I'd like to be able to insert 'spoiler' warnings in other peoples reviews.

I have just been reading the reviews of two recent reads before adding my own comments. Both were thrillers which would hardly be worth reading if you already knew the story. Each had a 'review' which was nothing but an accurate and comprehensive synopsis of the whole plot from start to grisly ending.

I have no problem with readers writing whatever they choose but, when it is so easy to add 'spoiler' warnings writers of such reviews are downright unfriendly to anyone who has just bought the book and unfair to the poor author.

I suppose I could flag the review as "not a review" but I'd much rather be able to insert a spoiler warning and leave the review otherwise untouched.

I could see making a spoiler flag, but not inserting anything into someone else's review.

>1 abbottthomas: I see the point. (Most of my fiction reviews are like that *). But at the same time I'm amused that you read the whole 'review' to the end :-) Of course it might just have been "the butler did it" or "the butler didn't do it" and if so, I admit to a spoiler being a good idea.

*: I write all of my reviews in Danish, so I don't think it's a big issue.

I like the idea of a spoiler flag without touching the review itself. One that would mark the entire review as if its a spoiler.

>1 abbottthomas:

Absolutely not! No one should be allowed to change anything in someone else's review.

I suppose I could flag the review as "not a review"

But it is a review, and doing that would itself be a TOS violation.

The problem with a spoiler tag, suggested by >2 MarthaJeanne:, is that there will never be a consensus as to what constitutes a spoiler. I recall a discussion on another site in which someone called a mention of a historical fact a spoiler. And then there was the person who said it was a spoiler to say that Romeo and Juliet die, even though Shakespeare says so in the first lines of the play.

>6 pnppl:

Why should you get to tell me what I should or shouldn't put in a review? Why should my review be hidden because people don't like the content?

If people are concerned about spoilers, don't read reviews.

>7 lilithcat: "If people are concerned about spoilers, don't read reviews."

I'll second that :-)

>3 bnielsen: The reviews in question were for books that I had already read and was intending to review - I would have looked quickly away otherwise .....unless it was in Danish ;-)

>2 MarthaJeanne: Entire agree as to not inserting something into someone else's comment - I would insert the so-called review - unaltered - between spoiler alerts.

>5 lilithcat: So sorry to invoke exclamation mark and italic outrage. I was not in fact suggesting a change in anything written down but rather a warning before it could be read.

I think we might have a rational argument as to whether a synopsis was a review but I doubt that either of us would change their mind.

Your final paragraph is, I reckon, absurd. You give two extreme examples of nonsensical suggestions as to what might be considered a spoiler to stand against what I was describing, that is a brief summary of ALL of the work's plot and nothing else. Is anyone really going to suggest that such a thing is not a spoiler?

>7 lilithcat:
Why should you get to tell me what I should or shouldn't put in a review? Why should my review be hidden because people don't like the content?

Does it help anyone to turn what might have been a friendly (or at least an emotionally neutral) discussion into a self-righteous spat?

A spoiler flag could be useful, accrue enough and a review becomes click-to-view. I imagine it would want to go alongside an account setting to let us switch the feature off, if we don't want our review browsing curated in this manner.

FWIW, I think it would work with spoilers flag, which would then trigger enclosing the review in spoiler tags. I suspect many sites have something similar, because usually people enclose in spoiler tags only the parts that contain them, but occasionally the entire review is behind them, even though only a part is spoilerific

I'm reminded of a Mad Magazine cover (Collector's series #13) where Alfred E Neuman is in a shower with two other guys and he has sun tan only where the others have none. (I.e. I'd be tempted to use a spoiler tag on exactly the part of my review, that wasn't a spoiler :-)

PS I like the "italic outrage" term.

PPS I wonder how the proposed spoiler alert should work in real life. Should others be allowed to remove the spoiler alert? (This is mostly a question to >1 abbottthomas:).

PPPS I like to view all the reviews for a given book, so I'd not be pleased to click the "view spoiler" button 25 times to see reviews mentioning that Romeo and Juliet die.

