THE Group for Authors! discussion
General Discussion
>
Goodreads Giveaways Algorithm
John wrote: "Well, that neatly explains why my novel has sold exactly zero copies despite being on the "to-read" shelf of 200-some GR members as the result of a giveaway.This is all very discouraging. "
Sorry :(
Paul wrote: "Auntie J wrote: "Paul wrote: "Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on th..."Um, no, I didn't miss the point. I was explaining that, contrary to your statement, entering a giveaway DOES add a book to the entrant's "to read" shelf, unless they make the effort to deselect the default selection to do so.
Unchecking it actually DOESN'T strongly indicate lack of interest. It indicates the person doesn't want it listed on their "to read" shelf at that time. There are a variety of reasons for that. Since entering the contest strongly indicates interest, at least if the person wins, you are again merely making assumptions.
I don't use the "to-read" shelf. There are exactly ZERO books on my "to-read" shelf.
Books I plan to read are on custom named shelves.
Others may simply choose to not add the book unless they win the book, or as I do, use a different shelf.
John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members were writing peer reviews instead of consumer product opinions based on our reading experience. Even if non-fiction reviews were required to be from qualified persons, how on earth would goodreads go about vetting the qualifications of potential reviewers? Scammers who enter such giveaways with bad intentions (or even sockpuppet accounts) will not balk at anything including dummying up qualifying shelves and reviews. Nothing currently in reader profiles or asked when signing up for goodreads membership provides goodreads a handle on their qualifications.
Frankly, if you had to be "qualified" in any way (other than proving you are a person not a robot/auto-script) in order to review here—I think you just steered away from customer reviews into more of a professional review territory. Might push the "no commercial use" and no professional reviews policies of goodreads. That many authors would use as an opening to flag unwanted reviews for being by unqualified readers (I know it's not exactly what you are saying but even for nonfiction many reviewers are tired of hearing how they "read it wrong " "can't/must justify their review" "had no business reading my book" "how dare you read in that genre" ... ).
You get to "qualify" your readers only if not publishing (where just anyone can buy your book and review on any consumer review site with acceptable to them TOS) . In academia and non-consumer sites hosting peer reviews, well, those sites have their own guidelines.
I like exploring lots of different books myself (although I have my favorite genres and some almost required reading for my profession and professional certifications). I see nothing wrong with that or why I shouldn't review books I read or attempted to. Or why I cannot try something because a business acquaintance said they found it very helpful or something not usually to my taste because a friend really enjoyed. Or because I deliberately wanted something different to read. Or was in the mood to learn something new. I consider many business, marketing and technical books as worth my while to read if even one paragraph, one technique, or one idea/concept was of use—even in books $50+. Again, I am the customer and I feel justified in reviewing anything I read on any consumer review site—restricted only by site TOS. I would never presume unasked to post in with peer, expert, paid or professional reviews (nor consider myself qualified to do so unless invited by the author, the publication or the organization hosting).
goodreads reviews are supposed to be from customers, from consumers, from readers ... not from peer, expert, qualified, or professional reviewers.
John wrote: "Paul wrote: "This practice in relation to non-fiction that offers (as I've defined it above) "practice-specific expertise" is not just bad form or bad manners but really borders on dishonesty. It's not that such a reader can't or should not read the book, but that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public."If this is the case, then I think that the real, irreducible problem is that this hypothetical book is utterly unsuitable for a goodreads giveaway. If your market is so narrow and specialized, you should not being trying to market your book on a website full of readers that are neither narrow or specialized. And unless the author is, in fact, a f**king idiot, they should be able to figure that out on their own.
So, yeah, don't put your string physics textbook that is really only suited to readers who are getting their Ph.D. in theoretical physics up for a GR giveaway. And if you do, and a bunch of people who like historical romance request it for reasons of their own, don't complain about the "unqualified reviwers" who are going to be winning, but probably neither understanding nor reading your book.
John wrote: "Well, that neatly explains why my novel has sold exactly zero copies despite being on the "to-read" shelf of 200-some GR members as the result of a giveaway.This is all very discouraging.
..."
Sometimes the number of books on a person's to-read list gives a better picture of how real their intent "to read" is (or how many lifetimes they'd need to make inroads into their to-read shelf).
When new to goodreads, I unfriended one chick who did nothing on goodreads but post to the feed that they added a book to their to-read every few minutes. Nothing shelved otherwise, no reviews, no ratings, no group activities, no status updates or comments on anything, lots of friending ... I almost reported as something odd like a robot entering every giveaway except the to-read books weren't usually in giveaways nor seemed to have a pattern that might indicate a publisher schill or circle jerk participant. It was weird to me that they bothered friending people.
I have other friends that hit the UGB because it always works dependably and quickly (particulalry in the goodreads apps or on smaller screen devices). They use the to-read shelf UGB sends it to as a placeholder until they put book on shelf really wanted. For some of them a habit that has grown to be a convenience (started when the UGB was introduced and completely fried shelving for a few weeks or made shelving work undependably from anywhere but the "My Shelves" menu; bugs and performance issues since resolved. Other shelf names are now the real to-read and they still prefer to quickly click UGB then reorganize books later).
