<p>I think book reviews are a great idea. </p>

<p>I wonder, though, if there's an implicit requirement to review <em>new</em> books only. (Certainly, you couldn't submit a review of a book from 1979 to a publication.) The issue here is that, when people ask for book recommendations on CV, the books that end up being recommended are always the classics, as those are generally the most appropriate for typical users / situations. So, while I recognize it's an odd suggestion, I think it might be best if often <em>old</em> books are the ones reviewed.  </p>

<p>Another point worth bearing in mind, is that a lot of information is already available about many books on the internet (Amazon book descriptions &amp; user reviews, info at the publisher's website, &amp; published book reviews can sometimes be freely accessed).  So I think we should think about what makes CV (&amp; potential CV blog readers, in particular) distinctive as a target audience, and explicitly try to cater to that.  For instance, there are many book reviews in statistical publications and may have a more sophisticated audience in mind, whereas my impression of the typical OP on CV is someone without a strong statistical background.  </p>
