Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Bad Reviews and the Star Rating System
All too often, an interesting and intelligent debate, such as this one, devolves into a spitting match. The end result of a spitting match is predictable and always the same; nothing gets resolved and all of the participants end up covered in spit.
Bec wrote: "Arrogance and condescension works both ways. You seem to have no problem with reviewers telling authors how to do well, absolutely everything, I conclude this from your promotion of a particular web site of a reviewer who, I might add, is yet another who knows not the difference between "losing" and "loosing"How dare this Jen Warren allow errors on her blog! Who cares if she's offering good, free advice to writers? Who cares that she obviously invested a lot of time into producing such a resource for authors? The only thing that matters is that a reader made a technical mistake, and is therefore not qualified to critique anyone for selling substandard work.
I'm glad you proofread this site, Bec. Maybe you could visit the blogs of all readers out there, so that authors know which customer's opinions are worthy of respect...
Oh, and the post I referenced here of yours needs a good edit for appropriate punctuation. You've taught us all that even informal commentary should be flawless and I'm sure you want to provide a good example for others.
I am a reviewer and have been an editor. I know I need an editor to correct the mistakes I don't see. They usually occur because I am deleting a phrase and don't get all of it. Or because the type is quite small and I see what I want to see! I have had things appear in print that were made worse and I cringe because I am always accountable even if I am not the last person to see the copy.
And now with my being able to post things (like my column) myself without an editor, I really am embarrassed when I don't catch everything.
But I guess I should consider myself fortunate to know the difference!
Something else that I don't think anyone has touched upon is to give 4 stars and not explain why 5 stars were not given. Or 3 stars and yet only write good things about the book.
Skye wrote: "I am a reviewer and have been an editor. I know I need an editor to correct the mistakes I don't see. They usually occur because I am deleting a phrase and don't get all of it. Or because the type ..."Like teachers, some reviewers are tougher than others with their grades. Some expect perfection before they issue that 'A'. Others are easy. If the flaws aren't glaring, they'll give full marks. Again, it's a matter of opinion.
I have a reviewer on Amazon who wrote glowing reviews of all my books, but always gave me four stars and pointed out some flaw that bothered her; an abrupt ending, a character that should have been better developed, etc. And damned if she wasn't always right. Finally, I produced a book that earned five stars. I have no idea who this woman is, but those five stars made me feel like I'd won the lottery.
I commented on her review, asked if she could hear me cheering. She commented back and said she didn't think authors ever read reviews and was amazed her comments had influenced my writing. I guess we both ended up feeling good. Sometimes tough teachers/reviewers are the best.
To me, a 4 star rating says it was a really good book, but in that reader's opinion, not a great one.
Skye wrote: "Something else that I don't think anyone has touched upon is to give 4 stars and not explain why 5 stars were not given. Or 3 stars and yet only write good things about the book. "This is purely individual, but my own review scale pretty much lines up with the Goodreads' own (1= did not like it, 2 = it was ok, 3 = liked it, 4 = really liked it, 5 = it was amazing). So it's very possible for me to have something rated at a 3 with only nice things mentioned because was enjoyable, but nothing about made it stand out from other books I liked also. A lot of my favorite authors routinely get 4 stars. My five stars are saved for those special ones that changed my book life in some way. Usually getting me interested in something previously unknown, or ignored, and maybe even influenced me to read more books to understand what I just read even better. I wouldn't feel the need to explain all that. in every review. Especially since the cliff notes version of it already exists if you hover on the stars anyway.
I give a 5 to a story that really gets to me... Especially when I get emotional. I can forgive errors if the plot is fantastic, but a long-winded story that takes too long to get to the point will get rated lower.
Christine wrote: "Here we go again - authors telling readers how to review a book. It is very important reviewers follow the author's instructions (the stuff authors believe are important) or their reviews are usele..."Authors can express an opinion on how someone reviews their work. Characterizing this as you have above is simply gratuitously insulting, as there is no way--at all--for writers to control such a thing, and writers know this.
