THE Group for Authors! discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
216 views
Writer's Circle > Authors, SPAM-Police, Ratings, and Reviews

Comments Showing 1-50 of 81 (81 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Kristi (last edited Aug 09, 2015 05:01PM) (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments To be sure, there have been instances of 1 star "attacks", but honestly, a 1 star without a review (and I've had a few on my books) can simply mean "I disliked this book so much I can't even be bothered to tell you why." The rater just doesn't want to give it any more time or thought. Many users also have a personal use for stars that has nothing to do with what they thought of a book.

Trying to "make" or "require" someone explain themselves is just as much of a pointless time sink as those attacks designed to "hurt" an author.

As an author myself, I just accept the 1 star as a fact of life. If there is something to learn, I learn it. If there isn't, well, nothing is owed to me by simple virtue of my having uploaded a book.

As a reader, I typically ignore the one star with no review. Just as I mostly ignore the 5 star with no review. I'm enough of a free thinker to form my opinion based on more than just the average rating.

As for SPAM, getting the label based on one mistake is disheartening, but it can be overcome by simply stopping the activity that got you the label. As I'm sure you'll be told, Goodreads was designed for readers, not for advertisers (other than paid adverts) and authors have joined for lots of reasons, not the least of which is to interact with fans. Word of mouth is a powerful thing, and if you are known for your kitten pictures or your rapier wit, you will draw people to you. If you are known for bringing every comment back to a mention of your book by any and all tenuous threads, people will quickly perceive you as having a sales-bot mentality, and they will at best ignore you.

Visibility without being a nuisance is a fine line to walk, but it is a necessary skill to learn in a sometimes unforgiving environment. I've learned to listen more than talk. (This comment notwithstanding.)


message 2: by Mellie (last edited Aug 09, 2015 04:58PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Mark wrote: "When an author becomes a member on Goodreads, he does so to make readers aware that he/she have completed their book and that it’s available for sale. "

I disagree. Goodreads is a social media site, readers add, rate, review books they have read, want to read, or have no interest in reading. There is no compulsion for authors to join, in fact the site runs fine without author participation. Books are added automatically once they are available on Amazon, there is little for authors to do. Yes you can claim your author profile and add your blog feed. Personally I follow authors whose books I enjoy and GR lets me see their blog feed.

This is most certainly NOT a site to spam readers about your book for sale.

Complaining about ratings without reviews shows you don't understand how GR works. I frequently rate without reviews, it's how I use GR recommendation algorithms. I rate for me so GR shows me other similar books.

Your issue seems to be a basic lack of understanding of how GR works and some perceived desire to spam readers you think should be interested in your books? I'm not sure why you think your unsolicited emails/messages aren't spam?


message 3: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 09, 2015 07:25PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) You can contact any member on goodreads who follows or friends you simply by posting a status update or making a new blog post on a linked blog (if on your author profile you are having trouble getting blog posts to echo here -- try using the RSS feed link instead of blog URL or contact staff for more help). There are apps and services that let you post same article/status all at once to your social media, blogs, book sites with API, etc.

Your author profile looks to me like maybe you accidentally put blog URL in website field instead of blog link field hen mentioned your website in description field instead of website field. (You can edit or ask staff to edit for you; once an author profile is claimed a regular goodreads librarian cannot edit it for you.) -- ETA: blog posts are showing, just looks like moved weirdly way farther down author page than I'm used to seeing on goodreads (maybe author Q&A should be after blog posts? Didn't blog posts used to be above the author's list of books?).

That's what readers opt into when they friend or follow you so is not unsolicited commercial contact (aka SPAM). Just like if a reader follows you on Twitter or Facebook--your post shows on feed and possible to click thru to see your older posts at any time reader wishes. It's unlike readers are here to see posts from a hundred thousand+ authors (or get a few hundred thousand messages from). I suspect some readers are here for their reads/books rather than your book. Goodreads no more allows commercial messaging or posting commercial content outside of your author page than Facebook allows you to message its members and post your commercial content unasked on their Facebook page; similar social media aspects. Liking an author page on Facebook and following author on Twitter or on goodreads are very similar in terms of reaching readers who opt into the commercial content. If anyone sets their feed to see everyone, possible they'll also see your post even if not a follower.

Goodreads and Facebook group moderators may or may not permit commercial posts in the group (and may or may not have rules for permitted posts).

I would suggest if you want to contact people about your commercial products, use a site that permits commercial use rather than one prohibiting commercial use in its terms of service and author guidelines. There are some.

Some people just don't write reviews, even on goodreads. Some used to but have stopped after all kinds of issues not on topic for a thread about spam. Some rate and then review later when they get time to sit down and write something up--"when" being dependent on when real life let's them and they remember. Some star ratings are outright typos/accidents. Some review but couldn't decide what to say about the book behind rating how they felt about their read.

Unless rating without a review is from a reader I personally know so can judge what they meant (or ask them about it) --I don't pay it any attention. I don't even pay attention to the above fold community average rating -- I look for the on heading average by friends and average by followed reviewers. If not rated by friends/followed, I look at community reviews (not average rating or ratings) to see if something strikes a chord with me.

I don't want someone selling their book to interrupt my conversation with a friend in real life or to approach me when I'm at another author's book signing or browsing library shelves. Don't want it in real life, don't want it online. The paid ad spaces may or may not have ads of interest to me but are not intruding in my activities and conversations on goodreads (and I realize they are necessary to keep site free).


message 4: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Mark wrote: "As for one star ratings, I think you give the rater too much credit, without them being accountable as to even if they actually read the book or not. "

Please don't tell me you are another author demanding that GR members must read, rate, review according to your criteria. What's next? Readers have to submit their review to authors before it's allowed to be posted here?

Again, you don't seem to understand how GR works. It's a social media site. Readers can shelf, rate, review however they want. Some people give a star rating with any commentary (and I'm one of them). Some people give a star rating without reading a book because that's how they use GRs.

Perhaps you should write another novel instead of worrying about how readers chose to use a social media site about books?


message 5: by Faith (new)

Faith Mark wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Mark wrote: "When an author becomes a member on Goodreads, he does so to make readers aware that he/she have completed their book and that it’s available for sale. "

I disagree. Goodr..."