Occasionally I have expressed surprise that people are motivated to review a book with hundreds of other reviews with which they are basically in agreement. Response I have received is that these reviews are for the writer’s benefit, not potential readers’. A way of keeping tabs on their personal reading. I have even seen reviews along the lines of “Read this in high school. Don’t remember anything about it.” So perhaps it does not occur to everyone that a “spoiler,” especially of a mystery story, will negatively affect the potential reading experience of someone else.

How much of a spoiler should a review be to be flagged?

A proper review will have some spoilers - you cannot talk about the book without talking about the book. Different people will find their own level of spoilers they can tolerate. And therein lies the problem with a spoiler tag - while “not a review” and the TOD violation tags are well defined, this one depends on one’s opinion. And I will be surprised if given 10 reviews, even this thread agrees on which need to be flagged. Oh, I understand why it sounds like it may be a good idea - we all have good intentions, right? Well - some people get upset when a review mentions what happens on page 10. :)

The review is not advertisement or a publicity article for an author so not sure why it would be unfair for an author. A review is a reader discussing a book - unless you get paid to do something else of course.

While I am not a fan of just a complete synopsis masquerading as a review, I also accept that any review (or introduction…) will have spoilers.

So I really dislike the idea of a spoiler tag someone can use on others’ reviews.

>9 pnppl:

One would essentially be a macro for sending a message that you could ignore, not a new functionality.

I don't want messages telling me how I should write reviews. Seriously, anyone who sent me such a message would get a not very polite answer.

>13 SandraArdnas:

I think it would work with spoilers flag, which would then trigger enclosing the review in spoiler tags.

Not appropriate. Again, no one should be able to trigger a change in how I write my reviews. Enclosing it in spoiler tags is such a change.

>14 bnielsen: Does that count as a Scandi-tan?

Should others be allowed to remove the spoiler alert?
Not sure. Edit wars are terribly tedious, particularly to non-participants. Maybe anyone should be allowed two goes at the on/off switch and then it is hard cheese. Generally the fewer rules the better - lots don't usually make people nicer

>18 lilithcat: No one is doing anything to your review other than inserting 'contains spoilers, click to see' when sufficient people think it contains spoilers. I don't get the outrage, it affects readers of reviews, not you in any way.

>16 AnnieMod: As I tried to make clear, my concerns were about so-called reviews of a couple of thrillers which laid out all the important key points of the plots. If I had read these before purchasing the books in question there would have been no point in buying them. Hence "unfair to author"

Obviously this might not apply to a computer manual, a collection of sonnets or Kobbe's Complete Opera Book (It isn't, by the way. Complete, that is) but for Lee Child's Make Me or Alex Marwood's The Killer Next Door, once you know what happens at the end and who dunit, most people would spend their money on something else.

>17 lilithcat: That can easily be fixed by having a no-reply as sender of the message :-) (Ducks under the table.)

>Should others be allowed to remove the spoiler alert?

It could operate like the 'not a review' and 'spam' flags do, where an injustice can be countered by unflagging; "A spoiler? Oh no it isn't!"

>22 abbottthomas: And that is your idea of what you want to use the spoiler tag for. Other people will have their own ideas - just like you are making a distinction between a thriller and a sonnet collection, someone else may make a distinction based on when the book was published. And some will want to tag everything that has any spoilers at all because they hate spoilers.

And even for thrillers - sometimes not talking about the big surprises makes it impossible to talk about the book. Now - someone spelling out the killer in the murder mystery (a standard one - where we do not learn who the murderer is until the end) is annoying but the saying about bears and the woods apply.

Unless you never read about a book, you will get spoiled sooner or later. The internet had made that an inevitability. If you do not want to know the plot points of thrillers and mysteries just don't read about them before you read them (And that may include the back cover/front flap description sometimes).

As I said, I know we all have good intentions but allowing a member to apply a subjective opinion on someone else's review just does not sound like a good idea to me.

>19 pnppl:

I would like to be made aware when I've neglected to tag something

There is a difference between "neglecting" to do something, and intentionally not doing it.

Expressing a wish to insert anything into other people’s anything is a pretty sure way of getting a negative reaction on LT.

A more sensible solution would be a spoiler flag that at some threshold hid the whole review behind a click-to-see.

I doubt, btw, that disagreement what counts as a spoiler would be more severe than what counts as a review (see e.g. Tim’s “?” non-review).

