All of your objections are noted and, in fact, previously anticipated. I'm leaving out a myriad of details because I'm still finessing them. What I'm doing here is floating a concept for reactions to the basic idea. Qualifying the work should include reader reaction because they're the ones paying to read the books as opposed to sending ARCs or free copies to Kirkus or PW. A good review from these publications is highly prized but I'm not paying them a fee to read my work just to get one. I'll focus my efforts on satisfying my readers so they feel their money was well spent and would want to buy whatever I put out afterwards. Qualifying those reader reviews is an issue that still needs to be worked out in greater detail but it's an issue that I've already identified.,

Don't take this the wrong way but you're one of the least qualified people to judge this concept for all the reasons you outlined. You've worked within the system for your whole career so what insight do you have as an independent author? Your input is welcome but realistically you have no experience with self-publishing. You still insist on using the pejorative "vanity publishing" to describe work produced outside the system. This is a clear bias.

At any rate, I believe the basic concept is strong enough to devote some time to develop it further so I plan to. If it turns out to be a bust, at least I put the effort into it.

@Sgt_Spanky -- I have plenty of experience with Indie publishing, it's just that I don't do it myself. Self publishing is nothing new, nor are any of the problems regarding promotion, distribution, etc. The thrust of what I said was that setting a limit on the number of reviews/stars is extremely artificial and restrictive. Some of the authors I've taken on and published in my anthologies have come to me with no reviews and no stars, but their work was exceptional enough to be worthy of a spot in the series. Some of them have gone on to make a bit of a name for themselves. They would not have made the grade using your suggested parameters.

From my experience, the only way to know the quality of work is to read it. I've seen some 5 star material trailing a long tail of 'nice' reviews that was far from what I would accept as an acquisitions editor, while some obscure little pieces hiding in the depths of no star land were gems. What I'm asking you to do is reconsider this business of setting arbitrary restrictions on potential members. Let their writing be the deciding factor, not some score card that may not mean much.

By the way, there's nothing at all wrong with the concept. I think it is a good idea. I just think that the only restriction should be that they have had the discipline and tenacity to have produced a book. That is an indicator that they at least have some dedication and are reasonably serious.

@evidentialist Of course the quality of the work would be the deciding factor so it would have to be read. There's no other way to come to a decision. The minimum stars/reviews idea is just an off the cuff notion to help in the search to locate work that could be worth reading.

This idea is still embryonic. There's a mess of details that have yet to be worked out to determine if it's even viable.

I've still got quite a bit to work out but I see it starting with self-published writers who must have at least one book on the market, that book must have a minimum number of fifteen reviews and meet a three-stars or better average for inclusion. Something like that to better regulate the quality of the work.

@Sgt_Spanky i guess count me out. Im not sure i meet the criteria.

@Lillyfield41 I'm not counting you out. At this point I'm just spitballing ideas for a concept early in its development.