Review Group discussion

771 views
Advice > New amazon guidelines

Comments Showing 1-50 of 106 (106 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by Emma, Group Admin (last edited Oct 05, 2016 11:50PM) (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
Amazon has posted a new set of guidelines regarding companies providing free product in return for reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...
One peer review group on goodreads has already shut up shop overnight due to fears about this.https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

I have sought clarification from amazon but the guidelines specifically refer to 'free' product given by the publisher/author. Free ARC's are not affected.
The guidelines also state that reviews that involve an author posting a positive review about a peer's book in exchange for receiving a positive review from the peer are not allowed.
This is not what we do here. we don't do reciprocal reviews and we don't guarantee star ratings.
I'd suggest to members that they avoid using the disclaimer that they received a free copy in exchange/return for a review in their reviews. It is the 'in exchange for a review' that is the problem, not the free copy. You can still add that if you wish.

it may be that we will have to change the rules of the group to only include books enrolled in KU so the books are borrowed or are bought by the reviewer. I'm seeking clarification at the moment.

As for now, everything goes ahead as normal.

Don't panic!


message 2: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
A person on another thread has noted the following:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/ama...

These changes will apply to all product categories other than books


message 3: by G.J. (new)

G.J. Griffiths (gjgriffiths) | 572 comments Mod
I think to include only books enrolled in KU is too limiting as not all readers/reviewers will be on Amazon Prime. Obviously authors' books offered during a free promotion are OK but requires careful timing from the author's choice of dates. The point you make about leaving out the words "in exchange for" is a good one if this adds confusion about reciprocal reviews. Non-reciprocal reviewing by this group has to be made very clear of course, which I believe it has and still does.

Sorry to reveal my ignorance - though I prefer naivety - but what are ARCs?


message 4: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
Advanced Review Copies.
Amazon Prime and KU are different things.
I'm not in Prime, but I do have a KU account. It allows me to download up to 10 books at a time for a monthly fee. Its like a paid library card for books exclusive to amazon.
Prime involves free next day delivery of goods from amazon, and I think you can borrow 1 book a month for free. Don't quote me on that though because I don't subscribe to Prime.

Yes, it would be annoying to have to change the rules to include 'bought or borrowed' books only, but if that was the only way to to keep this useful resource going, rather than folding completely....


message 5: by Matt (new)

Matt Parker | 20 comments This is a bit of a pain, especially as this group seems to be dedicated to providing honest and non reciprocal reviews. I suppose that if a reviewer has to purchase the books, the author could always discount them for a short period after each group is formed. That way, a minimal price is paid, but that still involves money changing hands, and that still feels like paying something in order to get reviews, even though it isn't a direct exchange.


message 6: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
I think the point is that we want to avoid the impression that positive reviews are guaranteed. Anyone that had lurked around more than a few review rounds will know that is not the case here.


message 7: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
The exact phrasing of this new rule says:

Book authors and publishers may continue to provide free or discounted copies of their books to readers, as long as the author or publisher does not require a review in exchange or attempt to influence the review.

Which basically is saying you can no longer gift a book on the expectation of a review - the gift has to be free and without conditions. But the receiver of the gifted book is perfectly free to leave a review if they choose.

This means the wording of a disclaimer, if included in the review at all (and that does not seem to be any kind of necessity anymore - though I could have missed something) should be more "I received this book as a gift and have decided to leave a review of it" - or perhaps even simpler: "This book was a gift."

I would say this new rules poses no issue to what we do here as the books are all gifted freely and we all choose to leave reviews for them.

Just a few thoughts here to hopefully reassure :)


message 8: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
Any suggestion about what to do if a member doesn't leave a review, if we can't 'require' them to do so?


message 9: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Emma wrote: "Any suggestion about what to do if a member doesn't leave a review, if we can't 'require' them to do so?"

Sanction by refusing any application to join a future round, which is - I believe - what already happens.

If there was a rule that to join a review round you had to provide a selfie wearing a pink sombrero, and someone in the group - having agreed to that rule - did not do so, they would be turned down if they applied to a future round.

No one has to leave a review for any book they are gifted, but they can expect to be declined for future groups if they do not do so - no pink sombrero, no next group!

