Oh, I dunno, Stacia Kane's Auntie Special Snowflake series really cracks me up.
And I'm starting to find it funny in a painful way when another author pops up saying how reviewers just can't do ( rate without reviewing, write a review under a certain number of words, or whatever—hell, it ain't English class with book reports where authors get to set rules and grade us nor a professional literary publication or site where we are paid critics and have a boss/author we have to obey).
My eyes really roll back when they pop up saying "but that wasn't helpful to me at all" as if we're supposed to provide constructive criticism as if we were their paid editor ...
Oh, and the idiot trying to sue a blogger for sharing out privileged information after he sent her a book asking for a review because she reviewed it not just on her blog but also on goodreads, amazon and other sites and refused to take the 3½ star review back down when he requested.
If I was a writer, I really do think that I would feel a little hurt and confused to get a one star review and the person didn't give a reason. Some one star reviews are actually a good thing as if the review explains what the story was lacking so next book, you don't make the same mistakes. I know when I give a book a low star rating, I try my best to write a review that explains why I didn't think the book was good.
Honestly, one reason for a one star rating is that someone accidentally hit on the goodreads cell phone app. When I purposefully give a bad rating because I disliked a book, I have no desire whatsoever to let that book waste still more of my time by writing a well thought out review. Which is actually in one way better for the author because potential readers won't be reading details about book that could turn them away. An exception might be if there was a theme or bit in the book that would be a turn off for me even in a very well-written book but that other readers might not mind -- that I'll mention (one book glorified and had a lot of self-mutilation so I very neutrally mentioned in a very brief review; not to help the author but to let readers decide for themselves if it was something they wanted to read about). I value what leisure time I have for reading and I'd rather be reading than writing a review to provide helpful input to an author of a book that already ate into that time.
All the censorship debacle aside, there's one type of one-star review that I think authors should email goodreads, booklikes, amazon or other support about (I do not think authors should directly engage a reader/reviewer about the rating in case it is taken the wrong way or interpreted as author trying to control how a review is written—drama and blacklisting ramps up too easily). That's when a 1-star is accompanied by a rave best-book-ever type of review so clearly reviewer thinks 1 = No. 1, top, grade A, prime, best with 5 stars being the worst book ever. Support can gently remind them that while all members are free to rate however they like that the ratings scales are designed so that 1 is the worst rating you can give and that 5 is the best rating.
And I'm starting to find it funny in a painful way when another author pops up saying how reviewers just can't do ( rate without reviewing, write a review under a certain number of words, or whatever—hell, it ain't English class with book reports where authors get to set rules and grade us nor a professional literary publication or site where we are paid critics and have a boss/author we have to obey).
My eyes really roll back when they pop up saying "but that wasn't helpful to me at all" as if we're supposed to provide constructive criticism as if we were their paid editor ...