I like to see a rating up front. I want to know whether I'm going to be reading a positive or negative review right from the start. (I love to read reviews that have a different opinion than mine!) If there is no rating at the front I scroll to the end to see what it is but it annoys me if the review is longer than the length of my screen. And if there is no rating at all, I usually skip the review altogether unless it's a blogger I'm familiar with and a fan of already.

As to length, I'll read anything about 3-4 (maybe 5) medium paragraphs or shorter. I like a brief plot summary, otherwise how am I going to know whether it's my kind of book or not? Anything longer, like essay length book reviews I don't have any inclination to read. I'd rather read the jacket flaps than an essay about the book.

I'm not a huge fan of rating systems. Maybe just an overall "4.5/5 stars" type thing at the end of a post, but not for every element of the book. That's already being said in the review. To me it doesn't say enough about why the book is good/bad, and so why bother? If I see a book that receives 10/10 stars in plot, characters, intrigue, humor, etc. my first impression is that someone is gushing annoyingly and I'll probably move on without reading. The same with if a book received a lot of low ratings because then I just assume someone's bashing it and don't even care to know why.

As for summaries, I like them to be pretty short--like 1 to 2 short paragraphs and that's it. Just enough to give me an idea of what it's about, not the entire plot. (Even bookflap descriptions are too long for me and I just skim them.) But I do like them, especially if the person who's reviewing writes them because the way they're written says something about their opinion of a book.

I like to have a rating system, but I would rather have just an overall rate (4 out of 5). It doesn't matter if it's in the beginning or at the end of the review.

I like reading reviews that are fairly short, but get to the point. (I don't mind having the synopsis posted as long as there isn't a summary in the review too.) I will skip a long review too, because I don't want to read an essay.

One thing that also bugs me, is when some of the reviews contains spoilers (with no spoiler alert). I understand it hard sometimes to not give things away, I have caught myself plenty of times. Anyways - if the review starts telling certain events within the book, I automatically stop reading. If I read before hand everything that's going to happen in a book, what's the point of me reading it?

I kind of like the idea of a divided rating system.

I don't read reviews at all. I just read the book.

I like reading the reviews personally. But, if you want to appeal to both types of people, you might as well do both! Then everyone will read it!

--Sharry

Georgie, what are you doing here then? ;)

All right, so what I'm getting from all of you is, there really isn't something everyone likes.

Good to know.

Overall I agree with Ink Mage ^^

I think a short summary is good, so I know if I would even be interested in the book, & an overall rating (3.5/5, 6/10, the such) works just fine for me.

I pay more attention to the details of the review/reasons behind the rating than I do the actual score, though. If someone doesn't give reasons behind their rating then, as said above, "why bother"?