Bad Behaving Authors hit group!

[Zahara Cerise cares about alien existential angst]

Desmond X wrote: "My Partner and I found a group of wonderful people who have Beta read our second novel and made it stronger.

We found our Beta readers from people who reviewed our first novel and gave it between..."

What a great attitude you have, Desmond!

[Michael]

A bad review doesn't mean anything. I was looking to buy Hermann Hesse's The Glass Bead Game, which won him the Nobel Prize. I admit it's not an easy book, and not for the weak of mind, but there were several very bad reviews of it on Amazon. Yet it's one of the monuments of western literature.

Michael E. Henderson

[John]

S.J. wrote: "amazon deleted 2 comments, but all my review like figures got skewed, making positive reviews rank lowest. I will never comment again"

This is new to me: are you saying likes/unlikes makes positive reviews sink?

[John]

I agree that bad reviews do hurt, however, any review does garner attention, which, is what we all need in the end. Just don't comment on bad reviews. Not everyone is going to love what you have written

[[deleted user]]

I have just had the same experience brought down on me. I reviewed a book that I didn't like, and all of a sudden, there are 2 very new, (both joined around the time of the books release) members harassing me and telling me that I'm wrong. They are trawling through my old reviews and comments to try and attack anything positive that I have submitted. I have nothing to lose, but is it right to attack others for something they haven't had and part in? should I be attacked for not finding a book to be as impactful as the author wants it to be? I hated the whole attack on Dylan Saccoccio, the other week, but if authors or their fans attack a persons review, what can they expect? So here's my question, do I back down and remove my review? or should I stand by it, regardless of the actions that will be undoubtedly befall all of the books I have rated up? here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... I'd be grateful for any assistance this group can offer. I feel like just being fake and lying in my reviews, right now. That's the thanks you get for being an avid fan of literature! :(

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I'd snag screenshots in case anything else happens or gets deleted -- then flag the comments as attacks (against TOS and if from authors or others profiting from book also against TOS opening prohibiting commercial use and against consumer fraud laws) and mention in flag you also suspect are new sockpuppets accounts created just for that purpose. If activity is in features where there isn't a flag option, email details to support @ goodreads.com or use contact form under help screens.

Unless totally freaking you out, leave up for a while to give staff a chance to deal with it. Then, either leave up for posterity so other reviewers are warned by the behavior or delete the unwanted comments (if staff didn't do for you because accounts were deleted).

There's a huge difference between consumer speech/opinions and even consumer boycotts versus commercial interests trying to suppress.

P.S. -- your review now shows comments locked to friends only. I had a little comment for the guy snootily touting how he never reviews or uses because reviews are obviously crap (.yet clearly found his way to comment on a review he says he never reads) ending with telling you to -- in his words -- "back off."*snort* the level of intelligence that takes ...

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

S.J. wrote: "you know the buttons 'did you find this useful' well all my positive reviews got clicked no, all the less positive yes. so the first comment that has the most votes rises to the top. amazon can rev..."

Amazon recently announced changes to their review display algorithms.

(I know this thread is two years old, but the OP, frankly should have worried more about private groups he couldn't see. And possibly just politely commented on review saying the wrong edition had been uploaded and asking if reviewer would mind just noting that they had reviewed an edition before initial upload mistake was corrected -- I'm touchy over author contact regarding reviews and even I've added things like "review is of an older..." when pointed out.)

[Lenita]

I once had someone get upset about a review I had done. He blasted my name all over his blog and let me know about it.

I don't get upset over actual bad reviews; the only time I was a little upset was when a reviewer chose to blast my book instead of reviewing it. He never posted any reviews, and he never revealed my name or the title of my book.

[Christine]

I'm reading this thread and I'm surprised - I thought this kind of nonsense was old news.

You have to make a simple decision: Do you want to back down from these bullies and let them dominate your world with their tantrums - OR - Do you want to stand by your principles and ethics and ride it out.

Most of us recognize their tactics immediately and get what they're trying to do. Although it seems damaging, it's really just very pathetic and juvenile. Remember there are 30M members on this site - they're a very tiny handful. Their tactics are old and easily recognized and usually massive failures.

If it's really stalking, call the police, and make sure he is charged with the crime.