Goodreads does love their x users added to their to-read shelf stats. Now if Paul and other authors want to complain that goodreads over-emphasizes shelving a book "to read" (as if that means Wishlist or intent to read) while many members use it to mean "have bought not yet read," because didn't see the checbox in giveaways, or because the UGB the quickest/easiest thing to click (short of accidentally rating a book) on most devices...that I'll agree with right up to the point someone claims they were promised it meant they'd get reviews and that their book would be read.
D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "Well, that neatly explains why my novel has sold exactly zero copies despite being on the "to-read" shelf of 200-some GR members as the result of a giveaway.This is all very discoura..."
I, on the other hand, read between 150 and 200 books a year and put almost nothing on my to-read shelf (there are 3 books there right now, I honestly have no idea how they got there). I manage my books in another location.
D.A. wrote: "Goodreads does love their x users added to their to-read shelf stats."Just one of the reasons I've chosen to never use that shelf ;)
D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members were writing peer reviews instead of consumer product..."
The result of NOT doing this will be fewer book giveaways. I've been scanning other forums and seeing many authors who feel burned by this process and reducing their giveaway numbers to 1 or 2 to get visibility only, or none because they feel cheated by the system.
If you want a functioning exchange, both sides need to benefit. Right now, the largest beneficiaries of how Goodreads runs this program are scammers.
No one is looking for perfection, and accordingly your absolute "only if" and the notion that picking from categories of books that readers actually read makes this a professional endeavor is crazy. It simply makes the process more rational, and more likely to benefit both sides. We're talking probability, not guarantees.
Whether you feel qualified to review something and entitled to grab it is irrelevant. I feel entitled to trash Harlequin romances because I think that's what they are. Should I be entering in draws and posting reviews of that category? Absolutely not. I'm not in the author's target market, and I would be stealing from them. The author should have the choice to specify categories, no matter how crude and imperfect they are. Or, if they don't care, let it be totally random.
The important principle is that if the author is offering to give something valuable away, they should be able to do it in such a way that offers value back to them, as they define it. Even if that means occasionally a reader who is actually in the target market is excluded, so be it. Author's choice, and they will accept whatever the consequences of that choice is.
Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members were writing peer reviews instead of con..."
You grossly overestimate the value of free ARCs to "scammers." It is unusual to win books. No one is making money off of reselling books they've won in GR giveaways.
Aside from Harriet Klausner, in fact, no one is making on money on selling their ARCs.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members were writing peer reviews i..."
You grossly underestimate the methods fraudsters will and do use. I've worked in the fraud prevention business, and have direct knowledge of frequency and cost, whereas you have no data whatsoever to back up your assertion.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members w..."
Really? You've worked in fraud prevention related to readers who receive ARCs from Goodreads Giveaways? I had no idea such a job existed. I wonder that you decided to enter your books in a giveaway at all, given your superior knowledge about the scammers who are making bank selling their pre-publication book copies on ebay.
Would that I had known this, since I have quite a stack of ARCs myself. Perhaps you can give me some tips in how to convert them into the ready green stuff. Heaven knows I could use some extra cash.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "...given your superior knowledge..."You're forgetting Paul is an author. Therefore he not only has superior information but a superior position and is entitled to superior treatment from Goodreads. I do hope you are kneeling when you type your replies, I've heard that is required now when seeking knowledge from all knowing authors ;)
A.W. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "...given your superior knowledge..."You're forgetting Paul is an author. Therefore he not only has superior information but a superior position and is entitled to superi..."
I genuflect after every word.
Paul wrote: "Whether you feel qualified to review something and entitled to grab it is irrelevant. I feel entitled to trash Harlequin romances because I think that's what they are. Should I be entering in draws and posting reviews of that category? Absolutely not. I'm not in the author's target market, and I would be stealing from them. The author should have the choice to specify categories, no matter how crude and imperfect they are. Or, if they don't care, let it be totally random. ..."1. I read books. Which qualifies me, the customer, to express my opinion of my reading experience on consumer review sites. It does not necessarily qualify me to review anywhere else, particularly not if that site requires specific qualifications. That's sufficiently relevant for me, a potential customer of all published books. May or may not be relevant to John whose post I was quoting and responding to. It's clearly irrelevant to you.
2. I've never in my life felt entitled to anything. Or to grab anything. Or said either. What a thing to say to me. Because I now generally use ereaders nowadays, I assure you I certainly don't "grab" anything via goodreads giveaways (don't enter them anyway although I did the first week I was here). Nor do I "grab" anything from pirate/torrent sites.
3. Wow, winning a giveaway (whether or not you are the target audience) = stealing. Guess I feel less insulted you said I felt entitled to "grab" stuff. You do realize that most people (and court systems) feel that contests, sweepstakes and giveaways have conditions (including who can enter) that if met mean it is okay to win? That winners aren't thieves even if prize providers wish they were more suitable marketing targets but failed to specify that in the conditions? Certainly your winners aren't stealing from you.
