Declaration of ignorance: I'm not a reader of GMR, I haven't read Death of a Ghost (yet!), I followed all the links because I'm interested in reviewing, how it works and how (to my taste) it often fails.
People have been using the word "unprofessional": the word that came into my mind - and I read the review before I read the discussion - was "amateurish". There's nothing on the page (or elsewhere, as far as I can see), other than the quality of the review, to indicate that this is a review by a member of the target audience, rather than a professional (in the sense of experienced and applying standards) reviewer - and the link from the reviewer's name to biographical information is broken. But the level of spoilerage, the disorganised nature of the review, the pointless jibes - we might have guessed!
So all in all, when GMR respond that it's an amateur review and what does it matter, I'd be inclined to agree with them. Clearly, they aren't a publication to take seriously.
There remains the matter that they do get good rankings on Google: not top, on this occasion, but above the page about the book on steepholm's own web site - and this is something it might be possible to improve on. steepholm (on the understanding that you do indeed run the website yourself), you might try adding an h1 headline with the title, and making sure that your name appears in full on the page, and in the meta-text...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-30 12:14 pm (UTC)People have been using the word "unprofessional": the word that came into my mind - and I read the review before I read the discussion - was "amateurish". There's nothing on the page (or elsewhere, as far as I can see), other than the quality of the review, to indicate that this is a review by a member of the target audience, rather than a professional (in the sense of experienced and applying standards) reviewer - and the link from the reviewer's name to biographical information is broken. But the level of spoilerage, the disorganised nature of the review, the pointless jibes - we might have guessed!
So all in all, when GMR respond that it's an amateur review and what does it matter, I'd be inclined to agree with them. Clearly, they aren't a publication to take seriously.
There remains the matter that they do get good rankings on Google: not top, on this occasion, but above the page about the book on