Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
If you want readers, why aren't you defending them?
Paul wrote: "D.C. wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.C. wrote: "Paul wrote: "Shelby wrote: "Paul wrote: "Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "@Yzabel, agreed. And yet...Paul wrote: "...I don't think it's any real coincidence that t..."
And um, all of those sentences, while being correct in usage, have that connotation of pretense of lack of knowledge.
This is an interesting article, although it deals with professional reviews of mainstream books. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/boo...
For the record, I recently did a giveaway on a poetry book and got a 1* rating with a really long review explaining why it was not to his taste. Fine! No argument, the guy didn't get me or the poetry I was writing ten years ago but at least he had the courtesy to read it and to write a long and very civil review. I can't force people to like what I write - some do and some don't - and without strangers liking my poems elsewhere and encouraging me to publish I would have kept them private. I am not going to argue with a conscientious reader who gave me a lot of his time.
@D.C. - you may be right about those three books a year that everyone likes, although that might actually be optimistic. ;)
The original topic of this thread has been so lost now that honestly, if people want to continue the discussion, I'd suggest starting all over again. Or, if someone feels the need to ask, again, "where are all the authors?", you could go back and re-read the thread before it devolved, because there were quite a few answers posted.
Paul wrote: "Yeah, I already stated why in my post. Seeing Trina's behavior highlighted on STGRB, it would seem that my previous assessment wasn't far off the mark. "
*sigh*
I knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread, but since my behavior keeps being called into question, I'll have you know that I haven't rated or reviewed any of Paul's books.
Nor have I 'attacked' him or his 'book pages' in any way. I haven't even bothered to block him, even though he's claimed to have blocked me, regardless of my having no contact with him and not even responding to him on this thread since yesterday morning.
The same goes for every other author on this thread. I didn't rate or review any of their books and never 'attacked' any of them, in this thread or anywhere else.
If other users have decided they don't want to support him or have marked him as an author to avoid, that's their choice and within the guidelines of this site. GRs says it's perfectly acceptable for users to rate books by their level of interest, or disinterest, if that's the case.
Just as Paul is free to behave or express himself however he chooses, so long as he's not breaking any guidelines.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
A user in another thread mentioned ratings in regards to recommendations and it was something I'd never thought of. (Mostly b/c I don't care how people choose to rate, review or shelve their own books) It did make a lot of sense, though having never done it myself I'm not sure how effective it is. I don't remember the specific genre, or more of a sub-genre, she'd mentioned but she would go through and rate, let's says Western romances, that came up in her recs a one-star.
So by giving a low rating to these books she hasn't read but isn't interested in, the system would stop bringing them up in her reco's. B/c I'm fairly certain marking a book as 'not interested' doesn't alter any new reco's, but the low rating keeps them from popping up.
That's just one of many reasons I don't see GRs ever changing the rules regarding star ratings and I can only hope I'm right.
As for the BBA's, I'm always surprised by how many admit to hoping bad behavior will help their sales. I haven't seen any of those estimates but I seriously hope they're wrong. That's depressing on so many levels. :(
Richard wrote: "Max wrote: "But where are all the other writers?"I was out getting my car smog-checked. Sorry. ;-)"
Odd how we're not supposed to have anything we have to do out in the real world, isn't it?
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
Just popping by to comment that D.A., I'd never be offended if my books were not to your taste. I have two star reviews that were basically "Meh, not really my type of book" but I'm happy that someone took the time to rate and review. And hey, I gained three friends in the last 24 hours, so that's kinda neat. Sometimes I swear it's better to ignore the trolls.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "...So by giving a low rating to these books she hasn't read but isn't interested in, the system would stop bringing them up in her reco's. B/c I'm fairly certa..."I just checked b/c I saw what Meghan said on the feedback thread. They're still useless. The three shelves I checked were filled with mostly books that are already on my shelves and it was basically the same books for each, even though the three shelves I checked are various genres.
