Goodreads scrapped Kidlit awards

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Given that Goodreads is owned by Amazon, we could have a Verified Purchase like to do on the main site. That would be any flavor of the book. And also, given that Amazon in the US files library loans, a Verified Library Loan can also be added. It won't stop bogus reviews, but it might help some

Sorry, but this is a dumb request. I don't purchase my books at Amazon and I don't get loan books for Kindle, so Amazon cannot mark anything for me, even if my books are legit.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I won't read Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Nor do I. Supporting her husband's sexual abuse of children made her books unreadable for me.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

Correct, it's for early buzz - when I used to do ARCs on Netgalley, some publishers wanted reviews whenever you read the book, some asked for reviews to be held if possible closer to publication date.

If ARCs don't result in publicity or reviews, there's no point in them for author or publisher to release.

I never had an issue with GR and ARC policy --- people bring that up to argue on ratings books not released yet -- Goodreads always responds people can use star ratings how they want, but while I see their point, we get messes like this easier. Not sure what the solution is as the system works for the greater good/enjoyment of the readers and sometimes authors half of the time.

Goodreads needs to come up with a way for you to prove you have read the ARC legally and are then allowed to post a review.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

Which proves nothing except that someone was willing to say s/he'd read the book.



Years after release, early reviews and biased ratings will long have ceased to matter unless there were only early reviews, which tells the story in itself.

No matter how you try to micromanage the system at Goodreads, it's never going to work the way you want it to. It can't, even if GR had the motivation. So you can either live with its perceived flaws or go back to maintaining private lists of books and only reading reviews from the legitimate press and taking recommendations from trusted personal sources. And in fact, GR is very good at the latter.

But how long does it take for any rubbish ratings to no longer matter? The reviews you can figure out they are rubbish when you go to read them.

Lets say I give a new book a month. Is that enough time? I cannot say. I know when real ratings start to come in, unless they are replacing the rubbish ones, they won't matter until enough ratings come in and enough rubbish ones get replaced with real ones

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It probably can't be fixed.

I agree that it cannot 100% be fixed. But the effects of this rubbish can be lessened some.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Sorry, but this is a dumb request. I don't purchase my books at Amazon and I don't get loan books for Kindle, so Amazon cannot mark anything for me, even if my books are legit.

I know not everyone gets books from Amazon, Audible, or Kindle eBooks from Overdrive. But something has to be done.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Nor do I. Supporting her husband's sexual abuse of children made her books unreadable for me.

Supposedly MZB molested her daughter. I do agree about her husband.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Supposedly MZB molested her daughter. I do agree about her husband.

I'm not certain if MZB physically molested her daughter or simply turned a blind eye to Walter Breen's actions. Not that it matters much to me since that made her complicit in his activities and the daughter should have been able to depend on her parent to protect her from predators.

Since MZB had passed away 15 years before her daughter went public, I doubt we will ever know the full truth.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know some people like to read about an ARC. But unless there is a way to prove you are an approved ARC reader, forget them. My opinion is to not allow anyone to post comments or a rating until 3 days after release and you have to have put in that you've read the book.

Hey, I've got an idea: how about you just don't read reviews that were posted prior to 3 days after release?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by meeera

Hey, I've got an idea: how about you just don't read reviews that were posted prior to 3 days after release?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Goodreads needs to come up with a way for you to prove you have read the ARC legally and are then allowed to post a review.

There is no point in saying Goodreads "needs" to do something that is flatly impossible.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But something has to be done.

Isn't this just a scootch overwrought?

As an aside, I'm quite surprised that you advocate "solutions" that would only enhance Amazon's dominance. Is it really a good idea to give a priority to content purchased from Amazon? So much for the small bookseller, Kobo and so forth.

[astrangerhere]

I think the bottom line is that "fixing" the ARC/early/fake reviews in any real way would make any book site more intrusive. I will not give up my privacy just to ensure that the reviews that I almost never read are legitimate.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by meeera

Hey, I've got an idea: how about you just don't read reviews that were posted prior to 3 days after release?

Or don't read them at all from Goodreads?

As do other non-commercial actual forums dedicated to books.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Or don't read them at all from Goodreads?

Why would I ignore the reviews of people whose tastes and/or inclinations I've become familiar with over the years? Even without knowing that info, I manage to glean value from anonymous Goodreads reviews/ratings. Sure, the useful ones don't magically fall from heaven to perch in front of my eyes or anything--but then again, I don't expect them to. **shrug**

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why would I ignore the reviews of people whose tastes and/or inclinations I've become familiar with over the years?

That would be mad. But I was addressing Jon.