Goodreads Feedback discussion

2082 views
Suggestions & Questions > Disabling ratings/reviews before a book's publish date

Comments Showing 1-50 of 399 (399 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

message 1: by Kristin (last edited Mar 05, 2010 04:54PM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments It drives me absolutely crazy to see "ratings" and "reviews" for books that have not been published. If a book has not been published and thus has not been read, NO ONE should be rating it. I mean, allowing that kind of thing makes the whole rating system into a total farce! I can't tell you how many times I have seen upcoming releases given 5 stars and a "review" that says "OMG! Like I'm so excited about this book!! I can't wait for it to come out!!" *gags*

For example, I was just looking at Afterlife by Claudia Gray, which already has 17 "ratings" and 2 "reviews," despite the fact that it doesn't even have a cover and isn't coming out until 2011.(!!) I've seen this kind of thing lots of times before, but for whatever reason, this is what inspired my diatribe today.

Seriously though, with so many ratings given to popular books before they are even released, it really does make the whole "rating" system into a bit of a joke. Is there any way to disable the rating/review function for a book before its listed publish date??


message 2: by Sandi (new)

Sandi (Sandikal) | 405 comments One thing to keep in mind is that many publishers send out advance reader copies to get buzz going before a book's release. I've received a few of these through the FirstReads program here at GoodReads. Just because a book is not available for purchase doesn't mean that nobody has read it. You might be surprised how many advance copies are out there.

Of course, you will always have those blockbuster releases like sequels to Harry Potter and Twilight that people will give a five star rating before the author has even posted the manuscript to the publisher. I think those are the exception to pre-publication ratings/reviews rather than the rule.


message 3: by Nikki (last edited Mar 05, 2010 05:10PM) (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments Kristin, I've read, rated and reviewed several books before publication, because I own ARCs of them.


message 4: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 2048 comments I agree with Sandi. There may be some loyalty votes for popular authors, but there are a lot of ARCs floating around.

There was one recent giveaway where 500 ARCs were given away, several months before the book was released.

http://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/sho...


message 5: by Kristin (last edited Mar 05, 2010 06:34PM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments Ok yikes, so I guess I was a little quick to assume that all the ratings and reviews for books pre-publication were from people who hadn't read them.

However, I don't believe for a second that the majority of pre-publication reviews are from readers with ARCs. I've seen way too many with ratings a year before publication and way too many "OMG I can't wait" reviews to believe that this kind of scenario that I'm complaining about is the exception to the rule.

Here's a great example of what I mean: Bitterblue by Kristin Cashore


message 6: by Beth A. (new)

Beth A. (BethALM) I think it's silly but harmless to rate a book before you have read it. (The ratings of such exuberant fans will most likely remain the same even after they have read the book.)

And I kind of enjoy reading "reviews" that say "I can't wait until this comes out..."

I especially enjoy reading ARC reviews.


message 7: by Petra Eggs (new)

Petra Eggs (PetraX) | 5938 comments Kristin wrote: "Is there any way to disable the rating/review function for a book before its listed publish date?"

In the example you give , I can understand you wanting to disable the ratings as the 15 people have obviously not read the book, but it would be a bit sad to disable the reviews as well. I'm sure any author would think it wonderful to see so many 'OMG I can't wait' reviews.

However, with some books, sometimes the books are released in the UK (for example) before the US and this can look to a reader who only checks publication in their country that the book has not yet been released.

An example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was released in the UK in June 1997, but not until Sept. 1998 in the US. Another example, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was published in Sweden in 2005, in the UK in 2008 and US in 2009. So its just as well to check that a book that looks pre-publication to you hasn't been published in another country and got its reviews from people who've bought the book from there.


message 8: by Arch (last edited Mar 05, 2010 08:05PM) (new)

Arch I remember seeing ratings for Suzanne Brockmann's book - Hot Pursuit, before it came out in 2009 and I was like, what? I have even left a comment on a reader's review, asking her how did she read the book already, when it never came out yet.

If the book is an ARC, why would a person just rate the book and not write a review.To my knowledge, ARC are given out so that the reader can write a review.

So, where are the early reviews? The reviews can be hidden by the spoiler option.