Hopefully they'll get it sorted soon b/c yeah, they're totally useless to me, ATM.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "... Only it's not so easy to sort the "honest, didn't-like-the-book" ratings from the "here's a 1-star just because you said something I didn't like..."I never do "here's a 1-star..."
I swear, I think some of quick to jump "I've been bullied" is coming off authors who are more used to social/creative sites where negative criticism is seen as antagonistic.
I don't know how to get the message across that this is not the way book reviews work and that no-one is out to get them. I repeat it frequently, but I feel there must be a better way to get it out there.
And just as an FYI to my fellow authors, if I ever give you a one star I have read at least some of your book and you almost certainly do not want me to explain myself.
R.F.G. wrote: "Odd how we're not supposed to have anything we have to do out in the real world, isn't it?"Not to mention that I've been high on drugs since last Wednesday, and not even by choice.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "... Only it's not so easy to sort the "honest, didn't-like-the-book" ratings from the "here's a 1-star just because you said something I didn't like..."I never do "here's a 1-star..."
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying I accused you specifically of giving retaliatory 1-star ratings? Because I didn't. Now I'm confused.
Linda wrote: "@Yzabel --No, I think she was accusing me. ;-)"
You usually are to blame for everything that happens. Everywhere. ;)
Yzabel wrote: "D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "... Only it's not so easy to sort the "honest, didn't-like-the-book" ratings from the "here's a 1-star just because you said something..."FWIW, D.A.'s post didn't read as accusatory towards anyone, IMO. I think she was just sharing her thoughts on the rating system.
Thoughts I happen to agree with.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
I feel like I should have a stamp that says "Ratings are relative and won't ruin a career, but attacking a reader for expressing their honest interest or reflection on a work - that has a lasting negative impact."And then I'd just use that stamp each and everytime a dust-up occurs. I've actually said this many times when standing up for some of my blogging and reader friends, but it seems like so many people don't realize how true it is, or they ignore it for a multitude of reasons, thinking it doesn't apply to them.
And it says a lot when authors are able to take responsibility for their actions. Flare-ups happen for whatever reason, and authors do knee-jerk, but it doesn't mean that it's called for. Many times when an author attacks a reader, I've seen people say they're sorry about the attack to the original reviewer, but the very moment a fan or another author says "Oh, you didn't do anything wrong, that person was just being mean/a bully/[insert insult of choice here]," the author'll say "Oh you're right, that person was just being [insert same term]."
That's an instance where it's NOT a true apology. Because it's not taking responsibility for the actions and offense. It's insincere. Authors should not condescend their readership for the ratings and reviews they give a respective work. Ratings, again, are relative - they're only a perception of quality made by the people who issue the rating individually. And people have to learn to leave that for what it is. There's far more construction to allowing the ratings to stand for themselves and discussions/reflections about the book to stand on their own rather than trying to control them.
And I honestly think if you're incensed about how high or low your overall rating goes for the books you write, step away from it. You're too close to the meaning of the rating itself and prescribing it a meaning that doesn't necessarily mean that people love or hate your book collectively. People will choose to pick up your work for a variety of reasons, and those reasons aren't just contingent on overall rating. Let the marketing of the book and the book speak for itself in terms of quality. A writer has done their part by writing the work, now it's gotta fend on its own for value. Trying to tell other people how to rate, reflect, or discuss it is not the way to allow the work to speak on its own.
Rose wrote: "...but it seems like so many people don't realize how true it is, or they ignore it for a multitude of reasons, thinking it doesn't apply to them."I think most of the problems that crop up with these authors is them thinking or insisting that things don't apply to them.
Kind of hard to convince someone with that mentality of anything they don't want to hear.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Yzabel wrote: "I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying I accused you specifically of giving retaliatory 1-star ratings? Because I didn't. Now I'm confused. ..."Sorry, no, I knew no one was ..."
Ah, OK. You quoted my post, so I just wasn't sure, and was wondering.