Readers can express their opinion, whether a writer likes it or not.
Writers can do the same, whether readers like it or not. Claiming this means writers are trying to impose their own standards merely by expressing their beliefs is, frankly, silly.
"...a spelling error is neither sufficient reason to ignore a review..."
I see: YOU get to tell people what the standard is--not in your opinion, but The Rule--but when others give their view on what they like or don't like about a review--that's telling others how to review. Okay.
I'll leave this thread to those who can put up with such things. Hope you all have a good day.
Willow wrote: "Jason wrote: "Especially if the hissy-fit includes stalking...Just saying."
Um... No hissy fit or stalking... Just wondering if I should keep writing."
Definitely keep writing while remembering you can't please readers of every genre with one book.
I've had some good and some bad ratings and the only thing keeping me from writing is taking care of my one-year-old daughter full-time and having a sagittal band rupture in one hand. I still put down ideas for story lines and do research for the day the tiny demon won't need to be watched quite as closely.
The first rule of being a writer is to develop a thick skin. If you learn anything from the review, take it on board, if it's pure vitriol, ignore it and wait for more positive ones.
Groovy wrote: "I agree with most of these comments. It hurts. You want everyone to be as excited about your stories as you are. And you hope others won't let one and two star reviews be the deciding factor in whe..."I once got a two star review because my book contained suggestive material when the reviewer was expecting a family story. There was nothing explicit anywhere in the book.
Catherine, did you check your blurb?I notice a title - read the blurb and at least one sample chapter.
If I don't like the book after that it's my fault, not the author's - I don't rate it - until last Sunday.
I did ALL that stuff - expected a love story - got it in chapter one - a really good dilemma for the couple. After that I felt I was back at uni, and not doing Joint Honours - it was lecture after lecture - SIX subjects - any could have been interesting background but this author had done her research and it showed.
Not everybody does "look inside" so that's why I wondered if the blurb might have misled the reader who rated 2 stars.
I do 4 or 5 or keep quiet - except this time.
Bec wrote: "I see now, you don't recognise tongue in cheek comment, irony, possibly because it does not comply with you national norm, and, as this is a predominantly American site I shall, in future keep this in check..."
Sarah (Warning: Potentially Off-Topic) wrote: "As an American, the irony of an Australian criticizing a Canadian for acting too American is not lost on me...
I think this topic is contentious enough without bringing nationality into it. ..."
Thank you Sarah. Bec, I am Canadian and I agree with Sarah this is a contentious topic and has a lot of background issues that are not obvious here. Nationality should have nothing to do with it.
Jim you are correct - a spitting match is not necessary and accomplishes nothing. If my opinion has offended anyone - I extend my apologies. My comments came from my own experience and a series of events that left a very nasty taste in my mouth.
Lady Echo - Thank you - Jen Warren (my personal hero) has worked very hard to HELP SP authors, by both reviewing their works fairly and honestly and providing polite and well thought out advice. Serious threats were made against her by SPAs. Now she's being criticized for a spelling error...WTF
Christine wrote: "Bec wrote: "I see now, you don't recognise tongue in cheek comment, irony, possibly because it does not comply with you national norm, and, as this is a predominantly American site I shall, in futu..."British humour, not Australian
The late, great Sir Winston Churchill once said: "America and Great Britain are two great nations; separated only by an ocean and a common language".Mr. Churchill had a great sense of humor (humour, if you prefer). The world would be a better place if everyone did.
Jim wrote: "The late, great Sir Winston Churchill once said: "America and Great Britain are two great nations; separated only by an ocean and a common language".Mr. Churchill had a great sense of humor (humo..."
Well caught sir!
One thing I have learned about reviews is that they become an ongoing conversation with your readers. They not only give you feedback, they give you ideas on how to shape your books.Plus you learn that everyone will have an opinion. But it's the things that are repeated often that you take notice of as your write your next book.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert regarding rating/reviewing books. The following information may be confirmed by anyone who has performed even cursory research on the subject. It may be substantiated by reading books or literary peridocals on the subject, available at the local public library. Only a very small percentage of avid readers actually post ratings and/or reviews in literary forums. The reviews that are posted are intended for other readers, not authors. Realizing that opinions and tastes differ, they must often be taken with a grain of salt. One reader's best book ever may be another's complete waste of time.
