How would you improve the rating system?

[Kyion]

D.A.misses Linda (the now banned fivver and sockpuppet slayer) wrote: "Kyion wrote: "Anyway, I'm not sure how this turned into a debate instead of a thread about how to improve the reviewing system. ..."

Sorry for my part in derailing. It's just that until recently ..."

Thank you so much for this detailed post. When I commented, THIS is the type of discussion I thought I was going to get. The way it turned out threw me for a loop.

A bit more on fanfiction, some of the authors with thousands of reviews in their fandom are nuts, before they even get published. Early in my undergrad years, I remember one writer accepting donations to quit her job in order to write fanfiction full time. Guess what? She was able to do it! Another considered anything under five stars as a flame, and had the mods remove them. It was nuts. Of course, some of those BNF (Big name fans as we used to call them) decided to publish, and I'm sure they brought their antics with them.

As it is, the review system works, or we wouldn't be using this site. However, if anyone has a way to see it painlessly improved, I'd be all for it.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Kyion wrote: "...I would be on board with the 1/2 stars or letter grades. ..."

Official word on that is that staff won't even discuss anymore. See http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4... and https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Kyion]

D.A.misses Linda (the now banned fivver and sockpuppet slayer) wrote: "Kyion wrote: "...I would be on board with the 1/2 stars or letter grades. ..."

Official word on that is that staff won't even discuss anymore. See http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...-..."

Thank you!

In that case, this thread has no purpose. It seems it was decided nearly five years ago that 1/2 stars wouldn't be happening, so discussing it now is a waste of time. I guess if people want to continue to debate just for argument's sake they're free to do so, but I'm off to do other things.

Thanks again!

[Paganalexandria]

Rita wrote: "I would like to see it mandatory to provide a short review if you are giving a star review; then you would know that the person had actually read it."

Rita please realize that the Kindle Paperwhite star ratings are the only thing linked to Goodreads at the end of the book. You have to exit out of a book, go online, and sometimes using a separate device to actually write a review. This star rating, sans written review, via your device has been available on Amazon for years, by the way. There are tons of people who never do anything on the Goodreads site proper, but rate without reviews because it's a new feature on their tech. I don't think they should be forced to change their reading experience to accommodate anyone else's book rules.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I'm not sure what information new authors get when joining goodreads. I think FAQs are needed for new members, particularly authors who have a commercial stake in not accidentally discouraging or offending readers.

Many of the interactions I've had or read with new-to-goodreads-authors lead me to believe most are very used to Amazon.com (plus other booksites) and having product pages there where they can even edit bookcovers and easily bury or get reviews removed. Many bookseller sites require a review to rate; some even a minimum number of words or even a particular format to the review. That's not how it's done on goodreads and most reviewers have a sore spot about being told how it should change (except half stars; many do want that even though officially ruled out).

I believe authors are advised not to comment on their book's reviews; maybe goodreads should go further and give them an FAQ type of thing noting other common issues that differ from Amazon or irritate potential readers who might review or otherwise aid in book discoverability. Like trying to require a review in order to use the star ratings, requiring a reader to only use the stars to rate a book versus to catalog or vandalizing the goodreads database and reader book catalogs by attempting to overwrite/delete the book cover on book data pages instead of adding the database standard alternate cover edition (just because the bookseller sites only want the product page to show what is currently for sale doesn't mean goodreads database, librarians or readers/reviewers want older editions removed because no longer available; there are way more out of print than in print books here and goodreads keeps all data).

The librarians group has a good start to some author FAQs in regards to the book data here on goodreads; I'm not sure if newbies are even told about librarians, review guidelines, flagging or the three "official" groups. Or even what groups are. Or to flag if contains a spoiler rather than getting into it with a reviewer.

FAQs for new authors and new members that explain a bit more about ratings and reviews on goodreads would be helpful. Particulalry authors should know they have no product pages and instead here is a book database with standards laid out in the librarain manual; I was here more than a year before I knew there were author guidelines and review guidelines. (Since then, thankfully, those guidelines have at least been added to top of opening help screen.)