Probably a function of what genres you read, but I do seem to see few objectionably spoilerish reviews (and no I don’t believe I’m particularly tolerant wrt spoilers.)

I have never had a book "ruined" by foreknowledge of plot elements or other features. My experience of it might have been different without such knowledge, but is it really so unusual that I don't find being caught unawares to be a chief value in the experience of reading?

I do use spoiler tagging in my own reviews in the rare cases where I want to remark developments in the text that might have "surprise" value. But if I didn't, I wouldn't feel guilty about it.

I've encountered spoilers in cover art and jacket copy, even Bowker-delivered book descriptions, and they just don't bother me much. (And it seems like half the time, the jacket copy isn't even accurate!)

>30 pnppl: I assume you are not much of a mystery story fan.

>25 AnnieMod: It is disappointing to read a comment with so patronising a tone.

As I got to the end it struck me as ironic that objecting to....allowing a member to apply a subjective opinion on someone else's review.... is referring to a feature where a member is expected to apply a subjective opinion on someone else's book.

I very much don't like getting plots spoiled for me, but I if I read a review of a piece of media before I have read/watched it, and get spoiled, that is 100% my own fault. Why did I read a review if I didn't want to get spoiled?

I frequently put some spoiler tags in the reviews I write, but every spoiler is a trade-off. While I mostly write my reviews for myself, I do try to make them helpful for other people, and that can mean sometimes giving details that could be considered spoilers but which I think are important to know when deciding whether to read the book (Is the ending happy? Does the dog die? etc.). Removing the agency of the review writer to decide what is and isn't a spoiler also removes the difference between a big spoiler and a little one: the main character's grandmother dies in chapter 2 vs. the narrator was unreliable the whole time but we don't find that out until the end. There's no way to know which one of those is which spoiler without clicking on them.

>32 abbottthomas: I am not sure where you saw patronizing tone in this message but oh well.

We will have to agree to disagree - you are in favor of allowing other people to decide whose review is spoiler-y and which reviews are to be allowed to be seen unobstructed, I am against a review being hidden in any way or form just because someone else disagrees with what it contains.

>34 AnnieMod: You've done it again!

>36 pnppl: Who can opt in? Are you suggesting that the person writing the review can opt in to letting other people flag it as spoilery?

>37 jjwilson61: the person writing the review can opt in

That we've got already with spoiler tagging. I agree with the distaste for encouraging/facilitating the indictment of other people's reviews as spoilers.

I think editing other people’s reviews, even by inserting a spoiler tag, is a tiny step towards hostility, as this thread demonstrates. We all come to LT to learn about books to read and discuss the ones already read. The risk in doing this is learning too much about a book. I believe it is up to the reader to decide whether to take that risk by reading reviews. Not everything needs to be monitored.

Perhaps there could be some general remarks about reviews posted by Admin. A reminder that the “Review” section is not where you should put the location of the book in your house, or its call number in your institution’s library, or a note that the binding is worn. And a reminder that, say, identifying the murderer in a whodunnit is unfair to potential readers just trying to find out if others would recommend the book. I assume that habits such as these are the result of a lack of thought, not a firm resolve to live free or die.

Do you ever wish you hadn't started something? I have to admit some responsibility for the tone of this thread - the title was very poorly chosen and was, I confess, a too rapid reaction to something which annoyed me. I certainly have no desire to mess with anything written by anyone else.

I hoped that I had made clear in my posts that I was upset by two particular reviews which, to my mind, had the potential to remove totally any normal enjoyment from reading the works in question. It is highly likely that the writers didn't know how to apply spoiler alerts or maybe that they even existed. I doubt that they were trying to lessen a potential reader's enjoyment.

Reviews which are spoilers from beginning to end are very rare. I would like a way to be able to avoid them. To tell me it is my problem and I should just stop reading reviews is not very helpful. Some interesting approaches have been raised on the thread but, for the size of the problem, I would not expect it to earn developer time.

Enough said.

I also am sorry for any negative tone in my post. Part of the problem with discussing things like this is that we are not talking. Writing always seems to come across as more negative and sarcastic. Despite what I said above, if TBTB decided to allow spoilers in reviews, I wouldn’t complain. It just isn’t much of an issue for me. Best wishes.