The intelligent reader is well aware that many reviews are traded, purchased, or solicited in return for a free copy of the book. As a result of such tactics, the quantity, sincerity, and veracity 0f reviews are often questionable and cannot be depended upon to determine a book's true worth. Sales are the only truly accurate measurement of a book's commercial success. The relatively few reviews, posted annually, have very little or no impact upon actual sales.
Authors who focus more time on continuously improving their writing and narration skills than they do agonizing over reviews are more likely to eventually reap the reward they desire.
Jim wrote: "Disclaimer: I am not an expert regarding rating/reviewing books. The following information may be confirmed by anyone who has performed even cursory research on the subject. It may be substantiated..."I agree, it is frustrating when people leave ratings and no reviews, both as a publisher and a reader. You have no idea why they didn't like the book so am I going to like the book, should I change something in the book. *commence hair pulling out*.
You can buy reviews, I mean straight up buy reviews now which I think has completely thrown the review system out the window. Yes you can see on Amazon who bought a book, but that doesn't mean anything either.
I had a book that I was having reviewed by someone and they had this list of like 30 areas they looked at. I have reviewed a lot of books in my time and although most of them I have received for free, I was never paid outright for them and I don't even have that many areas. I tend to talk to other readers about how the book made me feel and less about how the book had 2 issues on page 1, 3 on page 10, etc.
Kevin's message (#180) is a good one and to add to it, if there's a reviewer you trust as opposed to a reviewer that you know, then anything that reviewer says may be more constructive than ego-feeding. As a side note, if one does review, they should try to keep an open mind about the subject matter which may distort their reviews somewhat. Recently I received an erotic novella to look at. I had no idea about the subject matter, but a promise is a promise, and so I took a look at it for the story as opposed to the eroticism and it wasn't bad. It needed work, but it wasn't bad.
I try to keep an open mind about the story, no matter what genre or even orientation. Some reviewers don't want to read erotica or BDSM novels or F/F or M/M, and others aren't into historical romances or YA or Christian or whatever. Me, whatever comes around is fine...if it's well written for what it is (my opinion) then I'll rate it and try to be fair in doing so.
Jesse wrote: "...As a side note, if one does review, they should try to keep an open mind about the subject matter which may distort their reviews somewhat. Recently I received an erotic novella to look at. I had no idea about the subject matter, but a promise is a promise, and so I took a look at it for the story as opposed to the eroticism and it wasn't bad. It needed work, but it wasn't bad.I try to keep an open mind about the story, no matter what genre or even orientation. Some reviewers don't want to read erotica or BDSM novels or F/F or M/M, and others aren't into historical romances or YA or Christian or whatever. Me, whatever comes around is fine...if it's well written for what it is (my opinion) then I'll rate it and try to be fair in doing so. "
Jesse, I agree with this, somewhat. It's why I'm overly picky about accepting arcs to review. Though I consider myself pretty book-open. There are some themes, and subgenres that either bore, or irritate me. I think it's unfair to set the author, and myself up for a bad review based on a taste issue. Even when I don't like something, I make a point to admit, if it's just a book compatibility problem.
I have made a real effort this year to rate and review, briefly, every book that I have read. I do not do long detailed reviews just a quick paragraph or two. This is on Goodreads rather than on Amazon or anywhere else. My reviews should feed to my blog but that feature does not always seem to work. I have also mailed separately to some of the authors, if on Goodreads, additional comments and had one example of a slightly difficult discussion after one review with the author.I have not ignored errors but I have not gone mad in the review. If I enjoyed the story (my main consideration) then that is what I say, not that there was a typo on page 36 or location 33 percent has an incorrect tense.