(I doubt a consumer review site prohibiting consumers who write negative reviews, even of Harlequins, for books in that category from entering giveaways or from writing reviews would be complying with the consumer fraud regulations. Assuming if you never shelved or reviewed said books that the site would even know you were not the targeted audience...)
4. Sure, authors certainly should be able to set (and are) whatever qualifications, conditions, categories, requirements they want in their own giveaways. Most jurisdictions require those terms be viewable to entrants which means scammers will still find ways around them but Authirs can certainly do so. Feel free to lobby goodreads to change their giveaway requirements to let authors specify categories and conditions; they will or they won't for future giveaways. For the existing goodreads giveaways and your past goodreads giveaway, there were no conditions allowing authors any say in who was or wan't a qualified entrant—goodreads very clear winners were at their discretiin and all giveaways open to goodreads accounts.
I assure you I have never stolen anything other than sneaking Halloeen Candy out of my brother's bag because he was allergic to it.
And despite your claims of expertise on stats with scammers and fraud—anyone working in any of the cyber-security fields knows it's a percentage game where the scammers would not expect to profit from your book but rather by trying for hundreds of thousands on various sites to net three to five that might turn a profit. And with any knowledge of the used book market, profit is slim even for books received free of charge (yes, I know I've seen sellers of used copies of currently in print new for $4 books listing them for ridiculous prices like $5,000 but they don't exactly sell like hot cakes at that price).
Most unknown authors not traditionally published cannot even given their books away ("cannot" not "will not" like an author choosing not to honor giveaway wins because not won by intended readers).
I swear I am saying all this as someone who does not steal or grab books. (Okay sometimes I do borrow from the library or a friend).
Totally off-topic, but there is some enjoyment to be had from Harlequins if you make it a drinking game of seeing how many of the titles would work for erotica books.
After I read and reviewed an ARC, I sold it for ten bucks. It was the best ten bucks I ever made. I can give you some tips for selling them if you want....as long as you worship me as your God. ;)
Hannah wrote: "After I read and reviewed an ARC, I sold it for ten bucks. It was the best ten bucks I ever made. I can give you some tips for selling them if you want....as long as you worship me as your God. ;)"An ARC with a lot of buzz and reader interest before you got it? Or one that didn't seem very discovered?
[Authors who do send ARCs probably should do like most of the ARC programs and specify in the conditions when/if can be resold (the "when" actually more enforceable than the "if" because almost everything can be re-sold as used). Those conditions for ARC receipt are likely the only place you can ask that a review be made in a certain time frame or even requiring a review on certain sites -- almost any other conditions placed on the review will require disclosure if posting on consumer review sites subject to U.S. law like goodreads and amazon ("conditions" like minimum star ratings or requiring a review first be sent to you for approval before posting ...). And you cannot tell a consumer they cannot review on a certain site. Goodreads treats ARCs like any other edition of a work and sets zero review conditions specific to ARCs versus rules for reviews of published works.]
D.A. wrote: "Hannah wrote: "After I read and reviewed an ARC, I sold it for ten bucks. It was the best ten bucks I ever made. I can give you some tips for selling them if you want....as long as you worship me a..."I took her post a joke. I could be wrong.
It was meant to be a joke, hence the semicolon. I actually donated my ARC to my local library for their book drive. It was bought for a dollar.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, yeah, don't put your string physics textbook that is really only suited to readers who are getting their Ph.D. in theoretical physics up for a GR giveaway. And if you do, and a bunch of people who like historical romance request it for reasons of their own, don't complain about the "unqualified reviwers" who are going to be winning, but probably neither understanding nor reading your book."String theory, actually, is not at issue, nor anything else so recondite that reading it with adequate comprehension requires a doctoral-level education. And maybe GR is not the place to preview specialized non-fiction. But if an author of such a book wants to bring it to the attention of its potential audience, is it wrong (or just naive) for him to expect that readers outside that audience, or just lacking adequate background knowledge, will exercise a little humility and self-restraint and not express their opinion of that book in public?
Look, it's no one's business to tell anyone else what to read and I'm not presuming to do so. What I am asking reader/reviewers for is a responsible and circumspect expression of opinion about any book they choose to review. To make that request is not to attempt to deny anyone a right to his/her opinion, but only to remind everyone that the right to express that opinion in public comes with a responsibility to acknowledge one's possible limitations in relation to that book. It's really just fair play within a context of polite conversation, and many reader/reviewers do it without reminding.
What seems to be happening is that GR book giveaways have become whatever giveaway winners want them to be. Is that how it's suppose to go? Or shouldn't the winners accept that free book with a bit (just a bit!) of gratitude and treat it (and its author) with a minimal quotient of respect? No one is asking, much less expecting, anyone to bow down, and God knows our culture generally views writers, even popular ones, as inessential members--light entertainers at best, and at worst troublemakers. Novels are regarded as a kind of joke, "not serious," time-wasting. No wonder so many readers seem to think they should get novels for free--and why some of those readers accept those free copies without feeling a sense of reciprocal responsibility to their respective authors.