I may be missing something with this though - so please feel free to shoot down my pink sombrero theory in flames if I am...


message 10: by Warren (last edited Oct 06, 2016 06:37AM) (new)

Warren Dean | 324 comments "provide a selfie wearing a pink sombrero"

You have just supplied me with the third offence sanction I was looking for, E!


message 11: by Warren (new)

Warren Dean | 324 comments On a more serious note, we couldn't force someone to comply with their review commitments anyway, and the reviewee's remedy of getting a listing on the one for one thread seems to work well generally.


message 12: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments Thank you, EM. Speaking only for myself (duh!), I never escaped the feeling any review which mentioned the book was 'provided', 'exchanged', 'traded', 'given', 'gifted', and all the other permutations, on some level I'm not able to properly articulate, tainted the review. Lessened its credibility. Given the strenuous standards this review group upholds, I thought it patently unfair.

I never included a disclaimer in my reviews and interpret the current policy as sanctioning my continuing to do so.

Emma, other than stressing any author voluntarily agreeing to join a review group, under the rules established at the outset, has an ethical obligation to his or her colleagues and fellow authors to see the process through, I'm not sure you can do more.

P. S. EM, you dropped me to the floor with the visual of you spitting marshmallows !! :-)

P.P.S. Warren, I won't say I live for your witty, pithy quips but it comes close !!

-r- (or if you're a fan of BDSM, -R-)


message 13: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
I don't add a 'disclaimer' to my reviews either Rafael. But it isn't the groups place to say you must or you must not.


message 14: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
I think I'm going to issue pink sombreros as a hurry up sanction. its a kinder option than the virtual spankings I usually dish out.

If the review rounds, with allocated books, do prove to be a problem for amazon, I can't imagine how the one for one thread, where people pick the book they want to review, could possibly be 'illegal' as it is the reviewer requesting a copy, or in many cases downloading via KU.


message 15: by Warren (new)

Warren Dean | 324 comments Book authors and publishers may continue to provide free or discounted copies of their books to readers, as long as the author or publisher does not require a review in exchange..."

My take on the wording of this guideline is similar to E.M.'s. Providing a free/discounted book to a reader who then chooses to review it is still okay. I think that what Amazon is referring to here is the situation where a publishing house sends a free copy of the latest Dan Brown to the New York Times, or an indie author sends his book to someone's review blog, both in the hope of getting a review out of it.

But providing a free/discounted book on condition that it is reviewed is not permitted. Logically, this would involve an agreement between a reviewer and a reviewee in these terms.

Our Review Group rules currently state:

"The author whose work is being reviewed is responsible for providing a free copy of their work to the person reviewing it. The reviewer has first choice of format, but at the least a PDF should be made available." (FAQ)

"5. You can provide (and accept) at least PDF files. Many authors can also provide mobi and epub files. You are not expected or required to buy the books you are allocated to review. Some authors borrow books via KU and others provide smashwords coupons or gift copies. This is their choice; you do not have to accept or provide a gift."

"11. You agree to post honest reviews of the books you are allocated, whatever the star rating and try to avoid ‘spoilers’." (Review Round header)

I think we need to review (excuse the pun) these rules as they could be construed as an offer by an author to supply a free copy in exchange for a commitment by a reader to review it.

Having said all that, hopefully Amazon will soon clarify what the new guideline actually means!


message 16: by Warren (new)

Warren Dean | 324 comments Rafael wrote: "Warren, I won't say I live for your witty, pithy quips but it comes close !!"

Rafael, I think you need to get out more!!


message 17: by E.M. (last edited Oct 06, 2016 08:56AM) (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Rafael wrote: "I never included a disclaimer in my reviews and interpret the current policy as sanctioning my continuing to do so.."

Well I am with you on this. If someone gives me a book as a gift for my birthday and I review it, I don't say 'I am writing this review because I was given a copy of this book", I just write the review.

I do sometimes say 'I read this book on KU' if I did as KU will not give you that 'Validated Purchase' stamp and it can add a touch more gravitas to a review, in the eyes of some people, if you can say that.

Also, I could point out that we have very arbitary rules on reviews anyway: Goodreads Az-US and Az-UK. We could as easily say you have to post on Az-AU and Az-CA or on Aunty Edith's cookery and knitting blog and stick a postcard up in the local shop window!

My point being that the rules made here are effectively arbitrary and are agreed to as a consensual group.