Yes, it is important that readers know if errors are present if that will really put them off. The look inside or the browse in the book shop should tell them.
Matters of taste are just that as they are with any art form. I have read books that I don't like because of subject matter but this does not make it a bad or good book and I have surprised myself when I have enjoyed a different type of book. As long as the review is clear. I am far more likely to criticise if the plot is wayward, or formulaic.
Finally, Amazon's star ratings are supposedly different from Goodreads' stars - not that all readers use star systems or shelves in the same way.
Philip wrote: "I have made a real effort this year to rate and review, briefly, every book that I have read. I do not do long detailed reviews just a quick paragraph or two. This is on Goodreads rather than on Am..."I think sometimes as a reader who reviews everything read, unsure sometimes what writers consider a critique versus, an observation. To me it's not a critique so much to mention, "I couldn't get into this it's dystopian, and not really a fan of that theme. Maybe someone else might love this." The blurb didn't mention this book was set in a future wasteland. I thought it was a biker book. I DNF'd it, but didn't trash it. I didn't even give it the one star salute; which is my custom for anything not finished. Yet I've seen authors on threads like this, complain about reviews like that. Instead of, "you should have read the sample," maybe big things like that should be in the blurb.
Philip wrote: Finally, Amazon's star ratings are supposedly different from Goodreads' stars - not that all readers use star systems or shelves in the same way. "Amazon's stars are slightly different than Goodreads. A 3 star review on Goodreads is "I like this book" whereas on Amazon a 3 star review is "This book was ok" for example.
There is nothing wrong with it, but it is something to be aware of when you are reviewing something.
Why I like bad reviewsI, for one, like bad reviews. Why? Because they can offer more insight on a product, movie or book than the ones that praise with unbridled glory. I think many of us have heard the saying that when someone experiences good service they will relate their experience to four people, but bad service–ooh, now that revs up our ire and we tell everyone (usually 9 or more). So in light of this, why do I like the bad reviews?
Well, here's the deal. When I'm on Amazon and I'm looking to make a purchase. I first look to see how many reviews the product has. If it has a decent number I will begin to look them over. Most four and five star reviews are generally full of praise and fluff. Oh, this product worked well, it did this, or it was the most exciting read, etc. etc. etc.. And the truth is, we never know how many friends wrote those reviews in an effort to pump up the star rating? Which is why a verified purchase holds more weight.
However, looking beyond the fluff we arrive and the one, two and three star reviews. These are the dreaded reviews that tell us a product or book is not quite what it appears. Or do they? What do these lower star reviews reveal. Truthfully, they tend to be more realistic, even nasty, but all and all they get into the nitty gritty of the product, movie or book. And for you as a consumer, a reader or writer there are nuggets of gold to be mined. The first thing you can learn is that the reviewer is a blooming idiot and cannot be trusted period. Their story usually goes like this. "I didn't really try any of the recipes in this book because the I couldn't find all the ingredients so I gave it two stars." Or, "the book didn't have any pictures." Or, (and I like this one best) "I only read two chapters so I'm giving it one star."
Immediately upon reading, what I call, the excuse reviewer, you know the reviewer is a clueless blowhard who can be immediately discounted. Others however, often make a valid point and their view or warning is something you may wish to heed. They support their point of view with details and reasoning. And if what they say makes sense you are given a better chance to make an informed decision.
So, how does this work for books? I think quite well. I mean, after all, someone's bad review can tell you a lot about whether you will like a story. But more importantly as a writer, a bad review can tell you where your writing has gotten off track. Was your story confusing or missing detail? What exactly did the reviewer like or not like? These little nuances can be quite useful down the road. Remember, you cannot improve as a writer unless someone tells you what you've done wrong–and nothing tells you this more than a one or two star review.
