Amazon's Best science fiction and fantasy of 2020

[Oleksandr]

Just another list of 2020 releases
https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=blogs_om...

It surprised me how different are Amazon's reviewers, GR reviewers/voters (see GR awards) despite being owned by the same business and even greater removal of them from Hugo voters. Say The City We Became is 1,266 ratings on Amazon, and I guess it is very likely to end up in Hugo ballot 2021, while Battle Ground that has low chances to be nominated is 8,504

[Kalin]

I don't think I'd trust Amazon ratings as indicative of what people are reading. Especially considering how much manipulation of Amazon listings takes place these days.

Battle Ground # of ratings on GR: 14,506
The City We Became # of ratings on GR: 20,148

[Eva]

Yes, the majority of readers are not the kind who vote on awards, nor do they use Goodreads. I think we're a pretty specialized bubble of "people who like to read socially instead of whatever they like on their own". In Germany, Battle Ground got 10k 5-star ratings! I think I should really give the series another shot, I had initially DNFed it after book 2, but have heard it gets MUCH better.

Another difference is that most bloggers and magazine reviewers don't post on Amazon, but stick to Goodreads. Same with young people: YA books will generally have tons and tons of reviews on GR, whereas most older readers don't review their reads, or at most leave a rating on Amazon to improve their recommendations. Just different demographics.

[Kristenelle]

To be fair, I see a lot of the same books on both lists. And I’m convinced that goodreads awards are a marketing game of some kind with publishers.

[Gabi]

When I see those lists I get the feeling that I've read all the wrong 2020 releases ^^'. Next year I perhaps wait till the nominations are out and then start reading.

[Oleksandr]

Gabi wrote: "When I see those lists I get the feeling that I've read all the wrong 2020 releases ^^'. Next year I perhaps wait till the nominations are out and then start reading."

Or maybe those lists are wrong. I tried to Google a similar list from Amazon from 2019, but found none

Kristenelle wrote: "To be fair, I see a lot of the same books on both lists. And I’m convinced that goodreads awards are a marketing game of some kind with publishers."

I go more with milder "influence is present", than "they game the system" somehow in line with say recent POTUS elections. I may be naïve, but I think genuine popularity still counts.

[Kristenelle]

Oleksandr wrote: "I go more with milder "influence is present", than "they game the system" somehow in line with say recent POTUS elections. I may be naïve, but I think genuine popularity still counts.."

I hope you are right, but I find it pretty suspicious that they include books that haven't even been released and the way they time it is weird. They shouldn't start the voting until after the period that is being voted on ends. If I were designing the system I would not start the voting until at least a month after the period being voted on so that people have a chance to actually read the books.

[Oleksandr]

Kristenelle wrote: "I find it pretty suspicious that they include books that haven't even been released and the way they time it is weird"

I agree that letting unpublished works enter the competition is wrong, even if they got some "true" ratings from ARC readers, still the majority is from fans and their hopes about the book (see The Winds of Winter as an example)

[Kateblue]

Yes, the ones I voted for because I had actually read them. The Jemison book and Murderbot. If other voters are like me, the GR awards will mostly choose the books that have been out the longest. So I agree that the 2020 GR awards should have started in 2021 and then allow for a generous reading period (months) after the first list is released.