Goodreads ratings are less than useless

[BenG]

I mainly use Goodreads to tracks books I've read and those I remember reading going back to childhood. I mainly just use the star rating as defined by Goodreads : 5 stars= "loved it", 1 star="didn't like it.
But some people try rate by objective quality, so you have a mix of rating philosophies on the site.

Also the actual definitions of the different ratings are different from what people normally perceive; 2 stars="it was ok" but most people think of 3 stars as average.

I don't usually use the site to look for books to read (except for other books by the same author) but sometimes a book will catch my eye.

[Blossom]

If it's a ARC or free copy in exchange for a review you are required to let the public know if you write a review that you didn't buy the book. I only do these ever so often. Goodreads is a mess. I only use it to keep track of what I've read. The ratings are reviews are too disorganized for lack of a better word. I use Amazon and I read the low rated reviews first and work my way up. It has never failed me in finding a good read. I stay away from five stars. I want tough reviewers who aren't afraid to tell the truth.

Sent from my Nexus 7

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Blossom

If it's a ARC or free copy in exchange for a review you are required to let the public know if you write a review that you didn't buy the book. I only do these ever so often. Goodreads is a mess. I only use it to keep track of what I've read. The ratings are reviews are too disorganized for lack of a better word. I use Amazon and I read the low rated reviews first and work my way up. It has never failed me in finding a good read. I stay away from five stars. I want tough reviewers who aren't afraid to tell the truth.

Sent from my Nexus 7

That's how I see it too, only I'm not on Goodreads. I use Amazon and read the ratings. I found Goodreads to be too disorganized.

[theducks]

I still am waiting for the following lists:

New York Times WORST SELLING AUTHOR
Hugo Losers
other common cover/flap blurbs <Inverted>

[Penforhire]

The average rating at Goodreads rarely matches my own rating for a given book. But I do tend to skim through reviews to see what people say. I do wish fewer reviews included a synopsis or character descriptions.

[DiapDealer]

I don't believe that to be the case at all (ARC disclaimers being required by the FTC). I don't read the FTC's Endorsement Guidelines that way. Suggested, recommended, enouraged... sure. But "Required I'm not picking up on at all. I think bloggers just scared themselves (and other "hobby" reviewers) into believing it had to be declared -- or else. Mountain out of a mole-hill type stuff, if you ask me.

If you have a huge website that publishers are advertising on and you're recieving piles and piles of ARCs in exchange for reviews, then and only then would I worry about any FTC suggestions.

But if you're not actually shilling for an author/publisher (and you're a hobby reviewer), then you have nothing to fear from the FTC, in my opinion.

[Blossom]

Maybe not FTC but Amazon clearly requires it.

Sent from my XT1528

[DiapDealer]

Oh well that's fine--their site/their perogative. Do they require the same thing on Goodreads? I've just never seen the rule, is all. Be nice to know where it is for future reference.

[Blossom]

Yep. It's in their guidelines. You must disclose you received the book in exchange for a review. I don't think it refers to rating a read book just if you review it.

Sent from my Nexus 7

[Atunah]

Those I follow on goodreads that do a lot of arc reviews, always put it there. The short period I was participating, I did the same. Disclosing I mean. I had to stop doing it as writing reviews is hard enough as it is and it took all the fun out of reading for me. So mostly I rate now. Pretty sure its required to put that down that you received a book for free. I expect it from those type of reviewers.

To me a star rating means more to me from someone on goodreads I follow than a long drawn out review with technical details written like a book report on amazon. That is because I know what that goodreads reader likes, so if they give something a 1 or 2 star, there is a good reason for it. Likewise if they like something. But since I don't just look at one rating, its just one part of my vetting process. But my main place to find books and vet them seems to be goodreads at this point. And on my kindle, which of course uses a system incorporated into the goodreads site. Great recs on there.

But one really has to make their own feed there to really take advantage of all the features. Meaning comparing reviewers ratings to your own and see if its a good match and follow specific reviewers and readers. After a while, its a very targeted system and not a free for all anymore.

Of course I don't just randomly follow 1000's of people as some do on there. Most are more targeted.

[Blossom]

One problem is if you link Goodreads and Facebook all your Facebook friends who use Goodreads show up in your feed. I don't have a lot of friends who read romance on Facebook so I don't use the feed features.

