Review-Bombing and Goodreads

[issybird]

There's been some discussion here about how wide-open Goodreads is to premature reviews and reviews without having read the book. A New York Times article today discussed the practice and the importance of Goodreads to sales. Gift link, so no firewall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/b...smid=url-share

I'm in the "let the chips fall where they may" camp myself, but I can see where that would come across as facile to an author who feels that Goodreads has ruined their chances.

[Karellen]

Hmm. I recall raising this issue here... I don't trust Goodreads

I moved away from using Goodreads, and only go there very rarely to check Sets.

There is a fundamental problem of a site that combines general social discussions with reviews and also allows ratings before books are released.

[DiapDealer]

I don't really see it as a crisis myself. Would I prefer reviews be limited to those who've actually read the books? Sure. But I'd be afraid any system that tried to ensure such a thing would turn out to be a cure that was worse than the disease.

"Trust" is not really a word that would even cross my mind when I'm browsing book reviews anywhere on the internet.

[Lynx-lynx]

I don't need to read a review to work out if I want to read a book. For an author I haven't read before I use goodreads to establish their nationality, because that has relevance to me, I rarely read US authors for example.

I read the book's description, what other books the author may have written, and series info, all of which goodreads usually provides.

I don't log into goodreads, and don't converse with anyone on goodreads, or leave my own opinion on anything I've read.

Maybe that makes me more unusual, than usual

[305869]

I can't think of a single good reason to allow reviews on a book before it's been published.

[JSWolf]

I've always been against the practice of allowing ratings and reviews before the book is published. It means when the book is published, the system is full of ratings and reviews that are meaningless crap.

It will take a long time for all of those ratings/reviews to be replaced with valid ones. So new books get well and truly screwed.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by issybird

I can see where that would come across as facile to an author who feels that Goodreads has ruined their chances.

I saw a tweet from an authotr today talking about the pain of seeing a book she has not even finished writing already being reviewed on Goodreads. It's a shame, because it's such an incredibly easy problem to fix, if Amazon cared enough to spend the 30 seconds or so it would take.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

I saw a tweet from an authotr today talking about the pain of seeing a book she has not even finished writing already being reviewed on Goodreads. It's a shame, because it's such an incredibly easy problem to fix, if Amazon cared enough to spend the 30 seconds or so it would take.

The books would have to be published and in the user's entry, the book would have to be marked as read.

[issybird]

I wonder if the dirty secret behind this is that some authors love the premature reviews and would be loath to see them gone. Those with a loyal coterie who get out there and post five-star reviews as soon as a title's been added, well in advance of publication. It seems as if that's what happened with the (amusing, unfortunately) story of an author run amuck, who attacked a reviewer for a four-star review.

None of this affects me. I'm only interested in reviews from the broadsheet press and my GR friends. In fact, uniformly high ratings would be a red flag with bells to me.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

the book would have to be marked as read.

You've said this before, but I think a DNF book with a review that explains why it was a stinker is both valid and useful. Moreover, there's no reading oversight police to make sure a book marked read actually was read. Unless you're advocating a KU-type experience where read pages would have to be logged in order to post a review? Rather Big Brotherish, wouldn't you say?

Pre-Amazon, Goodreads MO was that users were free to use ratings and reviews to be useful to them and reflect their own reading experience. I've not been fond of the post-acquisition changes at GR and more stringent requirements would make it less friendly still in theory, although it wouldn't affect me. For now, I can only assume that the difference between Amazon's review policy and GR's review policy provides useful data for Amazon, that they can parse the difference to their advantage.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by issybird

It seems as if that's what happened with the (amusing, unfortunately) story of an author run amuck, who attacked a reviewer for a four-star review.

This is something else I se A LOT on Twitter - truly savage, vitriolic attacks by authors on anyone who dares post anything less than a 5 star review. Bizarre

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

This is something else I se A LOT on Twitter - truly savage, vitriolic attacks by authors on anyone who dares post anything less than a 5 star review. Bizarre

I'll confess: I used the rating system at GR for revenge on an author twice. The first time was when I noted in a three-star review errors in the book, only to have the author respond and tell me that in one instance I was wrong (I wasn't) and she doubled down on that. Cost her a star and then another, as her arrant stupidity as we continued the exchange was unendurable. What else must have been wrong in the book? In another, I rated a book one star without reading it, as the author had promoted her book to me because I'd read and rated highly a book she thought was similar.* Richly deserved and a violation of GR rules to boot.

Moral: Authors shouldn't interact with readers on GR. Oh, and allowing an author to rate their own book? Talk about red flags. Show some style.

*The book I'd liked won the National Book Award for nonfiction. Uh, any similarities are in your mind, dear.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

You've said this before, but I think a DNF book with a review that explains why it was a stinker is both valid and useful. Moreover, there's no reading oversight police to make sure a book marked read actually was read. Unless you're advocating a KU-type experience where read pages would have to be logged in order to post a review? Rather Big Brotherish, wouldn't you say?

This is why I say the cure would be worse than the disease. There is no system that could ensure the book HAS been read. It could only ensure the book has been marked as having been read. And don't get me started on systems that would try to use proof of purchase for anything.

Not accepting reviews/ratings on books that are unpublished seems simple enough, but it would have to take ARCs into account, no? And unless reviewers are concocting completely fictitious plots, characters, and/or events, then how damaging/helpful can contentless "reviews" of unpublished books be to any but the most gullible/fanatic of readers (or the most "helicopter" of authors)?

[Lynx-lynx]

Why on earth does anyone want to read someone's else's goodreads impression of any book. It just doesn't make sense to me that some known or unknown person should influence my decision to read an author I'm in the process of choosing.

Before I'd accept anyone else's opinion of a book I'd have to have an appreciation of that person, in order to find them in any way relevant or relatable to me, and therefore capable of either influencing me, or being someone I'd find had an objective opinion.

Truly, we can individually make our own minds up.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Why on earth does anyone want to read someone's else's goodreads impression of any book. It just doesn't make sense to me...

It doesn't have to. The End.

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Before I'd accept anyone else's opinion of a book I'd have to have an appreciation of that person, in order to find them in any way relevant or relatable to me, and therefore capable of either influencing me, or being someone I'd find had an objective opinion.

That's exactly what I (and many others) do on Goodreads. Cultivating "friends" and gaining appreciation for their tastes is exactly what makes their opinions valuable to me. Did you think everyone on Goodreads just blindly considers the opinions of strangers with no contextual history whatsoever? The people whose tastes I've come to know (and they don't even have to be shared tastes to be useful) are those that have come to be most valuable. That's true of readers I know in the "real" world and online.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It doesn't have to. The End.

Too funny.



So you're saying you seek out unknown persons reviews?
Edit: I've responded ro an earlier version of your post.

So you hang around with people on goodreads in order to get their opinions on books you may or may not want to read. Can't you just make your own mind up?