't like reblogging either because it clutters up my feed with redundant posts. I would like for Boolikes to get something similar to the Facebook/Goodreads "like" features. It accomplishes the same goal without cluttering up feeds and confusing people as to the original author of the post.
Yeah, I'd prefer that, too. I think the feed can still be cluttered that way, especially when it's all gif-filled, etc., but it will cause less confusion and everything will go where it's supposed to.
I agree with you. The only reason really to reblog a review would be as a marketing thing by the author, or maybe if the review was really hilarious. I think that BL should come up with a way for people to ask permission to reblog - ie perhaps when the initial post is posted a check box that says may or may not be reblogged? As a newbie to the site, I find it difficult to backtrack to the original post (I always seem to lose it). I wish there was a way to store favorites of blog posts so I could access them easily. I guess I need to go to the make a wish page
In terms of access old blog posts so far the timeline has worked for me. I go through and look for something I liked and typically find it. But that may be because I've only been on the site since late September, once we're further out it'll probably be prohibitive to search that way. The other thing you can do, if so motivated, is create a "page" and whenever you want to save something really great you can quickly drop the link there. Even other different headings for quick organization, too.
I think you can definitely share your love for a review - just not reblog it - instead just link it in your text, and then you can give a sentence or two about why you wanted to share it.
And for those who really don't want to make others tired of seeing a reblog again - reblog but put the majority of it behind the page break. Everyone's happy that way.
I think the reblog feature was intended to be used something like Tumblr's system for reblogging, but the problem is that the sources aren't delineated clearly, so it's more complicated to see who likes what and who reblogs what down the line, which means it's easy to get lost or misattributed. And in the case of earlier when I was writing a review, I didn't get a chance to correct an uber major error, so if that gets reblogged out, can't really change it from there. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, though I seriously don't mind if people reblog my stuff, personally. Just as long as the attribution's there. I've had to check myself a few times here on BL for both long posts and reblogging, just to make sure that I'm not cluttering up people's feeds overmuch with the same material (or material that may be too long to scroll through).
Yeah, it would be better if it were more like Tumblr's reblogging. On that site, even though the post shows up on the individual's page it is still centrally linked and commented for the most part and goes back to the original poster. Like if someone reblogs your review, and then I reblog that, you'll have two reblogs instead of one and the other reblogger having one. And it's easy to see that you posted it. Now, my reblog of the reblog completely erases attribution unless I do the work to make sure it remains. And I still don't like that you don't get the likes and comments. Not only do you deserve it, but it dilutes the conversation, which is one of the best parts of doing this in the first place.
Yes, the conversation aspect suffers. If someone reblogs from another user then gets comments asking about that reblog (on the assumption that the reblogger is the author) their comments are just one or two of potentially many more....and many more = a discussion , so the original blogger is out of the loop on a discussion that they instigated. Doesn't seem fair to me.
I think a lot of my discomfort with "reblogging" comes from blogging on wordpress, where reblogging really isn't very common. I'm not on tumblr, so this is all pretty new to me.
I don't use tumblr either and my main blog is on blogger so it's all new to me too. Maybe I'd feel differently if I started out on tumblr. Dunno though, it still seems 'iffy' to me.
Support and agree :) I think I've only reblogged a couple of times since I got here because it just doesn't feel right to me. Both times it had the 'reblogged from' bit at the bottom but the people commenting still assumed it had been me writing the post and it made me uncomfortable so I stopped doing it.
I'd 100% agree to the 'like button' option. No ambiguity there and I still get to let others know via my feed that a cool post is out there.
One of the first times I reblogged something I got thanked for it and it made me super uncomfortable. That's when I started making the effort to find the original poster and reblog from them, link back and make it clear it's a reblog. But I don't think that's enough for reviews.
