Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
multiple vote help?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mark
(new)
Aug 17, 2011 08:51AM
Hi - I just noticed that 'Prince of Thorns' has got 8 ratings simultaneously from the same person, all appearing within the last few moments - 8 3* ratings by 'saisira'. I'd very much appreciate someone fixing that...
reply
|
flag
Mod
By the way, around here, a 3-star rating is a good rating.
you're seriously saying that if someone takes the trouble to rate each edition separately their opinion carries 8 times the weight of everyone elses?
one person more than doubled my 3* ratings from 5-in-92 to 13-in-100 and that's the way the site is _supposed_ to work?
this isn't a picture book ... this needs fixing
Mod
If the member is acting inappropriately in any other way, please flag the problematic posts/messages, or email links to support@goodreads.com.
ok - the member is acting in appropriately in rating every edition of every book they review. It's clearly ridicuously for you to tell me that person has read 8 separate editions of a new book (actually there are only 4 editions in any case) in that many languages and is entitled to skew the carefully calculated statistics simply through a vindictive mindset
there is a UK edition, a US edition (they are the same bar the spelling of 'colour' so 2 votes there is madness) there is a Dutch and a German edition... how does this person get 8 votes?
the fact they rated 8 editions when there are not 8 editions is a clear indication they are lying and misusing the site.
Abigail wrote: "Mark wrote: "this isn't a picture book ... this needs fixing"I don't think I claimed it was. I was trying to highlight a perfectly legitimate way in which rating multiple editions of the same lis..."
... so in this case those votes should be rescinded and the users cautioned against their manipulation of the system? Or the honest author should just be given the run around ?
when I posted here I expected to find outrage and help ... this is my first book, I've put everything I have into it, it's my livelihood ... I didn't expect to be gently mocked for caring, I expected a mod to be shocked that the system was being manipulated by one who feels their opinion is far more important than all the other memembers' and who would do something about it. This is a site I have loved and recommended ... it's rapidly souring for me.
so if I ask all my twitter followers to rate every edition ... that would be fine?
it's very clearly more important to stop this malpractice than it is to allow a small number of people to genuinely rate multiple editions - it seems obvious to me that outside the inner circle of serious book-fanciers that may well dominate the mods you would find a huge majority who would see the logic in that.
There are 8 editions of this book listed on Goodreads:3 Paperback Editions: 1 Dutch, 1 German, 1 English
2 Kindle Editions: 1 US, 1 UK (judging by the different book covers?)
2 Hardcover Editions: 1 US, 1 UK (judging by the different book covers?)
1 Ebook Edition: Regular ePub, not a Kindle specific edition.
you can view them all here.
I do not believe the user is attempting to act maliciously or manipulate the system. Your book is not the only one they have added multiple ratings to and they have even rated editions that have not yet be released. Judging from their profile and activity it seems like this is a new, and most likely, confused user. No, it is not likely that they have read all editions of your book - especially not all the translations.
At any rate, librarians do not have the ability to undo this, but I'm going to send a message to the user and explain to her that it's not necessary to rate each edition of the book.
If I may for a moment, add a couple of things to think about here? First, I took a quick look at the user and book here. The user's account was opened this month and the plurality of the books on the user's shelf are the different editions of this book. I wanted to see if there were any clues I might be able to pick up.
Is it possible then that user is not actually attempting to manipulate data at all, but merely starting an account/bookshelf and trying to be thorough? Perhaps the user is unaware of how the site works and how the ratings are being skewed by their behavior.
I sincerely hope my post helps and not hinders this discussion.
Edit: I see that as I was typing this Vicky already stated most of my post. Sorry about that.
Mod
I agree that it is unfortunate that this user has rated every edition. However, what it is not is against Goodreads policy, for reasons that Abigail and I explained.
I also agree with Abigail's message 16.
I would also like to return to the fact that the paperback edition is not due for release until 2012 and is erroniously listed. The fact this person has rated it is a clear indication that they are lying about having read it (and at least 6 of the 7 others, half of which are e-versions of the hardcopy) and a clear indication they should not be allowed to do so.
Monique wrote: "Is it possible then that user is not actually attempting to manipulate data at all, but merely starting an account/bookshelf and trying to be thorough? Perhaps the user is unaware of how the site works and how the ratings are being skewed by their behavior. "This was my first thought too... There has been a huge influx of new members to the site recently and it seems plausible to me that this person might have thought that their rating didn't "take" properly, and added one to each "listing" that was missing one.
As Mark was not aware of the way that the different editions can be rated, it seems highly likely that this user did not either. This seems much more likely to me than a "vindictive" good rating (and 3 stars is a good rating here).
Aside from that, I am someone who does read and re-read different editions of books, and I rate those editions accordingly, so I absolutely do not want the functionality to be removed.
ok - I'm over-reacting. I apologise. It does however seem to me to be a much bigger issue than you're allowing. Had a house-fire Monday, smashed iphone Tuesday, son's final exam results tomorrow - stress! Will shut up now :)
Mark, I am sorry that you have had so much going on recently. You said this is your first book and I am sure that what was topmost in your mind was doing the best you can to protect it and your livelihood.
Mark, just so you know... a lot of people on GR look at books with only 4 and 5 star ratings and immediately dismiss the ratings. The assumption is that the person got their friends and family to give the books 5 stars, in other words. I actually think 3 star ratings give legitimacy to a book's ratings- like the books are coming from a reader not a member of a writer's "inner circle". My average rating is a shade over 3 stars, on GR. If you look at the codes, a 3 star book means "liked it". Don't understand how that's a bad rating. Unless a book has hundreds or thousands of ratings, if a book has a GR average over 4 stars, my gut says to avoid it.
I think your gut would be wrong in this case - I don't have an inner circle and I've only ever met one of the 100+ people who've rated the book. The ratings it has achieved have been hard won and I was just a bit dismayed to see it so distorted by a single person in the space of minutes. I'm sure enough genuine 3* and below will come along in due course without me blessing my lucky stars for 'saisira' giving me ... legitimacy :)
I only pay attention to reviews with more than just stars. I'd rather read why someone hated it or loved it and balance that into reading or not, not just the stars themselves unless I know the rater personally.