Please don't let them change your honest reviewing or taint your love for literature. They just aren't worth it.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Unless from someone whose reading tastes I'm sure of, I don't pay much attention to ratings, undetailed reviews, or reviews that sound suspiciously canned.

Christine wrote: "If it's really stalking, call the police, ..."

Plus stalking or not, attacks can be flagged to goodreads support. (Unfortunately deleting one account doesn't mean they cannot make another.)

It's impossible to bully an inanimate object, particularly a commercial product like a published books (no matter what some authors and others scream as a rallying cry for support, drama, or whatever reason) -- but, it's also incredibly unlikely that an actual bully or stalker would not relentlessly attack their target anywhere found on internet either personally or on their posts and products (not likely unless the stalker or bully was completely without internet access).

And if you suspect there's anything behind the reviews/comments beyond just some random internet stranger's opinion -- like sockpuppets, commercial interests with stake in book's success or failure illegally not disclosing, reviewers receiving a review of their own book but not disclosing the service received for their review, etc. -- let goodreads support know and/or if very sure of your evidence it's not impossible to file an FTC complaint if you want to take it that far (not the quickest course of action or likely a high priority for the FTC -- but not impossible).

A lot of activity on a book, positive or negative, particularly if without detailed reviews/explanations or when we've never seen reading status posts, shelving as "currently reading" or other activities on the book before the unusual upsurge in activity -- makes a lot us suspicious (if I see a flurry of 1-star or 5-star ratings I glance around the blogosphere to see if there was some drama or some book promotional thing currently in progress.)

[[deleted user]]

D.A.—just a reader wrote: "I'd snag screenshots in case anything else happens or gets deleted -- then flag the comments as attacks (against TOS and if from authors or others profiting from book also against TOS opening prohi..."
Thank you D.A, Christine, Lenita and anyone else who took the time to respond. After reading your responses I have reopened my comments for others to comment on. I feel awful that this book which spouts on and on about bullying and torment has inspired just that on my opinion.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

kit wrote: "...spouts on and on about bullying and torment ..."

*sigh* the damage done to bully prevention efforts and the way it demeans the targets of actual bullying when someone considers getting a star rating or review on a commercial product to be "bullying" ... endlessly disgusts me. (Not sure that happened here -- but, when I see the "bully" and book reviews on same thread my mind goes there with thousands of examples of authors screaming they were bullied just because their commercial product got rated...)

[Wade]

Book-reader wrote: "It is a tough thing. It's very personal, like someone criticizing your child. But it just doesn't work to defend your book in public against a bad review. It never never does, it never helps. Autho..."

100%

You just have to take your lumps and keep moving. Look up any author you like, I bet they have plenty of 1 star reviews. It happens.

[Mellie]

Having done a bit if archeological work... it appears this thread originated when an author objected to an honest review. He then made pointed remarks aimed at the reviewer(s). The reviewers took exception to that and events spiralled from there.

It' always interesting when you see an author crying bully, do a bit of digging and discover their culpability in events.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

A.W. wrote: "... it appears this thread originated when an author objected to an honest review..."

Yeah an honest review of what author admitted was of an earlier draft accidentally uploaded for sale on Amazon instead of the final version.

I've seen reviewers behave badly and attack authors as well as authors behaving badly and attacking reviewers. But, seriously, once the OP author realized the draft edition was the one being reviewed -- why were they so outraged at negative review?

The most ridiculous outcry I heard was from a self-publishing author — with dozens of 5-star reviews added every time they launched a book (with suspiciously similar wording and writing style matching the look inside sample) — who totally wigged out when they got a 3-star review. Started screaming all over the blogosphere, goodreads, Amazon.com review comments and social media how they were being gang-raped by the goodreads bullies.

Come to think of it, they started a petition, too (in addition to threats of lawsuits). Didn't get any traction (even if someone might have supported -- rather difficult to convince anyone that a single rating equalled gang anything). I suspect the author expected their outcry would cause a flurry of ratings to prove their point or something plus it was done same week the no-anonymity petition was the topic of the day generating all that lovely publicity so likely wanted to jump on that bandwagon. Amazon and goodreads both wiped out all those outbursts (and goodreads deleted their account completely).

