Based on an automated textual analysis of 40,000 film reviews posted by 18,000 French contributors on a web-based platform providing information on cinema, this article examines the relationship between the status of contributors (number of reviews posted, length of time of subscription to the site) and the type of reviews posted (choice of films, date of publication, models of argumentation, and modes of ratings). The study identifies two strongly contrasting reviewing models (film-centered and reception-centered) and shows that the regularity of practice significantly influences reviews, with regard to both form and content. The more often an author posts reviews, the closer the critique will be to the norms and formats of a professional critique. This finding challenges the idea that an online amateur critique can undermine the hierarchies of evaluation of cultural goods.
AdamicLHubermanB (2002) Zipf’s law and the internet. Glottometrics3: 143–160.
2.
AkrichM (2012) Les listes de discussion comme communautés en ligne: outils de description et méthodes d’analyse (CSI working papers series). Paris: Centre de sociologie de l’innovation (CSI).
3.
AllardL (2000) Cinéphiles, à vos claviers! Réception, public et cinéma.Réseaux18(99): 131–168.
4.
AllenMLincolnA (2004) Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces82: 871–884.
5.
ArguelloJButlerBJoyceEet al. (2006) Talk to me: foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In: Proceedings of the CHI’06, Montréal, QC, Canada, 22–28 April, pp. 959–968. New York: ACM Press.
6.
BaumannS (2007) A general theory of artistic legitimation: how art worlds are like social movements. Poetics35(1): 47–65.
7.
BaytiyehHPfaffmanJ (2009) Why be a Wikipedian? In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, (CSCL),Athens, Greece, 8-13 June 2009, vol. 1, pp. 434–443. New York: ACM.
8.
BeaudouinVVelkovskaJ (2000) Structuring a communication space on the internet. Réseaux: The French Journal of Communication7(2): 183–222.
9.
BeckerH (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
11.
BielbyDDBielbyWT (2004) Audience aesthetics and popular culture. In: FriedlandRMohrJ (eds) Matters of Culture: Cultural Sociology in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–317.
12.
BoltanskiLThevenotL (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
BourdieuP ([1979] 1984) La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement [Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste]. Paris: Minuit.
14.
Dupuy-SalleM (2014) Les cinéphiles-blogueurs amateurs face aux stratégies de captation professionnelles: entre dépendance et indépendance. Réseaux32(183): 63–92.
15.
Hennig-ThurauTGwinnerKWalshGet al. (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?Journal of Interactive Marketing18: 38–52.
16.
JanssenS (1997) Reviewing as social practice: institutional constraints on critics’ attention for contemporary fiction. Poetics24(5): 275–297.
17.
JenkinsH (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
18.
JohnstonJBaumannS (2007) Democracy versus distinction: a study of omnivorousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology113: 165–204.
19.
KeenA (2007) The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
20.
KerstenABielbyD (2012) Film discourse on the praised and the acclaimed: reviewing criteria in the United States and United Kingdom. Popular Communication10(3): 183–200.
21.
LamontM (2012) Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology38: 201–221.
22.
LegalloisDPoudatC (2008) Comment parler des livres que l’on a lus? Discours et axiologie des avis des internautes. Semen26: 49–80.
23.
MelletKBeauvisageTBeuscartJSet al. (2014) A “democratization” of markets? Online consumer reviews in the restaurant industry. Valuation Studies2(1): 5–41.
24.
NaulinS (2014) La blogosphère culinaire. Cartographie d’un espace amateur. Réseaux32(183): 29–62.
25.
OtterbacherJ (2011) Being heard in review communities: communication tactics and review prominence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication16: 424–444.
26.
PasquierDBeaudouinVLegonT (2014) Moi, je lui donne 5/5. La critique amateur en ligne. Paris: Presse des Mines.
ReinertM (1993) Les “mondes lexicaux” et leur “logique” à travers l’analyse statistique d’un corpus de récits de cauchemars. Langage et société66: 5–39.
29.
Schonhardt-BaileyCYagerELahlouS (2012) Yes, Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric was unique—but statistically, how unique. Presidential Studies Quarterly42(3): 482–513.
UgresicD (2011) Culture Karaoke. Paris: Ed Galaade.
32.
Van ReesCJ (1987) How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works. Poetics16: 275–294.
33.
Van VenrooijASchmutzV (2010) The evaluation of popular music in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. Cultural Sociology4(3): 395–421.
34.
VerboordM (2010) The legitimacy of book critics in the age of the internet and omnivorousness: expert critics, internet critics and peer critics in Flanders and the Netherlands. European Sociological Review26(6): 623–637.
35.
VerboordM (2014) The impact of peer-produced criticism on cultural evaluation: a multilevel analysis of discourse employment in online and offline film reviews. New Media & Society16(6): 921–940.
36.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