I think reviews shouldn't be reblogged, but highlighted in a separate post with a link to the original review(s). I like the idea above from Lindt Ninja about a weekly highlight post. And then reblog the crap outta that. ;)
Good idea! I have about 3 - 4 draft posts I am working on at any given time. This would fit right in and if it's a really good week I could go on and post with a page break to keep the long post from clogging things up. I can also see making a page with links to posts that are really special and then updating it from time to time.
Themis-Athena made a helpful point on my post - if we actually do manage to get consolidated book pages that include *all* of the reviews in one location, then reblogging reviews will mean that the same review will presumably show up a dozen times or more, all with different "authors" on that same book page. This could become a significant annoyance.
Oh, yeah, that is very true. I'm going to assume that, hopefully, they will code it to filter out anything that has "reblogged by" at the bottom? Hopefully they'll think of that. This is also indicative of part of my point in diluting conversation. And you even specifically said to comment here and still got a comment there (no offense to Athena at all, just making a point about review discussions) which is why even putting links above and below a reblogged review doesn't work for me because people naturally will not go back to the original post to comment and like.
I suspect those of us who are long time tumblr users are guilty of this too. On tumblr when you reblog, the comments are aggregated to the original post as well (and to everyone else who reblogged it before you) so it's always easy to track back to the original unless someone made a special effort to break that chain, and also the comments and likes go to the original post so everyone can find them.
That is mighty convenient, and would be sweet if it worked here, but since it doesn't, I have had to really retrain myself not to hit that reblog button just to add a comment.
The entire BookLikes system is very strange to me, in general -- rather than a single consolidated list of reviews for a very specific book, if we search the book, we get a lot of random reviews ( and sometimes completely different books), but if we input the same search again, it's the same 'order' -- so it's not random, but uses a system of showing 'priority' content before others. Might be based on search terms? I'm not sure. Either way, normally, it's not so bad. It's when you want a collective whole on that one specific book that it becomes problematic, as you dig through review after review, and you -know- you've seen at least 5-6 reviewers you follow who've done a full review, but are forced to go to each individual reviewers shelves to see their respective reviews.
Reblogging is reminiscent of that. I often see 3-4 reblogs from a single person, and while I would also LIKE to get that specific status/blog out, there's not really a point since the people I follow/follow me also follow each other, so it would just clutter someone's notifications and feeds.
BookLikes "fixing" Reblogging ( with a lot of the good suggestions here ) would help, but it's honestly a symptom of another problem -- the lack of a cohesive "book page" ( for a lot of content, at least. Status Updates are a different matter, and a ton of good suggestions have already been suggested in this thread as to possible fixes for that ).
But for everything else? A single page dedicated to reviews of this one specific book, where 'reblogging' could link back to the originating article ( beneath this one specific books page ), would be -incredibly- helpful and centralize all the reviews in a single place. It would solve search issues, finding followers/followee book reviews, finding 'top rated reviews' ( still not entirely sure I like that specific system, as it seems a little arbitrary ), and most importantly, would stop cluttering up peoples feeds.
Yeah, honestly, I can't even use Booklikes for reviews at this point. The book pages are too sparse, the reviews are spread throughout different editions, I can't see my friends reviews. Every time I've tried it has been very frustrating.
The reblog option on reviews needs to display differently than other reblogs because if I reblog your review it looks to my followers as if I read and reviewed that book. Without "reblogging," exactly like other posts, reviews can still be shared -- just not as a reblog that makes it look as if I'm saying this is my review of the book right up to the last line when the "reblogged from abc" appears, if even noticed. It's not a clutter issue for me; but, I do think there's a difference in sharing/reblogging conversations and having a green text "review" post showing on your blog dashboard exactly the same way your own reviews show. Not telling anyone what they can and cannot do; just not wanting a reblogged review to appear as if I am claiming the credit it for it; reviews need to be shared a different way.
I can see both sides of this. Although I agree, Debbie, that this could be confusing if someone doesn't post it as a reblog, at best, and more concerning is that it could create an easy route for plagiarism if a reviewer/blogger isn't honest.