John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, yeah, don't put your string physics textbook that is really only suited to readers who are getting their Ph.D. in theoretical physics up for a GR giveaway. And if you ..."You seem like a decent enough guy, John, so take what I am about to say with the understanding that I feel that you seem like a decent enough guy. But you are pushing some of the self-serving nonsense that annoys me the most.
First, if that is the way that you feel about readers, then you should stop publishing. Seriously, right now. Because the statement "[n]o wonder so many readers seem to think they should get novels for free . . ." is the well-worn clarion call of the bitter.
The reason that so many readers seem to think that they should get novels for free - if that is even true, and I dispute its truth since I know precisely zero readers who think they should get novels for free - is because authors are giving them away. It is not readers who have devalued books. It is writers. In your endless quest to gain readers, and with the collapse of the gatekeepers of publishing, it is writers, not readers, who have devalued writing to the point where everyone can, and apparently is, publishing books of dubious quality and trying to get people to download them in an effort to spread the word.
If you are going to give a book away, people are going to take it. Just like when the guy at the grocery store hands out free laundry detergent samples, many people are going to take it if offered. Whether or not they like the brand or intend to use it. You cannot complain that the takers of the freebie are somehow wrong, when you are giving away the product. Even if all they do is throw it away.
Do you know how many novels were published last month? Can you even guess? It is no longer much of an accomplishment at all to have published something. Anyone can do it.
According to Forbes, there are somewhere between 600K and 1M books published every year in the US. Of those, perhaps 50% are self-published. What that means is that there are as many as 75K to 90K new books added to amazon's virtual storefront every month.
While it is difficult to hear, a book has no value unless the market says it has value. If the only way an author can get people to take your books is to place the price at $0.00, then what that means is that the book has no value in the marketplace. It must be free because that is all it is worth. You can talk about inherent value or the value of your time, and those may be significant to you, but in the marketplace, your time is only worth what others will pay you for it.
If I really love tennis, but am not very good at it, claiming that the value of my time playing tennis is worth some amount of money is ridiculous. I play for free, and the fact that in my other life I get paid a significant hourly wage to do my job doesn't mean that my tennis career is ever going to get off the ground.
I get it that it is really hard to become successful as an author. Slightly more than 0% will manage it. Most of those won't be able to live on what they make from royalties, without a working spouse or a trust fund.
No one is owed a career in the arts, whether that be music, the visual arts, or writing. You have to earn the right to have your product treated as valuable. Until then, authors are just hobbyists who are trying to turn their hobby into a job.
John wrote: "What I am asking reader/reviewers for is a responsible and circumspect expression of opinion about any book they choose to review. "Even though your request is well intentioned, you are imposing your subjective opinion about readers/reviews on to the general public. Authors have no right to demand/request/ask that readers review in a way consistent with the author's guidelines.
My two cents worth, I think reviews fall into 2 broad categories.
Firstly, there are specific, peer review and/or commercial reviews which don't belong on Goodreads. I see these as the peer reviews for non-fiction or serious literary fiction where the author is waiting for some sort of approved/recognised validation from an institution. These reviews don't come from the GR userbase and are normally publisher initiated.
Secondly there are consumer reviews. These can be whatever the consumer wants, they are left for other consumers/readers. It could be a detailed, thoughtful, analytical review or it could be a single gif. The author shouldn't even be reading these reviews. They are not author feedback, they are consumer feedback. These are the types of reviews you find on Goodreads. There are millions of users here who all read/comprehend and react in millions of different ways. They leave reviews for themselves and for other readers in whatever format/style they want, these reviews are NOT for authors.
I believe Paul's issue is that he is after the first type of review (peer/critical/targeted/commercial) and he made the mistake of trying to use a Goodreads giveaway to obtain them. He should have been approaching peers etc instead. Then he complained and reneged on the giveaway terms rather than admit he made a mistake and seek the type of reviews he expects elsewhere.
I see numerous posts about authors unhappy about the quality/number of reviews from Goodreads giveaways and they have all made the basic misunderstanding that giveaways would result in reviews. The vast majority recognise they misunderstood the purpose of a giveaway and then look for R4R, blogs etc to provide reviews.
Authors need to spend more time reading and comprehending Goodreads guidelines and TOS, and less time trying to bend a reader site to meet author expectations.
I, too, don't have an issue with John. And I'm not trying to create more reader vs. author drama--but, obviously I have things I want to say.Some of us customers are getting more and more convinced that authors want us gone from the review sites so they can post the reviews they really want by a variety of criminal (consumer fraud) means. They kind of forget that with us gone, just who are those reviews reaching? Search engines? Other authors and their promotors? Temporarily reaching newbies to the site who won't stay once they catch on? Readers who only review in their private groups, don't review at all, don't bother reading reviews because they are convinced they are all scammed ...?
