What type of reviewer are you?

This entirely depends on whose story I'm replying to. With certain people *cough*Thrawn_McEwok*cough* I often use a mixture of the Quote and the Philosopher style. Usually, those types of reviews are limited to people who's work I've been reading for awhile.

With someone who's work I haven't read before or don't know very well, I usually pop in, let them know I've read and appreciated what they've written, and that's all. One might call that a "minimalist" approach.

Sometimes, I don't reply at all if I don't think that I have the time to give something lengthy. I enjoy when readers make the effort to give in-depth feedback to my stories, so I try to return the favor. If I don't feel like I have enough time, I sometimes don't bother to post anything, or I post something just to let them know I've read it and then come back later.

 

Fascinating and overlooked thread...

If I'm at work, on break, reading 3 stories - minimilist. I came, I saw, I liked.

Short, short update - not enough there to pick up on - again, minimilist.

Extraordinary plotting, characterization, scene-setting, use of words - I just have to quote and compliment the heck out of a story. I do try not to quote the entire story. With VaderLVR64 I have run out of superlatives, so I'm minimilist with her.

Over-the-top-Cheery: grumpy 'ol me? Nah.

Philosopher: I love them as reader responses. To be one requires I engage brain in my responses - but if there's such a thing, I may be "minimilist-philosopher" at times.

Lurker: often, when time is short or the update left me nothing to say but "great update" and I'm tired of that phrase.

The Wannabe Archive Reviewer: Not my style, but the occasional one responds, and let's just say they don't know the difference between concrit (I accept that) and criticism - I've had two (elsewhere) that just made my day <sarcastic snort>:

1. I found no errors.

2. I wouldn't use "verdant" and "green" in this sentence together.

If you don't like my story, tell me, don't play passive-aggressive. If you like some elements and some you don't, tell what you like and why, and what you don't, and why.

I can read between the lines, and I don't like to be told essentially that I don't write a good story, because without more information how can I learn to write a better one if you don't tell me what did work and why, and what didn't and why?

 

I guess I'm a cross between the Quoter and the Philosopher. I like to use quoting to highlight my favorite passages for the author and to help them understand what parts of the story I'm babbling on and on about when I turn philosopher. When I say philosopher, I don't mean I'm one of those people who writes a review as long as the story, but I do like to let the author know why I liked something or why a certain aspect of their story affected me so deeply. Those are my favorite kind of reviews to receive too. But of course, I like them all. Nothing feels better than to know someone's reading your story.

 

I like to quote lines that meant something to me and often do. I'm more a minimalist at heart, but I would never-ever post something negative. We're a community here and as such, I feel that part of that involves building our fellow writers up. If a story doesn't appeal to me, I simply don't post.

 

I'd say I'm a cross between the Minimalist and the Over-The-Top-Cheery reviewer, with a hint of the Philosopher. I never say anything downright mean to a person - because how does that help them? And I rarely even give constructive crit., which I should probably do more... but I like giving encouraging remarks because I know that's what I like to read.

I really like receiving const. crit., but flames are just unnecessary. I make it a point to be always polite and kind.

- Serena

 

Wow just finished reading all these great comments.
There are so many different classes of reviewer, and all of
them keep this board running. For without reviews eventually no one
will write a story.

Most of us who write love to do it, and it makes us happy with or without
reviews.(happier with them personally) Therefore, I do not lurk often
and I like to show the author that their work is worth the effort.

Sometimes I quote many good lines. They stand out and make me either laugh or cry or feel -Wow this is fantastic-

So I am probably the happy cheery Quote reviewer.

 

I'm not quite sure which one I fit into. I've noticed I never actually quote a portion of a story, but I will comment on parts I like.

Hmmm... maybe just crossing from Minimilast into Philosopher? I don't know.

 

Once upon a time I was an The Over-The-Top Cheery reviewer. Ah those gushy, enthusiastic years Then I became a quoter and now I am a minimalist. I'd love to be philosopher but just don't have the time

EDIT: aw shoot, saw all the additional definitions now. Okay I confess, I've been an upper, a mime, a socializer and a lurker. But haven't be all been lurkers at some point?