Reviewers are not required to be accountable. I know you don't like that, but I'm certain that is the way it will remain. Also, I see no reason to believe that someone giving a book 5 stars is any more likely to have read the book than someone giving a single star.


message 6: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Faith wrote: "I see no reason to believe that someone giving a book 5 stars is any more likely to have read the book than someone giving a single star. "

Isn't it interesting that authors are quick to cry foul over 1-star ratings with no reviews and demand their removal, but how many do you see complaining about 5-star ratings with no review? ;)


message 7: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 09, 2015 08:23PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Mark wrote: "As for one star ratings, I think you give the rater too much credit, without them being accountable as to even if they actually read the book or not. ..."

Readers should only be held accountable for respecting the author's copyrights. They need to legally obtain the books they read.

Accountable? Accountable to whom--the law, goodreads, the commercial interests profiting from sale of book? Accountable how? Does anyone think that would encourage book sales/reading or more reviews from readers? Is this a plot to drive off all consumer reviewers to replace them with paid reviews and reviews from fellow authors, publicists, and other commercial interests?

Are we to be fined or jailed if we lose a book or it dropped into the bath tub so some pages became illegible? If device died before we could finish the ebook? If we got a headache so had to stop? If we got bored and skimmed? Or didn't like some scene/content so skipped over? We are supposed to be held accountable for reading entire book ...?

Trying to hold consumers accountable for reviews by the same standards professional and paid/commercial reviewers are held accountable to by whoever paid for review or the journalistic media paying their salaries? Do we all have to write book reports in order to catalog our books here or participate in goodreads activities? Who judges? Who grades? Authors so that they have complete control of what ratings and reviews are allowed or disallowed?

How do you hold accountable a person's opinion of their reading experience (completed or not) of a book or their use of the star rating system for whatever book cataloging purpose they used it for? How can you make someone accountable for finishing every book started -- isn't that like, to quote booklikers, forcing someone to judge the milk was sour by drinking entire glass even after a single taste proved it was sour?

Some new requirement for consumer product opinions I haven't heard about requiring consumer product opinion to not only be verified purchaser and also require some proof of reading? Are retailers going to be responsible for a piece of that accountability by some verification code to be used on consumer review sites? Who will monitor readers to attempt to provide evidence of reading?

Are consumer product opinions now requiring readers to study a book so they can prove they read it rather than just reading for the enjoyment of the book? Maybe a reading comprehension test that some readers couldn't pass even for books they really did read because don't do well on tests or didn't understand what air was saying or interpreted something in a way personal to them rather than how test maker interpreted? Hopefully not something that someone could cheat on just be reading last chapter to know the ending?

Some new consumer speech law overturning existing protections? Some new way of gathering the evidence a book was read? (Even kindle's accounting of how many pages read just means how many pages "turned" and how invasive would it be to physically monitor folk reading print copies while they were reading ...).

Is it just books? Is someone unable to get a cable to work with their TV going to be held accountable for making a somehow qualified attempt to get it to work? Someone saying they don't like coffee so didn't like the tiramisu going to be held accountable for first finishing the dish anyway and then to having their palate tested and quizzed/berated on coffee flavors?

(Okay, I admit it, because I know authors in some kindle programs only get paid for pages read I'll "turn" all the pages with one hand at intervals while watching TV or doing something else if a book clearly written well enough to be published -- but that's just my choice because I think authors should be paid expected price for the book even if I don't enjoy it and stopped reading. Not something I do if book was so bad seemed like some unedited rough draft someone uploaded anyway/mistakenly. What I choose to do; not what I demand everyone do.)


message 8: by Lenita (new)

Lenita Sheridan | 104 comments I've been following this thread. All I can say to the last message is "my book's been pirated!"


message 9: by Mellie (last edited Aug 09, 2015 08:17PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Mark wrote: "Every book has some value, hence a 4, 3, 2 rating. But a one star rating, especially one with so many awards? "

Reading is subjective. No award guarantees that every reader will 5-star your book. You can find novels that have won the Noble prize for literature or the Man Booker award with 1-star reviews. For example, The Luminaries has over 1,800 1-star ratings but I don't see Eleanor Catton complaining that her book won an award, therefore no one should be allowed to give it anything under a 4-star.

I find the arrogance of "my book won an award, therefore it should be rated highly" absolutely mind boggling. To most readers, an award means nothing. In fact many award winning literary novels fail to sell many copies and they simply don't appeal to the masses. I know lots of people who bought The Luminaries (to continued with that example) and then never made it past chapter one and they DNF'd it. Yet FSOG has sold millions of copies and I don't think it's ever won a single award.

Again, perhaps you should write another book instead of dictating how readers can read, rate, review the one novel you have written?


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Lenita wrote: "I've been following this thread. All I can say to the last message is "my book's been pirated!""

I'm so very sorry that happened to you. #@!$*^ pirates -- nasty for readers and authors both. Ruin it for everyone.


message 11: by Kristi (last edited Aug 09, 2015 09:11PM) (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments Mark wrote: "But Kristi, don't you want to know if they actually read your book. Every book has some value, hence a 4, 3, 2 rating. But a one star rating, especially one with so many awards? ..."

Sure, I wouldn't mind knowing. But real life means we don't always get what we want.

To put it in a crass fashion, "Want in one hand, spit in the other. See which one fills up faster."

Life is messy, chaotic, and full of things that can drag us down and suck away our time and good humor if we let it. Pick your battles. One star ratings with no review is so far down the heap for me it's a total non-issue.

As DA pointed out, there are many, many users of Goodreads, both authors and readers. It was created as a tool for readers, not authors. Not every book, even one with tons of awards, gets good ratings. Plenty of ratings without reviews appear across the star spectrum. (ETA) Even massive popularity is no guarantee of good ratings accompanied by reviews.

Just look at JK Rowling's ratings. Steven King, Anne Rice, Hemingway, Dr. Seuss, Shakespeare, even. (ETA) Romeo & Juliet, arguably Shakespeare's most popular play, has over 46k 1 star reviews.