[Laurel]

I was crushed when my first 4-star review came from someone I knew, and horrified by a 2-star review with a title: "Better suited for Pre-teen rwading," which I tried to dismiss because of the reviewer's misspelling. I did reply with a message of consolation that their purchase added to the scholarship I was able to donate to a high school student, but I never heard back.

I'm told it's good to have the whole spectrum of reviews because it adds legitimacy to an otherwise suspicious skewing if every review is spectacular. Still, it's difficult to swallow reviews that are anything less than we'd like to see.Laurel McHargue

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Laurel wrote: "I was crushed when my first 4-star review came from someone I knew, and horrified by a 2-star review with a title: "Better suited for Pre-teen rwading," which I tried to dismiss because of the revi..."

If it's any consolation, a 4-star review on goodreads is the equivalent of a 5-star review on amazon.com according to their respective suggested star rating scales.

[Laurel]

I should have mentioned these were reviews on Amazon, but thank you! I did not know that.

[Martyn]

Laurel wrote: "I was crushed when my first 4-star review came from someone I knew, and horrified by a 2-star review with a title: "Better suited for Pre-teen rwading," which I tried to dismiss because of the revi..."

In order not to get crushed and horrified, see if you can disengage emotionally from your book, because reviews can be brutally honest sometimes. That's why many people advise against reading your own reviews.

[Mellie]

Laurel wrote: "I was crushed when my first 4-star review came from someone I knew..."

You really need to disengage from your book if a 4-star review has the ability to crush you.
It is ludicrous to expect only 5 star reviews on your book. Reading is subjective, no two people will respond the same. A book will have the entire spectrum (5 down to 1) over a period of time.
And ditto Martyn's advice, you shouldn't even be reading your reviews. Especially if they upset you.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Laurel wrote: "I should have mentioned these were reviews on Amazon, but thank you! I did not know that."

Rule of thumb -- an average/okay rating on goodreads is 2-stars. On amazon.com it's 3-stars.

I know, there's a display* on amazon that makes "average" sound like it's "negative" because only the 4-5 star reviews are put in the positive column -- but to a lot of reviewers average just means something neutral, as good as any other book they read, the rating they usually give books, okay, neither good nor bad... No use complaining to or attacking reviewers over how amazon displays the rating columns -- might do better to have amazon adjust so that 3-stars is in positive column or gets a column of it's own. Because reviewers just posting opinions may not know or care about that two-column display causing "average" to seem negative.

It always amazes me when an author wigs out over a 3-star goodreads rating. Because 3-stars here means the reader liked your book.

I know it hurts authors wanting to do some promotions with sites requiring certain star ratings and certain number of reviews sort of things -- but that's not something your customers are all going to know or even care about when posting their product opinion. Authors might do better to petition those sites to please pay attention to the suggested rating scales on various sites and adjust their minimum requirements accordingly rather than react badly to the reviews.

Of course, not everyone follows the suggested rating scale (or even uses the stars to rate books versus just a quick indexing you can do from the cell phone app to get a shopping list, some ordering that made sense to person rating, etc.)

A bit of good news for authors is that if reviewers import data to goodreads from sites that use half-stars in their ratings -- goodreads does round those up.

*Screenshot of amazon display under spoiler if curious: (view spoiler)[

This is a screenshot when looking at all reviews of first Harry Potter book where amazon make it seem like 3-stars, which their suggested scale says means "it's okay" is a critical/bad/negative rating:



While when writing your review on amazon and you hover over to select a star rating, amazon clearly says that 3-stars means "it's okay":



As compared to this screenshot of writing a review on goodreads where hovering over the stars shows 3-stars as meaning "liked it":


(hide spoiler)]

[Laurel]

When I published as a newbie author, I was far too attached to my baby (and honestly assumed everyone I knew personally would rate my work top-notch). Now I understand the highs and lows of the business and the benefits of having diverse reviews, and I'm able to disengage. I'll even let that '2' fade away!

[Laurel]

Thank you. Great information.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Laurel wrote: "Thank you. Great information."

LOL, which a million different reviewers will all view differently or not or use or not use or take into consideration or not take into consideration ...

I actually messaged one reviewer before because they wrote this incredibly positive, admiring review stating the author's book was now one of their favorites and they were going to pre-order rest of series as soon as available--yet they rated it 1-star. I figured they either made a typo or thought the scale went 1=best to 5=worst because that was what they were used to on other websites; turns out, nope, they starred in order they wanted to purchase so 1-star for them meant "buy next/first."

