Quote:
Originally Posted by Josieb1
I was following this via some friends on Facebook. I have no idea if this is correct or not but apparently the author queried why she was getting low ratings when the book had not yet been created, so no ARCs had been sent out. She asked the question in the wrong forum and that's when she started getting offensive comments, which her supporters tried to respond to.
Personally I don't think it all reads true, but because authors view Goodreads as a toxic site there's no point in trying to say anything to my author friends.
There are nasty trolls over there, I know as I made a mistake once of commenting on a personal attack against an author (and it WAS a personal attack) and got offensive comments back directed at me.
I like Goodreads as a library system and I do rate and review books I've read but I don't use it as a social site.
|
Speaking as an author, I don't view GR as a toxic site. Yeah, there have been problems, but there are mods (of a sort--they are responsive to some degree) and they do step in for numerous complaints. I had one book, one time get a star rating before it was available. No idea why. I assumed someone actually mistook the book for some other book. I certainly didn't comment on the rating or ask questions. I mean, shit happens, right?
I've seen authors go after other authors and because I review a lot of books, one of these days I'm probably going to get burned. I don't like the idea, there will be nothing I can do to stop it, but there you go. There's a reason that authors rarely do reviews for other authors (unless they are gushing or giving a quote.) It's a tough business. Tit-for-tat is never a great thing and there's very little policing of it. The only solution for me is to stop reviewing. Believe me, I do less of it than I used to and there are times when I weigh reviewing against just tossing the book (figuratively) and moving on.
All that said, we need reviews (as authors and reviewers). Not everyone uses them, but lots do. GR CEO said in an interview/presentation that books with less than 100 reviews/ratings have less of a chance of showing up in their algos. (Meaning along the side there where you see what other people looked at or liked or what you might like.) We're talking about money here. More reviews mean more visibility, usually respect (validation) and quite possibly more money. As long as those algos exist (and I suspect they exist on Amazon as well) the system will be gamed by some. It's their livelihood.
This behavior is no different, worse or better than any other business. It doesn't make it a good system, but it's the system we have.