Up until a few months ago I always used the same set of amazing beta readers. I am used to their critique style and in turn are pretty familiar with mine. I still trust them completely with my manuscripts and always get way too excited when a see a new chapter in their WIP hit my inbox.
I am the midst of beta reading/ critiquing three manuscripts for three different authors for whom I have never read for before. I am pretty up front with them about my critique style – I am horrible with grammar, am good with characterization, and am a PIA when it comes to dialogue. I wouldn’t say I am a harsh critic . . . rather a sarcastic one. Although no one has complained yet, I'm beginning to wonder exactly what kind of “critique” most of you like to receive.
I am a line by line, track changes, this-so-doesn’t-belong-in-this-chapter kind of beta reader. That said I am curious as to what type of critique you all prefer. Do you prefer the “questionnaire” type of beta read where we complete a set of pre-determined questions? Are you partial to the line-by line, point-out-everything kind of critique? Or are you more of the steam-of-consciousness person that hopes your beta reader will insert comments wherever and whenever they want to?