THE Group for Authors! discussion
General Discussion
>
Posting of Reviews/Ratings Before Book Release
date
newest »
newest »
Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good advertising for the book. I got one hardcover copy of a book a few years ago that I received and read nearly two and a half months before its official publication date.
This has been brought up in the Feedback group. While I agree with you 100% that people shouldn't rate books that they haven't read, it's impossible to enforce. A lot of people read books before the release date - editors, beta readers, people with ARCs. To turn off reviews/ratings before the publication date would disable those members from rating books. It also doesn't help for books with multiple release dates in multiple countries.
Lisa wrote: "Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good advertising for the book. I got one hardcover copy of a bo..."Good point, Lisa, and I also benefit from such reviews. Perhaps I should add the distinction between solicited and unsolicited pre-release reviews. I would love to continue to have pre-release reviews from sources I have arranged, and if that means copying and pasting their review into the "author review" section, then I am comfortable with that. However, these malicious, unsolicited, pre-release attacks from readers who have not read the book I feel need to cease.
Cheers!
Christopher
Ralph wrote: "This has been brought up in the Feedback group. While I agree with you 100% that people shouldn't rate books that they haven't read, it's impossible to enforce. A lot of people read books before th..."Then an author should copy and paste solicited pre-release content into the "author review", and then restrict the reader review. Perhaps an author can have two or more "author reviews" they can propagate. I use other sites which have sections for three or more author-arranged reviews, though off-hand I cannot recall which ones.
You guys have come up with some amazing fixes for other issues, and I am confident you can find a solution for this one.
Cheers!
Christopher
Christopher wrote: "Perhaps I should add the distinction between solicited and unsolicited pre-release reviews. I would love to continue to have pre-release reviews from sources I have arranged, and if that means copying and pasting their review into the "author review" section, then I am comfortable with that. However, these malicious, unsolicited, pre-release attacks from readers who have not read the book I feel need to cease."I do not think that it is in keeping with the spirit of GR that an author should feature pre-release reviews he has pre-arranged, that is, authorised, and not allow them from anyone else. I understand that you want to limit negative reviews from people you do not think could have read the book, but you do not know that for sure. Its very easy to buy ARCs on the internet and in used book shops and I would imagine should someone write a positive review you wouldn't want that deleted.
The idea of having only reviews on a book that are 'author-arranged' until publication date are obviously all going to be positive and that is a marketing effort, not any more honest than the system in place now, just more beneficial to the author.
Petra X wrote: "Its very easy to buy ARCs on the internet and in used book shops ."I am very sorry to sound combatitive, but is the spirit of Goodreads to reward and encourage bad behavior?
Almost every Advance Review Copy is clearly marked NOT FOR SALE, and it is a specific condition of advanced reviewing that the ARC should not be sold.
Therefore, pre-release, if anyone buys an ARC on the internet or in a used book store, they have not only purchased an illegal copy, but they have purchased a copy not in its final form, and not necessarily reflective of editing changes that may take place before the final release.
Professional reviewers understand what to overlook. Ordinary readers may not appreciate that an ARC is not fair game for comments about spelling, punctuation, etc or for small inconsistencies that a Beta reader or final galley proofing might fix.
Author-arranged reviews are not all positive. Authors have no control over what Romantic Times etc is going to publish. Nor do authors control the reviews provided through the Goodreads giveaway system.
The strongest argument for authors to give away ARCs in the GoodReads Giveaway program is that this is a system that offers exclusive, free, advance reads by lottery favoring Goodreads' most prolific and responsible and prompt reviewers.
You completely undermine that mutual advantage for authors and for Goodreads' best members if you give equal weight to malicious reviews by internet pirates and receivers of "stolen" goods, and even to the activists who write bad reviews to punish an author or publisher because they don't like the price/non-availability of a e-book version, or an author's known stance on copyright infringement.
IMHO, the only pre-release reviews or ratings permitted on Goodreads ought to be those uploaded by the winners of Goodreads' giveaways (who are chosen by lottery by Goodreads, as you know, and not by the author), and those clearly marked as uploaded by the author.