[Laurel]

Ha! Reading (directions) is fundamental!

[Martyn]

I got a rash of 1-star ratings when I called a reviewer a 'drama queen' for considering an author (not me) liking the review she wrote of his book an 'invader of her privacy'.

I guess--seeing how sensitive she and her friends were over the affront--I shouldn't have voiced my opinion, but I associate 'invasion' with violence and death, not with someone liking the review you wrote of their work...

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang-Froid) wrote: "...but I associate 'invasion' with violence and death, not with someone liking the review you wrote of their work... ..."

Me, too. So much of it is overdramatic, particularly the terminology used as if books and reviews were actual persons being threatened with physical harm. Mixed in unfortunately with some worse things that really were attacks that of course egg everyone on even if understandable. (calling it "invasion" isn't understandable and neither is reacting badly just to a single "like" ).

Everyone didn't used to be so sensitive (I know enough examples of "why" to get most of it, although not Martyn's example because that was a case of way too sensitive). I realize I've gotten way more sensitive and suspicious myself -- but, heck, for for every reviewer that would be cranky that the author liked their review there'd be another reviewer cranky that the author didn't ...

I carefully list and catalog the drama authors/books/areas so I can avoid completely (not on a goodreads shelf anymore and I no longer can be lazy and just glance at the shelf names of trusted reviewers because they no longer trust to track on goodreads).

As much as I like to support indie and self-publishing efforts if only for the very idea of it and the increased availability of books we'd not otherwise see -- for myself I just don't even checkout a sample unless a lot of trusted reviewers vouch for them. I hate that because it means the good authors suffer because of bad (or wrongly accused) author behavior; it means the asshats who don't write a good product and deliberately stir up the drama to get notices take discoverability and attention away from those who do put out good books.

I hate ditching indie/self-publishing authors unvouched for; but, I enjoy my reading time and social activities on book sites much, much, much, much more. And quite frankly I have a large enough TBR pile and plans for future releases from my traditionally published authors plus new discoveries in book stores -- I really don't have the reading hours to spare in hopes of finding a gem among the uploaded files. So, I may not like that I ditched something I supported but it's not exactly holding up my reading or even impacting my reading time/dollar budget.

I doubt I'm the only reader who used to read/review indie/self-publishing authors and stopped because of drama. I even recently realized I'm not even the only reviewer that had drama over giving something a 4-star rating. I cannot help myself from fanning the consumer boycott flames, though, when I see someone calling a rating/review of a book bullying, rape, slander, etc.

And while I don't consider "like" an invasion -- other negative comments on a review I do consider an invasion of my review space. Not any and all comments (I've seen reviews that really seemed to be asking the author something for starters) -- just the attacking ones, the how-dare-you, you-read-it-wrong, you-have-to-write-your-review-in-this-format-only, ...well, invading review space and consumer fraud in the form of an attempt to manipulate or intimidate until removed consumer product opinions.

Just a review like -- clearly was a bloody drama queen for that.

[Karl]

I’m an author, and to tell you the truth the odd 1 Star review doesn’t really bother me much. Without that I know I’m not being controversial enough (which is my style of writing). Of course I like to get 5 Stars, but not everyone’s going to love your book. As an author you’re sticking your head above the parapet and in doing so someone’s bound to throw rocks at it. That’s life.

I recently received an excellent 3 Star and on the same day a pretty poor 4 Star. The reader has every right to allocate a Star rating as he/she sees fit and to write how he honestly feels about the book, providing that is a totally honest opinion.

What I can’t stand, however, is an author receiving a poor review and immediately crying, “Troll.” Not everyone who gives you a poor review is a troll. They just didn’t like your book.

Take a look on Trip Advisor to see the variety of different reviews for certain restaurants. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. Deal with it!

[V.W.]

Karl wrote: "I’m an author, and to tell you the truth the odd 1 Star review doesn’t really bother me much. Without that I know I’m not being controversial enough (which is my style of writing). Of course I like..."

Completely agree. The only thing that annoys me are reviews and rating that say something like "I hated all the violence - one star" when the book title was (say) "Slashing Swords" with cover to match.