There does need to be some change in the functionality related to the book page, though. Because, if you look at my comment below, reblogged reviews show up on the bookpage attributed to the reblogger, and the fact that it is a reblog isn't clear without actually clicking on the review itself. In addition, I think that the reviews are sorted by number of likes, so if a reblogged review gets more "likes" than the original review, it is the reblogged review that will appear at the top of the book page, while the original review languishes in obscurity somewhere below it. Which simply should not happen.
Instead of saying "booklikes shouldn't let reviews be reblogged LIKE OTHER POSTSi" — I guess I should have phrased it as "booklikes should reblog reviews DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER POSTS" -- I wasn't trying to prevent anyone from sharing or reblogging reviews; just prevent them from reblogging as a "review" versus just reblogging as if sharing someone else's regular posts.
Barbara, do you mean reblog as it is now or shared period? I have a hard time not out right agreeing with Debbie, but I get what you're saying. I just get it more if you mean sharing. I think everyone wants to be able to share reviews, just not the way the current system does it. I don't like what Moonlight Reader points out, the original reviewer doesn't get all the likes and all the comments. I see some people being fine with that. Personally I'm not, and I think it does the community at large a disservice.
So, somewhat ironically, someone just reblogged the review that I just posted. When I got to the bookpage for the book that I reviewed, it shows my review as my review. It also shows my review as her review. Color me irritated, but reluctant to say anything because it makes me look bitchy.
I think that's something that could be taken care of - it could be reblogged, but not show up on the bookpage. I feel like this is going to be an issue, too, if someone both writes a review for a specific review and reblogs it. Do both those review go through? Does the review they wrote supersede the reblog? Also, if you don't write a review, but reblog, is the assumption you'd give the same amount of stars if you wrote a review? Doesn't this skewer the star rating?
I'm not a fan of this system and it goes beyond the fact that it seems like person b is responsible for person a's work. That's the main issue, I'd think, but there are so many more potential problems with this.
On the other hand, I'm still willing to give Booklikes the benefit of the doubt - they've been far more transparent, and responsive to concerns than Goodreads - and to believe this is simply something that might not have been completely thought through when first implemented. I'm also willing to give them some time, and see what they say and do before I make a judgement call on this.
Ugh. That is awful. Potentially awful for both parties. I get mad when a co-worker pulls up an old letter as a template and leaves my initials at the bottom of the new one. I don't want to take credit for a good letter someone else wrote or get blamed for a bad one or for mistakes. This would be worse because both mistakes and opinions would be misattributed. Ugh!
Yes. Again, not trying to tell anyone what to do or not do and not trying to say reviews cannot be shared or reblogged -- but not exactly just like other posts reblogged because not only shows on my feed as if I wrote the review but can also show on the book page as a review written by me. (Admittedly, the booklikes book pages with different reviews on different editions are confusing for me to navigate.)
Wow, and I didn't even know that happens when I posted this. That is a terrible part of the system. I'd be pretty irate, too. For some people writing comes easy and usually if it's a rant what I write is easyish, but otherwise it takes me a lot of effort and I don't think it makes me awful for wanting it to show up as mine or getting the likes and comments
for it (though, like I've said there is a community benefit for that too).
Yup. Agree w/ not reblogging reviews as well (tho I was probably guilty of it when first figuring out BL's various functions). I now just 'like' the review so that I have a record of it and it enters my feed for others to check out if interested.
Not permitting any reblogs, even of reviews, may be too extreme? But at very least, BL should do some programming edits so that reblogs get automatic tag or header at *top* of the post.
The problem is that when you like something it doesn't enter your feed for others to see, which leaves people with reblogging so the feed will see it. I think reblogging (with better attribution) in general
is fine except for reviews.
I don't think I've had anyone reblog anything of mine apart from tutorials (which I don't mind as I made them to help anyone who needed them) but it's hard to keep track of who reblogs what. Apart from going though the notifications is there a way to check? I'm not sure how I'd feel if one of my reviews got reblogged. Probably not thrilled, but is it a compliment to have someone reblog a review? I'd never do it to anyone else but I'm wondering how I'd handle it if it was round the other way...
