I don't trust GoodReads

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by meeera

Do you realise Goodreads is a social media site made up of users, not a set of advertisements paid for by publishers/authors?

I'd say it's a little from column A and a little from column B.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by theducks

Many Social sites have more than 1 source of content.

IMHO Paid Ad Content would be liable to these controls. (Site try and sidestep this by claiming 'we don't control WHICH ADS get shown' (True, but they do control what Ad provider the sign up with.)
With mixed content, Policing is a nightmare , so I can see enforcement being reactive (Loads of complaints) based.

What about current EU false advertising regulations doesn't work for paid publisher ads on Goodreads that meet the definition of false advertising? In what way do you think the current regulations need to change to stop that perceived problem?

(Bearing in mind that a law that says "Goodreads should no longer allow ratings and reviews for ARCs" is unlikely to get up.)

Have we got any evidence that authors/publishers are rampantly publishing fake reviews for books that haven't been written yet? Because right now all I can see is "People are using this social media site in a way that I don't like, and I insist that this must stop."

[theducks]

I don't believe ARC is not representative of the book. (final corrective edits does not significantly change the book reviewed, just like a re-release with minor fixes)

I have had my hands on old school PRINTED ARC's. The main purpose IS to allow reviews in place by release date.
And yes, there is no proof the reviewer read the entire book, but they did HAVE the book in hand.
A 'review' is an evaluation of fact (the book). Anything else is not a 'Review'
I like John's writing. is simply opinion. Just because the last book was good, does not auto-make the latest the same (or the reverse. Back on course after the last stinker.)

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by theducks

And yes, there is no proof the reviewer read the entire book, but they did HAVE the book in hand.

There's never proof of a person reading a book before making a review.

[maddz]

If I’m given a book to review, I do try and read it. Mind you, there have been books I’ve struggled with. If I DNF, I say so in my review and say why (usually because it’s either pretentious or something I can’t stomach). I get freebies direct from publisher mail-outs or via the LibraryThing Early Reviewers program, and I post reviews on LT and on a RPG forum I’ve been a member of for years. I used to post reviews on Amazon but gave up because they insisted on star ratings which I won’t do.