I think the ability to delete a review by an author is good. If it violates the rules for using the site. That is, the summary contains insults from the author, the use of Internet slang of an offensive nature, trolling. Another thing is if this is a real classic review, which is given more or less objectively, the criticism in it is constructive. But not custom, black PR.
But where to find an objective reader? One may not like the syllable, another chauvinist of perfect English grammar, the third just wants to have fun giving 1 or 2 star reviews, the fourth just does not like the genre, the fifth believes that this novel is rubbish and he as a reader is the ultimate truth. Where is the objective assessment of the reader as a reviewer?
Also of course they strain the review, of the same “Nick” - August 21, August 21, August 34, August 48 ... damn how many these months ... and everyone writes the same rects or emojis put and 5 or 1 star reviews. It might make sense to prohibit re-reviewing one nickname novel. But probably it would be worthwhile to put the ability to edit the review itself. If the work is corrected, then increase the rating, and if it worsens, lower it.
The rating system on no literary website was effective enough to evaluate the real quality of the novel.
Therefore, as I see two ways - the first one hopes that the administration will listen to the wishes of the authors and readers and somehow change the state of things. And the second one just does not bathe about this, but simply read or write. Without imposing your opinion if it is not argued by other readers or writers. This is your choice.
Personally, I don’t like it when under the same piece are the same nicknames, this is not fair. But in terms of unfair competition, is this practice likely the norm?
It's not sporty, but it works ... alas, it works ...