A small "reblogged from" appears at bottom and refers to person who just shared; click and see who they reshared from; rinse, lather repeat and eventuslly locates original poster. Reviews are a particular issue because show as a review versus as a reblogged post—both on your feed page and potentially on one or more book editions as if written by people innocently reblogging.
I think it generally IS a compliment. Why would someone reblog something if they didn't think it is worth being read? But I still don't like it. I think that I am going to have to add a statement to my reviews requesting that they not be reblogged. It annoys me that my review shows up on a book page, and it looks like it was written by someone else. Not that I worked so hard on it, but it feels like plagiarism, even though I know that it wasn't intended that way. YKWIM?
I think you're right. It seems like it's meant as a compliment but it would just feel weird and wrong to see my review on someone else's page. Also, a book page full of review multiples would be a mess to try and see who was the original reviewer.
Thanks Debbie (if your reply was to me). I understand the 'reblogged' text bit at the bottom of posts to get back to the original source, but what I meant was - is there a way to see easily which of my own posts had been reblogged. I know it shows the symbol on each post that it's been reblogged but I don't think there's a way to know otherwise. Just wondering out loud really :)
No, I haven't seen a way to see all the reblogs of one post. Once you get to two degrees of separation it spirals and it doesn't track back. It's a huge problem IMO.
It certainly isn't a benefit if it is a 2 1/2 star review - like mine just was. In fact, reblogging gives me extra votes, positive or negative, on a book's rating page. Someone who really wanted to fuck with an author/help an author, could request that everyone on their feed reblog a positive/negative review to gin up extra good/bad ratings for the same book. Which seems completely inappropriate. At a minimum.
Another issue is comments on a review (or at least the complimentary ones). The original reviewer should be able to see the comments on their review and even have a conversation/discussion. The reviewer should not have to somehow track down where Joe reblogged and got some comments, then track down where Cindy reblogged Joe's reblog and got more feedback, then Tom reblogged Cindy's and Dick reblogged Tom's reblog of Cindy's reblog of Joe's reblog of original review … -- how on earth does anyone have a conversation? I'm not even sure it's of benefit to the book's author to have all those exact-same-worded reviews added to the book page.
It's 1:30 am and hubby is giving me the evil eye for clack, clacking on the laptop while he's trying to sleep. Lol, bless! So I'm calling it a night....just posting to mark my place in case there's a mountain of comments when I get back :)
For now, I am going to put the following request on my reviews: At the risk of sounding arrogant, please do not reblog my reviews. I am uncomfortable with the fact that reblogged reviews show in multiple locations on the book pages and therefore have a more significant impact on the book's overall rating than a single reviewer should have. I also do not like the fact that Booklikes does not attribute reblogs in a way that I think makes it clear that the content was created by someone other than the reblogger. I appreciate the compliment inherent in someone wanting to reblog something that I have written, however, I would prefer that you demonstrate your agreement or approval of my review by liking it, rather than reblogging it. In return, I will not reblog your reviews, either.
Debbie's Spurts0 seconds ago+0 / -0 replydelete
No. Plus I'm not sure everyone new to booklikes realizes that reblogging a review adds another copy of that review and another repeated star rating to the review page. I'm having to think hard about how to word or add to my own reviews because I've already got a lot of schtick in there about "reviewer's opinion" "copyrights" and "ratings scale explanation."
No. But, of course, I completely agree with you. Plus as Debbie points out it informs people of something they may not have known. As much as I saw concerns for who owns their reviews on GR I would be incredibly surprised if people aren't concerned with that here since people can so easily take a review.
So in general I was flattered to be honest. But I only found out about the reblog because I saw it on my own feed... I didn't get a notification. That made me sad. Putting Reblog in front of the original is the only way I could tell from the book page that it wasnt that persons review, but I didn't notice that until pointed out here. Right now, that doesn't bother me, but when we get a book page that is usable, it will.
