Xavaqenia’s answer to “Isn't rating a book before being published a little dishonest?” > Likes and Comments

I feel like the big difference here, however, is those books are either anticipated sequels or come from authors who have established works/ catalogue of previous works.

Its kinda more icky in this case since this is completely based on the popularity of an influencer rather than any writing merit.

I suppose that is fair. I would still disagree, though that the influencer necessarily makes it more icky, because the more fake ratings there are for a book, the more hype the book has and the more genuine ratings it will get after the book’s release anyway. It’s not a great measurement, but it does sort of show the quantity of hype.

(I’m not defending this process. If it’s anyone’s fault, I think it is Goodreads’ for not providing a separate “hype meter” measurement for rating a books hype before it comes out.)

What evidence do you have to support your claim that these people did not read the book?

I did say that some people did, but my guess is that most people did not. If you look at the profiles, they do not have followers and so most likely would not be able to get a review copy.

I feel like it would make more sense to need evidence that someone read a book than for us to find evidence they didnt, Its why in reviews you always post something like: "Arc provided by such and such/ I was provided a early copy by."
And why Amazon actually labels someone as "confirmed purchased" or whatever