(Come to think of it, that's exactly what I meant earlier today when I mentioned "think twice before speaking". Let's say I had read your post in a hurry, and thought "wait, she's quoting my post, OMG she must be accusing ME!" Let's say I had answered with something like "well obviously you failed to understand my post, learn to read, yadda-yadda." Poof, there we go. Flying off the handle for basically no reason, since it was just a matter of what post got quoted. I wonder how many discussions, everywhere on the web, went down the train like that?)
I don't consider 1-star ratings in general to be retaliatory either. I give some myself, and I don't always justify them (depends on whether I can be bothered to write a review). I just know that some people do it—including the example you stated (an author changing a 5* to a 1* because the other author gave "only" 3* to his/her book).
Actually, I don't even know how Goodreads admins/moderators react to reports of "this 1* star review was obviously a mistake". Do they have tools to check? Are they able to see if it was a one-time occurrence only? Someone thinking 1=very good and 5=very bad? To see if a person carpet-bombed all books by a given author in less than 5 minutes (which would be fairly revealing, I think, in terms of retaliatory measures)?
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
Maybe this is off-topic and maybe not, but can someone tell me when a three-star review became a "bad" review? Sometimes I think a book is okay, but I don't love it and don't dislike it and probably won't read it again even though it wasn't a chore to finish.Why is three stars bad? Doesn't it simply mean "eh"?
Lynda wrote: "Maybe this is off-topic and maybe not, but can someone tell me when a three-star review became a "bad" review? Sometimes I think a book is okay, but I don't love it and don't dislike it and probabl..."I believe a lot of people see it as "average" rather than "I liked it". But then, GR's rating system is also different from that of a lot of other places. Amazon's 3* = "it's OK/meh". NetGalley's 3* equals "I'm not sure I'll recommend this book... maybe". Mathematically-speaking, most people will see 3/5 (for want of a 2.5) as the middle ground, the neither-good-nor-bad, even though the GR scale states it's a notch above that. And some will also see the glass as half-full ("hey, my novel's at least average!"), while others will see it as half-empty ("if it's not a 5* rating, then it's not worth it").
Apart from this... I don't know.
Lynda wrote: "Why is three stars bad? Doesn't it simply mean "eh"? ..."On goodreads, if you hover over the stars when rating a book (or starting to, you don't have to actually rate), you'll see their suggested ratings scale.
Goodreads permits users to rate however they want; but, the suggested use for ★★★☆☆ on goodreads is "liked it."
I suppose that means that technically a 1-star on amazon is actually worse than a 1-star on goodreads if going by suggested rating scale. Nevermind all the rating scales and definitions used by individual reviewers and bloggers (who may or may not specify on their profiles)...
I've had reviewers (who obviously must have read the rating guidelines carefully) give me two stars here and three on Amazon. But no, 3 stars is not bad, and I doubt many rational authors think so.More to the point, even if it were bad, there's no reason why a reviewer shouldn't feel free to rate a book that way if they felt like it.
D.C. wrote: "I've had reviewers (who obviously must have read the rating guidelines carefully) give me two stars here and three on Amazon. But no, 3 stars is not bad, and I doubt many rational authors think so..."I make the same sort of adjustment when I post the same review on Goodreads and Amazon.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
I think part of the 3★ = bad review comes from Amazon. While I generally consider it a middling review, not good or bad, and I think a lot of other people do too, Amazon considers it a critical review. Meaning when you look at the book description/review page and it lists the most helpful positive and negative review, 3★ is listed in the critical/negative category. This is probably factored into the mystery logarithm too.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "D.C. wrote: "I've had reviewers (who obviously must have read the rating guidelines carefully) give me two stars here and three on Amazon. But no, 3 stars is not bad, and I doubt many rational aut..."What? What was the author's beef?