It's never going to get "cleaned up."


message 12: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 09, 2015 08:43PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) No one, particularly someone selling something, gets to make demands on my time outside of employers, friends, family, neighbors, my government, law enforcement and my faith.

I am not accountable for not finishing a book, whether or not I rate or review it. Absolutely a book I would rate 1-star doesn't get to make any additional demands on my valuable-to-me time, least of all to prove or justify anything or explain myself if I didn't feel like it. (Sometimes so bad I have to rant in a review but usually I just DNF so quickly, while other readers are more than entitled to do differently, I don't feel I can write a good review. The star rating is enough for readers caring about my opinion and possibly even noticing I had marked it as "currently reading" to know how I felt about the book.)

Not accountable any more than other readers are accountable for anything other than legally obtaining books and following TOS and federal/state laws of whatever consumer review sites they review on.

All that said, many readers on goodreads do choose to also shelve the book as "DNF" "Couldn't finish" "PWP" type of shelves in addition to the star rating. And if they do review a DNF'ed book will often make it very clear not read completely, often specifying exactly where they stopped reading.

I cannot always express why a book didn't work for me or why I didn't finish it. I just wasn't enjoying it for whatever reason so didn't finish it. Sometimes if there's a reason I can pinpoint that I think other consumers might need to know like a weird description making it sound like on one genre but really in another genre -- that I might put in review space. But no one has to finish a book to write consumer review or to review according to what someone else says (again, outside of site TOS and guidelines).

I firmly believe reader-to-reader conversation with the subjective, personal wordings are a big point of consumer reviews and why they are useful for book discoverability. Make them all controlled and sanitized and held accountable and you make them useless to other readers. You'll discourage readers from having the conversations that lead to book discoverability. Books that don't get discovered/seen/buzzed-about are not exactly going to see a lot of sales.

I've had devices eat a review that didn't eat the rating for what that's worth.


message 13: by S. (new)

S. Aksah | 100 comments Oh oh!


message 14: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Kristi wrote: "To put it in a crass fashion, "Want in one hand, spit in the other. See which one fills up faster."

Favourite quote of the day! :)


message 15: by Kristi (last edited Aug 09, 2015 09:06PM) (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments Mark wrote: "I contemplated writing the above for years, thinking that other authors would want to also address this issue...."

Oh, and if you look, you will find that many authors have brought topics similar to this up, and the same arguments you are reading here have been hashed out over and over and over. "This issue" comes up with almost clockwork regularity.


message 16: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 09, 2015 09:30PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Kristi wrote: "...This issue" comes up with almost clockwork regularity. ..."

Often with staff reinforcing that readers can use the star ratings and reviews however they like so long as within TOS and review guidelines. Don't even have to use the stars to rate a book, can use for other reasons including but not limited to cataloging needs, expressing amount of interest in a book, tweaking book recommendations by rating books accordingly ...

Staff aren't always very active outside of business hours PST time zone.


message 17: by V.W. (new)

V.W. Singer | 132 comments I am an author, but I cannot see why any reader giving a rating should need to consider my convenience or comfort. I am sure some people give one star ratings based purely on political or social biases and without reading the book. But so what?

If my books are good, then I am sure that the majority of those who read it will respond positively. As an author, that is where I have real control - by putting out a product that appeals to my selected audience.

As for GR, I take part as a member and as a reader as well as author. Where a group provides for authors, I will use it to my best advantage, otherwise I refrain. Very often making friends and letting readers get to know you as a person and to understand what and how you think is much more effective as a sales technique.

Besides, there are a number of groups on GR designed to bring reader and writer together.

I am a member in several groups where I am able to announce that my book is doing well or won an accolade, and nobody minds and in fact will be happy for me because they see it as the success of a friend, not someone trying to sell them something.


message 18: by Lori (new)

Lori Schafer (lorilschafer) | 41 comments Author Jas. T. Ward is collecting signatures (14,000 so far) on a petition to persuade Amazon to change its review policy. If you'd like to support this cause, you can

1) Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/amazon-com-a...

2) Invite your Goodreads friends to the event here: https://www.goodreads.com/event/show/...

3) Share my blog post about it here: http://wp.me/p4mxfj-hB5

Thank you!


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) V.W. wrote: "...Very often making friends and letting readers get to know you as a person and to understand what and how you think is much more effective as a sales technique..."

Very often makes someone curious enough to at least look at your book -- or at least book gets seen when looking at your profile to follow/friend you. Something an unasked for message, email, or recommendation doesn't often do -- get book discovered -- during the process of flagging, deleting and/or ignoring the spam.

The OP is right that some consumers will catalog the book as one they are boycotting if spammed personally or in their bookclubs/groups about it. Different methods to boycott are used. Some readers will use one or more methods of star ratings, lists, shelves, deliberately avoid star rating because they know any number of features on goodreads sort by descending number of ratings so it just improves book's visibility (just encourages some problem authors to cause shitstorms to get any activity, including negative ratings rather than go undiscovered), track in public or private groups ..


message 20: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 10, 2015 09:59AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Lori wrote: "Author Jas. T. Ward is collecting signatures (14,000 so far) on a petition to persuade Amazon to change its review policy. If you'd like to support this cause, you can

1) Sign the petition here: h..."


You might want to start a thread for that; it might not be seen by members seeing this thread's subject and bypassing.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, about those Amazon review policies is that Amazon is so weird about policies and about how they enforce their review policies that changes are needed. As a reader, of course I have authors I am a fan of and I do visit their author pages, book pages, follow/like, stalk for new posts and new books; I am going to read and review their books more than authors I'm not a fan of. I think instead of chasing after fans, Amazon should be cracking down on sockpuppet up/down voting campaigns and reviews, review circles illegally not disclosing payment (payment = review on book they wrote), reviewer accounts that are actually groups of reviewers (often paid, professional promotional companies where reviews should be in editorial descriptions anyway), nasty attack comments on reviews, ...

I don't review on Amazon so that's not sour groups over another reviewer getting a higher ranking or anything.