I don't know of anything free that is clever enough to net book discoverability and reviews on goodreads that wouldn't be overrun with the number of authors using it. Scam us by using the giveaways to draw attention to your undiscovered book baby with zero intentions of shipping the prize ... well, I think most authors won't cross that line (or consider that goodreads or the winners are the criminals).
There are endless posts about tweaking, changing or adding features so that an author's book gets seen. Not saying that none of them are good suggestions -- but any feature available to all goodreads authors that tries to add book discoverability or promotional opportunity is just flat out going to be used by many of the goodreads authors wanting their book promoted/discovered ... nevermind actually netting readers willing to read, to review or to review in a fashion wanted versus being "noise" interrupting the discussions we are trying to have and the book cataloging we are trying to do.
I hope the create-a-giveway but don't honor it idea doesn't spread or the giveaways will be useless for book discoverability.
John wrote: "What seems to be happening is that GR book giveaways have become whatever giveaway winners want them to be. ..."Hardly. Giveaway winners have no say in the goodreads giveaways, author's own giveaways, blog tour giveaways, etc. None of the readers here are even trying to say that. We have no say in the giveaways and don't expect to (of course, we have suggestions and if we enter giveaways would like to win them).
However, once we legally obtain any commercial product, yes, we do with that what we want to. Even if won free in a giveaway. Even if won free in a goodreads giveway. Even if the prize sponsor had expectations that the giveaway conditions didn't require us to meet. Even if we give it to dear old Uncle Archie as a birthday present. Even if we use it to prop up a table or make brilliant origami art ...
I don't know of any sweepstakes/giveaways with simply retail/commercial product prizes won that tell winners what to do with the prize (other than non-product things like vacation getaway during x dates or that require id's like plane/boat tickets that may not be transferable or refundable -- but, again, that stuff is set out in the giveaway rules entrants see).
Readers do, however, have a say in if or how they review anything as a consumer. We do expect to either win or lose. And that if we win a giveaway we should get the prize promised. Based on what we read when entering and could care less what issues authors/goodreads had with the giveaway.
If I had any say in the giveaways, authors would have to have the books printed, ship the books to goodreads along with domestic postage payment to ship books to the winners, then the giveaway could go active, then once won goodreads-- not potentially professional or potentially psychopathic authors -- would gather winner addresses and ship to them. Anyone wanting international where foreign rights permit or overnight shipping could pay the additional postage costs themselves (not the author).
Legitimate giveaway entrants (who may or may not be interested in, qualified to understand or intending to review the book) simply agree to whatever terms the giveaway makes, fully expecting that if won they will get the prize. The scammers do whatever the hell they want (and free anything -- much less free anything offered online, even less a multi-million member strong site with loads of free offers -- attracts them).
Authors are not required to put books up for giveaway on goodreads.
I know John's not the one saying that winners are stealing or unqualified so that justifies authors using the giveaways for book discoverability (and/or to gain reviews) then after the promotion ended deciding "nope, not going to send the books because don't like the winners selected" or "nope, cannot afford to send the books" (although agreed to afford to send the books when activating the giveaway).
John did, however, step into a conversation readers are tired of hearing from authors about how evil it is of readers for winning or accepting free stuff -- If anyone thinks that, stop giving away free stuff. (If you think this thread is bad there are others here that include things like one irate author feeling that anyone downloading a free book from amazon.com type of sites is a thief who should lose a day's pay so they get a taste of what it feels like to be self-employed and not get paid for the hours spent writing the book... that bloggers with submission guidelines stating "don't send me unasked for books" must review all books they receive anyway or they are criminals and should be fined to pay authors for every hour spent writing...just to name some most recent bizarre-ties.)
Giveaway winners aren't asking for anything from goodreads or the author of won books other than the prize won being shipped to them.
If goodreads made giveaway conditions that said participants all had to stand on their hands during the half moon phase chanting Beatles lyrics while wearing suspenders or whatever and give virtual ponies as consolation prizes for the non-winners...-- either author agrees to and puts book up for giveaways or author doesn't. Any misunderstandings or miscommunications or fraud has nothing to do with the entrants or the winners. Between goodreads and the author.
ETA: Believe it or not edited that to shorten the rant.
D.A. wrote: "Some of us customers are getting more and more convinced that authors want us gone from the review sites so they can post the reviews they really want by a variety of criminal (consumer fraud) means."This is a hijack of the thread - but I think you raise a really interesting point.
Certainly over the last year I have seen an upswing in the number of threads where authors are wanting/asking/demanding that reviewers review in a manner prescribed by the author. When you dig a little deeper, the overwhelming majority of these threads are started/contributed to by self published authors who are demanding feedback from reviewers.
It makes me wonder that many SPAs are publishing far too early, before they obtain the feedback they crave from critique partners, their writing circle or beta readers?
Perhaps there is much to be said for the traditionally published authors who have been through the grinder? They have queried, been rejected, polished their work, revised, queried again, done the submission rounds, numerous edit rounds etc At every stage on that step to publication with a Big 5 they have received valuable feedback on their work.
