Goodreads scrapped Kidlit awards

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Not quite. ARC reviewers reviews should be embargoed till a book is released.

I thought the point of ARCs was marketing, to get people to purchase on publication. Once a book is released, it's like yesterday's newspaper; they might as well wait on reviews by puchasers.

And it should be 100% clear if a review is not from a random retail purchaser, if if it's a confirmed purchase.

No, no, no. That just works in Amazon's favor and against the small local seller!

I do think all ARC reviews are more appropriately private to the publisher before print run and never public or else the temptation is to have it as dishonest marketing.

Again, no. There's no point to ARC as feedback, short of something egregious which should have been caught earlier anyway. By the time the ARC comes out, the deal's been done, the money's been spent, the book is ready to go.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've always said the reviews should not be allowed before the book is published. Also, I think no reviews should be allowed for an ARC unless the book is said to have been read.

One, DNF is a perfectly legitimate and useful reaction.

And, most especially, you really trust people to be scrupulously honest about having read a book, if that's a condition? In light of all the flagrant dishonesty that's caused this brouhaha? You think one of these fake reviewers who trashed the competition would have stopped at having to affirm a book's been read and thought, "Oh, no, I couldn't do that." There's no eyeroll emotie big enough.

Goodreads is fine for my purposes although I wish it didn't market so aggressively and pointlessly. Granted, I don't have a horse in this race as I don't read genre fiction, especially current genre fiction. Still, it's easy enough to parse reviews and realize what's going on. False information is still information and tends to rebound in an unintended manner as it did here. Subtle enough not to be obvious is also subtle enough not to affect outcomes.

[Quoth]

Goodreads is broken & untrustworthy and the ARC system is broken & untrustworthy.

I don't have solutions. It's not just books.

[ZodWallop]

Mostly that story made me sad all the way around. Social media feels like poison.

And call me a softy, but I would still read the disgraced author's book if 'romantasy' was at all in my wheelhouse. I can understand that her behavior stemmed from the pressure of being a first time author and she owned it. I am tired of judging books by their author* And in the end, nine fake reviewers? That feels pretty minuscule.

*And yet I won't read Orson Scott Card. So yes. I am a giant hypocrite.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I'm going to be the weird woman here, but I LIKE reading reviews about ARCs, I have no problem with reviews, I'm able to read comments and see if it's a real comment or a fan thing. I don't go to goodreads for the curated edition about books that I would get in a newspaper, I go to see what people think about a book, and I don't expect the same accuracy in ratings that I would expect in a physic work.

I also like reading reviews of ARCs. There are times when those reviews have led me to decide whether to buy a book when it released or to put it into when and if it goes on sale for a low price column.

What I really object to are the reviews and ratings of books that don't yet exist and often will never exist. As in one trilogy where GoodReads has reviews and ratings of the 4th book. Oddly, the author stated on her webpage that there would not be a fourth book since the first two books did not sell that well and the third book was only published since it had already been mostly written and she felt the readers who purchased the first two books deserved to have the story finished. Since she shuffled off this mortal coil a few years back, the chances of that 4th book are even slimmer now.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I also like reading reviews of ARCs. There are times when those reviews have led me to decide whether to buy a book when it released or to put it into when and if it goes on sale for a low price column.

What I really object to are the reviews and ratings of books that don't yet exist and often will never exist. As in one trilogy where GoodReads has reviews and ratings of the 4th book. Oddly, the author stated on her webpage that there would not be a fourth book since the first two books did not sell that well and the third book was only published since it had already been mostly written and she felt the readers who purchased the first two books deserved to have the story finished. Since she shuffled off this mortal coil a few years back, the chances of that 4th book are even slimmer now.

The issue there is another one, from my POV, that book should be removed, but the book itself, not the review.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by issybird

I thought the point of ARCs was marketing, to get people to purchase on publication. Once a book is released, it's like yesterday's newspaper; they might as well wait on reviews by puchasers.

Correct, it's for early buzz - when I used to do ARCs on Netgalley, some publishers wanted reviews whenever you read the book, some asked for reviews to be held if possible closer to publication date.

If ARCs don't result in publicity or reviews, there's no point in them for author or publisher to release.

I never had an issue with GR and ARC policy --- people bring that up to argue on ratings books not released yet -- Goodreads always responds people can use star ratings how they want, but while I see their point, we get messes like this easier. Not sure what the solution is as the system works for the greater good/enjoyment of the readers and sometimes authors half of the time.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Mostly that story made me sad all the way around. Social media feels like poison.

And call me a softy, but I would still read the disgraced author's book if 'romantasy' was at all in my wheelhouse. I can understand that her behavior stemmed from the pressure of being a first time author and she owned it. I am tired of judging books by their author* And in the end, nine fake reviewers? That feels pretty minuscule.