[Reyna's Mom]

Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang-Froid) wrote: "I got a rash of 1-star ratings when I called a reviewer a 'drama queen' for considering an author (not me) liking the review she wrote of his book an 'invader of her privacy'.

I guess--seeing how ..."

That's ridiculous.

I can completely understand why some reviewers do not like authors commenting on their reviews, even in a positive way. Particularly on GR, where members like to discuss the book openly. I think an author joining the conversation can often stifle discussion.

But freaking out over an author liking a review is taking this attitude to an extreme. The reviewer was way out of line.

[Misfit]

Particularly on GR, where members like to discuss the book openly. I think an author joining the conversation can often stifle discussion.

This. And not just hovering over reviews. We had a group read a few years back, and the author noticed it, joined the group and kept jumping in and yes, it stifled discussion to the point we formed a private group so we could finish up the discussion without the author butting in again.

[Martyn]

D.A.—just a reader wrote: "And while I don't consider "like" an invasion -- other negative comments on a review I do consider an invasion of my review space. Not any and all comments (I've seen reviews that really seemed to be asking the author something for starters) -- just the attacking ones, the how-dare-you, you-read-it-wrong, you-have-to-write-your-review-in-this-format-only, ...well, invading review space and consumer fraud in the form of an attempt to manipulate or intimidate until removed consumer product opinions."

That kind of behaviour is inexcusable indeed. The stalking, the ranting & raving, the threats...

But I'm not talking about that kind of behavior. I'm talking about an author 'liking' a review or thanking the author in the comment section of the review (which is public but can be edited by the reviewer).

In the case of the reviewer getting upset at her review being liked by the author: she was wailing about authors being intrusive for tracking the reviews of their books, and she felt stifled to express her opinion, because the author of the book might actually read her review.

I didn't get that, so I asked her what the problem was with someone expressing appreciation for the time and effort the reviewer had taken in reviewing the book.

I told her that I often liked reviews of my own books, good or bad, just to show my appreciation.

Then she started the whole 'invasion of privacy' and I asked her whether she had posted the review publicly on GoodReads or privately somewhere. The review had been posted on GR, but she hadn't figured the author might notice and thank her and now she felt violated.

Then I asked her if she wasn't being a 'drama queen'. Like she didn't know the true meaning of 'invasion' or 'violated', when she could just remove the author response from the comment section of the review. Real abuse is not so easily remedied.

That's when a whole clique of her girlfriends fell over one another to defend her, and subsequently 'punish' me by carpet-bombing my books with 1-star ratings. A response so immature and weird that I just ignored it.

Funny thing, although I didn't do anything about it, quite a few of these ratings disappeared later. I came across a few of them later and had enjoyable discussions with them.

Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in their own little drama that anything that doesn't validate their self-image is immediately regarded as abuse. And I have a problem with those exaggerations, because I'm intimately familiar with the consequences of real abuse, and by calling their drama abuse they devaluate the meaning of the word.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Misfit wrote: "...And not just hovering over reviews. We had a group read a few years back, and the author noticed it, joined the group and kept jumping in and yes, it stifled discussion to the point we formed a private group so we could finish up the discussion without the author butting in again..."

I've been lucky with that so far. Mostly an author will offer to moderators or by posting in nomination/announcement thread to ask if group would like them to step in or stay out of the BOTM discussion. (Usually the answer has been that group members prefer just to set a separate thread in BOTM folder to interact with author or to have author schedule a Q&A session some time during the month).

Sporadically we'll get a "thanks for choosing my book" one time post at beginning or end of a discussion but otherwise author doesn't insert into the reader discussion.

Of course, in groups I don't moderate the moderators might have been deleting or blocking author but I doubt they'd do that quietly without informing the group.

Where my groups and group discussions have run into problems with authors — not so much now that most group moderators have learned the hard way — is authors trying to manipulate the BOTM vote with social media and other campaigns and socks joining just to nominate/vote even though not otherwise participating in group or even that book's BOTM discussion (presumably because already made the sale).

That tactic doesn't work well at all. Just ticks off moderators stuck taking the time to eject the sockpuppets and make additional rules for BOTM. Plus even if successfully got book on poll and even voted the BOTM -- if not a book group actual participating members wanted to read they are not going to read it. Not like they can't just start new threads to discuss books that didn't win. Not like moderator can't say the poll got gamed so was invalid so going with second place book or kick out socks and poll again ... just annoys everyone in group.