You don't tend to see Big 5 published authors making demands from reviewers or going bat sh!t crazy if they get a review they don't like. Yes it does happen (2 notable explosions come to mind, one even involved the author's agent trolling the reviewer and in the other the author stalked the reviewer to her house) but the majority of cases seem to be SPAs.
Maybe if they took more time, sought more feedback before they published, then there would be less author-dictated demands made about reviews?
A.W. wrote: "This is a hijack of the thread...You don't tend to see Big 5 published authors making demands from reviewers or going bat sh!t crazy if they get a review they don't like. ..."Somewhat hijacked. Except that most authors commenting have been talking about giveaways in terms of getting winners who are qualified readers who will write quality reviews (and in terms of what sort of reviews are supposed to be allowed on what sort of books with what sort of interests/education/knowledge required ...)
As to traditionally published authors and behavior -- can you really see (unless really, really profitable like the 2 notable explosions that come to my mind, as well, or a blood/in-law relative of said publisher ) -- can you imagine what would happen under their current and future publishing contracts?
I have an issue with only one author on this thread so in no way mean to say anything bad or anything good about all SPAs -- for starters the whole point of self/indie publishing is that there is no "all" or "group," just that individual author. So some individuals are just as professional as big five authors (or at least present themselves that way in public), some do/don't make demands of reviewers, some are ... as varied as the individual authors. But, statistically and with every interaction I've had with authors it has always been the SPAs making demands of reviewers or otherwise behaving unprofessionaly--and frequently demanding sites change so that their books get featured. There's bad reviewer behavior also (one reviewer threatened to sue goodreads and all of us if goodreads didn't hide the older reviews so that theirs would be featured front and center on book pages because ...
(Completely off topic for this thread but I actually did have an issue with a traditionally published author over a 4 amazon stars wordy review I gave their book -- they were upset that I dared not give them a 5 star rating and to write a review in a format they did not agree to without the keywords the conditions on their website required. I got an apology later (I did delete my rating completely and replaced review with a bland paragraph stating I liked the book but would not be reading any more by the author) because they had confused me with their paid reviewer who had my same first name. You betcha that email got sent to their publisher, all site supports of sites I posted the review on and the FTC. I thought about sharing a screenshot of the email around then decided it could give the author/book discoverability so didn't. The paid review and the paid reviewer remains on 90% of the sites; goodreads did remove both the paid review and deleted paid reviewer account. Author account was apparently not deleted then but later stopped showing as a goodreads author so presumably was warned then persisted, voluntarily deleted account, or did something else against TOS.)
A.W. wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Some of us customers are getting more and more convinced that authors want us gone from the review sites so they can post the reviews they really want by a variety of criminal (consume..."YES!
It also appears to me that some of the authors who demonstrate this type of attitude either have an unrealistic impression of the appeal and quality of their book, and/or an unrealistic view of how quickly their products should be discovered and become successful. Without much effort on their parts beyond garnering expected positive consumer reviews and some social media promotion. Some seem to think they should quickly be able to be full time successful authors without doing much of the work that typically requires, or in functioning as a small business.
John wrote: "...that the right to express that opinion in public comes with a responsibility to acknowledge one's possible limitations in relation to that book...Definitely a difference of opinion between readers and authors. (And U.S. consumer rights laws and policies.)
I feel I have a responsibility to absolutely positively never violate an author's copyrights, including but not limited to not accepting/downloading pirated copies -- to pay agreed upon price for the book rather than stealing it, to not distribute illegal copies, to not quote illegal amounts of content... (Doesn't mean no free books, no library borrows, no used books or no borrowing from a friend -- just that I am not stealing the thing or pirating it out.).
That completely ends my responsibility to the author. Even if I do chose to read, dnf, review and/or rate the book.
ETA: I also have only two responsibilities when entering the goodreads giveaways: (1) to not game the system with multiple entries and (2) if I do win that I disclose I won the book for free if reviewing (possibly for some winners just on sites subject to U.S. regulations like goodreads and amazon.com but in my case I am a U.S. citizen subject to U.S. law).
D.A. - missing my author friends wrote: "I have an issue with only one author on this thread so in no way mean to say anything bad or anything good about all SPAs -- for starters the whole point of self/indie publishing is that there is no "all" or "group," just that individual author. "Completely agree :) I know it is unfair on the professional SPAs to paint them all with one brush (and full disclosure - I have novels I self publish and novels with a trad publisher but I use GR as a reader). It was merely an observation about a rough correlation between an increasing call for feedback/review restrictions from some authors and the course they take to publish their book.
D.A. - missing my author friends lost to new follow button issues wrote: "John wrote: "...that the right to express that opinion in public comes with a responsibility to acknowledge one's possible limitations in relation to that book...Definitely a difference of opinio..."
Yup. As a consumer my responsibility to an author is to obtain a copy of their book by legal means, or not at all.
That is where my obligation to an author begins and ends.