You should get an email and a site notification
if someone reblogs you directly. You won't get one if someone reblogs someone else's reblog of your post.
Oh wait I just realized what it was... a copy paste URL link. The source was still there and the reblog in the title threw me. That's why I didnt get the notification or the little reblog number. It all makes sense now.
Back on topic.. on the book page (once it becomes a better book page), seeing the multiple reviews with the same text is what will get a bit annoying.
If any of you have the time, drop a note about this to Booklikes: contact@booklikes.com (found on their FAQ page: http://booklikes.com/page/18/faq ) I suggested a few weeks ago that reblogging needed to have a clearer way of indicating who the original post author was (and they said they were adding it to the suggestions) - but a lot of these comments phrase it better and give more examples of why this is a problem. Heck, just cut and past your responses here or a link here.
I haven't read through all of this, but Tumblr (which is closest to Booklikes) has a "like" which shows up on the initial post, I believe even if that "like" was done on a subsequent reblog post. If the API here is similar to that of Tumblr it should be possible to implement.
That said, why anyone wants to reblog a review is not easy to understand.
I get where Linda Ninja posted above that she wanted to have her own and other reviews reblogged to have the conversation. But, not just for reviews, I think it's awful hard to have a conversation here on booklikes unless everyone is commenting on the exact same post. Taht is, if one follower comments on original review, another comments on a reblog of the review, two more on the reblog of the reblog ... I'm not sure the original reviewer can track down all the feedback/comments on their review easily.
Yeah, sharing is one thing. That's part of the point of being here. But reblogging the review destroys that, I think. What's the point of sharing if it spreads far and wide and you don't know where, you can't see all the comments, they are disbursed all over the place so there's no cohesive conversation to be had? This is what I mean, that it's not just bad that
the original reviewer doesn't get these, but it's bad for the community as well.
I think it does add to the conversation. From my perspective, though, there are way more drawbacks than there are benefits to reblogging - specifically - reviews. The messing up of the book page with additional ratings is a big one. For example, if you write a particularly scathing and funny one-star review of a book that you hated, and it gets reblogged by ten people, then your one star rating suddenly has 10x the importance that it would otherwise have (and the same is true of a five star review). What that means is that your one review/rating could noticeably impact the overall rating of a book that doesn't have very many ratings. You are only one reader, and it hardly seems appropriate for one very popular reviewer to be able to have that kind of an impact on a book's overall rating, whether that impact is positive or negative.
Now, if you aren't rating the book, then this is less of a concern, and for posts that aren't marked review, it isn't a concern at all because the post doesn't show up on the book page at all. The attribution issue, which does actually really bug me, is secondary to this issue in my mind.
Seems to me that the simple answer would be to remove the ability to reblog review posts. That removes any unfair advantage a book's ratings would get because Reviewer A who hated the book is a much more clever reviewer than Reviewer B who really liked it.
That being said, I like the reblog function because, to be frank, that's how I found many of the people I now follow.
And maybe this discussion should be posted over in the new Booklikes Discussion Group?
Yes, or rather remove the ability to reblog a review as if your review and adding a duplicate review/rating on book page. Reblog could instead create a regular post saying "See xyz's review of..."
I don't want anyone to be confused that I am against sharing. I'm not. That is part of the social aspect of the site and a great way of finding new people to follow. It's just the way it's done I take issue with. I found plenty of people to follow when I was just seeing that so-and-so who I was friends with liked so-and-so's review in my feed. Then I'd read the review and my like and comment went to the original reviewer, not to my friend who liked it (on BL that would be a reblog). Also, I think the reblogging makes the finding people harder, actually. Some posts I have found it impossible to track back. For example: There's one post that has been reblogged into my feed today like seven times and each and every one was reblogged from a different person. I have no clue who originated the post.