Some group nomination threads just don't respond (or add book to poll) when author nominates own book, others have rules encouraging or prohibiting. Some groups are clear that they read only traditionally published, only indie/self-published, a mix, have different BOTM reads for trad. and for SPA....and authors on average are as good at paying attention to group rules as they are at paying attention to what the goodreads star ratings scale mean or reading a review before overreacting to a rating less than 5 stars. At least the misbehaving can be kicked out of member run groups.

[Martyn]

Misfit wrote: " Particularly on GR, where members like to discuss the book openly. I think an author joining the conversation can often stifle discussion.

This. And not just hovering over reviews. We had a group read a few years back, and the author noticed it, joined the group and kept jumping in and yes, it stifled discussion to the point we formed a private group so we could finish up the discussion without the author butting in again."

No, I fully agree with that. I do discuss my work with fans who sent me private feedback by email, but I wouldn't butt in on a group discussion. I can see how people might feel stifled and afraid to criticize the author if they feel the author might be listening in.

And there are quite a few 'speshul snowflakes' who'd feel a need to vehemently defend their work (which is nonsense, as the work should be able to defend itself).

But that's not what this case was about. Not that it matters much - this was over a year ago (maybe even longer), when a lot of reviewers were very sensitive due to the rampage of some BBAs whose sense of entitlement was totally out of proportion to their actual accomplishments. :)

[V.W.]

If a group selects an author's book as BOTM, I would think that is already a fantastic publicity gain. Trying to manipulate or participate is just silly.

I would follow the thread and if there are any comments or question directed at me as an author, then I would reply. Otherwise I just stay out of it. Sometimes I pick a few readers who expressed a particular liking for the book and contact them with an offer of another of my books for free and without any requirement for a review.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I've only had one author of a BOTM in a group I was moderating be a member of the group - her preference and ours was to just set up a separate "ask the author" thread, as well as the regular discussion thread. (It all went very well.)

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "I've only had one author of a BOTM in a group I was moderating be a member of the group - her preference and ours was to just set up a separate "ask the author" thread, as well as the regular discu..."

It generally does go very well, particularly with authors who participate in goodreads rather than try to keep product pages here and make commercial use of goodreads. Many authors have outright fans thrilled to interact. Most authors familiar with goodreads are careful when/where they participate about the books they write versus the books they read. Most find that balance between being just another reader enjoying book activities or tracking their own libraries and when they wear the author hat and are dealing with their own book or books they are helping fellow authors promote.

The drama ensues the rare times it doesn't work well thinks to special snowflake entitled authors expecting book promotions to be churned out for them exactly as directed -- and of course the drama gets more publicized and gets everyone worked up and sensitive. And generally just forgetful that we're just customers or potential customers with no obligation to them at all beyond not violating copyright laws.

[[deleted user]]

D.A.—just a reader wrote: "I'd snag screenshots in case anything else happens or gets deleted -- then flag the comments as attacks (against TOS and if from authors or others profiting from book also against TOS opening prohi..."
I got a long rant from the Author. I took screenshots then deleted her comment, I'm fine with people disagreeing with my opinion, however, I didn't put my review up for review. I stopped her from commenting, and considered leaving GR. I've been a member for a few years now and have decided that I'm going nowhere. I love seeing what new books are out and receiving recommendations and such. Unlike Facebook or Twitter, I have found this to be the only disagreement I have encountered on here. A good friend did a little digging on this particular author and discovered that the 5 star reviewer is an actual friend of the authors on Facebook. Don't get me wrong, maybe she loved the book, but she only activated her GR account this month and left several ratings on the same day... I find this very telling. You guys are so super-great to have helped me though, thank you all for that :)

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Goodreads is a U.S. site hosting consumer reviews -- meaning among other legalities a real-life relationship to an author has to be disclosed in your review (can be very generic like "In real life I know this author" "am related" versus so detailed you attract stalkers and aid identity theft). So, if you send a link to Facebook posts to goodreads support and they find there was an undisclosed connection to author -- kiss the five star review goodbye.