I almost think there needs to be a guide/FAQ specifically for authors used to how Amazon.com (bookseller) works explaining how it is different here on goodreads (non-commercial use of social, reviewing, discussing and cataloging books by readers). Point one being review guidelines are not the same and trying to control the review process is potentially offensive to readers here who might rate/review/discuss your commercial product. TOS prohibits personal attacks on authors or any other members; however, even a non-book promotional rating/review of a commercial product (including if of an author's writing skills) is not a personal attack—if review does actually include a personal attack on anyone it should be flagged as such so staff can handle rather than starting drama with the reviewer. Most complaints/ questions about ratings or reviews are probably best handled by staff rather than arguing with the reviewer. (Even a reviewless rating or to you insufficiently justified/ formatted/ styled/ word-count/ pre-publish/ unfinished/ unread review stuff).

Goodreads is slim pickings for how-to's and FAQs for any number of features including ratings/reviews.

[Alp]

Personally, when I am assigning a rating, it is for the benefit of both readers and writer - and depending on the rating, often the accompanying review becomes a conversation with the writer (albeit one sided) - we all crave the feedback; let's make the system work as well as it can for everyone who has a stake in it - why is that so difficult?

I've heard plenty of readers say that they wish the rating system had at least 6, 7 or even 10 stars because 5 is too limiting - I agree. To me that would be the same as a 5 star system with half stars.

Personally, I love ratings - good or bad - because it is evidence of that all important 'engagement' with the reader, and personally, I want to know what the reader thinks - I do not write in a vacuum.

If you think that ratings are for the benefit of the reader alone, take a long hard look at the person in the mirror and tell me truthfully, that you don't care about your ratings because they were not for you (except of course when you get a bad one).

This thread has probably run it's course as the de-railers have done it again and turned what should have been a constructive discussion on how to improve a fundamental tool in the box into a slanging match and for no good reason.

Thank you to everyone who contributed constructively to the thread.

[Christine PNW]

Alp wrote: "Personally, when I am assigning a rating, it is for the benefit of both readers and writer - and depending on the rating, often the accompanying review becomes a conversation with the writer (albei..."

There was never anything constructive about this discussion. It was a navel-gazing exercise in "how can I make readers review the way I want them to so that I benefit," which is all it ever is when authors start authorsplaining to reviewers how reviewing is supposed to work (for the authors).

This discussion is endlessly repetitive, and has been had and done hundreds of times on Goodreads alone, leaving aside the discussions on blogs, on twitter, and other locations on the internet. Somewhere, right now, an author who just got an unsatisfactory review has a post forming in his/her brain that will bring up the same points.

Goodreads has repeatedly rejected your demands/requests. If you simply wanted to have a wishful thinking discussion about all the ways that reviewers fail to care enough about authors, knock yourself out. I won't get in your way. Just know that it will go nowhere, because Goodreads has repeated rejected your demands/requests.

[Christine]

Alp wrote: "This thread has probably run it's course as the de-railers have done it again and turned what should have been a constructive discussion on how to improve a fundamental tool in the box into a slanging match and for no good reason...."

Those de-railers were readers - you remember them. They make up your target market - your customers - your audience. There was no "slanging match". Readers explained how reviews work.

Facts/guidelines that have been questioned by new authors in numerous discussions. Explanations that have been repeated time and time again. It seems every time a new author looks at reviews - they want to change things to accommodate themselves and we have to explain how it all works again.

I was always under the impression a thread involved open discussion. Obviously you feel READERS were not "constructive" enough for YOUR thread. You have no control over how readers comment in a discussion.

I believe it's a really bad idea for authors to alienate and insult readers - just my opinion.

[Mike]

Alp wrote: "Personally, when I am assigning a rating, it is for the benefit of both readers and writer - and depending on the rating, often the accompanying review becomes a conversation with the writer (albei..."

No comment on most of the thread, but I do feel the five-star rating system could be looked at again - half-stars or ten points, maybe.
As to how one should write a review, and what we feel its purpose is, I guess every reviewer has to decide their own approach.

[T.R.]

Auntie J wrote: "Rita wrote: "I would like to see it mandatory to provide a short review if you are giving a star review; then you would know that the person had actually read it."

GR does not require anyone to re..."

I am shocked to learn, from what you have said, that there is no requirement for the book to have been read before a review may be given. Makes absolutely no sense.