Paul's points are well taken, but there's something else that we should all consider: inherent bias. Not one of us, not even the most so-called objective reviewer/critic, is free from bias. While it shouldn't be that way, it is. It's part of human nature and no getting around it.I read a reviewer's comments on another site and the gist of them was that this person would never review certain genres, no matter how well written the work was. They didn't care for LGBT work, Christian (now there's a dichotomy!) erotic or romance, but would consider other genres. So when I queried this person about my novel (lesfic YA--ya, really!) this person's answer was "I don't care if it's the Gone With The Wind of lesfic YA, the answer is no." (It was a rather funny answer, but it showed me that some reviewers, good or bad (and this is subjective) will always carry a bias. We all do.
And this is what a writer will have to face from time to time. Again, while it shouldn't be this way, it does happen.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Instead of, "you should have read the sample," maybe big things like that should be in the blurb."For me, that's exactly the point of the blurb (or, at least, one of its points). If the blurb is misleading, blaming the reviewer and saying "then you shouldn't have read it" is... silly, to say the least. And I've had my share of misleading blurbs, making me expect some epic story and giving me some overwhelming romance plot (for instance), which in turn, of course, dampens my reaction to the story. Including those awful "X meets Y in this blah saga blah", since half the time at least the quoted titles are irrelevant.
(Granted, it's not always the author's fault, especially in traditional publishing—at least, when self-pubbed, you can write your blurb yourself. Sometimes, you get to wonder if the people writing the blurb have actually read the novel.)
Granted, some bad reviews tell us more about the reviewer than the author. I have a one-star review on Amazon from someone who DIDN'T BUY THE BOOK because he thought the price was too high relative to the number of pages. How does one review a book one has not read?Most readers will ignore this, but that one-star rating still lowers my overall average.
Authors have always needed thick skins - it used to be rejections slips from publishers and agents. Not much you could do about them - getting sulky over it would get you precisely nowhere! Now you don't have to care what they say - the indie-publishing explosion has opened the opportunity for everyone (whether talented or not) to put their work out to the public. The downside, of course, being that direct exposure to the public can be far more caustic than a two-line "Thanks but no thanks" from a publisher.
But that's the public for you. Some reviewers will be polite and helpful, even kind. Others will be silly and spiteful. Live with it.
I always considered that a reviewer was SUPPOSED to be biased, as in "I liked it/I loathed it. And then the reviewer should explain why. What a GOOD reviewer won't do is the "I don't like it so it's no good" crap, with nothing to back it up. No, you don't like it, that's your opinion and without cogent argument its only worth is if you happen to have nearly exact likes and dislikes in common with the reviewer.
A review is useless to another reader — or anyone — without explanations.
Renee wrote: "I always considered that a reviewer was SUPPOSED to be biased, as in "I liked it/I loathed it. And then the reviewer should explain why. What a GOOD reviewer won't do is the "I don't like it so i..."
To me that's old school thinking. Professional reviews, written by professionals need to provide those things. Reviewing by readers is this punk thing, that sometimes only means something to the person that wrote it. It might be eloquent, and well thought out. It also might be, "This suxxx!" Kind of like punk rock music, the musicians might be good, or might not know how to plug in an instrument. The roughness, and unpredictability is supposed to be part of appeal. Maybe a more authentic reaction than a Publishers Weekly, or Romantic Times review.
If all the review is, is "this suxxx" or some variant thereof, it's not a review, it's an outburst, venting.Not that it shouldn't be *allowed* but it's hardly of any use to anyone but the person getting it off their chest. It's irrelevant except possibly as a source of amusement.
Renee wrote: "If all the review is, is "this suxxx" or some variant thereof, it's not a review, it's an outburst, venting.Not that it shouldn't be *allowed* but it's hardly of any use to anyone but the person ..."
Just like punk rock music being "just noise" to people not into it. That's kind of the point. That goes double on here. People use this site, and their "review space" in various ways. It's probable their notes might be gibberish to anyone but them. I know when first joining, it replaced a spreadsheet I used to track books read, owned, and anticipated. I just made little notes that would print legibly. It wasn't prose for anyone else's benefit. It was all about me, and could care less if it helped another person. "Hated it.",helped me know at a glance not to continue a series, or buy anything else from that author. Frankly it's kind of entitled, to expect other people to provide free service for you. If it happens, it's a gift, not a right.
