Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 11, 2010 10:36:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 11, 2010 10:38:25 AM PDT
Angelyne says:
True, but realistically the time involved with moderating every single review would be astronomic. I find that in the long run the bad reviews don't really matter, and that goes for any book. Just skimming the reviews reveals the authors are simply pushing their own agendas. Their "opinion" are easily dismissed and are usually firmly challenged in the comments. If you come here with your bias firmly cemented in place, you might be deterred from buying the book. But if that's the case, you probably would have tossed the book aside pretty quickly anyway. But the "deniers" who just regurgitate their own biases eventually get drowned out by the vast majority who actually bother to read the book. If the book is bad, that won't help. But if the book is exceptional, like GCBC, the attempt to derail the book fails miserably.
I've seen this happen for quite a few books. The most recent example is the book Atkins for a New You. Campbell posted a long irrelevant negative review and got all of his zombies to post some as well. (Or most likely someone else urged them to go 'support' their guru). Which was a mistake because it makes Campbell attack on the book even more transparent. In the end it doesn't matter. The good reviews far outweigh the bad, and the book still has 4 1/2 stars.

Posted on Dec 10, 2009 9:54:06 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 3, 2010 6:12:58 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2007 7:42:45 PM PDT
pyewackett says:
Thanks. I get pretty tired of seeing reviews written by people who never read the book. They seem to show up to attack what they think the book is about and to defend their preferred position.

I'm not sure I understand how someone can review a book based on the cover flap or on someone else's review of the book. This is happening way to often.

Initial post: Oct 2, 2007 8:39:17 AM PDT
Neil Roberts says:
I'm doing my best to flag posts as inappropriate that don't review the book but what basically amounts to a single chapter of the book, or a summary of the book.

When a book sets out to research the science and history of the current dietary dogma, you can't attack it for the list of questions that it asks. If you aren't happy with the quotes, the studies referenced, or the science in the book, by all means, attack that, but not the questions themselves.

The book is about how people have reacted to challenges in their rigid beliefs. To be one of those people reacting to the challenges in their rigid beliefs, you're only acting out the history and patterns described in the book, thus rendering the book correct.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  4
Total posts:  4
Initial post:  Oct 2, 2007
Latest post:  Sep 11, 2010


Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes (Paperback - September 23, 2008)
4.5 out of 5 stars   (620)