This isn't so much a complaint as it is an observation I've made in the past week, or so. I've been checking out reviews of other fiction writers, mostly in contemporary fiction. I've noticed a few reviews here and there that state the author was incorrect in their statement and they needed to check their facts, bla bla bla.
I don't know what the author said, if it was sound, or stated falsely, but I have to wonder - who reads fiction for facts? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, most of Star Trek is based on working (and not so working) theories, but was that why any of us watched it? If the theory on Warp Drive on Star Trek differed from the real theory does it matter? I believe it does not. So why critique a piece of fiction based on that?
Let's say this little piece of information is key to some major part of the story. It's still fiction, it still does not matter. That would be like getting upset that a martial arts movie has people floating around in the air and fighting. "It's not possible!" You know what, it's not, but we aren't watching a documentary, we're watching two guys beat the piss out of each other with swords and somehow never die. I won't lie and say I like the floating around fighting, but it isn't because it's fake. It's because it's slow and a little stupid (to me).