That once a customer product opinion is posted it then should be reviewed so reviewers know what it feels like is a common square on all the BBA BINGO cards. Some speshful snowflake always spouts that one as if an original remark. *snort* as if we were publishing a book for sale to readers or were professional reviewers rather than customers. (And if anyone is getting paid for a review on goodreads other than by a free for review book with no conditions -- that's commercial use and will be removed when discovered).

Here's one of my least favorite -- https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/....
Yeah r-I-g-H-T, I am trying to get people to purchase my reviews; they are commercial products for sale. And I am so special that goodreads and other consumer review sites prohibiting commercial use somehow let mine be the exception.

All circles around to those who cannot seem to grasp the concept of customers and customers posting product opinions. Many of the worst get upset at anyone treating their published book as if a commercial product rather than the author's baby and really take it personally that a reader is attacking them rather than that a reader got a publicly available product and posted their subjective experience/opinion.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

This might cheer you up. It's my favorite BBA card from blogger Moonlight Readerr with the boring-est, most common tantrums thrown at reviewers:



There really is a type of author (not most of them, a tiny problematic few) that throws tantrums and thinks they are being original and are so speshful they are the first to ever get a review under 5-stars. Review at all and you'll run into.

Yours really sounds like common, garden variety speshful snowflake author.

There's a degree (particularly if threats are made) you pull in site support, let their publisher know if not self-published or even involve law enforcement.

"You read it wrong" is one of my top ten commonest things BBAs rant about and sadly Moonlight didn't include on this one.

ETA: drastically shortened a rant because really the BINGO card says sufficient.

[Martyn]

D.A.—just a reader wrote: "This might cheer you up. It's my favorite BBA card from blogger Moonlight Readerr with the boring-est, most common tantrums thrown at reviewers..."

What is 'Doc Drops'?

[V.W.]

Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang-Froid) wrote: "D.A.—just a reader wrote: "This might cheer you up. It's my favorite BBA card from blogger Moonlight Readerr with the boring-est, most common tantrums thrown at reviewers..."

What is 'Doc Drops'?"

Good question. Missing pages??

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Doc drops = doxxing = to obtain and disclose personal information about someone.

As in taking it from online to real life like the horrible hate group that posted photos of a reviewer's kids at their school with bus schedule details or the sociopathic author ( with several convictions and jail time for things like selling drugs at a kids school) actually offering a "bounty" to anyone who could give him or the group the personal details for certain reviewers -- one thing he suggested was for authors to check their giveaway winners in case one if those had won to get mailing address...

[[deleted user]]

V.W. wrote: "Karl wrote: "I’m an author, and to tell you the truth the odd 1 Star review doesn’t really bother me much. Without that I know I’m not being controversial enough (which is my style of writing). Of ..."

I completely agree with you, Karl. I personally hate horror movies so I steer clear of them as much as possible because of course my opinion of them would be awful. I have no real right to give an opinion on something I hate as it will be utterly biased, inspired by my hatred of the genre. I can read a horror book -quite a contradiction, I know- and I can rate it fairly, too. I think I'll steer clear from autobiographies from amateur writers, from now on as the book is supposedly about a terrible childhood, which I understand may have seemed terrible to her, with her mother lying about her paternity and how she was conceived, but to me it all seemed a bit.. ordinary. She was lucky enough to have a wonderful father, regardless of her mother. How many children wish they had that? I wasn't plugging my own childhood as bad, despite the struggles. I made it through to being a well behaved teenager and a well balanced adult. Many women cried rape in those days as it was better than admitting to a fling (no, I'm not condoning it, to accuse someone of that is truly vile. But it was commonplace.) It was the 'plot-holes' that didn't sit well with me. Like 'I didn't want to go because I didn't want to leave my friends' and then 'I had no friends' to lie about something as simple as that, and overlook it made me wonder what else she lied about. She lied to her poor dad about her boyfriend being 21, she was 13, for goodness sake! What would her maternal family say about this book from their perspectives? I wasn't intending to insult her, I just said what her book made me feel. How can she review a review?

[Martyn]

D.A.—just a reader wrote: "Doc drops = doxxing = to obtain and disclose personal information about someone."

Ah, yes, doxxing. I knew that one, but 'doc drops' didn't register with me.

[Noorilhuda]

@ DA-just a reader, the cards are very funny!