ETA: and hopefully Amazon will at least ignore series reads because if someone reads and positively reviews first books in series, they are probably likely to keep reading and reviewing the other books in series for crying out loud.


message 21: by V.W. (new)

V.W. Singer | 132 comments Lori wrote: "Author Jas. T. Ward is collecting signatures (14,000 so far) on a petition to persuade Amazon to change its review policy. If you'd like to support this cause, you can

1) Sign the petition here: h..."


Signed.


message 22: by Lori (new)

Lori Schafer (lorilschafer) | 41 comments D.A.-tell me if there's a love triangle or drama w/ book wrote: "Lori wrote: "Author Jas. T. Ward is collecting signatures (14,000 so far) on a petition to persuade Amazon to change its review policy. If you'd like to support this cause, you can

1) Sign the pet..."


Lori wrote: "Author Jas. T. Ward is collecting signatures (14,000 so far) on a petition to persuade Amazon to change its review policy. If you'd like to support this cause, you can

1) Sign the petition here: h..."


Took your advice, D.A., and started a new thread. I agree with your comments - Amazon is fighting the wrong battles. The irony is that their policies may actually push some authors into pursuing the unethical courses you mention, and that is in no way helpful to readers.


message 23: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 10, 2015 10:06AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Lori wrote: "...The irony is that their policies may actually push some authors into pursuing the unethical courses you mention, and that is in no way helpful to readers..."

Oh, neither ironic nor necessarily unethical -- just outright criminal consumer fraud (and an indication of just how professional and intelligent an author is). And quite useful for filing FTC complaints and knowing which books to boycott when discovered or suspected. Less frequently as clearcut or as easily discovered as spam activities leading to consumer boycotts of product spammed.


message 24: by Mellie (last edited Aug 10, 2015 03:37PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Mark wrote: "If anyone finds it so important to rate a book, then...they should be required to include why they feel the way they did, with at least an explanation. If not, then they should not be permitted to rate it."

Wow. You really don't understand how Goodreads works do you? Let me try this again - readers can shelf, rate, review HOWEVER they want. They do not owe you any obligation to rate/review to your criteria.

If a reader wants to mark a book wit a 1 star and no other comment they are perfectly entitled to do so. That's how this social media site works.

Review are not for author feedback. If you want feedback about your work then you seek it prior to publication. That's what critique partners, beta readers and editors are for. Reviews are for readers. A concept some authors seem to struggle with.

If you want to bang on about the awards your book has won then I suggest you find relevant literary groups where like-minded authors all 5-star each others novels....


message 25: by T.H. (last edited Aug 10, 2015 04:12PM) (new)

T.H. Hernandez (thhernandez) | 113 comments Mark wrote: "Unless an author is a masochist, allowing disingenuous ignorant and spiteful people to bash them with a disingenuous rating (TAG) on their otherwise hard earned good name and reputation; they shouldn’t let them get away with it."

You lost me here. How is someone who rates a book with a single star being disingenuous, ignorant, or spiteful? It's a subjective rating based on their opinion. I'm not saying there aren't some readers who punish authors with attack reviews, but these are not the majority of readers on this site. I have read hundreds of books and provide reviews. With the exception of ARCs, I do it because I want to, not because I'm obligated to anyone.

I don't have to justify my opinion to anyone. Sometimes I'm in the minority when it comes to loving or hating a book. And people disagree with me. That's their right. Two people can read the exact same book and have completely different opinions on what they read. And they can chose to use the star rating system however they like. I know one reader who marks books with a one-star rating to remind herself NOT to buy them, because she doesn't like the subject matter, the author, or the publisher. That's her right.

I really don't think we need the "social media police" to start telling people with to to think. Although, hmm, that sounds like an interesting plot...


message 26: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 05:05PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Mark wrote: "
To be an author is to place ourselves in the arena; to sacrifice just about everything to turn a mere vision, experience, knowledge and our imagination into a tangible reality. As Winston Churchil..."


"How can there be a book with many awards, great reviews outside Goodreads, and then on Goodreads also with, five star ratings , including accompanying reviews, but then several one star ratings on Goodreads without a review, void of any two, three, or four star ratings in-between?"

Many different reasons.

"If they actually read the book, and then rated it with only one star, wouldn’t you want to know why they gave it only one star?"

Not relevant. A GR user rating a book is for themselves, and possibly other GR users, not authors.

"If they did read the book, why wouldn’t they want to tell readers why they didn’t like it?"

Lots of reasons. TONS of reasons.

"If they wouldn’t or couldn’t finish the book, do you think it’s fair that they be permitted to rate it at all?"

Not relevant.

"Is their rating about the book’s subject material or the style of writing, etc., or for some other questionable reason that, with a review would expose that disturbed and despicable person for such a rating on such an otherwise highly rated and acclaimed work?"

None of your business.

Hope that helps :D

Consumer reviews are not author feedback. They are not promotional material.

And what GR users choose to post in the "review" space is their opinion of the book. They get to have that opinion without any requirement they justify or explain it to anyone. Same with ratings.

This is a social site, and a site where users catalog books they've read for their own purposes. If someone wants to denote all books read on a Tuesday by giving it one star they can.

Some people aren't comfortable or interested in writing their opinions in the review space for many different reasons, others don't have the time, others just use the ratings to remind themselves if they liked a book or not and have no interest in doing anything further. Nothing wrong with that at all. This is allowed on Goodreads.


message 27: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments A.W. wrote: "Isn't it interesting that authors are quick to cry foul over 1-star ratings with no reviews and demand their removal, but how many do you see complaining about 5-star ratings with no review? ;) "

Yes. So far I've never seen any author say they feel those who leave 5 star ratings need to justify their ratings, or demonstrate they've actually read the book.

And thank you for your posts, you've said things much better than I ever could.


message 28: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments D.A.-tell me if there's a love triangle or drama w/ book wrote: "Mark wrote: "As for one star ratings, I think you give the rater too much credit, without them being accountable as to even if they actually read the book or not. ..."

Readers should only be held ..."


Brava!


message 29: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 10, 2015 05:41PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Mark wrote: "...If anyone finds it so important to rate a book ..."

But, do you seriously think it's of any importance to readers who come across a book to read or not and maybe star rate for whatever reason? I doubt it's of any importance except to authors (and their real life loved ones) or other commercial interests with a material connection who consider it important.