I could be wrong, but I would think that if an author sends out a ARC to a reader, he or she would want to know where the reader goes to write reviews, right? They would want to see the reviews the reader write. Maybe, I am wrong.

Some people gives ratings on future books, because of the author. If they like a certain author, they will give them a high rating no matter what.


message 9: by Becky (last edited Mar 05, 2010 08:37PM) (new)

Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 5222 comments It's not mandatory to write a review for an ARC any more than it is to write one for any other book. Granted, I'm sure that the publisher or the author would appreciate it, but there is no requirement. Receiving a rating alone is better than getting nothing at all. :)


message 10: by [deleted user] (last edited Mar 05, 2010 09:38PM) (new)

However, with some books, sometimes the books are released in the UK (for example) before the US and this can look to a reader who only checks publication in their country that the book has not yet been released. I was stopping in to say this. I've read a fair number of titles half a year or more before they're released in the US.


message 11: by Jeffrey (new)

Jeffrey | 33 comments I agree with Petra and Shoshanapnw about books published in other countries. I have actually also ordered books by Kate Jacoby and Joel Shepherd from Australia because the books were released there first.


message 12: by Kristin (last edited Mar 06, 2010 07:27AM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments *sigh* Well, I guess what with ARCs and different release dates, it's not really feasible to prevent ratings and reviews before official publication dates. Drat!

However, I would still love to see an end to the ridiculous spamming messages and ratings given by users who have obviously not read the book. Can't it be against the rules or something?? Although come to think of it...does Goodreads even have a list of rules?


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 947 comments I think the prevalence of ARCs is vastly over estimated. They are certainly out there (I recently received one myself, in fact), but I think they make up a very small fraction of most of the "early" reviews and ratings. In fact, I'd hazard that for popular authors most of the pre-reviews are not from ARCs but are exactly the types of cases Kristin is describing.

For example: A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. Martin has 512 ratings with an average rating of 4.18 (almost half of the ratings are 5 stars). None of these ratings are from ARCs...THE BOOK HAS NOT EVEN BEEN COMPLETED YET (read Martin's blog...the manuscript is well over 1000 pages but is incomplete and he has no timeline for when he'll even give the *first* draft to the publisher). These reviews are 100% anticipation from fans (the low ratings are probably from fans who are frustrated on how long its taking to be written...the current release date listed on GoodReads (and Amazon, etc.) is pure fantasy).

Broadly speaking, I don't know that anything can be done about it in a practical way, but I find the commonality of this type of "review" extremely frustrating and simply writing them all off as "oh, it must be due to ARCs" is willfully ignoring the issue.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 947 comments I'd also posit that ARCs are actually pretty uncommon and that the people who tend to be most active in these forums (fori? forae?) are not precisely representative of average readers and GoodReads users.


message 15: by Petra Eggs (new)

Petra Eggs (PetraX) | 5938 comments This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I'd also posit that ARCs are actually pretty uncommon and that the people who tend to be most active in these forums (fori? forae?) are not precisely representative of average readers and GoodReads..."

Latin is 'fora' but common English usage is 'forums'.


message 16: by Brooke (new)

Brooke | 508 comments I have to ask though...what's the harm? From looking at the link to the book Kristin provided, the only rating/review I see on the first page is someone who seems like they reviewed the wrong book in the series. The George RR Martin link TINTMYLF provided shows lots of people writing (unrated) reviews in which they talk about the many changes in the publishing date - useful information, really. Some people seem to be giving the entire series the same rating/review and have likely published that same rating/review on every book in the series. Maybe there are GR users who think that the only way to add a book to your shelves is to rate it, or that's how they prefer doing it. It's very, very clear to me that both the examples provided in this thread have not been published yet despite them having ratings/reviews.

We've always said that everyone uses GR differently, and I don't see anything wrong with how any of the people at issue in this thread are doing things.


message 17: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I think the prevalence of ARCs is vastly over estimated. They are certainly out there (I recently received one myself, in fact), but I think they make up a very small fraction of most of the "early..."