Sent from my XT1528

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Yep. It's in their guidelines. You must disclose you received the book in exchange for a review. I don't think it refers to rating a read book just if you review it.

Sent from my Nexus 7

Thanks. I see it now. Though I challenge their "in compliance with federal law" claim (for reasons already mentioned above). Any legal compliance would be THEIR responsibility anyway. They can't really transfer the legal consequences to members. Still ... it's their site. *shrug* But the worst that can happen is they delete your reviews and/or kick you out of GR.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by Blossom

One problem is if you link Goodreads and Facebook all your Facebook friends who use Goodreads show up in your feed. I don't have a lot of friends who read romance on Facebook so I don't use the feed features.

Sent from my XT1528

I don't really use facebook, I have an account but no friends on it. I can't figure that site out anyway.
And like you said, it wouldn't be useful if they don't read what you read. That is what makes goodreads so great. I follow mostly other romance readers/reviewers and make sure they read the subgenres I like reading. So when I go and check out a book, there are lots of ratings and reviews from those folks there for me to look at.
I do remove some once i a while when they post nothing but gifs and that is mostly a issue with new adult romance stuff, which I don't really read anymore anyway.

I only link my goodreads with my kindle/amazon account so I can get goodreads recs and all that. It also puts my rating on goodreads for me once I finish a book and fill the stars in the popup.

The feed I get on goodreads is just all goodreads stuff. Goodreads members I follow and friend.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Atunah

Those I follow on goodreads that do a lot of arc reviews, always put it there. The short period I was participating, I did the same. Disclosing I mean. I had to stop doing it as writing reviews is hard enough as it is and it took all the fun out of reading for me. So mostly I rate now. Pretty sure its required to put that down that you received a book for free. I expect it from those type of reviewers.

To me a star rating means more to me from someone on goodreads I follow than a long drawn out review with technical details written like a book report on amazon. That is because I know what that goodreads reader likes, so if they give something a 1 or 2 star, there is a good reason for it. Likewise if they like something. But since I don't just look at one rating, its just one part of my vetting process. But my main place to find books and vet them seems to be goodreads at this point. And on my kindle, which of course uses a system incorporated into the goodreads site. Great recs on there.

But one really has to make their own feed there to really take advantage of all the features. Meaning comparing reviewers ratings to your own and see if its a good match and follow specific reviewers and readers. After a while, its a very targeted system and not a free for all anymore.

Of course I don't just randomly follow 1000's of people as some do on there. Most are more targeted.

Like you with the exception of a very very few authors, I quit reviewing in exchange for books too. It got to be one giant headache.
I always put the disclosure mostly so other readers would know how I got the book.
I was even offered a blog to review new books and new authors. I turned that down in a hurry.

[Krazykiwi]

Originally Posted by Tarana

All that said, I encourage you to give Goodreads feedback asking them to limit reviews to those books people have marked as READ. That might eliminate some of the older garbage. Those determined to be jerks will just get around that, I should think, but then no system is going to be perfect.

Rating or reviewing a book automatically marks it read. How would this change? It'd be nothing more than a token checkbox, and there's no way to prove anyone read a book anyway.

As mentioned, this gets raised perennially in the GR Feedback group, and it's always shot down by staff.

As also mentioned, if you want valuable ratings, figure out other readers whose reviews you like, or who rate things similarly to you (easily done by looking at a bunch of books you already read) and follow or friend them.

Note also, it doesn't have to be two way, you can follow people and have their reviews/ratings added to that top section, without having to know them, interact with them, or have them follow you.

Follow or friend, either way you'll see their ratings and reviews at the top, including an aggregate of just their ratings, which is much more likely to be useful to you.

For instance, I'm looking at a book I rated 4, which has an average rating of 4.4 (i.e., very high) but the "Friend Reviews" section says their average rating is also 4. Book 2 of the same series has a 4.2 rating (also very high) - I rated it 3 (I'd have given it 3.5 if they did half stars, but they don't), and my friends aggregate is 3.7. That "Friends Reviews" rating is always much closer to mine than the overall average is, because I've made an effort to follow people who like the same kinds of things I like (and more importantly, don't like the same things that annoy me.)