 Other reviews, and here I mean media, not say bloggers, but how corrupt are they? Corrupt in what sense? That there's something in the process which involves favoritism, and maybe there's an incentive for excess enthusiasm, because if your book review section reviews 13 books and says they're all mediocre, well people won't buy the books, but more importantly they'll stop buying your book review section, right? So do you think there's for instance an incentive to be too positive or some other skew? I think I don't know that it's as blatant as that. I definitely think it is editors certainly prefer positive reviews, and there are some newspapers which basically won't print negative reviews. I think that's always an issue, and I mean they can say that well we, you know, we pre-select, so that's the way we do it, but that's, I mean one of the things I love about how I'm able to review books is that I just, you know, I'll review almost anything, and I will actually review it even if I do not enjoy the book, even if I have immense problems with the book, because I think that's just- You don't put them down like I do it. Take New York Times or Amazon, I know there's both, but if you had to choose which do you trust more? I don't know if I can, I like Amazon because I can get a lot of information about, out of Amazon. They're really that, the way the information is presented and in part with the reviews, depending on how widely it's being reviewed, part of the problem with the New York Times, of course, is that they can only review so few books, and so you have really so little information, or information about so few titles, whereas Amazon, you have at least some information about practically everything. In that sense, good reads is perhaps, you know, even more useful, because especially with the foreign language books, they'll usually at least be people who've already reviewed the foreign language edition, and that's helpful. One of the things I find remarkable about my site is I try to link to big media reviews, and an extraordinary number of the books which I cover basically go unreviewed in the major media, often even publishers weekly, which I find kind of shocking, because I mean, I do review obscure books, but it's not that obscure. I'm fascinated, the Literary Hub is a very good website now, which collects a lot of literary information, and they've also now started a review aggregating part of the site called Bookmarks, and basically what they do is when they find reviews in three of the publications they monitor, which are basically all American major publications and a few internet sites, if they have three reviews for a book, then they'll put that on bookmarks with the summaries and links to the reviews, so sort of what I do, and I find maybe one out of ten of the books I cover qualify for them, and I find that shocking.