I don't trust GoodReads

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by issybird

Yes..

well then...

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

well then...

Makes no nevermind to me.

The most useful reviews to me are thoughtful two-star reviews. Five-star reviews are useless; people like a lot of carp, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the rare book that gets five stars from me and if I’m looking, it’s because I’m already interested. A good two-star review lets me see if the aspects the reviewer didn’t like are things which resonate with me and that’s very helpful indeed.

And referring to a couple of comments above: the last thing I want to see in a review is a synopsis. That’s what the blurb is for. And I’ve been spoiled a few times by a synopsis and that’s infuriating.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't see a need to see a book having to be owned. But it should either be marked Read or DNF before it can be reviewed. But you should not be able to add a book and then mark it finished right after that. At least 24 hours should be the minimum time.

But if it's not yet written, then it should not be in the system.

I follow a lot of independent authors that I became fans of through Kindle Unlimited. They are the ones who add their upcoming series books while they are writing them to add fan excitement. I've seen some who know the series number in advance, and they will upload a few of them with the title, sometimes noting *cover to come*

I've seen on some of their facebook fan groups that they then will announce the new cover art and then upload that to the Goodreads book - even before the book is finished. This is a common tactic of some of these authors, it is not regular readers adding these unpublished books to Goodreads.

Also, some authors do restrict other librarians being able to edit their books to a degree on Goodreads. Goodreads gives them that option.


As for this part, "But you should not be able to add a book and then mark it finished right after that. At least 24 hours should be the minimum time."

I don't understand what you mean here. There's many a time I read a book and when went to mark as read, then thought, shoot, never added this to my shelves, so have to mark it read right then before rating it right away. If Goodreads required us all to wait 24 hours after adding to a shelf - eek. That would bug a lot of their active members for good reason.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, I've come up with a better idea. Before the book is published, set up some ARC versions and only allow those to rated/reviewed and every other version not at all until released. The ARC versions would not count towards the ratings/reviews for the other editions but you could still have a look at them if you wanted.

Publishers and authors spend a lot of money on ARC's. Services like Netgalley make plenty of money off those desperate to pay it and advertise in hopes it pays off when it comes to publication and selling the book to make that money back. I doubt they'd want these restrictions.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by haertig

Amazon is full of fake reviews for products. So it's not a great surprise that an Amazon-owned entity - Goodreads - would be full of fake reviews too. It is what it is. We'll just have to start applying the standard "fake review filter". Ignore all the five star reviews. Ignore all the one star reviews. Quickly glance over what remains and see if you can find something that sounds like it was written by someone of intelligence and integrity. Not always possible to find one of these good reviews, but the game is to try.

A good idea also for those who don't trust the bulk of the reviews is to follow some you trust their opinions on, and it filters those reviews are always seen first and at top. This is what I do.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I've only half-skimmed most of the thread, but does Goodreads allow reviews to be made without a star rating? I imagine a simple fix for people posting 5-star "I AM EXCITED FOR THIS BOOK!!!" on yet-unreleased ones would be to simply have an option to not have a rating.

Though I suspect there's plenty of idjits who'd do it anyways.

Sometimes people express comments on a book not published yet with a post/review without star rating it. They aren't actually reviewing, it's just the only spot Goodreads lets them put their pre-publication thoughts. As long as they don't also rate these comments, it' wont affect book rating so it doesn't skew anything.

I do comments on some abandoned DNF books, but I don't rate those to be fair since I didn't fully finish them.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I do comments on some abandoned DNF books, but I don't rate those to be fair since I didn't fully finish them.

Depends on whether or not your review is intended as a reference for yourself or if it’s also supposed to be input into the community. Without a star rating, a review is most likely not to be seen by anyone except those who follow you.

I always rate my DNFs, not books I toss within a page or two, but those where I read enough to form a reasoned opinion. One star for the objectively awful and two stars for those where “not to my taste” is an element. Combined with a review, it’s findable for those who want to know what’s wrong with a book before giving it a go. I always search on two-star reviews.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by issybird

Depends on whether or not your review is intended as a reference for yourself or if it’s also supposed to be input into the community. Without a star rating, a review is most likely not to be seen by anyone except those who follow you.

I always rate my DNFs, not books I toss within a page or two, but those where I read enough to form a reasoned opinion. One star for the objectively awful and two stars for those where “not to my taste” is an element. Combined with a review, it’s findable for those who want to know what’s wrong with a book before giving it a go. I always search on two-star reviews.