Mmm, sure, but the fact that people do receive ARCs, and not just through Goodreads giveaways, mean it's somewhat impractical to do what Kristin says and disallow pre-publication ratings/reviews.


message 18: by Kristin (last edited Mar 06, 2010 09:50AM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "I think the prevalence of ARCs is vastly over estimated. They are certainly out there...but I think they make up a very small fraction of most of the "early" reviews and ratings."

Thank goodness someone here agrees with me! I kinda felt like I was being ganged up on with everyone trying to tell me that all these reviews were from ARCs and overseas publishing, when I just KNOW that's not the case! (I mean, some of it, sure, but I would guess the minority.) Michael - your example was far superior to the ones I had noticed recently. Thanks.

But like you said, I don't guess there's any practical solution. And it doesn't seem like people really care that much anyway.


message 19: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (LisaVegan) | 9146 comments Nikki wrote: "the fact that people do receive ARCs, and not just through Goodreads giveaways, mean it's somewhat impractical to do what Kristin says and disallow pre-publication ratings/reviews."

I agree.

I've received about 6 since I've joined Goodreads, about half through Goodreads, the other half from elsewhere: author, friend at a bookstore, etc. - although I've reviewed them all as soon as I've read them and I've stated that they're ARC/finished copies received before official publication.

I think 5 star ratings before publication is something we have to live with (unless Goodreads can disable ratings prior to a book's completion) and we have to live with 5 star ratings of published books where members have not read the actual reviews too. If we look at a book, and we're willing to view in some depth the response it gets, I find usually it's easy to tell how it's truly received.


UniquelyMoi ~ BlithelyBookish | 778 comments I've recently won an ARC and I intend to read and review it. Isn't that what Goodreads is about?


message 21: by Brooke (new)

Brooke | 508 comments I noticed Kristin posted a second example I didn't see when I wrote my first comment - it's mostly unrated reviews that say, "I can't wait!" - and again, I'm not really sure this is a negative thing. For example, when I click on a book that I'm curious about, knowing that lots of people are excited about it could convince me to check it out when it's published, whereas I might pass it by if its page was completely devoid of any information. A bunch of anticipation tells me something.


message 22: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments Yes, I just looked up Under Heaven, which is coming out in April, and the reviews and such are interesting to see, but it's fairly obvious that it isn't out yet.


message 23: by Sandi (new)

Sandi (Sandikal) | 405 comments Nikki wrote: "Yes, I just looked up Under Heaven, which is coming out in April, and the reviews and such are interesting to see, but it's fairly obvious that it isn't out yet."

I clicked on that link Nikki and I do see that my friend Stefan is reading it. He writes for a fantasy review blog and I know that he's been getting ARCs for years. Another person has marked it as to-read and has copied a review from a popular science fiction review site. I presume this is so he knows what it's about when he checks his to-read list. The other "reviews" are simply expressing opinions about the author's previous work and whether or not they are looking forward to this. I have absolutely no problem with these kind of "reviews". When I see a "review" like this, I can tell that the person hasn't read the book and they are posting either for their own use or to trigger discussion. I am okay with that because I believe that I am discerning enough to tell whether or not the review is legit.


message 24: by Ralph Gallagher (new)

Ralph Gallagher | 552 comments Another example of it not being ARC's The Seeker and The Soul.

Neither of these books have been written yet. The author has said that IF she writes sequels, those will be the names. Yet they've already got reviews and ratings. =| I didn't know so many people could see into the future.


message 25: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments Looking at the reviews there, most of them seem to be anticipating the book and one or two of them seem to have reviewed the wrong book. It's still apparent to me that the book isn't released and, from the reviews, in this case, not even written yet.


message 26: by Sandi (new)

Sandi (Sandikal) | 405 comments Ralph wrote: "Another example of it not being ARC's The Seeker and The Soul.

Neither of these books have been written yet. The author has said that IF she writes sequels, those wil..."



Ralph, in my opinion, these aren't even really books. They aren't even being written yet and may never be written. They're kind of like the imaginary 5th Twilight book. In my opinion, the "books" themselves shouldn't even be listed. It's not even a question of allowing ratings and reviews before the official publication date.


message 27: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments Sandi, that's also true. They're figments of people's imagination.


message 28: by Ralph Gallagher (new)

Ralph Gallagher | 552 comments Sandi wrote: "Ralph wrote: "Another example of it not being ARC's The Seeker and The Soul.

