They have some interesting reviewers lined up and are looking for more. Looks like a sensible strategy for handling the volume of stories that appear.
However, as they cover more stories I suspect they’ll need some better ways of collating and listing what they’ve reviewed like the way www.rocketstackrank.com does.
From reading the Twitter feed that inspired them, I don’t think they’re going to overlap with RSR very much. They want to cover the small magazines that get overlooked.
As far as organizing their data goes, they should probably consider adding a tag with the name of the magazine so that people who follow that magazine can easily see what they’ve said about other stories in it. That may be all they really need to do, given that their goals are to give only positive reviews. That decision simplifies life in a lot of ways.
There’s a HUGE gap between “only positive reviews” and “no mean reviews”. It’s actually quite easy to post a negative review without being “mean”/sarcastic/snarky/insulting — although some reviewers (I’m not talking about Greg, I’m talking about reviews I’ve seen on GR) seem to forget the difference.
Oh but lots of people think that any negative review is mean. Trust me on this one. 🙂 And some of them are connected with this effort. But we’ll see. It’s also true that any review effort tends to evolve over time; the mere effort of putting your feelings about stories into words (over and over) changes how you think–or at least how you express yourself.
[…] MORE SHORT FICTION REVIEWS, In “A New SFF Review Site Looks Interesting”, Camestros Felapton aims our attention at the inaugural work of SFF Reviews, Sara L. Uckleman’s […]
Camestros Felapton 
11 responses to “A New SFF Review Site Looks Interesting…”
Nice…added to feedly!
LikeLike
From reading the Twitter feed that inspired them, I don’t think they’re going to overlap with RSR very much. They want to cover the small magazines that get overlooked.
As far as organizing their data goes, they should probably consider adding a tag with the name of the magazine so that people who follow that magazine can easily see what they’ve said about other stories in it. That may be all they really need to do, given that their goals are to give only positive reviews. That decision simplifies life in a lot of ways.
LikeLike
Yes, different goals etc
LikeLike
given that their goals are to give only positive reviews
Wait, where did they say that? I didn’t see that anywhere.
LikeLike
That’s how I interpreted “and one content requirement — don’t be mean!” Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.
LikeLike
There’s a HUGE gap between “only positive reviews” and “no mean reviews”. It’s actually quite easy to post a negative review without being “mean”/sarcastic/snarky/insulting — although some reviewers (I’m not talking about Greg, I’m talking about reviews I’ve seen on GR) seem to forget the difference.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh but lots of people think that any negative review is mean. Trust me on this one. 🙂 And some of them are connected with this effort. But we’ll see. It’s also true that any review effort tends to evolve over time; the mere effort of putting your feelings about stories into words (over and over) changes how you think–or at least how you express yourself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Oh but lots of people think that any negative review is mean. ”
Especially authors! LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually most serious authors have thick skins–they kind of have to. Editors are the worst.
LikeLike
Hey — I resemble that remark! LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] MORE SHORT FICTION REVIEWS, In “A New SFF Review Site Looks Interesting”, Camestros Felapton aims our attention at the inaugural work of SFF Reviews, Sara L. Uckleman’s […]
LikeLike