I don't trust GoodReads

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

Goodreads Librarians have nothing to do with the policies of the site with allowing reviews and ratings early.

Goodreads tries to explain their system here for allowing this, mainly due to ARC's and not wanting to over-police it
https://www.goodreads.com/review/guidelines

Pre-publication reviews. Many of our members receive advance copies of books to review, either through Goodreads giveaways or another source. We have no way of knowing the exact date that review copies are available. As such, each book is eligible to be reviewed as soon as it appears on the site.

But this problem could be programed into the system and be fixed or mostly fixed.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

^ All that is fine, but reviews of books that haven't even been started?

No skin off my nose.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

^ All that is fine, but reviews of books that haven't even been started?

Why not, if it’s useful to the person posting the review?

Perhaps if we stopped thinking of it as a review but more as commentary it would be helpful.
.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

Why not, if it’s useful to the person posting the review?

Perhaps if we stopped thinking of it as a review but more as commentary it would be helpful.
.

I know GR has been reducing things, but they do still have a "want to reads" shelf by default right? And of course the ability to add shelves. So if the user just wants to make sure they have the book in a list so they'll remember there are options which don't impact others at all.

Though ultimately I don't care, the lack of any kind of verification that the person has read or even owns the books reduces the review to basically meaningless for me. At least Amazon marks "verified purchase" on its own site for reviews.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Though ultimately I don't care, the lack of any kind of verification that the person has read or even owns the books reduces the review to basically meaningless for me.

How exactly could Goodreads verify that a person’s read a book? Unless you’re suggesting mandatory linking of Amazon and Goodreads accounts, which would at best only verify that a book’s been bought at Amazon and would exclude buying a book anywhere else. That’s kooky talk; the review itself tells whether or not a book’s been read.

[Karellen]

Originally Posted by issybird

Why not, if it’s useful to the person posting the review?

Perhaps if we stopped thinking of it as a review but more as commentary it would be helpful.
.

I completely disagree with that.

First, the site clearly states Review, not commentary.

What is useful about a review for a non-existent book? What sort of review can you write about a non-existent book?
Wow, can't wait for the book to be written. Really looking forward to it. Its going to be the best ever #bestbook #can't_wait #love_you_stephanie

How do you explain the ratings on a non-existent book?
Yea, I gave it 5 stars because I know its going to be fantastic. #love_you_steph

Sorry, doesn't make sense.

IMDB and TMDB don't allow ratings or reviews until a movie has been released. They both give a status - Pre-production, In-production, post-production etc
If Amazon can do it for IMDB, why not GoodReads.

I'll state it again...
It is wrong to be able to rate a book that does not exist.
It is wrong to be able to review a book that does not exist.

Of course this is my opinion, but how could it be wrong

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But this problem could be programed into the system and be fixed or mostly fixed.

Goodreads does not see it as a problem, as they have stated in the past when this has been brought up. They have been asked before this same question, but don't intend to change it as they are wanting members to rate/review as they see fit.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Though ultimately I don't care, the lack of any kind of verification that the person has read or even owns the books reduces the review to basically meaningless for me. At least Amazon marks "verified purchase" on its own site for reviews.

With books, it's iffy - I have rated and reviewed a lot of books I haven't owned since before having a Goodreads account - I moved several reviews over from my book blog when trying to collect all in one spot. Even if they would only allow owned books somehow, I'd hate that since it would mean I couldn't rate/review books currently owned.

And the verified purchase is useful on Amazon to a degree - but some of that was due to giveaways and fake reviews on the site, I think. Most of the physical objects I buy on Amazon aren't bought on my personal account unless they offer a payment plan like the 5 monthly payments for Oasis, etc., but I prefer to review on my personal account (if I review at all), so it doesn't always mean not owned that way either.

People can have reviews on loaned and borrowed devices and books too that are just as accurate, so there'd by no point for any of this to be verified.