Rafael wrote: "you dropped me to the floor with the visual of you spitting marshmallows !!"

Sorry about the mess - but it was getting a bit much with the Klingon and all.. ;)

Warren wrote: "You have just supplied me with the third offence sanction I was looking for, E!"

Noooooooo!!


message 18: by E.M. (last edited Oct 06, 2016 07:55AM) (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
My suggestions for rewording - if they are any help at all...

Warren wrote: "The reviewer has first choice of format"

Maybe 'reader' rather than 'reviewer' to avoid the idea of assumptions?

Warren wrote: "You are not expected or required to buy the books you are allocated to review. "

Remove the words 'to review'.

Warren wrote: "You agree to post honest reviews of the books you are allocated,"

This could be changed up to:

'You understand that if you choose not to keep with the spirit of the group as described in these rules, you will not be accepted into any future group'. After all acceptance into any group is always at Emma's discretion anyway - that is kind of an over-arching given...

Or somat similar...maybe...


message 19: by Jessica (new)

Jessica Fisette (jvfisette) | 2 comments I'm new to this group and was going to start participating as soon as I finish advance reading a fellow author's book. I voiced my concerns about these new guidelines on my Facebook page and a fellow author said people have come up with the idea of just having the reviewer buy the book through Amazon and then refunding their money through PayPal. Would that work since the verified purchase tag would show up and there would then be no reason to claim you received a free copy in exchange for a review?


message 20: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments Warren wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Warren, I won't say I live for your witty, pithy quips but it comes close !!"

Rafael, I think you need to get out more!!"


I couldn't agree more. I'm showing your comment to my mother.


message 21: by Noorilhuda (new)

Noorilhuda | 524 comments Warren wrote: "Book authors and publishers may continue to provide free or discounted copies of their books to readers, as long as the author or publisher does not require a review in exchange..."

My take on the..."


@Emma, you're right: 'I think that what Amazon is referring to here is the situation where a publishing house sends a free copy of the latest Dan Brown to the New York Times, or an indie author sends his book to someone's review blog, both in the hope of getting a review out of it.'

Let's wait and see. I don't think we'll have a problem under the new guidelines. If anything, one should no longer mention 'got a free book in exchange....' and should probably just state 'this is an honest non-reciprocal review' or 'got a pdf / mobi as a goodreads member', or nothing at all. Let's wait and see.


message 22: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Perrin | 85 comments As several have mentioned here, the prohibition in Amazon’s new guidance is on incentivizing a review by providing a free or discounted copy. Unless Amazon changes the wording or provides clarification otherwise, it would seem that to follow that a group cannot compel anyone to write a review unless they paid full price for their copy.

That seems to leave the options of a) each person pays full price and then group policies could still require a review to remain in good standing; or b) continue the practice of providing free, gifted, or discount books, but make the review voluntary. Both options have problems.

With option A, it would be difficult to get a pool of authors with liked priced books, so some might feel short-changed if their book was $0.99, and everyone else’s was $5.99. The differences might tend to even out over time, but in the short-term, there could be considerable disparity in the cost of participation, and more so for those with bargain priced books. And even with books of the same price, there is a cost, if for no other reason than your royalties are not 100% of your book price. But many might well consider that a reasonable expense.

With option B, the problem is that there are no guarantees. You might submit your book, do your reviews, but not get one or two of your book’s reviews in return. Of course, that happens now – infrequently, but it happens. But the potential for problems increase, if there are no penalties for failing to write a review. And soon, no one wants to play.

I personally, prefer option B, with the caveat that the mods now track voluntary review completion. The group becomes a community of authors who like reading, like saving money, and don’t mind writing reviews voluntarily. As verification of the last fact, authors who fail to review, for example, 20% of their assignments are banned from further participation. So, on a case-by-case basis, authors decide if they wish to review an assigned book, with the understanding that they cannot play that card too often, or they need to go elsewhere for reviews.

I believe option B meets both the letter and the spirit of the Amazon guideline, while continuing current policies and just omitting the phrase, ‘free book in exchange’ does not. But who knows, maybe Amazon would disagree.


message 23: by Patricia (new)

Patricia Hamill (patricia_hamill) | 39 comments Jessica wrote: "I'm new to this group and was going to start participating as soon as I finish advance reading a fellow author's book. I voiced my concerns about these new guidelines on my Facebook page and a fell..."