That's my point. That isn't a "review." That's personal venting in a public arena.There's nothing wrong with it being useless to anyone else, no — there's absolutely no debt to other readers, the author, and no one should expect a review (unless you're a professional reviewer, for pay by a third party not involved in the production of the books being reviewed) from readers, but it's ludicrous and hubris to call it a review, but many who do that want to call themselves "reviewers." They aren't. They're reactors. Big difference, and no shame in having a reaction.
Actually, that's a good thing for a writer, if they made you react in any way, even if it's bad.
Regulating and restricting self-expression is a form of censorship. History has demonstrated that censorship, in any form, for any reason, often creates a slippery slope that usually causes more harm than good. Unless an activity is causing serious, irreparable harm to someone, censoring it can seldom, if ever, be justified.
Renee wrote: "That's my point. That isn't a "review." That's personal venting in a public arena.There's nothing wrong with it being useless to anyone else, no — there's absolutely no debt to other readers, the..."
My point is a lot of them don't call themselves reviewers. They are just minding their business, using this site for whatever reason that drew them here. At that point I wasn't a "reviewer" in my mind. I was tracking my reading. Other people considered my notes reviews, and labeled me as such. How many times have we seen people lose their minds over ratings without actual reviews? Labeling strangers "trolls" because they don't have the time or the inclination to add more. The people accusing them of this, conveniently forget that the new Kindles have Goodreads linked, and automatically add your stars when a book is finished. These unsuspecting people aren't calling themselves anything but readers.
Other people have no business calling them reviewers. You're right, there's no onus on ANY reader to review and if you want to use this site or any other as tracking for yourself there's nothing wrong with that and you ought to be left in peace to do your thing. There ARE some here who call themselves reviewers and most definitely are not writing reviews, some doing the "it sucked" BS, some of them even trolling the boards, starting threads to get reactions and opinions from others (while obviously not even reading the books themselves — I mean, really . . . they often don't even know the name of the main characters — and then using that to write ersatz reviews, passing it off as their own.
Thoughtful reviews should be appreciated. Someone making notes for themselves or leaving reactions for friends or members of a group read shouldn't feel obligated or feel pressured. It's not a job. It's a social network. You're supposed to be able to enjoy the time you spend on a site like this, not feel like you have to live up to someone else's expectations.
If someone's writing a review, CALL it that — and make the effort to make it a real review. If it's not a review, as long as whoever posts it doesn't try to call it one, it's only fair for that to be respected too.
Like the old song says:
Doan't ye be what you ain't,
Jes' you be what you is
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "My point is a lot of them don't call themselves reviewers. They are just minding their business, using this site for whatever reason that drew them here. At that point I wasn't a "reviewer" in my mind. I was tracking my reading. Other people considered my notes reviews, and labeled me as such."My guess is that many, perhaps the majority, of the people using this site have no idea that their "reviews" are sometimes scrutinized so closely.
There is not a way to hide your own reviews. Even having a private profile doesn't keep a review from showing up on a book's page. So people might have "reviews" that are really just some personal notes, and they can't keep it only to themselves even if they want to.
Renee wrote: "Thoughtful reviews should be appreciated. Someone making notes for themselves or leaving reactions for friends or members of a group read shouldn't feel obligated or feel pressured. It's not a job. It's a social network. You're supposed to be able to enjoy the time you spend on a site like this, not feel like you have to live up to someone else's expectations. "For the most part, reviews that provide actual detail and insight are king here. Negative, or positive in tone, both are well represented. There are very few short, badly written reviews on this site with a hundred likes. The one with that dubious honor are either inside jokes, or the butt of a collective one. Of course there are also a few funny gifs that meet that standard.
Even the instances you are giving with people trolling boards, and starting bogus threads don't represent the majority of people on Goodreads routinely writing short negative comments in their review space. Putting them in the same category is like saying guys with beards are dangerous because of the Taliban. Yes most of the guys in the Taliban have beards, but what has that got to do with Movember?
