THE Group for Authors! discussion
General Discussion
>
please ask all members
date
newest »
newest »
Why do you think the rater didn't read the book? "Not selling?" Not a single book?
And while either practice is completely acceptable under the Goodreads TOS, quite frankly a three star on an unread book is generous. One stars are much more common.And unless someone says so in the review, it's really hard to tell if they read it or not.
What if they had read a few pages of any book and it was all that they could stand? An opinion is formed once the reader decides to see the cover or read the book until the last page. Granted, most people don't rate and review a book by cover and title alone. But those that do usually have an issue with the subject matter. If someone reads a bit of the book and wants to rate and explain why a book was unreadable, is that not fair for them to do so?As a reader, yes, some of those flippant reviews irritate me because they get in the way of more thoughtful reviews from people who put more time in to a book. But on this site or any other, no can ever prove a book was even unread unless the reader admits it, so it's impossible to police.
I think if it's not the reader's preferred genre they need to say that, but to not read a book yet rate it is so wrong.If I read a book I don't like in my preferred genre, I'll rate it what I think it deserves. If it's not in my genre and I haven't read it, I won't rate it.
I think many readers don't understand the rating system. My friend had a reader that praised her book and recommended it to everyone. She gave it a 3 star.
My other friend got a 1-star rating from a reader because she felt the book was unrealistic because the main character didn't get up to use the bathroom one night when she woke up.
D.M. wrote: "I think if it's not the reader's preferred genre they need to say that, but to not read a book yet rate it is so wrong.If I read a book I don't like in my preferred genre, I'll rate it what I thin..."
It's a highly personal process. Readers rate as they see fit. It is sometimes idiosyncratic, but that's what makes it interesting. Goodreads TOS makes it very clear that readers are free to use the system as they prefer.
D.M. wrote: "My other friend got a 1-star rating from a reader because she felt the book was unrealistic because the main character didn't get up to use the bathroom one night when she woke up. ."
That is hilarious! With readers like this, what chance do we have?
I rate a lot of books you can't tell I read because I read them paperback/hardcover at some time before I joined Goodreads. I rate them when I feel like it or get around to it, but no one would be able to tell when & where I bought it, if I borrowed it, or if I got it from a library.
Daniel wrote: "not to rate books they have never read.Apart from the obvious fact that Goodreads is primarily for readers (NOT authors) and readers can rate/organise books however they want, I would love to know how you expect GR to enforce such a policy for you?
Would readers have to show a receipt for purchase and answer a predetermined questionnaire before they are allowed to leave a rating? Should readers submit a request to the author to ask permission to leave a rating, once they have demonstrated they read every single page of a novel?
Can you see how ridiculous it is to make sweeping statements like GR should stop people rating books they haven't read? What about people who use ratings as a way to prioritise their TBR lists? Would that not be allowed either?
As an author, I'm against trying to get readers to conform to some ideal of how reviews should have some guidelines. It's unenforceable, and what it does is makes authors who try to get readers to do this become the enemy. The real answer is also that reviews here at GR are unimportant to most. The reviews that count for authors are the reviews on the product pages at Amazon, B&N, iTunes, etc. Sure some reviews here at GR and other non-sales sites might influence a few readers to buy, but for most of us authors who talk to each other about these things only really care about Amazon and other e-tailer reviews.
Authors trying to get readers to do anything other than read their books is how you end up making sure no one will read your books (or give you some sock-puppet reviews, of which most will be very negative).
Leave readers alone. Let them do what they want to do. I don't pay attention to reviews much here at GR other than 'liking' reviews that I agree with.
You can do what you want, but I learned a long time ago that trying to poke a tiger in the eye with a short stick usually ends up with you in the hospital trying to explain to a surgeon why you are missing your arm from the elbow down.
Travis wrote: "Leave readers alone. Let them do what they want to do."Yup.
K.A. wrote: "Travis wrote: "Leave readers alone. Let them do what they want to do."Yup."
I second that emotion!
@ Travis
Authors trying to get readers to do anything other than read their books is how you end up making sure no one will read your books (or give you some sock-puppet reviews, of which most will be very negative).
Sorry, might be chaemo brain but did not understand this paragraph but thought rest of posting made valid points
ps I know what sock puppetry is
Authors trying to get readers to do anything other than read their books is how you end up making sure no one will read your books (or give you some sock-puppet reviews, of which most will be very negative).
Sorry, might be chaemo brain but did not understand this paragraph but thought rest of posting made valid points
ps I know what sock puppetry is
In my years of professional book reviewing I have twice had authors write to complain about my reviews; these were non fiction, as I never trash fiction. All they accomplished with their letter was to repeat the negatives, or give me a chance to say more, and prolong for readers a bad impression of their books.
I reviewed for the SF Bay Guardian for around 10 yrs. Unfortunately, hiring freelancers for print venues seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur. I only reviewed maybe a book a month on average. It's Internet stuff, all this promo stuff, that seems to eat up time. I don't know how you all do it.
I appreciate honest reviews yet said in a kind way if there's any criticism. ~
Amazing to me how some people want to argue over something I never said or suggested.I asked GR to ask, note the word 'ask', readers not to rate books they have never read. Note the request 'never read.' How can anyone honorably rate a book they have never read?
However given the ability of some here to actually read and understand what I wrote, I would be terrified if they ever did actually try to read me.
Its an honour system, ask people to be honorable.
I agree. Readers shouldn't review a book they haven't read. It's a reasonable request. ~
Vicki wrote: "On the other hand, I have seen a book on Amazon with a five star review and it read - "I have not personally read this book, but I have been told it's good by a friend that's read it." Wow, really?..."It means let readers here at GR do what they want or else they'll band together to make sure you understand the depths of their discontent.
"Its an honour system, ask people to be honorable."
It's the internet. If you just joined the internet, you might not yet know that this is not how the internet works.
I would like to ask how you know they can't have read the book. Did they say so? Or, since you brought up that the book isn't selling, are you assuming they can't have read it because there isn't a corresponding sale?
It may not seem much for me to receive a 3 star rating on a book that I know is not selling but that took down my average from 4 to 3.97. I wouldn't mind if it went to 3, if they were honest ratings.
I would ask Goodreads to ask members never to rate books they have not read just to boost their profiles. It is not fair to authors, it is not honest to other readers.