[Jack]

I found a partial solution, although I wasn't aware of this issue when I did.
I assign a grade in the review title, just as I did when I was a teacher. I go with the star ratings, but that title might say "A Minus; Recommended" as opposed to a book that's a little better than four stars, which might get a "B plus; Recommended."
For books that really are that good, I'll give them "A Plus; Strongly Recommended" ratings and 5 stars.
In the body of the rating, I'll explain what I found superior or lacking; plot's weak, language issues (typos, clumsy wording, punctuation issues, whatever; I'll also mention whether the issues were severe enough to detract from the reading experience or whether they were easily overlooked.
A good book, in my opinion as a reviewer, has a strong plot, well-drawn characters who act in believable ways, and who are driven by understandable motives. Language is important, but it falls behind those other concerns. Still, it should be mentioned; it might just cause the author to go back and revise his work, then republish. As an illustration, a well written book that has a weak plot is unlikely to get more than a 3 star rating from me, and if the characters are not interesting, I'm likely to abandon the book and read something more interesting. I don't usually review books like this.
I would be happy to see my own writing subjected to a similar review system.

[T.R.]

Christine wrote: "T. wrote: "I think to say readers review for other readers is overall a fair perspective. Nevertheless, they are still useful to authors..."

Obviously you, like many self-published authors, are q..."

I may well be naive Christine but I think you may have perhaps misunderstood me. First I should mention I only joined this group when publishing my newest books. However, I have been a member of Goodreads and various groups for some time (under a different identity)and therefore do have a fair idea of what goes on.

I agree with you totally in that it is inappropriate for an author to demand a review. I have never done so. Nevertheless, there a number of people who add their names to lists of readers who like to review and positively request authors contact them if they would like a review. There are clear statements that a review is not guaranteed and it is on this basis authors are invited to submit their books. And of course, I would never consider interfering with the subsequent review. All I look for is honesty. If a review is given and it contains negative elements and a low rating I am not offended. From my prsosnal perspective I see this, although the review is for other readers, as a means for me to learn. Bear in mind I am also a reader and consequently reviews are also informative for me from that opposite perspective.

There are a lot of issues (and misapprehensions)surrounding this whole subject, which I am sure are discussed in length here and elsewhere.

As most have stated, it is entirely up to the reader whether they review a book or not; there is no obligation. But it is nice and helpful to everyone if they do.

[T.R.]

Alp wrote: "I just wondered if you had any ideas about how you would improve the rating system to give authors (like what we is) more helpful feedback.

But is to know how much a reader liked a book enough? Gr..."

We need to bear in mind reading is a very subjective experience. Everyone is unique and different. What one person may enjoy another may hate. Besides trying to get a better rating system we must accept what the reader 'acutely' says. After all it is their personal opinion. And in all truth that is what we should be looking for.

[T.R.]

D.A.misses Linda (the now banned fivver and sockpuppet slayer) wrote: "Kyion wrote: "Anyway, I'm not sure how this turned into a debate instead of a thread about how to improve the reviewing system. ..."

Sorry for my part in derailing. It's just that until recently ..."

Just wished to say I concur.

[Tamara]

Hello all! I'm an author who ghosts some of of the Boards in order to learn more... I just want to add: we all need each other!

When I mark stars for a book I've read, I do my best to make it an indication of the overall picture, not only the technical expertise (or the lack of), but how the book impacted me.

So if I was left lacking after finishing it, that was reflected in my scoring. (I've posted on Amazon.)

'What is food for some is poison for another', and so it's impossible to write something meaningful for everyone... Even though we may try to or think it will in our secret heart of hearts!

I try to write constructively, knowing authors can be sensitive, since we pour our hearts into a piece!

I've only received one not so positive remark for an article on LinkedIn, and other readers jumped in to give me support and even to private message me to let me know I shouldn't take it personally!

So thank you to all the readers who are supportive and write to us as though we were seated talking with each other!

[Paul]

Maybe what I'm about to say is fraught with unwanted complications however, I wouldn't mind seeing a double rating system. IE) One for ease of reading and enjoyment, and another for correctness of style subject to the book type and genre. It would also be helpful if the person submitting a rating indicated if the genre is his/her usual type or style of book they normally read. The inference of bias could then be extrapolated . . . well to some extent, anyway.

