I don't trust GoodReads

[Karellen]

Today I finished The Day of the Triffids "trilogy", so went hunting around for another book to start reading in the next couple of days.

We watched the movie "The Host" a few days ago which I enjoyed, so I thought I would give that a try. I saw it available at Amazon, but I was surprised to see it is part of a trilogy.

Hopped over to GoodReads and, yep, it is part of a trilogy... https://www.goodreads.com/series/46642-the-host

While The Host has only a 3.85 rating, the sequels look pretty good...
The Seeker has a rating of 4.09 with 1,946 ratings and 324 reviews
The Soul has a rating of 4.12 with 1,094 ratings and 62 reviews.

So imagine my surprise and frustration when, after wasting half an hour hunting around trying to find where to buy these books, (as Amazon don't have them for sale), to realise that these books have not even been written, let alone published.

So... how and why do unwritten and unpublished books get a rating and so many reviews on GoodReads?
Talk about misleading... here it is.

Are these generated by bot??

[Comfy.n]

it looks like that's by design (bad design lol)

https://www.goodreads.com/review/sho...ow_action=true

it seems to take reviews from the first title in the series

[haertig]

The movie was OK. Good enough for a single viewing, but not a re-viewing. I haven't read the book. The first one was published in 2008. Since it's 2022 already, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the second book.

It is quite humorous that the yet-to-be-written-if-ever books have several thousand ratings and almost 400 reviews between the two of them.

Hey, but never say never. It took Jean Auel 31 years to finish Earth's Children (Clan of the Cave Bear, et. al.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Karellen

Today I finished The Day of the Triffids "trilogy", so went hunting around for another book to start reading in the next couple of days.

We watched the movie "The Host" a few days ago which I enjoyed, so I thought I would give that a try. I saw it available at Amazon, but I was surprised to see it is part of a trilogy.

Hopped over to GoodReads and, yep, it is part of a trilogy... https://www.goodreads.com/series/46642-the-host

While The Host has only a 3.85 rating, the sequels look pretty good...
The Seeker has a rating of 4.09 with 1,946 ratings and 324 reviews
The Soul has a rating of 4.12 with 1,094 ratings and 62 reviews.

So imagine my surprise and frustration when, after wasting half an hour hunting around trying to find where to buy these books, (as Amazon don't have them for sale), to realise that these books have not even been written, let alone published.

So... how and why do unwritten and unpublished books get a rating and so many reviews on GoodReads?
Talk about misleading... here it is.

Are these generated by bot??

That's just seriously bad policies by the staff at Goodreads. They are allowing books to be listed that are not even written and they allow people to give star ratings and comments for them. These two books do not exist and are not being written. I suggest you go tot he librarian forum and post the problem with the listing for The Host as it should not be listed as a series. You may need to give proof that this book is not part of a series and here a link to Meyer's website to show that's it's just a single book. Other books in a series are listed as such on her site.

https://stepheniemeyer.com/project/the-host-book

[Karellen]

Certainly is a bad policy.
A banner clearly stating "Unpublished" would also be helpful.

I would like to know what happens if/when the book is published.

Are all those false reviews and ratings removed and the tally starts at 0, or
are the correct reviews and ratings just tacked onto the existing false ones... and the author just been given a massive boost for their sales?

[Paperbackstash]

People can rate releases in advance there. People have explained why they do this as usually excitement for release (????) and Goodreads allows them to. Always found it silly

However, I disagree with Amazon's restriction to not allow ratings before a book is published. ARC's exist and I think people who have read these should be able to rate and review.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Karellen

Certainly is a bad policy.
A banner clearly stating "Unpublished" would also be helpful.

I would like to know what happens if/when the book is published.

Are all those false reviews and ratings removed and the tally starts at 0, or
are the correct reviews and ratings just tacked onto the existing false ones... and the author just been given a massive boost for their sales?

They get pushed to the bottom. They may get updated when the book is read. Also, bad data at Amazon makes it to Goodreads. Also, new entries can be added by anyone without first being checked for accuracy.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

People can rate releases in advance there. People have explained why they do this as usually excitement for release (????) and Goodreads allows them to. Always found it silly

However, I disagree with Amazon's restriction to not allow ratings before a book is published. ARC's exist and I think people who have read these should be able to rate and review.

There is a problem with rating an ARC. If the person rating the ARC gives it say 2 stars because they didn't like the ending and the ending on the release version was changed then the ARC rating is irrelevant and should not be there as it doesn't pertain to the release version. Could go the same way, the reader likes the ARC, but again, the release is different enough to make the ARC irrelevant.

I do agree that silly comments and star ratings should not be allowed. And ARC reviews/ratings should be allowed but with a different average star rating shown.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is a problem with rating an ARC. If the person rating the ARC gives it say 2 stars because they didn't like the ending and the ending on the release version was changed then the ARC rating is irrelevant and should not be there as it doesn't pertain to the release version. Could go the same way, the reader likes the ARC, but again, the release is different enough to make the ARC irrelevant.

I do agree that silly comments and star ratings should not be allowed. And ARC reviews/ratings should be allowed but with a different average star rating shown.

ARC's are released with the purpose of getting ratings and reviews out early to promote excitement before the book release to boost sales on release day, though. It's unusual the ending will be changed, at least with my experience. I assume if authors do change something later in a newer release, they'd make a note about doing so in the book blurb.

[Bookstooge]

You don't trust Goodreads? That's cute....

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by haertig

It is quite humorous that the yet-to-be-written-if-ever books have several thousand ratings and almost 400 reviews between the two of them.

Totally agree.

This will be rightly brought up, in critiques of unpaid product reviews, for years to come.

Sometimes I wonder if even a paid reviewer actually read the whole book, but it is much more likely with this type.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is a problem with rating an ARC. If the person rating the ARC gives it say 2 stars because they didn't like the ending and the ending on the release version was changed then the ARC rating is irrelevant and should not be there as it doesn't pertain to the release version. Could go the same way, the reader likes the ARC, but again, the release is different enough to make the ARC irrelevant.

That of course is the risk of ARCs. They are sent out by publishers to generate buzz.

What you describe is extremely unlikely to happen. But if it does, the publisher should have waited before sending those ARCs out.

[tomsem]

Everybody wants to blame Goodreads for lack of oversight. But Goodreads doesn't have staff to do this. This is the domain of Goodreads Librarians (volunteers). This is where you can request changes and corrections to the catalog:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show...brarians-group

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Everybody wants to blame Goodreads for lack of oversight. But Goodreads doesn't have staff to do this. This is the domain of Goodreads Librarians (volunteers).

They are also owned by the richest man on the planet and are used for profit. Goodreads isn't integrated with Nook or Kobo, you know.

[DiapDealer]

Ahhhh... the old "A billionaire owns them" argument. It was only a matter of time, I guess. That's like punching the stock boy because the local well-to-do grocer doesn't carry your favorite brand of pickles.