If anything, I find Amazon too picky and restrictive, very rarely review books on there anymore.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

With books, it's iffy - I have rated and reviewed a lot of books I haven't owned since before having a Goodreads account - I moved several reviews over from my book blog when trying to collect all in one spot. Even if they would only allow owned books somehow, I'd hate that since it would mean I couldn't rate/review books currently owned.

I'd gladly widen "owned" in this case to having owned at any given time the rights and ability to read the book. Meaning, should you choose to at 2am in the middle of a freak blizzard/hurricane/tornado which has shut all commerce down, want to read the book you were able to. Regardless of if the ownership later passed to another, or back to a party.

And to Issy's point, yes it's rather hard to verify if someone has read the book, Amazon could easily allow linking a GR and Amazon account to show if someone has bought an edition of a book though. Lets not pretend that GR has remained wholly agnostic about preferred book vendors. They needn't make it a requirement, just an added bonus.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

And to Issy's point, yes it's rather hard to verify if someone has read the book, Amazon could easily allow linking a GR and Amazon account to show if someone has bought an edition of a book though. Lets not pretend that GR has remained wholly agnostic about preferred book vendors. They needn't make it a requirement, just an added bonus.
.

I don't get why it would be a bonus, though. Not everyone buys their books from Amazon in either case, so it would only make those appear more special with their own notation, but this wouldn't clear up reviews.

Most pre-publication reviews that are legit are from Netgalley, publishers or the authors directly, Amazon doesn't do ARC's, so these reviews would always miss this label if that feature existed.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DNSB

So you would have no objections to seeing reviews of movies that have not even started production yet?

By random users? I might think that's weird, but I'd ignore it, not insist that the site moderators remove it. People gotta people, and it's up to me whether I read it or not.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The other is to not allow any reviews until at least 3 weeks after it's been published..

This is one of the more bizarre suggestions I've ever heard. Why on earth would anyone do this?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Amazon could easily allow linking a GR and Amazon account to show if someone has bought an edition of a book though. Lets not pretend that GR has remained wholly agnostic about preferred book vendors. They needn't make it a requirement, just an added bonus.

There’s an element here of separating the sheep from the goats that I find distasteful and calling it “an added bonus” makes it more so. What about those who borrow books, whether from the library or other people? Their reviews are somehow worth less out of the gate because they can’t (or won’t) buy books? And it only serves to make an Amazon-centric medium even more so since it excludes other purveyors and surely none of us wants that. Really, is that you, Jeff?

This whole discussion as people tie themselves into torturous knots to come up with a plan to make reviews “legitimate” to me is prima facie evidence for why Goodreads’ policy of allowing wide-open reviews is by far the best option.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I don't get why it would be a bonus, though. Not everyone buys their books from Amazon in either case, so it would only make those appear more special with their own notation, but this wouldn't clear up reviews.

Most pre-publication reviews that are legit are from Netgalley, publishers or the authors directly, Amazon doesn't do ARC's, so these reviews would always miss this label if that feature existed.

The bonus would be to having bought it through amazon and have their account linked to GR.

It would at least show the reviews of those who own the book. I think GRs policies need an overhaul, which seems to be happening re only librarians being allowed to add books. Hopefully there’s more to come from that.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

There’s an element here of separating the sheep from the goats that I find distasteful and calling it “an added bonus” makes it more so.

Oh please it’s already evident that Amazon owns GR. This suggestion just makes it clear to others if someone owns a book. I’d suggest GR do the same with other vendors but I doubt Amazon is going to be interested in opening that door.

As to people tying themselves in knots, what amusing hyperbole. Trying to ensure reviews are from people who have actually read the book they’re reviewing is clearly too much some people here. How dare anyone try to gatekeep the ability to review from those who have never read the book.

Oh but we must think of them, they have no other way to keep tabs on these books. Surely not within the same website their “commentary” is on. We’ll just ignore the long standing feature of shelves on GR which are greatly customizable. And ideally set up for keeping tabs on your entire library.

No, no. Clearly that isn’t enough. We should be grateful that they’re adding reviews to books that don’t exist and that they haven’t read yet. It clearly adds to the intent of a review system somehow or other.