TechBookReport said:
Some of the reviews on the site are signed, it's up to the reviewer
whether they want to put their name to a review or not. However, even if
the reviews were signed how could you judge the competence (or otherwise)
of the reviewer if you've never heard or him or her?
Obviously, I _can't_ judge the competence of someone I've never heard of.
However, if a name _is_ given, there is at least a chance I _have_ heard of
them. If no reviewer name is given, there is no chance whatever of judging
competence; in that case, the review could have been written by the
proverbial one million monkeys with one million typewriters for all I know.
Adding a note saying that the reviewer has x years of Java experience
doesn't add much either. There are people with x years of experience in
one niche area who won't have the knowledge or broader experience of
someone with fewer years. Besides, how could anyone verify the truth?
It may not add much but it adds _something_. If someone claims to have 5
years or 10 years experience, the review seems more credible than saying 5
minutes or 10 days experience.
I agree that depth vs. breadth is an issue, as is the verifiability of any
information given. Anyone can exaggerate their abilities and experience.
However, a name might be recognized, particularly if it was a name known
within the Java community, such as Bruce Echols. An unknown name could be
researched if the person reading the review had serious doubts about that
person's reliability.
Just for the record, all of the reviewers on TechBookReport are active
developers. None of them work for publishers or are authors of the books
they are publishing. The point of the site is that the book reviews are
independent, which is more than can be said for some of the reviews on
Amazon, for example.
That is good to know. Is that fact posted anywhere at the website? I didn't
see it in the Wicked Cool Java page.
Like all sites, TechBookReport.com depends to a large extent on
reputation. That means that bad books are criticised, good books lauded
and so-so books described as such.
And that's great. I have no problem with that.
If there's a review that you bitterly disagree with then say so, casting
doubt on the honesty of the site isn't helpful.
I was not disagreeing with the review of Wicked Cool Java. I have never read
that book and therefore have no opinions about it.
If you think I was casting doubt on the honesty of the site, you
misunderstood me.
I did not say anyone was being dishonest. I simply said that the reviewer
was not identified by name or skill level and that an anonymous review was
not something I found terribly persuasive. I am relieved to find that the
reviewer is, apparently, an active developer with no vested interest in
promoting (or trashing) the book, but I didn't know that until you mentioned
it just now.
Personally, I would be more likely to take the reviews at the site seriously
if all reviewers were identified and if some sort of information was
available about each reviewer's experience. That does not mean that your
current approach is dishonest, just that it isn't optimal for _my_ needs. I
was merely trying to give some personal feedback on what I deem a
less-than-ideal approach.
Obviously, it is up to you to decide whether I am just an individual with an
eccentric view about how a book review site should operate or someone whose
views might well be widespread across your target audience. If you decide
that I am just an eccentric, you will probably not change anything, unless
perhaps you perceive eccentrics as an important new audience. On the other
hand, if you decide I am the tip of the iceberg and represent a strong
undercurrent within the Java community, you may decide to do things
differently. That's your call.
In any case, I have shared my views with you and consider the matter at an
end.