Read a “Haiku summary” the other day that apparently revealed “whodunnit” in the mystery story I am currently reading. ☹️ Of course in the case of a haiku summary, unlike a review, anyone is able to delete it, and I did. Usually only exercise this option when the so-called “haiku” is a paragraph or two, or something else that reveals the author apparently had no idea what a haiku is.

>44 booksaplenty1949:

I've yet to see any of those "haiku" that is actually a haiku.

>45 lilithcat: Really? Most meet my definition——three lines, five, seven, and five syllables—-although that may be a popular misrepresentation of the form.

Notice that it says haiku summary not review, so there's no reason that it shouldn't contain spoilers. If you don't want to be spoiled then don't read them until after you've finished the book

>46 booksaplenty1949:

Haiku must have a seasonal reference, and what is called a "cutting word", a shift in tone or emphasis. It's not merely a matter of counting syllables.

>48 lilithcat: Haiku must ... It's not merely a matter of counting syllables.

And yet it's been taught that way in US grade schools for decades, so you might cut the internet rabble some slack. (I could see insisting on the full set of features if they were composed in Japanese!)

>49 paradoxosalpha:

That's called simplifying things for the kidlets. They probably don't teach the correct sonnet or ghazal form to grade school students, either. That doesn't mean there isn't a proper form.

>47 jjwilson61: To “see” a haiku is to read it, given its length, so not much choice involved.

>50 lilithcat: Sonnet not a good comparison. Always fourteen lines, but many possible rhyme schemes, etc.

>52 booksaplenty1949:

It is a good comparison. If someone said, "write a sonnet but I don't care how many lines it has", that's like saying "write a haiku, but ignore the rule about a seasonal reference".

In each case, you're saying "ignore one of the rules for {sonnets/haiku/ghazal/whatever}, but still call it that".

>53 lilithcat: This article https://www.britannica.com/art/haiku suggests that the definition of “haiku” has broadened. That would make it similar to the sonnet, originally exclusively on the subject of love.

Happy news on the “spoiler review” front. Serial revealer of “whodunnit” in a mystery series I am reading contacted me. Turns out they had not seen my previous messages. Confessed that they used the “review” feature to summarise the books they’ve read, for later reference, and had not thought of the fact that others would read them and find the mystery had now evaporated from the book they were reading or planning to. Firm purpose of amendment. Not sure why the “Review” section, rather than the “Comments” box, is so often the repository of choice for remarks that clearly do not meet the definition of a review. “Read this in high school. Don’t remember much.” “Box 10 in back bedroom.” “Old man changes mind about hating Christmas.” No, no, no.

> "“Old man changes mind about hating Christmas" assuming this is Dickens' christmas carol? That passes all the criteria for a review on LT and should not be flagged or otherwise criticized. You might not personally like it, think it helpful, or useful, but it is clearly a comment about the book, and that is all the validity needed. Don't forget that the current threshold for an acceptable review is "No" by tim - neither would qualify for an ER review, because they're not long enough, but that is an extra step for that program.

Either Dickens or the sequel by James Morrow (in Bible Stories for Adults) where the "specter(s) haunting Europe" deconvert Scrooge after showing him how philanthropy supports the pernicious Capitalist status quo.

>56 reading_fox: Personally I think a review must evaluate the book, however briefly, not merely summarise the contents.
Could you elaborate on “ ‘No’ by tim”? I see that when I click on the link and see “tim”’s page he is shown as having “No reviews” but that is of course not in itself a review. Or were you referring to something else?

“Story of one-legged man chasing a whale,”: a description, not a review. “Boring story of one-legged man chasing a whale,”: a review. That’s why there are separate categories for each of these on the page for the work. Would flag the first example if it were posted as a review.

booksaplenty1949:

LT policy is that descriptions or summaries count as reviews. The bar for what counts as a review here is very, very low - basically as long as it's about the book in some way it qualifies. The only things that are flaggable are things like broken links, single characters, or prices. And "misuse" of flagging is designated as a violation of the TOS, so I tend to tread very carefully. I suspect this is intended to be used against people who flag reviews they disagree with, rather than people with an overly-strict definition of "review", but I have never wanted to risk it.