That would basically feel a lot like being paid to review as you'd likely only get the refund after reviewing. I don't like that idea. :-/


message 24: by Patricia (new)

Patricia Hamill (patricia_hamill) | 39 comments I basically always say where I got a book I reviewed. Library, arc, NetGalley, free promo, borrowed from a friend, or purchased. If I got it from the author or publisher, I mention that, too.

I leave off the "in exchange for a review" wording usually, unless the source of the book requires such wording, but the group that did require that was the one that was shut down in response to this policy.

I have a book blog and also contribute to another, but I don't think the policy is specifically targeting bloggers. Just books as rewards in return for reviews.

I think it's important to be open about how I get the books I review, but I also supplement that with a review policy that makes it clear I won't accept a book to review if there's any glimmer of influence.


message 25: by Noorilhuda (new)

Noorilhuda | 524 comments I agree, Trish.


message 26: by Brian (new)

Brian Cox | 21 comments This is a knotty problem.

It is important to comply with Amazon’s guidelines, and not just for ethical reasons. They have the power to remove rankings, or worse.

I agree with Bruce's logic. If the author is offering their book for free, there has to be zero expectation that they will get anything in return, including a review. This is a problem for our group.

So, my preference is to buy the books. Seriously, if we don’t believe our books are worth a couple of dollars, then the whole exercise is pointless.

If someone is willing to up their price, just to get a few extra dollars, then they are being a jerk, and they will be judged on the basis of the value for money they are delivering. So I don’t think it’s in any author’s interest to manipulate their price for such a piddling benefit.

At least this way, our reviews will be verified purchases. I also believe purchasing the book will encourage readers to be even more critical. I can just hear it now, “Jeez, I paid $2.99 for Brian’s book. What a joke!”

Cheers
Brian


message 27: by K.A. (new)

K.A. Krisko (kakrisko) | 1703 comments Mod
I would also suggest we change the group's description in the topmost description field to something really simple, like "a group where readers review books" and leave the particulars for later in the threads. That way the description of the group itself doesn't raise any red flags. We generally survive on word-of-mouth and reputation, anyway.


message 28: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Perrin | 85 comments As Warren said in message #15, this group’s published policies appear to be inconsistent with Amazon’s guidelines, pending further clarification from them to the contrary.

So, given that we change our policies, and lessen the chance that Amazon decides to remove our reviews, or worse (as Brian said), I could also support the purchase option (what Brian proposed and my Option A). I still slightly favor Option B, simply because it’s less of a financial burden on new authors, but I could accept a purchase policy as a normal cost of business, if the group decides to go that direction.

Regarding this option, I was not worried that some might increase their prices, just to get a few more dollars from being in the group – I agree, someone would be a jerk to do that. I just meant there would be inequalities simply due to the normal variation in regular prices. Perhaps to offset this, Emma could make sure that the highest priced books are distributed throughout the sign up list, so no one person would end up buying all the $5.99 books (or whatever the max was).

Sorry Emma, not trying to make your job harder…and maybe I’m nitpicking too much here anyway. But a life doing statistics tends to warp one's thoughts these ways... ;-)


message 29: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments @Brian

I must admit, as a concept, your proposal is intriguing. At minimum, worthy of consideration, if the non-reciprocal aspect is maintained.

Though I do not underestimate the capacity of some to be brazen, I suspect most authors would have to have a certain level of confidence in their book being a good read before submitting it to a review group that would be paying for it.

Also, we would be paying for four books. A factor, not necessarily an obstacle since the total cost would be discounted by whatever profit percentage accrues to the author. A price ceiling would also have to be considered as well as price differences. However, I would dismiss out-of-hand any schemes to have authors coordinate ten temporary price reductions (or even increases) as logistically impractical. If it's understood going in the luck of the draw would have some pay a bit more, others a bit less, then so be it. We're big boys and girls.

Additionally, I don't think serious writers, even those working under the most constrained budgets, would not find a way to save a few pounds or dollars each month during the twelve weeks a review group would be underway. I could bear up under the pressure of a few less candy bars for three months.

What if we, on an experimental basis, allowed a group to form under the same aegis as the others except the reviewers would be purchasing the book? Would the prospect of four verified purchase reviews fill it?


message 30: by E.G. (new)

E.G. Manetti (thornraven) | 93 comments The thing with Amazon's 'no-incentives' policy is that it is beyond their ability to inforce everywhere and is therefor discriminatory.