Since friends and I usually follow each other on there, I'm mainly leaving some thoughts/comments on disliking the book and having to DNF with a note on there I'll leave the rating off. This can help those same followers know what to avoid. But yes, general browsing won't pull mine up.

I think I have left a few ratings with DNF's I've finished most of, but for the most part I don't.

But our differences with this are another example of individual users just using the features differently for their own purposes, which is why I don't mind Goodreads is so non-restrictive with their rules for this.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

But our differences with this are another example of individual users just using the features differently for their own purposes, which is why I don't mind Goodreads is so non-restrictive with their rules for this.

Exactly!

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

A good idea also for those who don't trust the bulk of the reviews is to follow some you trust their opinions on, and it filters those reviews are always seen first and at top. This is what I do.

Completely agree. I suggested this first up in this thread, but the "GR MUST ONLY WORK THE WAY I WANT IT TO" crew roundly ignored it.

[haertig]

Picking through a garbage heap to find the useful things that are buried in there is a fine strategy for those that want to do it. But allowing reviews and ratings of books that haven't even been written yet, and may never be, really is a bunch of garbage. Allowing it provides nothing useful, and serves only to diminish the whole.

[Comfy.n]

"This is the best (non)review ever. Thanks for taking ten years to write it"

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by issybird

Makes no nevermind to me.

The most useful reviews to me are thoughtful two-star reviews. Five-star reviews are useless; people like a lot of carp, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the rare book that gets five stars from me and if I’m looking, it’s because I’m already interested. A good two-star review lets me see if the aspects the reviewer didn’t like are things which resonate with me and that’s very helpful indeed.

And referring to a couple of comments above: the last thing I want to see in a review is a synopsis. That’s what the blurb is for. And I’ve been spoiled a few times by a synopsis and that’s infuriating.

If I'm trying to decide whether or not to read a book by an unfamiliar author I look at the two and three star reviews. I figure that way I'm getting the people who thought it was pretty good but had some faults (three stars) and people who didn't like it but didn't find it so completely without merit as to deserve a one star rating.

I hate when people don't tag spoilers, or when they write a detailed summary of the whole story. Maybe they are flashing back to writing book reports in elementary school? I want to know things like: Was it a fast read? Was it slow but enjoyable? Were there plot holes or too many loose ends never tied up?

Now if only I could find those summaries and spoilers when I want them... (Like when I'm browsing library listings, see a description of some thriller, don't want to read it but the blurb has made me knda want to know how it turned out).

I also don't understand why so many people complain about not being able to "connect" with the book or the characters.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I also don't understand why so many people complain about not being able to "connect" with the book or the characters.

I can't remember the exact quote and too lazy to look for it at this time, but it was to the effect that the characters in the book were so unlikable that all you wanted was for them to all go to hell as soon as possible.

I've read a few books that brought that quote to mind.

Edit: Finally remembered the quote:

The test of any good fiction is that you should care something for the characters; the good to succeed, the bad to fail. The trouble with most fiction is that you want them all to land in hell, together, as quickly as possible.—Mark Twain

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

If I'm trying to decide whether or not to read a book by an unfamiliar author I look at the two and three star reviews. I figure that way I'm getting the people who thought it was pretty good but had some faults (three stars) and people who didn't like it but didn't find it so completely without merit as to deserve a one star rating.

I hate when people don't tag spoilers, or when they write a detailed summary of the whole story. Maybe they are flashing back to writing book reports in elementary school? I want to know things like: Was it a fast read? Was it slow but enjoyable? Were there plot holes or too many loose ends never tied up?

Now if only I could find those summaries and spoilers when I want them... (Like when I'm browsing library listings, see a description of some thriller, don't want to read it but the blurb has made me knda want to know how it turned out).

I also don't understand why so many people complain about not being able to "connect" with the book or the characters.

1 - I keep a zettlekasten of what I read, quotes, things that strike me. I use Obsidian so it makes a great mind map of ideas for me. One of my...less literate fellow attorneys thinks I'm writing book reports.

2 - FWIW, StoryGraph does have specific tags about the pacing of a book, whether it is plot or character driven, etc. Every time you mark a book as read, it takes you through a little survey to select all those things as part of the rating.