[Jack]

A form of 'rating' that dislike immensely is the 'return'. Of 142 sales this month of my best-selling book, there have been 4 returns. Why? An author is left wondering, no feedback. No negative reviews. If it was so bad, the least a buyer could do is say why, don't you think?
Of interest also is that both other books in this trilogy ALSO had returns, 1 each.
I know that a few game the system, read anything they want, return it, hence read free. On a discussion group, I've read such comments from a few who feel entitled to 'shoplift' in essence because no one is policing their behavior. So far as I know, Amazon doesn't track this. I wish they'd ask for a reason before they returned a book. I know that stores that deal in music CD's and software have to refuse returns except for replacement of a disk in kind, not an exchange for a different product. They've had the problem too.
But they're out there, the gamers. Seems like the more books you sell, the more of these you attract.

[Michelle]

Shari wrote: "Speaking as a reader and not an author: I don't have to read a whole book to know it's not for me, it sucks, etc. I have DNFd three or four bestselling books in the past six months.

Quite frankly..."

I also am comfortable rating a book that I have begun to read and have realized after a fair number of pages is not worth finishing. But why rate a book you haven't read because it doesn't look good? Someone did that to me because he decided, simply based on genre, that it wasn't his type of book - without even opening it. To me that seems mean-spirited, to say nothing of being less than useful.

[Christa]

Jack wrote: "So far as I know, Amazon doesn't track this. I wish they'd ask for a reason before they returned a book."

First of all, a return is not a rating, and there's already a thread about returns you may be interested in reading. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Amazon definitely tracks this, and they do ask for a reason when requesting a return. At least, they did when I returned ebooks. (In one case, it was because the info on the store page didn't match the book; in another, it was because the author had changed the title and it turned out I already owned the book under the old title.) They just don't share this with the author unless they've been getting returns due to technical issues with the book (doesn't display properly, chapter missing, etc).

After enough potentially-fraudulent returns, a customer can find their ability to use Amazon to be heavily restricted. A few years ago, there were a rash of news stories about people who lost access to their Amazon account "for no reason" - in pretty much every case, it was later discovered that they were "serial returners". One guy was buying and returning expensive TVs during high-profile sports events.

[Christine PNW]

Michelle wrote: "Someone did that to me because he decided, simply based on genre, that it wasn't his type of book - without even opening it. To me that seems mean-spirited, to say nothing of being less than useful..."

Michelle, it is potentially useful to him, which is entirely the point.

Maybe the recommendations engine kept recommending your book to him, and he thought it didn't look good, so he rated it one star to make it stop. Maybe he doesn't want that genre included in his recommendations at all, so he rates books in that genre one star when he happens upon them to ensure that they don't get recommended to him.

The point is that a rating doesn't have to be useful to anyone but the rater in order for it to be permissible. This isn't YOUR goodreads, any more than it is MY goodreads. Goodreads belongs to all users, all comers, and however they want to shelve, rate, review or none of the above to personalize goodreads to make it useful for them has nothing to do with you. You don't get to impose your wishes on other people.

Again, before contributing further nonsense to this thread, I recommend that everyone do some digging. This topic has been beaten to death, ground into dog food, been consumed by a Great Dane somewhere, and is lying on a sidewalk as a pile of dog shit. All of these points have been made, answered, and discarded.

You can continue to engage in an unproductive authorsplaining circle jerk, where you commiserate wildly about how you would improve the system to benefit your ability to sell books, but doing so only demonstrates that you are all missing the point entirely.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Michelle wrote: "...But why rate a book you haven't read because it doesn't look good?..."

Another reason I wish goodreaders had an option to include or exclude their star rating from the average rating because not everyone is or has to use the same. That would improve the ratings systems for me.

Offhand, I know people who rate unread and DNF books for several reasons: to remove it and similar books from recommendations, to not waste time next time back on book page checking the book details out, ditto for books on an author page you decided never to or never again to read (there is one author whose books and bookcovers always appeal to me but I never can get into the story so I mark to avoid -- in my case I just shelve as "not for me" without rating but I know those who star rate to avoid), to indicate how interested in reading the book ... goodreads allows members a great deal of leeway in cataloging books and in how ratings are used.

That pre-supposes the Stars are being assigned by the reader as a rating rather than some meaning to them or their book catalog or a fat-fingered cell-phone punch.

I do suspect that most members here do star as a rating of their reading experience (althiugh not necessarily by the same scale). But, they do not have to and some do not.

[Arthur]

?????