A.W. wrote: "...Completely agree :) I know it is unfair on the professional SPAs to paint them all with one brush..."I wasn't pointing a finger at you for that. I meant I was being so negative I was afraid I was being unfair.
Admittedly discussing how a professionally behaving author was behaving professionally, wrote a book, pleasant fellow to chat with or we never interacted beyond my seeing some book promotions or activity on the book page itself -- just not quite as interesting as the problems or problem authors. The bizarre or epic blowups are way less boring than the business-as-usual stuff.
@A.W. -- off topic completely utterly -- but, you may want to post over in the librarians group to get your books' series added. (try https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... -- takes a goodreads librarian to add series, typing series name inside parentheses no longer works).
D.A. - missing my author friends lost to new follow button issues wrote: "I wasn't pointing a finger at you for that. I meant I was being so negative I was afraid I was being unfair. "I didn't think you were :) I know its unfair to make sweeping generalisations when if we actually stepped back and looked at the big picture, it's probably only a tiny percentage causing problems & making demands. It's just that small percentage sometimes act as though they have some mandate to speak on behalf of everyone. And as you said - the small % who blow up horribly do provide all the popcorn moment! lol
D.A. - missing my author friends lost to new follow button issues wrote: "@A.W. -- off topic completely utterly -- but, you may want to post over in the librarians group to get your books' series added. (try https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... -- takes a g..."Thank you. I thought the ability to create series had disappeared.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "...If you are going to give a book away, people are going to take it. Just like when the guy at the grocery store hands out free laundry detergent samples, many people are going to take it if offered. Whether or not they like the brand or intend to use it. You cannot complain that the takers of the freebie are somehow wrong, when you are giving away the product....
While it is difficult to hear, a book has no value unless the market says it has value. ..."
(bold added for emphasis)
QFTFT
Moonlight Reader wrote: "John wrote: "Paul wrote: "This practice in relation to non-fiction that offers (as I've defined it above) "practice-specific expertise" is not just bad form or bad manners but really borders on dis..."As of Jan 2014, Goodreads had 25M members, and though I can't find current numbers, I'm sure it's grown considerably since then. While the majority of people here are primarily interested in fiction genres, there are still a few million who do read business books, and who search here to see what other people say about them. The segment who have indicated interest in business books is plenty big enough to be of interest to authors. The problem isn't that the membership isn't narrow enough in their interests, but that Goodreads is making it impossible to target the interest that exists.
What is troubling to me is your insistence that even though Goodreads says they use books on shelves as part of their selection criteria (but they actually don't), that I'm therefore being unreasonable to expect that they actually do what they say they do. That is a bizarre point of view.
A.W. wrote: "John wrote: "What I am asking reader/reviewers for is a responsible and circumspect expression of opinion about any book they choose to review. "Even though your request is well intentioned, you ..."
Publishers do less and less these days. In fact, unless your imprint is one of the majors, and you have a personal brand or popular book, they do almost nothing. Most publishers don't even have a marketing department anymore that promotes to anything but Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Why is this important? It leaves someone like me to figure things out in real time and make my own paths with no publisher support. So, if Goodreads is truly an inappropriate place to make my book available (which I don't believe, by the way -- there are huge numbers of people here who have read books in the same category as mine), the only reason it is inappropriate is because they do not do any filtering. Despite the claims they make about how their "algorithm" works which suggest the opposite, there is no way to know that a priori, and I have no choice but to trust what Goodreads say about themselves. Obviously I know better for future reference, but this is not obvious to a first time author.
FYI: On a thread this week, Otis did say goodreads was now 35 million members with a billion book catalog.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodre..."
The patterns of fraudsters are surprisingly common across virtually all domains, and the reason is because they work. Almost all fraud detection uses predictive analytics that examines patterns of behavior. What is clear to me is that Goodreads does not employ any predictive analytics to identify fraudsters, and since they own the data, they are the only ones who are able to do it.
eBay is another platform that has surprisingly bad fraud detection, and there are often scams being run on both sides (sellers that have nothing to sell, or who ship something different than they show, and buyers who get stuff but don't pay, or who use false identities and stolen credit cards). There is also extensive gaming of the reputation system. In both cases, I believe that the platform operator believes that proper fraud-screening is either too expensive or that it will deter use of the platform, but the opposite is usually the case. Too much fraud diminishes trust in the platform, which causes people to either not use it, or be excessively cautious.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "John wrote: "...that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public...."Only if goodreads members were writing peer reviews i..."
By the way, I had no idea what an ARC was. My publisher is a small technical imprint, and doesn't use ARCs, so all my books are real ones that I have to pay for.
D.A. - missing my author friends lost to new follow button issues wrote: "Paul wrote: "Whether you feel qualified to review something and entitled to grab it is irrelevant. I feel entitled to trash Harlequin romances because I think that's what they are. Should I be ente..."The only response I will dignify this with is that you have deliberately twisted everything said to express your anger at me for expecting Goodreads to do what they say they do.