>58 booksaplenty1949: Tim once reviewed a book on the classics (ie Greek and Latin) with "No!"

If you know Tim at all, and that he is a classicist, that is actually a useful review. Someone unknown about a random book, probably not.

Found it. https://www.librarything.com/work/365683

>60 lorax: “Risk” is a strong word. I have never seen the definition of a review to which you refer although I take your word for it that it is somewhere on the site. But I stick with the common-sense definition of “not a review” and flag ‘em as I see ‘em, so far without consequences.

>61 MarthaJeanne: Yes, exactly. He expressed an opinion about the book. I would also accept “LOL,” or “Zzzzzzz…” But not “Old man catches/loses tuna.”
I do note that Tim’s review has been flagged.

>63 booksaplenty1949: The flag is gone now (I helped with that).

I love that review, BTW.

It's worth noting that a thumbs up does not affect the flags. To vote down a flag you have to click on 'flag', then 'Not a review? Oh yes it is!'.

If you got rid of the flag, someone else replaced it.

It has lots of thumbs.

>60 lorax: Located definition of “review” on the WikiThing: “a review is a statement of your opinion about a book.” So not any comment about a book. Not factual statements such as plot summaries except in the context of giving your opinion. So flagging “Old man changes mind about hating Christmas” as “Not a review” would be risk-free.

The wiki is not authoritative. I'm basing my statements based on what Tim has said on Talk over the years.

WikiThing page also has a recommendation: “Leave a mystery book a mystery, not revealing in your review key elements to figuring out who done it.”

>67 lorax: Why have a Wiki that isn’t “authoritative”? What’s its point? Would someone be charged with violation of the TOS because they missed some comment on Talk which contradicted WikiThing?

>69 booksaplenty1949:

Why have a Wiki that isn’t “authoritative”?

The Wiki would be "authoritative" only if Tim (or staff) were to write every word of it. Since it can be written or edited by any member, much of it will be their opinions. Granted, most of the people who do that base what they write on a consensus gleaned from what has been discussed in the forums or what Tim (or staff) has said. But if a member adds or edits a section, it can't really be called "authoritative", can it?

>70 lilithcat: Did not occur to me that it was member-generated, although I suppose that’s what “Wiki” implies. But if it has no authority, I reiterate, what’s the point? And “I remember that Tim said something about this in a talk thread three years ago,” is no better.

Just adding fuel to the fire:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/13337

>72 bnielsen: This thread refers specifically to reviews posted by Early Reviewers in return for a free book, which is a separate topic. Those reviews must be at least 25 words. Of course it does take it for granted that a review expresses an opinion. Whether to summarise the book or not is the point at issue in that discussion, not whether a review is by definition a subjective evaluation. Early Reviewer rules state explicitly that a summary of the book’s contents alone is not acceptable as a review.

>73 booksaplenty1949: This thread refers specifically to reviews posted by Early Reviewers in return for a free book, which is a separate topic.

As the OP I can say that, when the thread began, it had nothing to do with Early Reviewers. Threads do, of course, evolve.

I think the Jack Reacher review that upset me has gone although the spoiler review of The Killer Next Door survives.

>74 abbottthomas: That reply was about the other topic linked to in >72 bnielsen: being about the Early Reviewers reviews. It does contain some of Tim's thoughts, to imply that reviewers are entirely permitted to write spoilers since LT doesn't have guidance about what makes a review (flaggable content aside).

And that's fine, I think the early discussion in our topic here makes clear it's not about censoring or changing what people write, but giving the reader an ability (if they wish to employ) to curate what they receive.

I'm not opposed to using spoiler warnings in reviews. But having somebody else being able to edit my reviews would be an absolute no go area for me.

Thou shalt not alter somebody else's content. If they can do that, what would stop them from turning your very critical review into glowing support? - or the other way around.

>74 abbottthomas: I was referring to the thread that bnielson linked in comment 72, which *was* about Early Reviews. We were looking for something Tim had to say about the general definition of “review,” and whether it had to give a critical judgement.