That arrangement would support the Goodreads giveaway system, and would be fair to all.
Rowena wrote: "You completely undermine that mutual advantage for authors and for Goodreads' best members if you give equal weight to malicious reviews by internet pirates and receivers of "stolen" goods, and even to the activists who write bad reviews to punish an author or publisher because they don't like the price/non-availability of a e-book version, or an author's known stance on copyright infringement."Best members "know what to overlook"? Others are "internet pirates" and "receivers of stolen goods" and "activists who write bad reviews to punish an author". What kind of talk is this? Throwing such terms around is not conducive at all of a calm and logical discussion. Is it so hard to accept the negative reviews might be because the reviewer just didn't like your book?
Rowena, I just want to say that Goodreads does have a formula for giving out the First Reads giveaway program books, but it's a mostly random process. There are many, many winners with zero, or only a few, books reviewed or even shelved. So, it's not only Goodreads' "best" members/reviewers who win books here. And as far as prompt reviewers, some winners don't even properly review the books they've won, although I think most do, so that is good, yes.
Petra X wrote: "What kind of talk is this? Throwing such terms around is not conducive at all of a calm and logical discussion. Is it so hard to accept the negative reviews might be because the reviewer just didn't like your book? ..."Petra X, it may surprise you, but some people out there are not good. For reasons only known to them, some people like to maliciously attack authors, even to the extent where a court of law might consider it stalking. I know of a few authors on Goodreads who have been the target of such attacks.
This is not about bad reviews or ratings from people who have read an author's book and didn't like it; this is about malicious attacks on authors using social media (Goodreads) as a battleground and reviews and ratings as weapons. You obviously have not been the target of abusive attacks (neither have I, but I suppose I am more proactive than reactive), or you would have a different stance, I would wager.
So by all means continue to let people with legitimate ARCs post reviews and ratings, good or bad, but protect authors from malicious attacks; some authors have already left Goodreads because their complaints about attacks were allegedly not resolved, and a few authors I know are considering avoiding Goodreads entirely.
Cheers!
Christopher
Petra X wrote: "The idea of having only reviews on a book that are 'author-arranged' until publication date are obviously all going to be positive and that is a marketing effort, not any more honest than the system in place now, just more beneficial to the author."Not all author-arranged reviews would be good reviews; few may even be good. Let's say I send an ARC to a fantasy periodical, they write a negative review, and they want to post it to Goodreads... I am OK with that; I sent them the ARC, and whatever will be will be.
Now, if someone out of the blue decided today is the day they will pick on authors who wear kilts, who write about fantasy, who are perceived to represent anything disparaging to their beliefs, and attack that author by maliciously posting acidic reviews, 0 ratings, and getting their cohorts to do the same (especially for a book that isn't even released yet), that I am not OK with. At the very least, that is bullying.
Cheers!
Christopher
Christopher wrote: "So by all means continue to let people with legitimate ARCs post reviews and ratings, good or bad, but protect authors from malicious attacks"Your suggested system still blocks reviews of legitimately obtained ARCS.
I received an ARC directly from an author through a charity auction on eBay. The review of that book would have been blocked using your system, since the author has no idea what my Goodreads username is. She doesn't even know I belong to Goodreads.
Petra X wrote: "Best members "know what to overlook"? Others are "internet pirates" and "receivers of stolen goods" and "activists who write bad reviews to punish an author". What kind of talk is this? "Petra X, what kind of talk is it? It is your kind of talk, because you have misquoted me in the most outrageous way.
In the sole context of a discussion about pre-release reviews based on Advance Reader/Review copies, I wrote
"Professional reviewers understand what to overlook. Ordinary readers may not appreciate that an ARC is not fair game for comments about spelling, punctuation, etc or for small inconsistencies that a Beta reader or final galley proofing might fix.
You substituted your term "best members" for my term, "Professional reviewers" and you have reported my remarks which were solely confined in my paragraph about spelling, punctuation, and grammar and proofing errors to a much broader context.
You quoted one paragraph of my comment, and summarized a different one.