And if you know something else is going on behind the bare rating, then you already know what's going on so why do you need to know more? Flag anyone making personal attacks or otherwise violating TOS, report suspicious activity. If goodreads agrees, they'll remove the rating/review. If not, it's out of your control.

Just because someone does something you don't like or think is wrong, why do the other 25+ million of us have to change to do it the way you think it should be done?

Books that give the reader strong feelings are not usually ones most readers rate ★☆☆☆☆ if using the star ratings to rate a book.

Why come onto a site with reader reviews and act like you are entitled to determine how readers can handle their book activities, catalogs, reviews and what/how consumer speech can be made?

Authors lose control of what happens to the book after published and legally obtained by a reader. Out of your control how any reader is rating, reviewing, categorizing, using, reading, dnf'ing, propping up a table with it, fireplace kindling, origami art, etc.

The star rating on your book, even one I make, just isn't that important to me. I have no burning need to tell anything. It's also never for the author. I might feel passionate about a particular book to where I am moved to actually review it provided I can find the words but that review is still not for the author. Being passionate enough about a book to review it, negative or positive, doesn't mean I have to review it or that reviewing it is of any importance to me. I know self-published authors want reviews and want feedback; doesn't mean they get to require that feedback or to control what feedback they can see by looking at consumer ratings/reviews/conversations.

Requiring anything of customers beyond respecting your copyrights just isn't something an author gets to do with public sales. And it's only important to you. I can sympathize that it's something authors want and something of importance to them-- right up to the point commercial interests try to control consumer speech or use consumer sites for commercial purposes.

You've been on goodreads longer than I have; just how much luck are you having trying to shame the horrible readers here mass 1-starring your book with no reviews (while thinking they can rate, review and catalog their books) into changing how they review? With your account still intact, just how dire have the consequences to you been that you were flagged for spam or that someone rated without review or shelved you as spam? Just how massive a consumer boycott has it been -- large amounts of goodreads members all massively 1-starring your books and shelving them as spam and other consumer boycott shelves? Just how much attention do similar books usually see in comparison? Just how many people tagged the book for spam [and where since I'm not seeing any genre or shelf info on your book page (what goodreads uses for keywords and tags) and see under 15 ratings with less than 35 people adding to the default shelves like "to read"]. Just what has been so horrible for you with the 1-star ratings with no reviews and spam shelving/tagging? Your average rating here is the equivalent of 4.18 stars on Amazon, what more do you want that you are complaining about the five 1-star ratings? Nothing but 5 star reviews? The only thing I see unusual abiut the activity on your book is that the star ratings are either 5 stars or 1 stars (there's usually more variety); and that even the author doesn't seem to have shelved/tagged it as anything other than the defaul shelves (read, to read, currently reading) much less indicating genre.


message 30: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 05:32PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Mark wrote: "Well Faith, I can only write about my personal experience. In my case all 5 star ratings were accompanied with a review, and all the one star ratings had NO review. "

One reason people on GR are less likely to write out their opinions on a book they didn't like is the growing number of authors who actually read consumer reviews, and unfortunately the increase in the number who will post personal attacks to them for doing so.

I don't find it a bit surprising that those who enjoyed your book were more desiring to express their positive opinions, than those who rated it one star were in sharing their negative opinions.

There are even some authors out there who have convinced some consumers if they can't say anything nice they should not say anything - and now you're complaining that they didn't. Perhaps you should be talking to those authors. There are more and more GR users who just aren't interested in the potential drama.

Bottom line - those ratings are their own opinions of a product for whatever reason, and if they'd wanted to share that opinion with you they would have. They are not obligated to do so, nor does their not doing so mean their view is any less valid than anyone elses.


message 31: by Faith (new)

Faith Mark wrote: "D.A.-tell me if there's a love triangle or drama w/ book wrote: "Lori wrote: "...The irony is that their policies may actually push some authors into pursuing the unethical courses you mention, and..."
If it was so bad a read for them, and couldn't read beyond their limited attention span, then they should just move on because they're not qualified to rate it.

If you would stop insulting readers they might give you fewer one star ratings. Also, if you would accept the fact that "it's not all about you" you might be able to relax about your ratings. Readers are not thinking about you and they do not have to think about you.


message 32: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 05:47PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Mark wrote: " I remember a time when most authors were respected and held in high acclaim. Perhaps there are other places that still do."

I'm reasonably old, and I can't remember a time when most authors where held in high acclaim, only those who's work garnered high acclaim.

However, now that anyone can upload a document for retail sale and call themselves an "author", it takes more than simply having written a book and having it for retail sale to gain respect and "high acclaim" as an author.

"I come from a long career in the toughest business in the world, but never did I experience the fraudulent few given such support as they continue corrupting the rating process with their less than honest attacks on works they obviously didn't read.

You're simply demonstrating, yet again, that you really do not understand how Goodreads functions, and how Goodreads users use the site, and are allowed to use the site. Users rating in a way that displeases you doesn't make it "fraudulent" and doesn't "corrupt the rating process".

"If it was so bad a read for them, and couldn't read beyond their limited attention span, then they should just move on because they're not qualified to rate it."

IMO this isn't the best attitude for a business person to display to the public regarding customers and potential customers.

Someone is qualified to dislike your product for any reason they choose.


message 33: by Rose (new)

Rose (rosepetals1984) | 5 comments I think Mark might be obsessing too much over his readership/audience/ratings, to be quite honest. An author who fixates over the motivations of his audience, whether they've read his/her book or not, in rating books doesn't have their head in the reality that there are far too many people who pick up books, put down books, or not even bother for their own reasons on a daily basis, far too many to count. You can't possibly keep track of every reader/consumer's opinion on a personal scale, and attempting to do so is - so to say - very time-consuming (nor to mention VERY creepy, at least from the perspective of this avid reader/writer).

If an author spends all their time trying to hold accountable the people who rate the author's books and crudely assuming the reader's motivations, the author's not only going to turn away whatever potential audience they might've had (because who wants to interact with an author who would be so rude to demand why they read his book or somehow get a lecture for not agreeing with his "masterpiece" whether in the will to read it or having read it and thinking it was crap), but they take time away from doing the thing they claim to want to do: write and sell books and encourage book discussions.

