Goodreads ratings are less than useless

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No worries. It happens. Just don't ever misread 1 2/3 cup for 23 ounces. You will wind up with Sloppy Tomato instead of Sloppy Joes.
I did just that on Saturday.

you could always dip your buns in it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

you could always dip your buns in it.

Ouch at the acid.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Atunah

On goodreads you control what you see.

So can I only see reviews/ratings from people who have marked a given book read?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh yes ARCs.
What Jon may not realize is those people may have read the book before it was released to the public. All the big publishers and some authors send out advance review copies to some readers to get feedback and reviews to be used in marketing at least a month to 6 weeks before the book is available to the public.

So those reviews may not be bogus.

Now I would suggest if one doesn't like how a site does the ratings and reviews, don't use that site.

But if you have read an ARC, you have to mark it read in order to be able to give a proper review. Also, there is a way to handle ARCs by having a separate entries for an ARC versions.

[Tarana]

JSWolf, the ratings have always been sortof useless since people can use it for however they want to. I might mark a book with 1 star because it was not my genre or because I never finished it, not because it was a bad book. My review is mostly for me although others often get something out of it (according to their comments). Not exactly fair to the author, but it's how I rate books I read for my own enjoyment. On Amazon, I only rate and review books that authors or their representatives have sent me to read and I only accept those books that are in my preferred genres. Otherwise, I couldn't give an honest review (I detest general fiction, for instance).

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.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So can I only see reviews/ratings from people who have marked a given book read?

I don't think there is a correlation between the shelfs and the ratings. But you can follow folks that you know only use the site the way you want them to use it. Then you just look at their reviews from then on and you are done. Don't have to look at any of the other masses anymore.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But if you have read an ARC, you have to mark it read in order to be able to give a proper review. Also, there is a way to handle ARCs by having a separate entries for an ARC versions.

Lots of arc readers wait a bit closer to release date before they put down the full review. Many of the folks that I follow do that. So they give it a rating as a place holder. They don't change the shelf all the time until they write the actual words later. Some arcs get send out quite a bit in advanced and often one is asked to wait a bit to post it. Once that happens they put the free for review bla bla there as required. Unless life happens and they never get around to putting their written review in.

Not sure what the rating has to do with the shelf. I have a gazillion shelves, like many do. What that means sometimes is that I forget to move it from one to the other. So I might have ratings there, but its still in want to read. Or any other shelf I created. It happens. I try to do the rating from my kindle and most times it does the correct thing and also marks it read. But not always. So once in a while I have to go in and clean up. When you have like 4000 books on the shelf, stuff like that might not be something that is a priority to someone. Putting it on the read shelf is just for personal use. Some create their own read shelf and don't even bother with the pre programmed one. So all their ratings are in the to-read shelf, but they have their own shelf they also put it on. If that makes sense.

Its a very personal sorting system. Everyone has a different one.

[JSWolf]

It's a very broken rating system.

[4691mls]

I sometimes use Goodreads reviews to help me decide whether or not to try a new book. It seems most books I look up have an overall rating of about 4 to 4.5 stars, so I don't pay too much attention to the overall number.

Sometimes in spite of a overall high rating, the reviews on the first page (when sorted in Goodreads default order) are mostly negative. Based on my past experience, this is not a good sign.

If most of the reviews on the first page are positive, I will start by reading any 3-star reviews as they are often more even-handed regarding both positive and negative aspects of the book.

If there a mix of positive and negative reviews, I will read a couple of the 1-star reviews to see why people didn't like the book. Sometimes it's personal - the reviewer hated the writer's political or religious point of view, or it's just not the reviewer's usual type of book. However, sometimes one-star reviews state that the book was badly written or poorly edited, with grammatical errors, glaring plot holes or anachronisms, and I would definitely avoid such a book.

If the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, but the reviewers seem to be barely literate, or if most of the reviews contain flashing cartoons or photos of TV or movie actors intended to represent the characters, I figure I am probably not the book's intended audience

[Cyberman tM]

Note: I don't use Goodreads, so maybe what I say isn't applicable (or already there).

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Goodreads needs to make it so you cannot rate a book unless you've either marked it as read when it's before the release date (in case you have an advanced copy) or marked it as having read it after the release date.

You trust that people who rate a book without reading it would admit to not having read it?

If the site knows the publishing date, why not simply add an automated "Rated before official publishing date." comment?
That way the rater doesn't have to do anything, and you can decide if you want to trust the rating.
(Also, it should make it easy to sort them out, if they ever implement this. Or someone makes a browser script.)

[GERGE]

Who cares about ratings? I read reviews and they are useful.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Well according to the FTC, one is supposed to say they got a copy free for a review.
But many don't do that.
I always do.

One is supposed to, if one operates under your FTC's jurisdiction.

I don't.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by meeera

One is supposed to, if one operates under your FTC's jurisdiction.

I don't.

It is my opinion that no Average Jo Amateur (non-sponsored) Book Reviewer needs to overly concern themselves with the FTC (with regard to reviews of ARCs--purchased, won, or given). The FTC freely admits that their Endorsement Guidelines carry no force of law. It is only after a significant number of consumers feel deceived, that any investigation would result. I find the idea that a Goodreads amateur reviewer's ARC-based review would ever be deemed a paid endorsement to be astronomically unlikely. They (the FTC) freely admit they're not monitoring bloggers, so why would they give your (a rhetorical 'your,' by the way) Goodreads review a glance?

Mention you received an ARC in exchange for review only if you actually HAVE (contest giveaways don't count, IMO). But do so because it's the polite thing to do. Not because you think the FTC is going to come knocking--they're not.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Mention you received an ARC in exchange for review only if you actually HAVE (contest giveaways don't count, IMO). But do so because it's the polite thing to do. Not because you think the FTC is going to come knocking--they're not.

Oh, I was already pretty confident they're not going to hop a flight down here.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GERGE

Who cares about ratings? I read reviews and they are useful.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by meeera

Oh, I was already pretty confident they're not going to hop a flight down here.

Well obviously.
My point was that they they're not even going drive across town to check up on a Goodreads review (unless there's already overwhelming evidence that a member isn't an amateur).