I've come to the conclusion that discussing the supposedly relaxing hobby that is reading online has become something of a minefield of late.
There is the minefield that is online copyright. Once upon a time I would probably have included a minefield-like image somewhere in this post for your delectation, but I honestly don't even want to go there until I get my head around the do's and don'ts...
And then there is the minefield of online behaviour... Do I ignore author online behaviour entirely? Decide that there is a line and if an author crosses said line then their books are no longer included on my TBR list? And where is that line? It is too aggressive marketing? Is it aggressively defending one's book from reviewers? (Is it naive of an author to think that everyone who reads their book will be happy with it?) And the opposite side of that coin is reader/reviewer behaviour...where is our line? Should we not rate a book without explaining our rating? And what should go into a review? Do we only talk about the book? All of which leads to the discussion at GoodReads on the GoodReads Review and Author Guidelines. And what exactly is a 'quality' review?
For me, I try and explain in my reviews (if one can call them that) what did and/or didn't work for me. But sometimes I just don't have the time and there is no review. (I'm wondering if maybe in those cases I shouldn't rate a book at all?) The bottom line is I try not to say anything that I wouldn't say in person... As for authors and other reviewers, I don't like attacks. But then that's coming from someone who doesn't like confrontation full stop.
It all makes my head hurt. Is anyone else confused working out what's what and where the line is, or it is just me?