Selling books doesn't come down to fixating on how people read and rate books or why. People should be allowed to have their own personal opinions, even if the author doesn't agree. Once your book is out there for the world to read, it's out there to be judged or consumed in the way other people perceive it (or not even touched, if that is the desire of the reader/consumer).

I still don't understand why some authors, like Mark, seem to think that trying to heckle readers into expressing their opinions or hold them to some obligation is helpful or necessary. Writing reviews is completely voluntary - in any bookish community really, and they're not necessarily for the author's benefit as much as they are for other book consumers, or, really the reader/consumer THEMSELVES in a matter of personal expression. The value is more in the eye of the rater and those who find value in that rater's perspective. If it ain't helpful to you, then you can walk away and not spare it a second thought. And frankly, that's the option that lends less to stressing out over what other people are supposedly "saying" about your book. Ratings and reviews are their own kind of dialogues, and if you don't agree with an opinion, that's okay, but why get into someone's face about it?

Honestly, I just think it's incredibly presumptuous to try to define motivations and put words and actions in reader/consumers mouths, let alone try to create some unrealistic standard that couldn't possibly be enforced.

Plus, bookish consumers deserve a little more credit than being so disrespectfully dismissed for not having a so called "valid" (because, seriously, who defines that? There's not a universal standard and trying to create one is severely limiting, not to mention disrespectful) opinion in shelving their books for personal catalogues (because Goodreads is, after all, a book cataloguing site, and not simply a review site. It's not Kirkus or PW, for goodness sake) - they'll pick up or put down whatever they wish to read for their own reasons and move along without another thought. And that's totally okay.

What's not okay is an author who would try to butt their way into that personal space (and really, if you push, people will push back if you're rude or invasive to them) and make unrealistic demands of reflection or discussion. You can't force dialogue, it happens organically. And you can't expect to shove your book in people's faces and demand that they read it (because that'll earn you more than one sidelong glance), and you can't tell other people that they're wrong for not wanting to read your book (that's their choice).

At which point, if something you do as an author (because this is a business and your actions/behavior/attitudes affect your business) antagonizes a reader/consumer, you would think

1. Don't do the thing you just did again. (Be receptive to people who tell you what you've done wrong and why, which clearly Mark isn't doing here. Hopefully at some point he will.)

2. Accept responsibility for doing something wrong. (And this means swallowing a bit of your pride in doing so. Some have a harder time doing this than others.)

3. Walk away and learn from it. And keep writing. If one book doesn't do as well as you thought it would, if your marketing scheme doesn't work in one venue, keep trying to speak through the work that you do and trying to learn your audience better, not through forcing or telling other people how to consume your work or react to it. Cause the more you try to force the issue, the bigger it's going to bite back at you.

That's all I'm going to say. YMMV.


message 34: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 10, 2015 05:58PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Some readers—their choice and not judging or trying to control it—decide not to review books beyind 1-starring if they have nothing nice to say. Some even consider it being mean or rude to review and further detail why they 1-starred.

Others might choose to save their limited reviewing hours for books that were more than 1-star reads rather than gifting more of their time to books so bad they 1-starred--again, just their choice and their style of reviewing.

Authors don't get to demand an explanation of ratings (subjective anyway and not all readers can put into words an exact definition of why the star rating given) or hold customers accountable for anything other than respecting copyright.

Without that explanation, for all OP knows, he got some of the 1-star ratings from readers who think "1" star was "1st place" "top" "prime" "A1" "best" book. Not very common, but I know nine reviewers who rate on a scale of "1 being best to 5 being worst" instead of "1 being worst to 5 being best." (none of nine I know of 1-starred OP's book--just pointing out the possibility).

(I don't want consumer ratings or reviews to be anything other than just personal opinions and choices — but, I do wish goodreads would put a "-" at left of stars and a "+" at right so everyine was at least going in same direction "on a scale of 5 wiith 1 being the worst..." . Or some visible without hovering indication of what's positive/negative -- a thumbs up/down, arrows, smiley/frowns face or whatever icon).


message 35: by Kristi (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments Mark wrote: "Unless an author is a masochist, allowing disingenuous ignorant and spiteful people to bash them with a disingenuous rating (TAG) on their otherwise hard earned good name and reputation; they shouldn’t let them get away with it...."

Wow. You are just digging yourself in, here. How can we be more plain? For the average Goodreads user, the ratings are NOT about the author, they are about the reader's personal thoughts and sometimes feelings about the book.

If the person who threatened you seemed to fly off the handle, consider how many times they may have been approached by well meaning authors in inappropriate venues.

Many people use Goodreads forums as one might a coffee shop, where they have virtual conversations with friends. I for one would be very annoyed to have someone burst in and shout about their award(s). Imagine if everyone who represented a book that received an award came bursting through at random. It would get extremely old, FAST. Perhaps you were the figurative straw that broke that person's back.

Is it fair that s/he lashed out so harshly at you? Probably not. But does the camel care which straw brought it to its knees? All it knows is that it has been flattened, and it has had enough.

It occurs to me that what you want is for Goodreads to be something else entirely. You are expecting an encyclopedia, perhaps? Or a bible of literary truth? Fine. But that is not what Goodreads is.

When I was a kid, I had a notebook in which I wrote the title of every book I read, and I gave those books star ratings. It was for my reference only.

Goodreads is the modern equivalent of that. That is what it was DESIGNED to be. The fact that my friends, and yes, strangers, can see it is incidental.

People don't leave reviews for any number of reasons, not the least of which is a lack of time. Maybe they would simply rather spend their precious free time reading. Maybe all they want to do is tally how many books they have read over their lifetime, with a notion as to how many of them they liked. It IS NOT against the Goodreads terms of use.

As Auntie J put it, it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

If someone dislikes a book, even to the point of not getting past the sample, or even the blurb, why shouldn't they be able to mark it with a simple star so they don't waste any more time if they come across it again? It IS NOT against the Goodreads terms of use.

It is not spiteful, disingenuous, or ignorant. It is often merely a 'note to self.'

