Goodreads ratings are less than useless

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I just went to Goodreads to have a look at the ratings for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Many many people have rated it before having even read it. So the rating it has is worthless. It's mostly rated by people who have rated it before reading it.

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. This allowing people to rate books that they have not read is wrong. It means that the ratings on new books is garbage. Goodreads staff don't give a damn about the reliability of the ratings.

It is exactly people like you and your entitled attitude about how "I" rate/review/read a book that drove me away from goodreads.

Man, you make me sick.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

It is exactly people like you and your entitled attitude about how "I" rate/review/read a book that drove me away from goodreads.

Man, you make me sick.

The ratings are supposed to be an indication of how good the book is. Rating a book before you've read it says nothing at all about how good it is. So in this case, the ratings are useless. They do not truly reflect how good the book is. All they reflect is a bunch of people who have no clue about the rating system.

This has nothing to do with being entitled.It has to do with using a feature of Goodreads correctly. The way it's used now is not how it's intended to be used. So please get off your high horse and see it for what it is, an abuse of the system.

[Terisa de morgan]

No, it's not an abuse when the site owners say it is a valid use. You don't like it? Fine, don't use it but don't tell me you are right and the owners wrong.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

No, it's not an abuse when the site owners say it is a valid use. You don't like it? Fine, don't use it but don't tell me you are right and the owners wrong.

There are many many people complaining about the way the ratings are used. It's not just me. If the owners/staff cared, they could do something about this in a way to make everyone happy like having both pre-release ratings and read ratings. Then everyone would get what they want.

I would never go around rating books I have not read. I do think that's an abuse of the ratings.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I would never go around rating books I have not read. I do think that's an abuse of the ratings.

That is not necessarily so.

[Terisa de morgan]

Jon, I'm at the feedback group. There aren't so many people complaining, and there are a lot of people too who like the way it is now.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There are many many people complaining about the way the ratings are used. It's not just me. If the owners/staff cared, they could do something about this in a way to make everyone happy like having both pre-release ratings and read ratings. Then everyone would get what they want.

I would never go around rating books I have not read. I do think that's an abuse of the ratings.

You don't like Goodreads, but yet you post how bad it is and why people that like it shouldn't use it.
There is NO LAW that says you have to use Goodreads.
Are you making money off of dissing Goodreads? Otherwise why do you keep saying the ratings are useless?
The ratings may be useless to you but that does not make them useless to everyone.

The rating system is set up for the individual user of goodreads.
It is not set up to say everyone needs to read this book that Cinisajoy rated 5 stars. Nor is it there to say everyone needs to avoid this book Cinisajoy rated one star.
For all I know one might think I have the book ratings backwards.
Oh and my one star ratings usually mean did not finish.
5 stars means I think the book is either wonderful or will be wonderful.

So Goodreads is all about the user.

Now you want some sometimes worthless reviews, go to Amazon.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now you want some sometimes worthless reviews, go to Amazon.

I would also remind you that Amazon has owned Goodreads for the last 3 years. Your assumption that the reviews are somehow different on Amazon vs. Goodreads is incorrect. Many of the reviews on Amazon COME from Goodreads without the direct permission of the Goodreads poster (it was added to the small print in the agreement after the purchase). Many users either left Goodreads or no longer post reviews for that reason.

I only post reviews when I accept a free book from an author or his/her agent on the agreement that I post a review after I have read the book. I post that to Amazon directly. Otherwise, it's a one or two sentence blurb for family members.

FWIW, Amazon ALSO owns Shelfari and a portion of Library Thing.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Tarana

I would also remind you that Amazon has owned Goodreads for the last 3 years. Your assumption that the reviews are somehow different on Amazon vs. Goodreads is incorrect. Many of the reviews on Amazon COME from Goodreads without the direct permission of the Goodreads poster (it was added to the small print in the agreement after the purchase). Many users either left Goodreads or no longer post reviews for that reason.

I only post reviews when I accept a free book from an author or his/her agent on the agreement that I post a review after I have read the book. I post that to Amazon directly. Otherwise, it's a one or two sentence blurb for family members.

FWIW, Amazon ALSO owns Shelfari and a portion of Library Thing.