*And yet I won't read Orson Scott Card. So yes. I am a giant hypocrite.

I agree it's depressing story. She had met her dream of a debut with a major publisher, then it spiraled. I will say that part of the issue was that she targeted POC authors who were popular in Romantasy, which was another way she was flagged and objected to. This adds another odd element to the unstable actions she was taking.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

...I will say that part of the issue was that she targeted POC authors who were popular in Romantasy, which was another way she was flagged and objected to.

Right, but what I got out of the story is that that was a coincidence. She targeted other authors who had similar books being released at the same time. That the other authors were not white probably says good things about this 'romantasy' genre rather than racist intentions by the author.

If I missed where the author picked other authors because of their race, I'll happily stand corrected.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Right, but what I got out of the story is that that was a coincidence. She targeted other authors who had similar books being released at the same time. That the other authors were not white probably says good things about this 'romantasy' genre rather than racist intentions by the author.

If I missed where the author picked other authors because of their race, I'll happily stand corrected.

She seemed aware the mainly POC authors were being targeted.

You might remember that before admitting what she had done, Corrain tried to claim she learned that a friend named Lilly had created those fake accounts and posted those reviews to help Corrain. And Corrain shared screencaps showing Lilly's confession. (Too bad the timestamps were way off...) When Corrain got upset with what "Lilly" did, Lilly turned into a villain.

In the last of the screencaps, "Lilly" said:
"I just remembered something important
a lot of my bad reviews were for poc authors
when the callout post eventually comes for you they'll call
you a racist too
you're welcome
b*tch"

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I prefer to skip some fan comments that the tight restrictions promoted here. And this is not the first problem like this, only the first problem to reach the news, so nothing new.

I know some people like to read about an ARC. But unless there is a way to prove you are an approved ARC reader, forget them. My opinion is to not allow anyone to post comments or a rating until 3 days after release and you have to have put in that you've read the book. There also should be a way to mark DNF and then be allowed to rate/review.

This mess that people make of ratings/reviews is just all wrong. How many books are still not accurate years after release?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

and you have to have put in that you've read the book.

Which proves nothing except that someone was willing to say s/he'd read the book.

This mess that people make of ratings/reviews is just all wrong. How many books are still not accurate years after release?

Years after release, early reviews and biased ratings will long have ceased to matter unless there were only early reviews, which tells the story in itself.

No matter how you try to micromanage the system at Goodreads, it's never going to work the way you want it to. It can't, even if GR had the motivation. So you can either live with its perceived flaws or go back to maintaining private lists of books and only reading reviews from the legitimate press and taking recommendations from trusted personal sources. And in fact, GR is very good at the latter.

[Quoth]

It probably can't be fixed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

I thought the point of ARCs was marketing, to get people to purchase on publication. Once a book is released, it's like yesterday's newspaper; they might as well wait on reviews by puchasers.



No, no, no. That just works in Amazon's favor and against the small local seller!



Again, no. There's no point to ARC as feedback, short of something egregious which should have been caught earlier anyway. By the time the ARC comes out, the deal's been done, the money's been spent, the book is ready to go.



One, DNF is a perfectly legitimate and useful reaction.

And, most especially, you really trust people to be scrupulously honest about having read a book, if that's a condition? In light of all the flagrant dishonesty that's caused this brouhaha? You think one of these fake reviewers who trashed the competition would have stopped at having to affirm a book's been read and thought, "Oh, no, I couldn't do that." There's no eyeroll emotie big enough.

Goodreads is fine for my purposes although I wish it didn't market so aggressively and pointlessly. Granted, I don't have a horse in this race as I don't read genre fiction, especially current genre fiction. Still, it's easy enough to parse reviews and realize what's going on. False information is still information and tends to rebound in an unintended manner as it did here. Subtle enough not to be obvious is also subtle enough not to affect outcomes.

Given that Goodreads is owned by Amazon, we could have a Verified Purchase like to do on the main site. That would be any flavor of the book. And also, given that Amazon in the US files library loans, a Verified Library Loan can also be added. It won't stop bogus reviews, but it might help some. Also, if Goodreads added a DNF with a date, then a review can be posted and I would hope a way to search for DNF reviews.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Goodreads is broken & untrustworthy and the ARC system is broken & untrustworthy.

I don't have solutions. It's not just books.

There is no 100% working solution, but there are some solutions that help. I've outlined some that should help.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Mostly that story made me sad all the way around. Social media feels like poison.

And call me a softy, but I would still read the disgraced author's book if 'romantasy' was at all in my wheelhouse. I can understand that her behavior stemmed from the pressure of being a first time author and she owned it. I am tired of judging books by their author* And in the end, nine fake reviewers? That feels pretty minuscule.

*And yet I won't read Orson Scott Card. So yes. I am a giant hypocrite.

I won't read Marion Zimmer Bradley.