(No, I am NOT trying to discount the idea that someone may have "attacked" you with a one star rating - that has happened in the past and doubtless continues to happen. But I'd hazard the ratio of those attacks to honest ratings is lower than 1 in thousands. If not millions. The Cat in the Hat has 5623 1 star ratings, and only 79 of them have reviews. Were 5544 people maliciously trying to hurt Dr. Seuss? A dead man? I'd say no. 5544 people simply 'did not like' the Cat in the Hat.)

Do you honestly expect everyone to explain their every thought and emotion to you? How exhausting to live up to that expectation. The one star rating, by definition, means "I did not like this book." That in itself must be reason enough. Perhaps it is as simple as their mothers teaching them 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.'

As others above have said, if I don't like something, what kind of fool am I to continue torturing myself with it? If I order a cup of tea and dislike the taste, should I choke it down anyway? I've already spent my money on it, must I allow it to leave a bad taste in my mouth?

No, I'm going to pour it out and order something better, rinse out the taste and try to forget anything other than the fact I don't want to try that tea again. I would give that tea a one star rating.

And when someone asks why I poured out the tea, must I analyze it? Describe the way it revolted me? Must I say anything other than "I didn't like it"? Am I being disingenuous and spiteful to the tea if I don't? No. My friends would understand I just didn't like the tea. If a stranger demands that I explain myself, I'm going to tell them to step off. It's none of their business.

Yes, as an author, I pour my blood sweat and tears into my books. Hours of my life are given to writing, editing, rewriting, devising plots, developing characters, researching the situations I put my characters into. I spend good money having them edited, and having professional covers made. I spend hours of time interacting with readers on social media - not just blasting on about my book, but having real conversations with them. I have dropped serious cash on paid advertisements on Facebook, Amazon, and here on Goodreads. So I know "what writers go through."

And you know what? I LOVE EVERY MINUTE OF IT. It is a joy to me to write, just for the sake of writing. I wrote for 30 years before I self-published. Even if no one ever recognized my books, and I never made a sale, I'd still write. I'd probably stop spending money at it, but I would still write. Would you?


message 36: by Mellie (last edited Aug 10, 2015 06:24PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Mark wrote: "Maybe I'm overreacting, and should, like others just ignore those reprobates trolling the site.."

Readers using a social media site to shelf, rate, review books however they want are NOT trolls.

The sense of entitlement because, apparently your "...book has won prestigious awards..." is staggering. I'm starting to wonder if they were actual awards, or ones where you paid for a star to stick on your cover. I have never seen actual award winners (like Man Booker winners) demanding that all 1, 2 and 3 star ratings be removed from their books.

Perhaps you should write another book, rather than obsessing how readers use GR. Strange how it is the authors who aren't selling who demand the most from readers. Authors who are actually writing & selling books seem to cope just fine with how GR's operates.

Interesting to see a couple of your 5-star reviews (including your own) come from readers who have never read, rated, reviewed any book except for yours. Obviously the ethics of questionable/sock puppet 5-stars doesn't bother you. The fact you have been a member of GR for so many years and have only ever read, rated, reviewed, ONE book (yours) speaks volumes about how you perceive GR.


message 37: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Aug 10, 2015 06:34PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Mark wrote: "I remember a time when most authors were respected and held in high acclaim...Author’s have too many other battles to overcome without also be prey for someone else’s questionable behavior. "

Which has what to do wth star ratings used by readers on goodreads? What does reader's attention span or their "qualifications" as a reader have to do with any of this? How are you made prey by any of this? You are dealing with customers and potential customers organizing their reads while exercising consumer speech, not professional reviewers with credentials.

Even if you were dealing with professional reviewers, unless you were paying them and spelled it out in the contract the professionals would not have to review positively, acclaim all authors and treat all authors with respect--and those reviews would be illegal if posted in with consumer reviews on U.S. sites. (Well, okay, paid reviewers on buzzfeed cannot write negative reviews but they also cannot put those reviews on goodreads.)

Seriously, if you feel you are a victim of fraud or other attacks, stop trying to control consumer speech and how customers rate, read, review or don't. Instead, flag the fraud and attacks to goodreads support and file consumer fraud and attack complaints with relevant law enforcement agencies.

I—in case you are wondering about my qualifications as a reader oh highly awarded and well acclaimed author—have a library card to checkout and cash/credit-cards/bank-cards to buy books that were published for public sale. That qualifies me as a reader which — no judgment on your credentials or your book — is more of a qualification for my being a reader than what's required to be an author/uploader. To be a reader, I don't really even need library or funds if I can borrow books from friends or get donated books, but I figure with your more lofty views requiring qualifications and certain types of reviews from your readers that you might disagree.

You cannot force anyone to write a review. You are not being preyed upon because someone didn't review your book.


message 38: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 06:55PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Mark wrote: "Maybe I'm overreacting, and should, like others just ignore those reprobates trolling the site, just looking to hurt people, but I don't think so."

A person rating a book one star on Goodreads without explaining their view is NOT a "reprobate", nor "just looking to hurt people".

You clearly don't understand what the term "trolling" means, your use of it here in this regard is laughable. One simply cannot "troll" one's own review space.

"If a rating can’t be honest with an accompanying review, or at least a short comment to legitimize the rating,"

You are seriously confused. A rating is honest when it's that user's honest opinion of the product. They are not obligated to express or explain their opinion and choosing not to doesn't make it dishonest or illegitimate.

"then what purpose does it serve anyone? "

Obviously it serves the purposes of the Goodread's user who posts it. There is no obligation to "serve" further.

I don't believe your claims regarding business experience, as you don't demonstrate you actually have any understanding regarding consumers, consumer rights, or public relations.

Goodreads users rate, and review if they choose, in order to track and record their books for themselves, organize what they've read, want to read, and want to avoid, and many enjoy sharing with other Goodreads users.

We are not obligated to "legitimize" anything we do here for you, nor serve your purposes, nor please you.

You know why I rarely post reviews here anymore? Because of authors with entitled attitudes who think GR users are here to serve them. It's also one reason why I don't bother with self-pubbed books, with a few exceptions - like some of the awesome authors here who write great stories and treat readers and consumers with respect.