I wasn't inferring that all Goodreads reviews were good or bad. Just that they aren't the only place that had worthless stuff.

I don't post reviews on Goodreads so I didn't know about the fine print.

And Amazon does have some worthless reviews.
They also have some funny ones.

One set comes from a cookbook.
It was titled something like "Great AMERICAN recipes".
The first recipe was from India, the second from Vietnam and the third from China.

All of the 5 star reviews said "this is the best book for AMERICAN food." There were 10 of those.
Nothing lower at that moment.


So yes worthless reviews.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Jon, I'm at the feedback group. There aren't so many people complaining, and there are a lot of people too who like the way it is now.

That's because you have to join the group to comment. A lot of people simply left or reduced their usage. I got it all along that the ratings were useless to anybody but the individual who posted it for themselves, but many did and do not until they see a bunch of ratings for books that have not yet been published. Then, it's quite an eye opener for those folks.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Tarana

That's because you have to join the group to comment. A lot of people simply left or reduced their usage. I got it all along that the ratings were useless to anybody but the individual who posted it for themselves, but many did and do not until they see a bunch of ratings for books that have not yet been published. Then, it's quite an eye opener for those folks.

Yes, I guess, but I'm in the group that thinks that my ratings are for myself And, when I look at ratings, I don't look only at average but number of ratings, and I read reviews. I use it as it is, I don't try to force others to use it as I want.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Tarana

I would also remind you that Amazon has owned Goodreads for the last 3 years. Your assumption that the reviews are somehow different on Amazon vs. Goodreads is incorrect. Many of the reviews on Amazon COME from Goodreads without the direct permission of the Goodreads poster (it was added to the small print in the agreement after the purchase). Many users either left Goodreads or no longer post reviews for that reason.

I only post reviews when I accept a free book from an author or his/her agent on the agreement that I post a review after I have read the book. I post that to Amazon directly. Otherwise, it's a one or two sentence blurb for family members.

FWIW, Amazon ALSO owns Shelfari and a portion of Library Thing.

So which reviews on Amazon come from Goodreads without the permission of the Goodreads poster? Is there some criteria Amazon uses to decide that they are going to post some Goodreads reviews to Amazon, but not others? I'm looking at reviews for "A Discovery of Witches" by Deborah Harkness, and I'm actually not seeing duplication of reviews. Can you please point me to an example where reviews were copied to Amazon from Goodreads without the poster's permission?

Shari

[DiapDealer]

If Goodreads' rating practices were as despised by as many users as some would have us believe, then those practices would be changed already.

So it's simply much easier for me to believe that more than enough people are OK with things the way they are.

No conspiracy. No hordes of sheep being led to their unsuspecting slaughter. Just a large enough community of happy users to make the naysayers irrelevant. I know nobody particularly likes being irrelevant, but we all have to get used to being so from time to time.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If Goodreads' rating practices were as despised by as many users as some would have us believe, then those practices would be changed already.

So it's simply much easier for me to believe that more than enough people are OK with things the way they are.

No conspiracy. No hordes of sheep being led to their unsuspecting slaughter. Just a large enough community of happy users to make the naysayers irrelevant. I know nobody particularly likes being irrelevant, but we all have to get used to being so from time to time.

Another issue with Goodreads s that a lot of people do want to be able to find others based on a similarity in books. There's a rather long thread that goes back a number of years. The staff reply that they are looking into it and they've been looking into it for years. That means it'll never happen even though a lot of people have requested this feature.

Goodreads don't actually listen to users all that much. Some of the rules they have in place make no sense at all. For example, covers. They say they have to get the cover from either the author's website or the publisher's website. So if the cover is of a rather low resolution and you point them to the very same image but higher resolution from someplace else, they won't use it. The only way you can use the other images is if you get to create the listing.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Goodreads don't actually listen to users all that much.

If that is indeed true, then Goodreads will soon wither and die and you'll not have to be offended by all of their incompetent, unacceptable, and useless practices any more.

But if it doesn't, well ... then ... that just simply means that maybe they're not listening to you.

It's really OK. Lots of places on the internet don't do things the way I want them to, either. So I move on.