Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/functions.php:6114) in /srv/users/sandra/apps/sandra/public/wp-includes/rest-api/class-wp-rest-server.php on line 1893
{"id":10590,"date":"2018-03-07T09:00:44","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T13:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buildbookbuzz.com\/?p=10590"},"modified":"2023-12-07T21:36:18","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T21:36:18","slug":"people-trust-peer-reviews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sandra.oddjar.com\/people-trust-peer-reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"People trust peer reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to consumer research conducted by Square, consumers think peer reviews are the most trustworthy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Square’s survey of 1,800 consumers was conducted for retailers, not authors, but the findings are still relevant to authors seeking reader reviews.<\/p>\n

According to the research, 43 percent of respondents said that customer reviews are very or extremely trustworthy. This is why Amazon wants honest reader reviews.<\/p>\n

The research also revealed that 53 percent find customer reviews only somewhat<\/em> trustworthy — which is also<\/em> why Amazon wants honest reviews. Amazon knows that consumers are increasingly savvy. They know a fake review when they see one.<\/p>\n

Fake review characteristics<\/h2>\n

Square’s research shows that\u00a044 percent of respondents said that it\u2019s very or extremely important that the tone of the review isn\u2019t overly positive or negative.<\/p>\n

I understand this — and hope you can, too.<\/p>\n

It reminds me of how I approach audience evaluations after I’ve presented at a conference or event. I toss out the form that gushes about my presentation — that one was probably completed by a friend. I do the same for the worst one (some people are never happy). I focus on everything in between to learn and grow.<\/p>\n

This applies to books, too. As readers scan peer reviews, they intuitively focus on what’s in between the five-star review that shouts, “Best book ever!” and the one-star, “Hated it.”<\/p>\n

Readers know the good review is trying too hard, while the bad one was left by someone connected to a competitor or who is, quite simply, a fool. (This is why authors shouldn’t obsess over negative reviews<\/a> unless they’re the norm).<\/p>\n

Another red flag? When the reviewer refers to the author by first name. It’s not a dead giveaway, but if it’s followed by “Everyone should read this!,” there’s a chance the reviewer knows the author.<\/p>\n

Why friends and family aren’t good reviewers<\/h2>\n

Many authors rely on their friends and family network to generate reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and elsewhere for obvious reasons. They believe that people with a connection to them are more likely to make the effort to review their book.<\/p>\n

While it’s understandable, it’s not wise for a few reasons:<\/p>\n