Examples include:

Netgalley where free review copies do require reviews if the reviewer is to remain in good standing. And the author/publisher pays a lot for those reviews.

Bloggers and magazines: In'Dtale charges a nominal $20 for a review and Romance Times charges $450. Is Amazon really gong to scour all its listing and delete these 'editorial' reviews?

Advance Release Copies: Amazon has exempted this 'age-old practice'. Their words. Except it is isn't 'age old.' ARC also means Author Review Copy and the 'age old' practice was to send out ARCs at the time of publication or shortly thereafter. See Longfellow, Dickens, and the Bronte sisters. Pre-release is a relatively new invention circa mid-20th century.

I think Emma's direction to sit tight and wait for further clarification is wise.


message 31: by Alex (last edited Oct 07, 2016 02:11PM) (new)

Alex (asato) E.G. wrote: "Advance Release Copies: Amazon has exempted this 'age-old practice'. Their words. Except it is isn't 'age old.' ARC also means Author Review Copy and the 'age old' practice was to send out ARCs at the time of publication or shortly thereafter. See Longfellow, Dickens, and the Bronte sisters. Pre-release is a relatively new invention circa mid-20th century."

aha! good history lesson. thx!


message 32: by Neil (new)

Neil Carstairs | 670 comments As E.M. has said, are we overcomplicating a straightforward situation? As previously posted in other messages here is the main paragraph we need to pay attention to:

Book authors and publishers may continue to provide free or discounted copies of their books to readers, as long as the author or publisher does not require a review in exchange or attempt to influence the review.

The issue isn't whether a book is bought, borrowed or gifted. The issue is that the group can no longer apply direct sanctions to anyone who fails to complete all four reviews. Up to now these sanctions have included blacklisting and deletion of reviews for that reviewers own book.

I'm suggesting we reverse engineer this. Here's a working example. I recently released my latest novel (plug-plug) and as part of this went through various Goodreads groups offering free copies under ARC and Read 2 Review folders. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with offers but I sent out enough that I hoped for a decent tally of reviews by now. I have to date only three written reviews. So I have contacted the reviewers and asked them if they'd mind me keeping their details and I can send them other books in the future for review. They have all said yes. The people who had my book for free and didn't review can take a long walk off a short bridge. If they want to read my work in the future they can pay for it.

So here is my suggestion:

At the end of current and future rounds the moderators send the names of anyone who did not complete all four reviews to Emma. No other sanction is applied. Emma keeps the list of 'unreliable reviewers'. The sign-up message for future rounds is modified to remove any mention of sanctions or obligations / must read. In place is a paragraph something like

Application to join this review round does not constitute acceptance until the Group Administrator gives approval.

Anyone can apply to join a review round but those listed as unreliable will be overlooked in favour of existing or new authors. If it is a sanction then it's in place before the book is sent and so no contravention of Amazon policy takes place as we do not have to send our books to anyone who requests them.


message 33: by Patricia (new)

Patricia Hamill (patricia_hamill) | 39 comments Neil wrote: "As E.M. has said, are we overcomplicating a straightforward situation? As previously posted in other messages here is the main paragraph we need to pay attention to:

Book authors and publishers m..."


That's an elegant approach. I like it!


message 34: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Neil wrote: "Anyone can apply to join a review round but those listed as unreliable will be overlooked in favour of existing or new authors."

That is what I was reaching for and not quite getting to when I said: 'Sanction by refusing any application to join a future round'. You have put it concisely and explained it so much better, thank you Neil! :)


message 35: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments @Neil

The Captain is on the bridge. Order and calm is restored. :-)


message 36: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Rafael wrote: "@Neil

The Captain is on the bridge. Order and calm is restored. :-)"


But he only gets saluted when wearing a pink sombrero ;)


message 37: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments I can't see from all the way over here, EM. He's not wearing it ??


message 38: by Neil (new)

Neil Carstairs | 670 comments @Rafael
If I'm a Captain then Emma must be Admiral of the Fleet

@E.M.
Pink is so my colour, it goes with my bloodshot eyes


message 39: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments Admiral of the Fleet, aye sir. I've got the pots and pans sparkling.


message 40: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Rafael wrote: "I can't see from all the way over here, EM. He's not wearing it ??"