My beef is not with readers, nor is it with contest entrants. Goodreads makes representations and claims about giveaways that are not true. When an author decides to do a giveaway on the basis of those representations and claims, then they are entitled to a drawing that is run precisely as advertised. Precisely, not partially.
If Goodreads fails to meet its obligations to me by not running the drawing as represented, then they can have no reasonable expectation that I would follow through either. Perhaps many authors do to avoid the negative criticism of folks like you, but the party who owes readers books from my giveaway is Goodreads because they did not do what their site says they do.
I do believe that people who entered the contest are entitled to books. It isn't their fault that Goodreads lies to authors. But Goodreads needs to make good on the offer, and then change the terms and advertising to reflect what they actually do if they want to keep running things this way.
Hannah wrote: "After I read and reviewed an ARC, I sold it for ten bucks. It was the best ten bucks I ever made. I can give you some tips for selling them if you want....as long as you worship me as your God. ;)"
This snotty remark reminds of the sort of thing my granddaughter might come up with, must be the name Hannah!
I prefer the term sarcastic, thank you.
Your welcome, you sound just like my Grandpa or more how I imagine he would sound since he's dead.
I had a little dog that regardless of the danger always had the last bark, he's dead too !
Paul wrote: "Auntie J wrote: "Paul wrote: "Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on th..."I wanted to weigh in on this for your consideration.
I've run a book blog for over eight years now, and back then, pre-Goodreads popularity, when a fellow blogger or I would get a new book, we'd always use the 'TBR pile' to indicate we owned it and it was waiting to be read. When I came to Goodreads, by default they have the shelves 'read', 'currently reading', 'to-be-read' (Before changing to say want-to-read awhile back)
I've seen debates over the years in the feedback forum, of which I usually have weighed in, that it was strange they never by default created a third exclusive shelf for 'wishlist'. Goodreads seems to think when starting the site throwing all the books people want to read (and own) and want to read (but don't own) was fine for one shelf. I disagree - a lot of heavy readers or book collectors do like to keep more accurate records - we were told to create exclusive wishlist shelves on our own if we wanted one. Personally I find it surprising that a reader doesn't want to separate wishlist items from books they already own. The only thing I can think is they have low numbers on their shelves and can keep up with it mentally.
The point in my rambling is that if a reader doesn't add the book from your giveaway on their TBR shelf, it doesn't mean no interest. *I* always uncheck that box too - there have been debates and complaints over the years in feedback about it being checked and people questioning Goodreads if that hurts a readers chance for getting a win, as they don't think that's fair. It's mystifying how winners are chosen.
I've pretty much given up on giveaways myself as I rarely, rarely win, even if the odds are in my favor (small amount of entrants). I won the first year I was here when trying out the feature, a book I actually enjoyed quite a bit. A few years later I one another, which was an excellent thriller. Finally I've won another, a graphic novel when it's a genre I'm new to, that turned out to be a five star, hilarious favorite.
So, how they figure wins makes no sense. I don't believe it's completely random, just observations. I reviewed all these books and rated them. But there's been the speculation unchecking it from adding to the 'tbr' shelf lowers your chances of getting one. If that's true, it's not worth it for me to try to enter because I really do want to keep accurate shelves and track my books on here.
I do feel under current rules that if an author or publisher creates a giveaway on goodreads that the author, not goodreads, is responsible for obtaining and shipping the books to the winners.The only change to that I can see happening is if goodreads changed it so that authors/publishers had to ship all books to goodreads before creating a giveaway plus send a fee to cover goodreads shipping and handling costs to send to the winners--possibly amazon would allow goodreads to do via prime free shipping sort of arrangement if was available on amazon. (I'd actually like to see that myself so some wackjobs don't get my shipping address; plus if goodreads had a shipping cost logistic in place they could offer giveaway winners a choice of free domestic shipping or pay for faster or more expensive international shipping rather than put the pricey international fees on the authors).
For an author who doesn't like the winners chosen (as stated) at goodreads discretion -- particularly if discriminating based on the age of a reader legally adult -- to then backout of sending the prize (but not, of course, out of any book shelvings or book discovery gained by the giveaway) and state that goodreads should then purchase their books and send to the winners all at goodreads expense (plus author gets their royalties from the sales, plus author gets the results of their ad campaign ...) ... sheesh! Nice try on author's part I guess. Hell of a precedent if happened because then every author, particularly if not having the budget for a lot of print copy books, could just enter dozens or hundreds of copies of their book in the goodreads giveaways then sit back and watch goodreads stuck with the cost while they collect royalties off their sales to gullible goodreads ...
But if that ever happened, (goodreads making good on author's fraudulent behavior for the sake of the giveaway participants) I damn straight hope they would then bill author for all expenses incurred plus a steep handling charge (and if author didn't pay up, then sue for those expenses plus damages and press criminal charges of consumer fraud and false advertising) -- plus notify anyone who shelved (or bought via purchase link) the book in question what was going on (or at least that the author had decided to not ship the book to the giveaway winners -- I get that lawyers don't want current legal actions being discussed) in case those readers wanted to unshelve the book.
Exactly.