"Although a delight to read, Reviews of this Blog is pure drivel. It's subject matter is clearly unclear. And it's contributors revel in paradoxicalness and self-referentiality without looking to see wehther words misspelled or left out. Not to mention the incomplete sentences. It also makes the elementary mistake of using quotation marks for emphasis, which I "hate". Did anyone copyedit this thing! But, worst of all, the authors fail to notice that every statement in the blog is false. Wait, that's not true. What's true is that every statement in Reviews of this Blog is not true. Yes, that's much more to the point." -- Josh May

"This review makes an invaluable contribution to the literature on self reference. It is tightly argued, insightful and provocative. Despite the obvious merits of the work, there are three problems that deserve attention. Firstly, no review is a good review unless it criticizes whatever it is that the review is about (following a few standard compliments which are intended to make the author feel standard). Since this in itself is a review, and moreover, a review that is about itself, it must contain something worth criticizing. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is nothing wrong with this review. There are two ways in which this state of affairs can be realised. One way is that this review doesn’t contain any criticisms. If that were the case then, since we have already established that every good review has a criticism of what it is about, then this review would not meet the standards of what it is to be a good review. On the other hand, if this review does contain a criticism, then there is a further dilemma: either the criticism is a good criticism or it isn’t. If it is a good criticism, then obviously there was something worth criticizing. On the other hand, if it is a bad criticism, then the bad criticism is itself worthy of criticism, and so again there is something worth criticizing. The second problem with this review is that it does not contain the number of problems that it claims it has, goes on a little too long, and ends rather abruptly." -- Leon Leontyev

"A brief criticism: the second review by Jonathan
Farrell says nothing whatsoever about the content of
any review on the blog. The review should be removed
(and perhaps replaced with this one)." -- Jonathan
Farrell

"The blog 'Reviews of this blog' (find it here:
http://reviews-of-this-blog.blogspot.com/) seems to
consist only of reviews of this blog. The present
review is a review of that blog. A caveat: as with the
other reviews featured, what this review says about
the reviews on the blog should not be trusted. Apart
from the dubious quality of the reviews it contains,
the blog itself is excellent." -- Jonathan Farrell

"This blog consists of a series of increasingly deplorable and formulaic entries. The ideas are derivative (indeed, this blog has been mercilessly plagiarized throughout) and the humor is narcissistic and superabundantly verbose. I fail to see why any right-minded member of polite society would waste her time reading, let alone writing, such hypocritical tripe." -- John Cusbert

"Another forced attempt to squeeze humor out of self-reference. Predictably, the blog is full of reviews that refer to themselves in either a self-fulfilling or a self-defeating manner, e.g. 'This blog is brilliant!' or 'Everything on this blog is stupid!'. Both of which make this reader cringe. Please stop! There is nothing entertaining about self-reference!" -- Brian Rabern

"Cleverly conceived, but I wonder whether the blog can maintain the same level of freshness. By the third post the reader is already left wondering: 'Is this it'? Still, a brave venture." -- Philip J. Atkins

"In the second post the standard fell sligthly, although, I would like to add, the convoluted writing style--annoying though it might be at times--is ultimately endearing and kept a smile on this reader's face." -- Ole Koksvik

"The first entry in Reviews of This Blog hits the nail on the head. Brilliant!" -- Anonymous author of Reviews of this Blog