Not sure - could be the eyes...


message 41: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments lmao

You and I are going to hear about this, EM. :-\ We've managed to turn a serious thread into a complete farce.


message 42: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Rafael wrote: "lmao

You and I are going to hear about this, EM. :-\ We've managed to turn a serious thread into a complete farce."


*gulps and sneaks quietly out the back, beckoning Rafael to follow*


message 43: by Brian (new)

Brian Cox | 21 comments You guys!

I agree, I think Neil has the answer. In practice, it will mean missing out on a few reviews, but probably not much more than what already happens.

I am still happy to pay for books (not unilaterally!), as it completely seals out any risk.

Either way though, is fine for me.

cheers
brian


message 44: by Warren (new)

Warren Dean | 324 comments You and I are going to hear about this, EM. :-\ We've managed to turn a serious thread into a complete farce.

*gulps and sneaks quietly out the back, beckoning Rafael to follow*

Emma, I have the first two names for that list Neil was suggesting!!


message 45: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
Warren wrote: "Emma, I have the first two names for that list Neil was suggesting!! "

*sounds of distant wailing and gnashing of teeth off stage left* ;)


message 46: by Rafael (new)

Rafael (rafaelnyc) | 115 comments "sounds of distant wailing and gnashing of teeth off stage left..."

...incited a piercing howl of despair, long descending to whimpering sobs.


message 47: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Perrin | 85 comments The only problem I have with Neil’s suggestion is that the process is not changing at all. We are doing exactly the same thing – people who fail to write a review get blacklisted. The only difference is that it is not in writing. It might work, maybe indefinitely. And maybe not. But I can say that I would not want to be one of the mods implementing this unwritten policy.

On the other hand, many review groups don’t operate on a one miss and you’re out basis. We might want to embrace the idea that these reviews are being given freely and allow latitude, within reason. Certainly, a reviewer who is dropping 50% or more of their reviews is not committed to providing information to readers and is not value added to Amazon or readers. But a reviewer who abstains 10 or 20% of the time, perhaps in order to provide comments directly to the author, might serve our and readers’ needs better than 100% compliance. One problem, of course, is defining that level - 70% completion? 80%? 90%? And then, with a specific level, would Amazon see that as compliant? I'm not sure.

Maybe this is a hardship, but personally, if I could reasonably expect even 2 reviews if I wrote 4, I would be OK with that. And if your book is good enough, you probably end up with all 4 reviews anyway.

One downside, other than perhaps not getting all four reviews, is probably score inflation. Assuming that reviewers opted out because they find a given book lacking, then the 2’s and 3’s may become rarer. I did read somewhere, however, that author reviews on Goodreads tend to be nearly a full point lower than the general reader population, so maybe this isn’t a problem. (But I’m also not sure that this statistic is right - no source was given.)


message 48: by Emma, Group Admin (new)

Emma Jaye | 4058 comments Mod
I've had a good look at the points put forward here, and I like Neil's suggestion.
It doesn't bother me to not accept members onto a group round. I do have the ability to remove people from the group (or round) for any reason ( or no reason) as I see it for the good of all. As most of you hopefully know I always try to be fair. Plus, just because I refuse a person entry to a particular group it doesn't mean they haven't completed reviews previously, there might be a reciprocal review problem or any number of other issues.

This idea also leaves the thorny issue of borrow/buy/gift out of the equation.

If people miss out on reviews they can still put them on the one for one thread.

I'll work on a new sign up message for review rounds. Thanks for all the input everyone.
Although this move may make it appear as if this group is moving toward a dictatorship, that is the furthest thing from my mind, I want the group to continue in as much as a similar format as before, for the benefit of ALL members, whilst remaining within Amazon guidelines.


message 49: by Bruce (new)

Bruce Perrin | 85 comments Emma,

The "dictatorship" issue never crossed my mind in reading your post. Thanks for your leadership. I look forward to joining a round in a couple of months when my next book comes out.

Bruce


message 50: by E.M. (new)

E.M. Swift-Hook | 3065 comments Mod
If anyone is still wondering how the changes might affect them in other ways, this is an excellent summation of the A'zon review rules:

http://annerallen.com/amazons-new-rev...


« previous 1 3
back to top