Sadie wrote: "I think part of the 3★ = bad review comes from Amazon. While I generally consider it a middling review, not good or bad, and I think a lot of other people do too, Amazon considers it a critical rev..."I think that Amazon's star rating that pops up on most helpful pos/neg reviews depends on what they have to work with. That really it's the lowest and the highest with comparable numbers of votes. And since rating is so subjective, the "critical" review might actually be worded more postively.
I'd think everything two stars and up is fine. Some people will think your book is 'ok', others will love it to death. And even a one-star is not a bad review, it's a negative review.A bad review is something like, 'I bought this book because I wanted the story to distract me from my itching hemorrhoids, but it failed so the book sucks', although I wouldn't even consider something like that a truly bad review because good books ought to distract sufferers from their daily torments, so that review has some motivation.
Hmmm.
Maybe a truly bad review would be something like, 'I noticed the author has a wart on her nose, and I don't like witches, so this book sucks', something so ridiculous that you wonder if the reviewer has taken their medication.
Anything else could be a 'negative' review, but that's not necessarily bad. I've seen negative reviews where reviewers posted about gratuitous sex scenes or nudity or profanity, which wouldn't be a detraction for me. Could even be a selling point to the right reader.
(Sorry for the rambling post, but I'm PUI)
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
Martyn V. wrote: "Maybe a truly bad review would be something like, 'I noticed the author has a wart on her nose, and I don't like witches, so this book sucks', something so ridiculous that you wonder if the reviewer has taken their medication."I did see a review on Amazon once where the reviewer called the author fat, among other things. His real beef was that that author hadn't used his (the reviewer's) book as a source when writing about whatever it was the non-fiction book was about. In short, sour grapes and a bruised ego. "You didn't use my excellently researched and spectacularly written book about Igor's hump as a source when you wrote your own book about Igor's hump! I hate you and you're fat, too!" You get the idea.
The author, though, played it off pretty cool. He started a reply with "As the fat man who penned this monstrosity..." and went from there. It shut the reviewer up without ever insulting the reviewer, and while only poking fun at himself. That's probably the only time I can say I've enjoyed seeing an author reply to a review.
Martyn V. wrote: "A bad review is something like, 'I bought this book because I wanted the story to distract me from my itching hemorrhoids, but it failed so the book sucks'"...Now I'm having visions of some random joe trying to use book paper as toilet paper, which, of course, must definitely hurt.
I don't know if it's the same for you (all of you, not just Martyn), but I'm always wary of books with too many 5* ratings and no/almost no 1*. Although, as a reader, I also like to see ratings, any ratings, somewhat argumented, so that I know what the reviewers didn't like (sometimes the latter will be the things I love in a book; same with glowing ratings, by the way). Of course, I won't demand that readers always post a review. Just stating a personal preference—that I confess to not even always following myself.
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Yeah. I never understood why amazon would say a 3-star rating was okay (which to me means average or neutral) then as soon as you click to see all reviews you get the infographic of most-helpful positive review (4-5 star rated review) next to most-helpful critical review (1-3 star rated review implying that 3-stars is a critical/negative review)..."Again, that's just my guess, but: I think a lot of people also lump "critical" and "negative" together as being the exact same thing. Which isn't the case. IMHO, a good critique, one that lists pros and cons (or lists only pros OR cons, but supplies them with strong arguments) has more value than a "Great book!" (positive) or "That booked sucked!" (negative) comment. The "critique" may still end up in a 1* or 2* rating, but that doesn't matter to me.
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Gregor wrote: "D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "D.C. wrote: "I've had reviewers (who obviously must have read the rating guidelines carefully) give me two stars here and three on Ama..."Quite honestly, that would make me wonder about that medication thing.
Critique: Though there were a few typos as well as a few spots where the plot limped, it was a decent read and I finished it. The characters were believable (for aliens from Tau Ceti) and I empathized with them more than the humans they annihilated.Critical: I really didn't like the author's choice of words, and the plot could have been written by a fed up CIA agent who was snorting coke while smoking hash in a strip club. I need another bottle of mescal.