>76 Nicole_VanK: The “flag” feature would imply that one can object to a review but not alter or remove it, even if it violates the TOS. This is a different policy than what applies to, say, disambiguation notices or haiku summaries.

>77 booksaplenty1949: Yeah, but as suggested in the OP, it means being able to edit somebody else's review. If you can do that, you can also totally rewrite it.

A "contains spoilers" flag I could live with though.

>79 Nicole_VanK: A "contains spoilers" flag I could live with though.

It would necessarily involve a lot of subjective latitude. Are all of these spoilers?

"The butler did it."
"The end of the book was very sad."
"The interactions of characters Freddy and Frieda late in the book were aptly foreshadowed in earlier chapters."
"Only attentive readers will be able to infer from the details in the first part of the book that the events are taking place in a virtual reality game."

I guess readers hung up about avoiding spoilers would have to accept the risk involved in missing worthwhile reviews subjected to oversensitive flagging.

>79 Nicole_VanK: What “means being able to edit someone else’s review”?

>77 booksaplenty1949: Apologies. I wasn’t paying attention.

I have to say that I have been hoping that the bag of worms I opened would quietly fade away!

>80 paradoxosalpha: There is already the possibility of objecting to someone’s decision to flag something as “not a review” by clicking “Yes it is!” Presumably one could create a similar objection to the designation of something as a “spoiler.” Citing extreme examples, such as mentioning that Romeo and Juliet die or war breaks out halfway through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that might be viewed as “spoilers” is disingenuous, IMHO. I think we’d all agree that learning the identity and motive of the murderer is a fundamental goal when one reads a mystery story and having it revealed before one begins is the essence of a spoiler. There is probably near-consensus on other plot structures. But a counter-flag would deal with the overly-zealous.

>82 abbottthomas: I felt motivated as a result of this to contact a member who regularly revealed whodunnit in their reviews of a mystery series I follow and received a very gracious reply, so I am grateful you raised the issue.

>84 booksaplenty1949: Well done!

I found this old (10 years) thread on a potential spoiler flag when looking for something else:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/155670

>86 lorax: Thank you, I'd forgotten that one, although I only contributed a couple of posts (out of c.350 in that thread and its sequel). We were all younger then, of course, and had more energy. Interesting to see a lot of names that have vanished from the posts I currently read - I hope they are not all dead! - also interesting to see one or two contributors writing exactly the same stuff as they wrote a decade ago.

I hope this thread doesn't have the legs of that one.

I can see having a spoiler flag. Maybe pair it with the upvote/ downvote as there are for Recommendations?

I read reviews on LT if I'm considering a particular book and I want to see if other readers thought it was worthwhile so obviously I don't want to know all the plot details. A synopsis of what it's about to get the feel of it without detailed plot points and what was good or not about the book is what I'm really looking for.

Fortunately we now have spoiler tags - although not everyone is aware of them. I'm unlikely to use a spoiler flag anyway - unless it's a dire situation like 'the butler did it' - but it would be good to have the option.

>88 humouress: Part of the larger issue of the function of a review. Like you, I consider it a comment about a book which might help a fellow LT member decide whether to read it, or perhaps help their thinking about it, once read. I do not review a book that has more than a handful of previous reviews unless I think I have a significantly different take on it. But as I have previously noted, some other members post reviews as a sort of reading diary, apparently for their own use. These are often the reviews with spoilers. Most puzzling/frustrating are those who “review” every book they own, presumably as they enter it, even if the “review” is “Read this in high school. Remember nothing about it.” And of course, those whose “review” is “Third shelf from the left in the garage.” All this despite the existence of a “Comments” section just a few inches down the page, which the rest of us don’t have to see.

I use an app for tracking and commenting on TV shows which has a similar feature, where users can vote to mark a whole comment as a spoiler and if it gets enough votes it will be hidden and require a click-through to see it. It's used almost exclusively to hide opinions that others don't agree with. (e.g. queer shipping, homophobia, anti-cop comments, etc.) I almost never see it used for its actual intended purpose.

>90 norabelle414: I think that’s the problem. If one reads reviews, I think that is the risk one takes. Sometimes I just look at stars if I am worried about spoilers. Reviews are part of the open commentary that takes place in LT. Except for abusive language, I don’t think you can control it very much.