Neither of these books have been written yet. The author has said that IF she writes sequ..."


I brought that up before suggesting that they be deleted but rivka said to keep them. =\ At least with the 5th Twilight book something is written. These books haven't even been confirmed yet. Just he saying "If I ever wrote two sequels this is what I'd name them."


UniquelyMoi ~ BlithelyBookish | 778 comments So, just because I'm writing a book, does that mean I should be able to manually add it to the GoodReads list like The Seeker and The Soul, even though I may never finish it? I don't think that should be allowed.


message 30: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 2048 comments With authors who write series, the next book is often listed early just to remind readers when to look for it. In some cases, it's listed before the title or cover art or anything has been firmly decided.

I think this is a good thing, but then I'm a big series reader.


message 31: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (LisaVegan) | 9146 comments I have a few almost published books on my to-read shelf. I like these placeholders; I've created a few.

I do think ideally they shouldn't be added until there is a definite title and estimated publication date. If the book hasn't even been finished, it might never be published. But, those placeholders/never published books are eventually found and can then be deleted.


message 32: by Petra Eggs (new)

Petra Eggs (PetraX) | 5938 comments This puts me in mind of a thread a little while ago where a man of 38 had 23,000 books (I think) read and all rated at 5. The way Goodreads works, that's fine, anyone can say they've read anything and rate it however they please, you can't prove a book has been read or not read anyway. It also puts me in mind of the various private Goodreads' authors' groups I belonged to where everyone was urged to rate, tag and write reviews for here and Amazon for each others' books. With all that going on, it would seem that banning ratings on unpublished books would only be addressing the visible end of a problem that is, essentially, are a lot of ratings honest, have the books actually been read?


message 33: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments I've had people doubting that I've read all the books I've said I've read, because I 'read too fast'. It's an irritating sort of question when you're just trying to use the site in the way that suits you. There aren't any rules about it, rightly so, I think.


message 34: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 1928 comments UniquelyMoi *~*Dhestiny*~* wrote: "I've recently won an ARC and I intend to read and review it. Isn't that what Goodreads is about?"

Yes, that's exactly what GR is about!

Why are people so upset over the idea that other people are excited about upcoming books?


message 35: by Petra Eggs (new)

Petra Eggs (PetraX) | 5938 comments Cait wrote: "Why are people so upset over the idea that other people are excited about upcoming books?"

Its not the excitement its the fact that a book with a lot of ratings, all 5 star, is a really good read and if no-one has read it, then no-one really knows. It is books that are supposed to be rated, not authors; a lot of much-lauded and much-loved writers have published absolute squibs.

I rather like the excited comments and since anyone can rate (and review) any book they like without necessarily having read it - reading it is something we take on trust - I also don't see what point there is in getting upset.


message 36: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (LisaVegan) | 9146 comments I don't think there's much to worry about. Ahead of time, members can figure out what's going on. Once the book is published those eager members are likely to read it quickly and it's easy for them to change their 5 star rating if the book doesn't live up to their expectations.

If someone just gives a quick look at a book and its ratings I guess it can be misleading but I don't really worry about that either. I tend to look a little deeper when I'm looking for books to read and, even if I didn't, there's no good way or good reason to try to police this.

The placeholders on my shelves and books not yet read are on my to-read shelf, but if some members want to say more about them, I have no problem with it.


message 37: by Kristin (last edited Mar 06, 2010 07:48PM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments Sandi wrote: "The other "reviews" are simply expressing opinions about the author's previous work...When I see a "review" like this, I can tell that the person hasn't read the book and they are posting either for their own use or to trigger discussion. I am okay with that because I believe that I am discerning enough to tell whether or not the review is legit."

Nikki wrote: "It's an irritating sort of question when you're just trying to use the site in the way that suits you. There aren't any rules about it, rightly so, I think."

Cait wrote: "Yes, that's exactly what GR is about! Why are people so upset over the idea that other people are excited about upcoming books?"


For me, Goodreads has been a wonderful resource for finding reviews and discussion on books that express a variety of opinions, both good and bad. I truly value this variety and the ability for everyone to express their own opinions.

