I always appreciate reviewers considering that the review is free and valuable time is spent. However, I don't think a reviewer should rate a book without reading the entire book. I know that not all books will suit everyone and so a reviewer has the right to stop reading if the story is not to their liking.

When someone rates or reviews a book without completely reading it in my humble opinion:

1. It encourages others to do likewise and makes a mockery of the review process,

2. It encourages reviewers to do damage to the author and can sometimes be seen as being malicious,

3. It should be encouraged (though hard to enforce) that reviewers set a standard by being respectful to the author and do not provide a rating if the reading was not complete,

4. It seems less than honest as a rating/review would be for the entire story and not a part even if the review states that he/she didnt complete the reading, it still should not be done.

I am surprised that there are authors who dont see anything wrong with rating a book that the reviewer did not complete. I think we should try and encourage a certain standard.