Renee wrote: "If someone's writing a review, CALL it that — and make the effort to make it a real review. If it's not a review, as long as whoever posts it doesn't try to call it one, it's only fair for that to be respected too. "
People on here, even the eloquent ones, aren't formally announcing every post as, "This is a review..." unless an ARC exchange was made. Nor would people making notes announce, "For my eyes only...", before posting anything. It just doesn't work that way. People for the most part, read, and comment on their reaction from the books devoured. Sometimes it's what you classify as thoughtful, a series of gifs, or rambled text speak. It's for the populace, peaking in on their neighbors review yard, to figure out if it means anything to them or not. Just like in real life, if it meets Home Owners Assoc. aka Goodreads Staff rules, we become bad neighbors if their lime green house is causing us to yell at them about their taste level. Unless we are friends, or in the same social circle (update feed), we are all peaking over each other fences. Luckily our neighbors are exhibitionists. That does not mean we get to hold up score cards (besides "liking" it, or not) on their free show.
The point, Alexandra, is that there ARE people out there posting non-reviews and touting them as reviews. It's kind of the same boat that Indie writers are in, there are some out there publishing poorly conceived, ill-written stuff and calling it done and it tars the ones who are putting out good stuff with the same brush.
Then the people who are happily posting their personal impressions, etc. get hit with the "that's a meaningless piece of crap, you don't give any reasons" brick.
I don't know what the solutions to either situation is, other than it would be so nice if everyone would stop and consider what someone else might have been thinking, look at it from a point of view other than their own, but we all know that's not going to happen, so I guess it's just suck it up and deal.
Renee wrote: "The point, Alexandra, is that there ARE people out there posting non-reviews and touting them as reviews. It's kind of the same boat that Indie writers are in, there are some out there publishing..."
There are accusations people posting non-reviews, and authors buying reviews, to both I say...SO. One of the side effects of being an avid reader is developing decent reading comprehension skills. Don't you think the average reader can separate the wheat from the chaff? Despite the Koolaid some writers are drinking, the reality is reviews, and ratings in themselves don't make or break careers. There are tons of books on this site with 4 and 5 star averages, that haven't translated into any real revenue for those writers. At the same time
, and
don't technically have 4 stars but those writers' grandkids will never have to work because of their financial success. Popular book blogs, Goodreads Group consensus, trusted friend recommendations, and controversy sell books. Getting all your cousins to give you 5 stars, and people writing "jelouz" reviews, both strategies have very little affect on actual sales. Now if a foolish writer starts engaging negatively with "bad "reviewers", thus getting the attention of the Goodreads Hive mind, then lord help you. One voice is dust in the wind here, but when the hive connects...it's can be a beautiful, or scary thing.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "...Don't you think the average reader can separate the wheat from the chaff? ..."Sadly, the wild success of two series you've cited cast doubt on that ;-)
And you are SO right about the Koolaid and it's an apt expression.
All writers — Indies and Contracts — need to realize that even if you do everything right getting your story from your head to print and do the perfect promotion there's still a fair amount of purest luck involved in whether it's a commercial success. Best thing to do is not stalk reviews and get back to work. And definitely do NOT EVER publicly kvetch about reviews or call someone out. Whining's never good for sales.
Gosh, the comments! I have been a reviewer for more than 10 years and spend literally hours on a review. I try to be thorough for each one but this year I seem to be getting a lot of self-published books that are so very difficult to review. I sometimes wonder if a bad review is better than no review - some reviewers 'vote' (review) with their feet - they won't write a bad review so they tend not to write reviews on books they don't like.The purpose of a review to to sell books, especially if the author or publisher sent the book.
If I don't like the book, I merely summarize it and some authors think that is a super review!
I also review only in my genre (dog memoirs and training/behavior books) though I am venturing into children's books and animal books and even some best sellers.
