It appears the rating for my book is being targeted by low rater trolls

[Jim]

A rating or review reflects the personal, and therefore subjective opinion of the person posting it. Therefore, some may post a 1-star rating while others post a 5-star rating for the same exact book. They are under no obligation to provide an explanation. For this very reason, astute readers seldom allow a rating or review to be a determining factor in their choice of which books to purchase.

What a boring world this would be if everyone thought the same and shared the exact same preferences and beliefs. For the record, a quick view of my Goodreads profile reveals that I have posted 142 ratings and included a detailed review along with each one. I choose to always include a review with each rating; however others may choose not to.

"Be who your are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
Bernard Baruch (Financier/Statesman/Author) 1870 - 1965

[Tilly]

Ross wrote: "if you were a reader and you saw a bunch of blank ratings of 1-star on an author's books, what would you think?"

Personally I ignore them - along with the blank 5-stars.

I tend to make a buy decision based on cover, blurb and if a friend has recommended it. I only look at reviews if I can't decide whether to buy or not and if that is the case, I read the 3-stars and ignore everything either side of them.

I'm confused as to why there are authors in this thread demanding that readers provide them with feedback about their writing. Why are you not using critique partners and editors to get the feedback you are seeking?

It is eye opening to see the authors demanding that reviews and feedback must accompany critical ratings (1 and 2 stars) but apparently it's absolutely fine to have blank 4 and 5 star ratings.

[Christine PNW]

People on this thread may not know this, but this conflict has been raging on Goodreads for over a decade, and has resulted in generalized craziness, stalking, and at least one reviewer being hit over the head with a wine bottle.

There are millions of GR users and there are millions of ways that they use GR. Many people use it exclusively to track their own reading - when they "rate" a book, it's just their way of reminding themselves how they felt about it. They are not obliged to consider the author's fee-fees when they do this.

Look at the rating scale for proof:

1 star - did not like it
2 star - it was ok
3 star - liked it
4 star - loved it
5 star - it was amazing

Those ratings say nothing about the quality of the book - they are exclusively related to the subjective experience of the people reading the book. A person who "did not like" a book isn't required to support their failure to like something with a bullet pointed review providing evidentiary support for their dislike.

Heck, people hate To Kill a Mockingbird, which is demonstrably one of the finest books ever written. I despise everything I've ever read by F. Scott Fitzgerald, including, but not limited to The Great Gatsby because rich people problems don't interest me at all, not even when the people are dressed in great clothes and lived in the roaring 20's. This is subjective, and I don't need to support my opinion.

The fact that an author experiences, potentially, some commercial repercussions as a result of a subjective rating does not give rise to an obligation by an individual using GR for exclusively non-commercial purposes to consider those commercial repercussions.

Also, Daniel, you've published your book. Readers are not obliged to edit your book for free post-publication. Don't ask them to contact you and tell you how to improve your work. That needs to happen before publication, during the beta-reading and editing process, not after.

It's called Goodreads, not Goodsales or Goodwrites.

[Wmba]

Jim wrote: "It is difficult enough for competent, highly skilled novice authors to achieve commercial success within this extremely competitive field without having amateur writers who have not taken the time ..."

Huh? Sure looks like a fact to me. Reviews are for other potential readers not the author. You want feedback then hire and editor or cheap out with a beta reader.

[Wmba]

Jessica wrote: "Daniel wrote: "C.C. wrote: "1. Ratings and reviews are posted by readers for other readers, not the author.

Please stop regurgitating this subjective opinion as 'fact'. Conversing with a friend, f..."

Ratings are not reviews. Reviews are text feedback.

[Wmba]

Ross wrote: "Wilbur wrote: "ALL REVIEWS

I repeat ALL REVIEWs should be accompanied by text whenever it is allowed by the website you are using.

A review without explanation is like a (sic) tone deaf person cr..."

Not quite. I read the one star reviews to see if they are meaningful. Some are garbage. Some are useful and tell why the reviewer did not like the book. Then I can decide based on that information.

[Wmba]

Tilly wrote: "Ross wrote: "if you were a reader and you saw a bunch of blank ratings of 1-star on an author's books, what would you think?"

Personally I ignore them - along with the blank 5-stars.

I tend to m..."


+1

[Wmba]

Christine PNW wrote: "People on this thread may not know this, but this conflict has been raging on Goodreads for over a decade, and has resulted in generalized craziness, stalking, and at least one reviewer being hit o..."

+1

[Stefani]

Ross wrote: "Wilbur wrote: "Not to necro-bump this thread or anything, but if you were a reader and you saw a bunch of blank ratings of 1-star on an author's books, what would you think? Would you be more or less willing to buy and read his or her books? Why?"

It depends on what I'm looking for. Random star ratings with no context really mean nothing to me, whether they are 1 star or 5 star. If I am looking at reviews for something because I'm interested in it, then I'm going to look at ones that include text. From there I may or may not take their opinion into consideration.

But I can say that reviews (positive or negative) have never put me off reading a book that I was genuinely excited about, nor made me decide to read a book that I knew I was not interested in.

Honestly, I usually look at reviews when I'm not enjoying something and want to see if it's just me or if other people had the same problems I'm having.

[Christine PNW]

Stefani wrote: "Honestly, I usually look at reviews when I'm not enjoying something and want to see if it's just me or if other people had the same problems I'm having.."

Same.

I also look at reviews after I've finished a book, and see how my friends reacted to it, and how that was the same - or different - from my reaction.

Community reviews and ratings play very little part in my book selection process, since I have long since reached PLEPLE (Personal Library Exceeds Probable Life Expectancy) - not that I am ever dissuaded from buying a book I really want. Also, much of the time that I read a stranger's review I can tell that I have absolutely nothing in common with them, and that their review will be entirely unhelpful to me.

[Daniel]

Christine PNW wrote: "People on this thread may not know this, but this conflict has been raging on Goodreads for over a decade, and has resulted in generalized craziness, stalking, and at least one reviewer being hit o..."

Where did I say they need to edit my book? I have said nothing of the sort. This entire discussion was created based on the rating behavior and history of said accounts because their history appeared questionable.