However, I think that for the site to be the best that it can be, people should stick to a few basic rules. Like only giving ratings and reviews to books they have actually read. Honestly, I don't think that this concept should need to be spelled out and defended.

I don't begrudge people their right to be excited about upcoming books. I get excited too! But there are plenty of other opportunities to express your excitement such as voting on a list of "eagerly anticipated" works, or by starting a discussion thread in a group, or by adding a bookshelf called "super-exciting" -- or whatever.

But like I said, for Goodreads to be the best resource it can be, I think that ratings and reviews should be left for actual ratings and reviews of the actual book after being actually read.


message 38: by Brooke (new)

Brooke | 508 comments Kristin, so far your argument seems to boil down to, "I don't like it." How do these pages stop GR from being the best resource it can be? How is it actually harming the site? Frankly, I think that the informative reviews on George RR Martin's book about the publishing history and how the supposed-to-be-final book in the series was split into two makes that page a great resource now. No one seems to be maliciously insisting they've read a book that hasn't been finished yet. People are using the review section for a variety of things, sometimes as personal notes to themselves to help them keep track of things.

And how exactly do you police people only adding what they've read? Because surely your concern about that would extend to books that have been published, too, if you think fake reviews or ratings harm the site.


message 39: by Kristin (last edited Mar 06, 2010 09:53PM) (new)

Kristin (Kristin05) | 12 comments The reason I originally started this post was because I had recently noticed a large number of unreleased books with a huge number of "reviews" and "ratings" from people who obviously haven't read the unpublished books. And yeah, I don't like it. Wading through a bunch of false "reviews" looking for real information is a pain and often a waste of space that is supposed to be dedicated to book reviews. Adding false ratings is misleading and makes the whole ratings system into a total joke. Why have ratings at all if potentially hundreds of people are giving ratings to unreleased (and UNREAD) books, such as in Michael's example earlier (A Dance with Dragons by George Martin), which isn't even written, yet somehow has 512 "ratings."

I'll accede the point that some of these "reviews" for unpublished books do actually contain some relevant information and comments. But that wasn't what I was originally complaining about. My problem was with the "reviews" that go on and on about how people are so excited about the upcoming book, and how they love this author, and how this next book is going to be awesome, etc etc. That's what discussion forums and fan sites are for, not the review section! I guess that makes me sound grinchy, but I just don't think that's very relevant for a review section if the people writing all that haven't read the book.

So I guess this is essentially my argument:
Goodreads is in large part a site that people use to see reviews and ratings of books given by a variety of people who have actually read the book. If the ratings and reviews are bogus or are difficult to sort through, then that harms the usefulness and validity of the site.

Also, I'm not trying to claim or suggest that there is any way whatsoever to police people into only adding reviews and ratings for books they've read. Originally, I suggested that ratings/reviews should be disabled before a book is published -- because that was the specific problem that I had originally noticed. At this point, I'm just trying to defend the general idea that people should only add reviews and ratings for books they've read, since some people seem to be inexplicably arguing against the concept. Again, there's obviously no way to control people from adding fake reviews or ratings. The only means of potential control that I could see would be to disable these functions before a book's publishing -- but for reasons given earlier in this thread, I don't guess that's feasible.


message 40: by rivka, librarian moderator (new)

rivka | 12300 comments Mod
Kristin wrote: "But like I said, for Goodreads to be the best resource it can be, I think that ratings and reviews should be left for actual ratings and reviews of the actual book after being actually read."

And how would such a policy be enforced?


message 41: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 2048 comments Kristin wrote: "At this point, I'm just trying to defend the general idea that people should only add reviews and ratings for books they've read, since some people seem to be inexplicably arguing against the concept."

Making the notes section more prominent, and having it accept more characters, might make some of the actual "note taking" use of the review field go away. Things like when the book comes out, or rumors about its contents.