"All I’m saying is if a rating given, good or bad, is without any comment, then that rating is bogus and has no place if honesty is to prevail."

You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. A rating on Goodreads without any comment is legitimate and allowed. It does not in any way, shape or form become "bogus" or "dishonest" simply because you say so.

"Author’s have too many other battles to overcome without also be prey for someone else’s questionable behavior."

You've become prey to your own behavior. Consumers also have many battles to overcome - including battling some authors who think they should cater to them rather than themselves and other consumers. Goodreads users also have many battles to overcome, including against those who waltz in here and try to tell them they need to start doing things their way or they'll be called names and accuses of terrible things.

"Anytime questionable behavior is not challenged, truth will always take a back seat obscured from view."

That's why I'm challenging your claims and accusations and disregard for consumers and Goodreads users.


message 39: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments I just want to thank the authors who are posting here trying to reasonably and rationally explain things to Mark.

It's so very nice to know that his view is in the minority of GR Authors, and I appreciate it.


message 40: by Kristi (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments Mark wrote: "I posted this...to see...if anyone thinks something should be done to make Goodreads a place that can be trusted. ... To rate anything without reading it is a problem in search of a solution...."

It has been said multiple times in multiple ways. Goodreads is a catalog site that supports reviews, NOT a review site that supports cataloging. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone simply saying "I did not like this book" on this site. That is what a 1 star means.

Is it abused? Yes, sometimes. Should it be stopped? Have you read 1984?


message 41: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Mark wrote: "A.W. wrote: "This post is about questionable unsupported ratings.

There are vastly more "questionable" ratings that are 5 star ratings. But I don't see you showing any concern about that.

No, you only care about 1 star ratings that don't justify that opinion to YOU.

"I think most authors would want to know if their book was actually read."

Doesn't mean readers or Goodreads users are obligated to provide authors with that information - they are not.

WE are NOT here to SERVE YOU.

Please get that through your head.


message 42: by Rose (new)

Rose (rosepetals1984) | 5 comments Auntie J wrote: "WE are NOT here to SERVE YOU.

Please get that through your head.
"


Exactly. Think it's a combination of saying this and the fact he shouldn't be so quick to dismiss critique and personal rating systems that are supported as a part of Goodreads TOS as an "attack." Further using very negative labels against people who have personal rating systems that are many and varied.

It's straight up disrespectful of Goodreads and its members, authors and readers alike.


message 43: by Faith (new)

Faith Mark wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Every book has some value, hence a 4, 3, 2 rating. But a one star rating, especially one with so many awards? "

Reading is subjective. No award guarantees that every read..."


Haven't you noticed that no authors have jumped in to support you? At this point, even if someone agrees with some or all of your views your posts have made you pretty "toxic". You've not only refused to make any attempt to understand repeated reasonable arguments, your off-putting, entitled attitude is extremely alienating. And just as an aside, it doesn't help to post your resume here. Your business experience is not relevant.


message 44: by Kristi (new)

Kristi Cramer (kristicramer) | 84 comments Auntie J wrote: "I just want to thank the authors who are posting here trying to reasonably and rationally explain things to Mark.

It's so very nice to know that his view is in the minority of GR Authors, and I ap..."


Did you note that he's a politician? Explains quite a bit, I think.

I sure try to be reasonable and rational. Though I can get long-winded. :-/ lol


message 45: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 07:13PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments Faith wrote: "Mark wrote: "You've not only refused to make any attempt to understand repeated reasonable arguments, your off-putting, entitled attitude is extremely alienating. And just as an aside, it doesn't help to post your resume here. Your business experience is not relevant. "

One thing that never ceases to amaze me with those (thankfully few) authors with ideas like this is how stubbornly they refuse to understand interests and concerns of consumers and readers, and as well as the various legitimate ways Goodreads users use Goodreads.

It's all "me, me, me, me" with this type.


message 46: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments The vast majority of the authors of books I have rated, or rated and reviewed, will never ever see my rating or review, ever.

And frankly that is how I like it.


message 47: by T.H. (new)

T.H. Hernandez (thhernandez) | 113 comments Mark wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Mark wrote: "Every book has some value, hence a 4, 3, 2 rating. But a one star rating, especially one with so many awards? "

Reading is subjective. No award guarantees that every read..."

Playing devil's advocate here, let's say that GR implemented some sort of rule that in order to rate a book, you had to read it first. How would this ever be enforced?


message 48: by T.H. (new)

T.H. Hernandez (thhernandez) | 113 comments Kristi wrote: "Is it abused? Yes, sometimes. Should it be stopped? Have you read 1984? "

Hahahaha! This literally made me spit my water!


message 49: by Christine PNW (last edited Aug 10, 2015 07:21PM) (new)

Christine PNW (moonlight_reader) Mark wrote: "Mark wrote: "A.W., this is not just about me or my book."

Of course it is.

If your bio is to be believed, you have had a multi-decade career in the animated movie business. It is absolutely impossible for me to wrap my mind around the fact that a guy with the credentials that you claim to have is posting obsessively about 5 one-star ratings on your only book, two of which are about 5 years old.

You've been, apparently unsuccessfully, trying to market your book for seven years. Personally, it's my best guess that you are trying to create enough controversy with this absurd display that you get some buzz around your book. It's not working. Sadly for you, nary a reader has one-starred your book since you went on your rant.

Anyway, this is all just simply ridiculous. Grow up.


message 50: by Alexandra (last edited Aug 10, 2015 07:23PM) (new)

Alexandra | 374 comments T.H. wrote: "Playing devil's advocate here, let's say that GR implemented some sort of rule that in order to rate a book, you had to read it first. How would this ever be enforced? "

And, how many Goodreads users would leave Goodreads if they did something that boneheaded?

How many Goodreads users would stop posting reviews?

How many authors would scream they were no longer getting their pre-release "I AM SO EXCITED!" five star ratings?

How many authors would moan about how it got EVEN HARDER to get readers to leave a review?

Even Amazon doesn't have such a requirement, and Amazon is a retail site, not a social site.


« previous 1
back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.