I haven't done a discussion post in a while, so I think I shall do one now!
The other day I was browsing through Goodreads, looking for some books to read and browsing tons of my friends' reviews. While in the midst of this browsing I noticed a pattern in types of reviews; some were more detailed than others, some more straightforward, and others more lighthearted. Many readers' reviews fall into a particular category and normally follow an overall format, and I mentally listed these categories that Goodreaders tended to follow.
I'm not saying that there won't be some overlapping in how people write their reviews and in which categories they're in, as most of you will probably be able to relate to several of these. Now, this is just my opinion, and you guys probably have a total different perception of the different types of reviews that exist.
~ Gif-filled ~
I'm almost positive that most of us have used gifs in at least one of our reviews, because sometimes words just /aren't/ enough to convey how a book has made us feel. But some reviewers have the tendency to use gifs in most of their reviews, which is great for those who are more visually-oriented and prefer pictures over big blocks of words. Reviews with lots of gifs are usually very enthusiastic and just generally enjoyable to read. Some people have a talent at finding the perfect gif for almost every situation/emotion, and for that you should be proud.
~ Detailed ~
These are the kinds of reviews I usually go to when deciding whether I should read a book or not. Reviews like these are thorough and usually contain an in-depth overview of the plot itself, They typically have long paragraphs, which I don't really skim for the most part. Reviewers who write detailed reviews are good at noticing nuances in books they read.
~ Organized ~
These are the pros-and-cons, likes and dislikes type of reviews. They're normally very concise and very straightforward, which I appreciate when I'm hurriedly scanning a book's Goodreads page. I like these reviews because the reviewers' ideas are easier to understand.
~ Sporadic ~
These are the types of reviews I write when I have no filter; they have no particular structure and they're pretty all over the place. They include a rant about a character the reviewer hated, followed by a few sentences about the lovely writing, and back again to ranting about the aforementioned hated character. I'd say 80% of my reviews are like this, and this probably has to do with the fact that I can't organize my thoughts (or my life in general). And to be honest, I usually enjoy reading people's reviews who are like this as they have a sort of spice to them.
~ Humorous ~
I'd like to think I write these types of reviews (when in reality I just fill reviews with my lame jokes and puns that usually aren't funny in the slightest). Those who write humorous reviews include the use of caps lock, smileys, and sarcasm if they're feeling particularly critical. These are the reviews I read for books I absolutely loathe; chances are, there's a reviewer who has hated the book just as much as me and their review is composed entirely of snark. If you've mastered the use of humor of your review, then you definitely deserve an award.
Each of these types of reviews have their own kind of charm, and I appreciate all of them for different reasons. You will probably be able to relate to a couple of these. Or you might feel as if the type of review depends on variables such as your mood, whether you liked the book or not, etc.
I, for one, relate to the sporadic review type the most. Which type(s) do you guys think adequately represent your reviewing style?