Further, you threw in a completely specious personal insult, when my point was about pre-release works, the logistics and realities of ARCs and your comment that ARCs can easily be purchased on the internet and in used book stores prior to a book's initial release date.
Lisa wrote: "Rowena, I just want to say that Goodreads does have a formula for giving out the First Reads giveaway program books, but it's a mostly random process. There are many, many winners with zero, or onl..."I know that, Lisa, and I apologize if I took a short cut in my comments. I have participated in the Goodreads giveaway program twice, and have recommended it (albeit not for the past two years).
As a lottery run by Goodreads, it is not author-controlled. The author does not select the winners, and apart from knowing the names and email addresses of all readers who sighed up, and the mailing addresses of the actual winner/winners, the author has no control over when or whether the winner will write a review, or what sort of review it might be.
That's why Goodreads giveaways are good for Goodreads readers. Advance reviews. No control by the author.
When I was participating, I was told (or read in the rules of the program at that time) that Goodreads members who complied with the expectation that they should read the book they won promptly, and write a review were "rewarded" with extra chances to win in the future.
If that feature has gone away, I apologized for the inaccuracy. I thought it was a reasonable plan, because Goodreads cannot force any winner to read or review... they can only reward those who do.
mlady_rebecca wrote: "Your suggested system still blocks reviews of legitimately obtained ARCS."No, I am not suggesting a system; I am merely posing a problem that I trust Goodreads will develop a system to counter, taking into consideration how to protect authors from malicious attacks, especially before a book is released, and still allow for legitimate contributions to reviews and ratings from ARCs or whatnot.
Cheers!
Christopher
Rowena wrote: "When I was participating, I was told (or read in the rules of the program at that time) that Goodreads members who complied with the expectation that they should read the book they won promptly, and write a review were "rewarded" with extra chances to win in the future."Yes, that is still in effect. If a member doesn't have reviews for previously won books, their chances of winning future books is greatly diminished.
Thank you for confirming that, Lisa. I think it's a very good system, probably the best that can be done, all things considered.
Lisa wrote: "Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good advertising for the book. I got one hardcover copy of a bo..."The solution to ARC ratings/reviews is to use the solution that Christopher mentioned in the first post. An ARC should be listed as a separate book anyway. So it would have a date of publish that's correct and the rest can fall into place and the ARC can then be rated/reviewed properly.
JSWolf wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good advertising for the book. I got one hardcover..."The better solution would be for you to stop attempting to impose your vision of what ratings should mean onto a site of over 20 million users. Also, this isn't how ARCs work. This also isn't how PUBLISHERS want ARCs to work. They don't want to hand a bunch of ARCs to readers in the hopes of generating pre-publication reviews/buzz and then have all of those reviews and all of that buzz disappear the day that the book is published. That idea is stupid.
The real question is this: what axe are you grinding here?
Moonlight Reader wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good advertising for the book. I go..."Those ARC ratings/reviews would not go away as they'd still be on GR. But they would be in a separate entry.
JSWolf wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Christopher, What about authors who want to give out advance copies of their book to generate reviews prior to publication date? It's good adve..."They would be useless because they would not be on the book page of the published book.
Also, the ARC is not a separate book anyway. It is misleading.
If an ARC has a different ending, how would that not make it the same book?
Having reviews for an ARC is a GOOD thing--providing that you provided a good ARC. I see it as a great promotional opportunity and a chance for people to learn about a book before it comes out. If you're afraid of how people are going to rate your ARC, you shouldn't put it out there.
Some of my author friends have mentioned reporting these attacks to your admins, and the responses have been akin to "boys will be boys" with no alleged actions on your part to address the issue. Surely your developers can add some simple code to compare today's date with the release date and disallow the posting of reviews or ratings until today >= release date.
One other thing I wish to add is the desire, expressed by many of my author friends, to include a required field when posting a rating or review where the reader must indicate whether they read the entire book, none of the book, or part of the book. While dishonest readers will still lie, honest readers will choose an option that best fits their situation. Authors and other readers would both benefit from this new feature.
Thank you for looking into these matters.
Cheers!
Christopher Dunbar