But I imagine some people deliberately want to share those "notes" with their friends.


message 42: by Nenangs (new)

Nenangs | 116 comments i am confused...
can we really call this "unreleased-yet-book" a book?

i would say yes for those books with arcs going around, for it means they're definitely finished and only waiting for printing and publication.

but the example of the seeker, the soul, and a dance with dragons, that had not even written by the author yet, just give me the creeps.
if these kind of "books" allowed in GR, well...i think we have to also change (or add?) the ground rules that imaginary books (which everybody can think up) are legit entries for GR.


message 43: by Nikki (new)

Nikki  (shanaqui) | 1331 comments Kristin, the way you use the site is not the only way to use the site. Some people use it just to catalogue books. Some people use it to keep notes about books, not necessarily for anyone else, just for themselves. Some people use it to write reviews, some to meet people who have things in common with them, some to discover new books.

That the site can support all of these things doesn't harm the usefulness and validity of it -- it enhances it.

Granted, it does mean that ratings won't be perfectly 'accurate' -- but how accurate are ratings going to be anyway when the rating system is as subjective as the one we use? ("liked it", "really liked it", etc).

What you're basically saying is, 'I don't like the way people are using the site, and I want people to use it the way I think it should be used, and not in any other way'. Sorry, but I support goodreads being a resource for everybody, in whatever way they need it.


message 44: by Brooke (new)

Brooke | 508 comments Nenangs wrote: "i am confused...
can we really call this "unreleased-yet-book" a book?

i would say yes for those books with arcs going around, for it means they're definitely finished and only waiting for prin..."


The next book in a series is almost always announced before the author has finished writing it, and information such as the title, book cover, release date, etc. will be available on the internet. Fans will often keep track of this and as someone who follows a lot of series, I think that it's a very valuable tool to be able to do so. Although the two Stephanie Meyer books sound a little more tentative than the normal series situation, I think that generally all the next-in-a-series books will be published eventually and are highly different than someone making up a book entry. I'm not sure what's creepy about it?


message 45: by Ralph Gallagher (new)

Ralph Gallagher | 552 comments Brooke wrote: "Nenangs wrote: "i am confused...
can we really call this "unreleased-yet-book" a book?

i would say yes for those books with arcs going around, for it means they're definitely finished and only wai..."


I think allowing unconfirmed books like this is a slippery slope and should be voted on. It's one thing when the books are confirmed by the publisher and such, it's another when the author says "If I decide to write a sequel this is what I'd call it."


message 46: by rivka, librarian moderator (new)

rivka | 12300 comments Mod
Brooke, I agree.

Ralph, I don't know why it would be "voted on". While there is some intermittent discussion about related policies by the relevant GR staff, for now it has been decided that entries like those should be kept.


message 47: by Donna (new)

Donna | 966 comments Part of the problem I have with the "people shouldn't rate books they haven't read" idea is where do we draw the line with that?

Should I not be reviewing books that lost me so badly that I couldn't finish them? My ratings/reviews are as much for my own reference as for other users. But I tend to think my perspective on a failed read could be just as useful as a less critical review, as long as I'm up front about not finishing (the same way that some of these early reviews make it clear the users haven't read the book).


message 48: by Becky (new)

Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 5222 comments Donna, I have a similar concern with where to draw the line for when a book is "confirmed" enough to be added to the site.

Is it when the author has said that they will be writing a book, or when they have actually finished the manuscript, or when it's been sent to publish, or when it's actually released for reviews/sale? There are many different stages, and everyone will have their own idea of what "confirmed" is.

I am glad that Goodreads does not seem to think that their current policy should be changed.


message 49: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 222 comments I don't personally mind if users are rating/reviewing books that have not been released. Honestly, I have not really given it much thought.

But, I wanted to define what I personally think "confirmed" is:

• ISBN given to the book

All modern books should have ISBNs, so I personally think that should be the barometer for when a to-be-published book is allowed to be added. ;)

Though with that said, I am not very bothered by the whole situation. Just wanted to comment on what I think is a pretty easy way to distinguish between "real book" and "imaginary".


message 50: by Ralph Gallagher (new)

Ralph Gallagher | 552 comments Amanda (JT) wrote: "I don't personally mind if users are rating/reviewing books that have not been released. Honestly, I have not really given it much thought.

But, I wanted to define what I personally think "confirm..."


What about ebooks? A lot of those aren't given ISBNs, especially with smaller/niche publishers.


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
back to top