If an author or publisher sent you the book specifically to have it reviewed, then it's on them. You write the truth. It doesn't have to be vicious but the cliche is too often true, "the truth hurts." Ethics are just as important for a reviewer as they are for a writer. You sound like you stick to that, Skye.
If I write a review, I'm writing it purely as a reader, because I want to share the work of an author I loved, or perhaps give fair warning about something I loathed. Sometimes I'm curious to see if maybe someone will leave a comment that might illuminate something I missed in the book that could be the key to enjoying it.
My compliments and respects to anyone who does serious, competent reviews on a consistent basis. It's not easy, and it's largely thankless. Maybe that's what frosts me so much about the ones like I cited earlier, the regurgitators. I know effort and care and time go into a real review and it pisses me off when someone tries to pull crap like that.
Renee wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "...Don't you think the average reader can separate the wheat from the chaff? ..."Sadly, the wild success of two series you've cited cast do..."
Renee that's why controversy plays a part. People bought and read those books, knowing they'd hate them, just to make informed rants. LOL Funny thing is, a lot of those "bad", one star reviews helped contribute to their success.
Sometimes those funny, break-everything-down-to-the-lowest-denominator reviews that writers hate, sell books too. I personally participated in goofy group buddy read of dino-erotica because of hilarious review on this site. Imagine a 1 star review got 18 people to pay $2.99 for 18 page book, to make fun of it. If the writer was smart, she didn't care about our low stars. I wouldn't have read that on my own, but it was group thing. Crazy hive mind at work. LOL
By the way I gave the dino book 3 stars because knew what to expect going in...
That makes sense, Alexandria.You sound like you go into it similarly to the way I do. Three stars, for me, says the book accomplished what I thought it set out to do, a sort of baseline of competency.
Renee wrote: "That makes sense, Alexandria.You sound like you go into it similarly to the way I do. Three stars, for me, says the book accomplished what I thought it set out to do, a sort of baseline of compet..."
Renee, that's exactly how I rate. I can be star stingy, but go into everything expecting at least a 3. Hoping for more, but the blurb and cover usually has me expecting to at least "like it". I have no problem going lower because my read list is an honest account of my reading journey of the past three years.
That's what Goodreads added to my book life. I love jumping on friends shared books, and starting comment threads. Sometimes being a reader is such an insular thing. After every book, it feels like you took a trip, that no one around you is that interested in your photos, or anecdotes. This place introduces you to the other visitors of that spot. That are also happy to finally have another person who knows about it, ready to relive the highs and lows of the experience.
Jesse - What's the title of your book? I would like to check it out.
Skye wrote: "I sometimes wonder if a bad review is better than no review - some reviewers 'vote' (review) with their feet - they won't write a bad review so they tend not to write reviews on books they don't like.The purpose of a review to to sell books, especially if the author or publisher sent the book.
If I don't like the book, I merely summarize it and some authors think that is a super review!"
Skye that's a good question, especially if you're trying specifically to help a writer sell a book. I've mentioned that sometimes a bad review has sold me a book,or two. Great reviews alone from strangers have earned my "likes", but rarely move me to purchase anything. This is when the Compare Books feature helps. Yet if they rated tons a stuff high, that I hated, the review isn't enough to make me take the chance.
At the same time, you don't want to hurt the author's feelings either...Do you ever tell the author your issues with the book even if you post the "nice" review?
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Twilight (other topics)Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
The Governess (other topics)
Juror 1389: Dorsie Raines Renninger (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
John R. Patin (other topics)Noorilhuda (other topics)
It's all balderdash, it is what it is, just people!
The part in your post I found arrogant was the "here we go again ............" Criticising authors for criticising reviewers for criticising authors and so it tediously goes on and on. I see now, you don't recognise tongue in cheek comment, irony, possibly because it does not comply with you national norm, and, as this is a predominantly American site I shall, in future keep this in check"
As an American, the irony of an Australian criticizing a Canadian for acting too American is not lost on me.
Actually maybe it is.
I think this topic is contentious enough without bringing nationality into it.