‘A pretty sublime mix of WTF and OMG’. Four explorations into the practice of evaluation on online book reviewing platforms

Q1 Arts and Humanities
P. Boot
{"title":"‘A pretty sublime mix of WTF and OMG’. Four explorations into the practice of evaluation on online book reviewing platforms","authors":"P. Boot","doi":"10.22148/001c.68086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article uses a corpus workbench (Sketch Engine) to investigate practices of evaluation in online book reviews. The reviews were taken from Goodreads, Amazon, bol.com and a number of Dutch online book discussion platforms. We look at tools that have been used to study online book reviews. Then we investigate our own collection of reviews. Findings suggest (1) that online reviews are not just centred on the reviewers’ experiences but include solid discussion of the merits of books; (2) that reviewers of suspense prefer plot and character while reviewers of literary books prefer style and story; (3) that literal and metaphorical phrases referring to the body are often used in describing positive reading experiences; and (4) that positive reviews recount parts of the story, while negative reviews try to explain why the book was a disappointment.","PeriodicalId":33005,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cultural Analytics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cultural Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.68086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article uses a corpus workbench (Sketch Engine) to investigate practices of evaluation in online book reviews. The reviews were taken from Goodreads, Amazon, bol.com and a number of Dutch online book discussion platforms. We look at tools that have been used to study online book reviews. Then we investigate our own collection of reviews. Findings suggest (1) that online reviews are not just centred on the reviewers’ experiences but include solid discussion of the merits of books; (2) that reviewers of suspense prefer plot and character while reviewers of literary books prefer style and story; (3) that literal and metaphorical phrases referring to the body are often used in describing positive reading experiences; and (4) that positive reviews recount parts of the story, while negative reviews try to explain why the book was a disappointment.
“WTF和OMG的完美结合”。网络书评平台评价实践的四项探索
本文使用语料库工作台(Sketch Engine)来研究在线书评中的评价实践。这些评论来自Goodreads、亚马逊、bol.com和一些荷兰在线图书讨论平台。我们研究了用于研究在线书评的工具。然后我们调查我们自己收集的评论。研究结果表明:(1)在线评论不仅以评论者的经验为中心,还包括对书籍优点的扎实讨论;(2)悬疑类书评人偏好情节和人物,文学类书评人偏好风格和故事;(3)在描述积极的阅读体验时,经常使用与身体有关的字面和隐喻短语;(4)正面评论讲述了故事的一部分,而负面评论试图解释这本书令人失望的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cultural Analytics
Journal of Cultural Analytics Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信