I was thinking about this the other day when I was writing a review: What is the perfect review length? Is there a perfect review length?
I would say 98% of the time, I read the full review - regardless of length. If the blogger took his or her time to write said review, and I'm interested in the book/what they have to say, it's only fair that I actually read their thoughts. Now that last 2% of the time depends on a couple factors: business, laziness, tiredness, things along those lines. When that happens, I tend to just skim the review for key points then check out their rating.
I'm not saying this is how every one should read reviews, that's just my thing. You might be more of the skimmer and rating checker and that's totally fine. If it works for you to skim and check, wonderful. If it's better for you to read the whole review, awesome. But do you ever click on a review, see the length and decide not to read it because it's too long? Or, because it's short you just skip to the rating because you feel the short review has nothing substantial to say?
I've written reviews of both lengths, so don't feel as if you're offending me with your honest answer. I'm just generally curious.
When it comes to review length, is there such a thing as too long or too short? Do you have a length preference when either writing or reading one? Or does it not matter to you in the slightest?