I totally agree with this! I am also really flattered when people want to share my reviews! I just don't want my reviews turning up in multiple places on the book page, all looking like they were written by other people. I also don't want my tags corrupted. For reasons of my own, I tag all of my reviews "Moonlight Reader: Review" so that easily sort them. When people reblog my reviews, it screws up my tagging.
It totally adds to the conversation. It's a valid feeling whether I agree or not. My question to you is do you see the reblogging as meeting those needs better than if someone liked your review/post and it shows up in their feed? To my mind it would accomplish the exact same thing but alleviate all the issues enumerated above. I don't mind the reblogging as much with all these other posts, memes, pictures, tutorials, this post here. It's the reviews that are my primary concern.
barrage of gifs and gifs and more frigging gifs in a row, in the same review or status (or the people who think their every update requires a gif). But, yeah, it gets annoying everywhere.
And for those who really don't want to make others tired of seeing a reblog again - reblog but put the majority of it behind the page break. Everyone's happy that way.
blogging is different. It's not perfect, but it's better with the attribution. I go into it some in my comment to Rose.
I'd 100% agree to the 'like button' option. No ambiguity there and I still get to let others know via my feed that a cool post is out there.
That is mighty convenient, and would be sweet if it worked here, but since it doesn't, I have had to really retrain myself not to hit that reblog button just to add a comment.
Reblogging is reminiscent of that. I often see 3-4 reblogs from a single person, and while I would also LIKE to get that specific status/blog out, there's not really a point since the people I follow/follow me also follow each other, so it would just clutter someone's notifications and feeds.
BookLikes "fixing" Reblogging ( with a lot of the good suggestions here ) would help, but it's honestly a symptom of another problem -- the lack of a cohesive "book page" ( for a lot of content, at least. Status Updates are a different matter, and a ton of good suggestions have already been suggested in this thread as to possible fixes for that ).
But for everything else? A single page dedicated to reviews of this one specific book, where 'reblogging' could link back to the originating article ( beneath this one specific books page ), would be -incredibly- helpful and centralize all the reviews in a single place. It would solve search issues, finding followers/followee book reviews, finding 'top rated reviews' ( still not entirely sure I like that specific system, as it seems a little arbitrary ), and most importantly, would stop cluttering up peoples feeds.
I'm not a fan of this system and it goes beyond the fact that it seems like person b is responsible for person a's work. That's the main issue, I'd think, but there are so many more potential problems with this.
On the other hand, I'm still willing to give Booklikes the benefit of the doubt - they've been far more transparent, and responsive to concerns than Goodreads - and to believe this is simply something that might not have been completely thought through when first implemented. I'm also willing to give them some time, and see what they say and do before I make a judgement call on this.
for it (though, like I've said there is a community benefit for that too).
Not permitting any reblogs, even of reviews, may be too extreme? But at very least, BL should do some programming edits so that reblogs get automatic tag or header at *top* of the post.
is fine except for reviews.
Thank you.
Does it sound obnoxious?
No. Plus I'm not sure everyone new to booklikes realizes that reblogging a review adds another copy of that review and another repeated star rating to the review page. I'm having to think hard about how to word or add to my own reviews because I've already got a lot of schtick in there about "reviewer's opinion" "copyrights" and "ratings scale explanation."
if someone reblogs you directly. You won't get one if someone reblogs someone else's reblog of your post.
Back on topic.. on the book page (once it becomes a better book page), seeing the multiple reviews with the same text is what will get a bit annoying.
That said, why anyone wants to reblog a review is not easy to understand.
(properly appearing in the feeds) and groups being I think the most needed features currently,
the original reviewer doesn't get these, but it's bad for the community as well.
Now, if you aren't rating the book, then this is less of a concern, and for posts that aren't marked review, it isn't a concern at all because the post doesn't show up on the book page at all. The attribution issue, which does actually really bug me, is secondary to this issue in my mind.
That being said, I like the reblog function because, to be frank, that's how I found many of the people I now follow.
And maybe this discussion should be posted over in the new Booklikes Discussion Group?