Could be worse
[deleted by user; leaving this comment just as a courtesy placeholder.]
D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "Gregor wrote: "D.A. - Please don't mock bully victims. wrote: "D.C. wrote: "I've had reviewers (who obviously must have read the rating guidelines carefully) give me two stars here and three on Ama..."Wow. That's really the most balls-out crazy, control-freak thing I've ever heard.
I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."Then the author should print a single copy of the book and give it to his mother.
Gregor wrote: "Then the author should print a single copy of the book and give it to his mother."I really think you've hit the nail on the head. The same people who are not willing to go through all the steps of critique and editing are the ones who have never had anyone tell them a negative word about their work; i.e. "my mom loves it." Cheerleaders are great—and everyone should have some—but they have to be recognized as cheerleaders and should not be mistaken for anything else.
Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."Then the auth..."
You'd be surprised how often that's been said to the authors who freak out. I can't tell you how many times they've gone off on reviews that complained about editing, formatting, grammar issues, etc. etc. and the authors argument is how they're not professionals, they didn't think anyone outside of their F&F would even read it and how it was only a measly .99 - $3.99 so what'd you expect?
The 'Well, if you're not a professional and you didn't want anyone else to read it then why on earth is it up for sale on various booksellers? And why are you promoting it on every social media site on the Internet?' counter-argument falls on deaf ears.
I have to see if I can find where it was, but another user relayed a comment made by her literary professor (or something along those lines) about how self-pubbing was keeping authors/writers from experiencing the rejections and criticisms of submitting manuscripts over and over to publishers. And that by not being subjected to those rejections, they've not learned how take criticism and thicken their skin to it.
Therefore leaving them unexposed and unprepared for critical reviews that are bound to happen. Those reviews are their first rejection letter and first honest critiques.
Of course, it was phrased much better than that, but I'm sure you get the gist. :)
This was a comment I got after writing a one-star review on Amazon for a horribly written book:***WARNING: Check this reviewers past reviews before judging this book based on her 1 star!***
Minus some of the grammatical errors, the reason why this book got 4 or 5 stars was because 'real bookworms' and fans of this genre focused on the spicy storyline!
It makes me laugh that people who pay less than $3 for a book, expect the world from it!
Yes there are a few errors, however, I managed to get passed that due to the great storyline!
The author made the scenes come to life with strong characters, hilarious situations and fast and furious sub plots leading to the fantastic main plot at the end, so the few errors were overlooked as they did not detract from the great read!
Judging by your past few reviews of Women's Fiction novels, which many have only received a maximum of 2 stars, I feel suspicious of your review and think you need to dust off the purse and pay more, if you expect 100% from your next read!
Get a life, Lynda!
The commenter used the same poor spelling, punctuation, and extreme number of exclamation points as the author of the book. What a coincidence. Yes, she got "passed" the errors in the same way the author got "passed" the need for good writing.
TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."..."I never thought of that. Good point.
Gregor wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "I think a lot of these cases have more to do with the author not expecting or wanting anything but the highest of praise for their masterpiece."Then the auth..."
Obviously, you never met my mother. She was brutal. She used to make me write out three and four drafts of cover letters with a resume! Forget essays. Creative writing would be completely covered in red ink...
She got a little carried away, but I will say I think it made me very aware of process, and choosing words very carefully so that I don't have to write yet another draft...
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Simple Jess (other topics)Infinite Jest (other topics)
A Prayer for Owen Meany (other topics)
The Star Of Jolanest: Tales From Tamara (other topics)
Pogo (other topics)
Paul wrote: "...I don't think it's any real coincidence that t..."
No, it's like calling them "f....ts". Unless they're homosexual, it's a random tasteless insult. If they are homosexual, it's hate speech, or could be, unless you have very tolerant friends who think that's funny. If you are a homosexual, you have social permission in many circumstances to use that word.