# Hit by book trasher on Goodreads



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

Not sure what I should or can do about this:

I signed into my Goodreads account today to find at least 20 new 1 star reviews all left by the same person. I know he hasn't read any of my work because at least 5 of those books are not even available for purchase and haven't been for some time. In one case, this reviewer even put one star on each of the various 'edition's'. Obviously it's brought my rating down quite a bit since I don't have a ton of reviews to begin with, especially for a couple of books that had none -- well now they have one :-/.

After looking at this person's rating history, it quickly became apparent they've done the same thing to hundreds of other authors (690 1 star reviews). As I mentioned above, the chances of this person having read my stuff is next to nil for two reasons. A) Several of those books are not even available and haven't been for a while. B) People don't usually read the entire catalog for an author who's work they hate.

Personally, I don't have a problem with *an honest one star review*. Stuff happens, right? Not everyone's gonna be thrilled with your work. I get it. Short of just 'ignoring it' has anyone had to deal with Goodreads on similar issues? And if so where they willing/able to fix things. I do remember a past thread mentioning this sort of thing occurring, but it was a review for a single book, not everything the author had ever written. Apart from 'move on' does anyone have any advice?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Some people use star ratings on Goodreads to help the recommendation engine know what kind of books they do/do not want to read. I can't say for sure, but perhaps this person is one-starring books in genres they don't want to be recommended. ETA: Also, just FYI - GR does not require a reviewer to have read or finished a book before rating or reviewing.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

From what I gather, people at Goodreads also use one or five stars to ensure that only certain books get recommended to them.
So maybe by giving your genre one-stars they avoid having those pop up.
Or maybe they use one stars to organize their books by what they had for breakfast that day. It's not always about how much they like a title over there.


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

Goodreads will usually do something about such blatant downrating. Provide them with the URLs of as many of your books as you can, and the reviewer's name and URL. Also note how many one stars he/she's given.


----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

Thanks Catana! That's good to hear. I'll send them an email with the info and come back to follow up on their response. 

@Quiss and Diana: I think you're right that people will sometimes downvote books in genres they don't want Goodreads to recommend to them. I was doing the same when I first joined before I realized my 'preferences' were showing up as ratings and I quickly fixed what I'd done. I also know that haters gonna hate and we the internet can often bring out the worst in people. In this case, I'm hopeful that GR will undo a blatant and petty attempt to harm, with the click of a mouse, thousands of hours of hard work.


----------



## jsparks (May 18, 2013)

Don't worry too much about your rating on Goodreads. I usually browse for books to buy there, and I never really notice the rating, I just look at cover and blurb. And then I read the reviews that are there. The star ratings can't be interpreted in the same way as Amazon uses them. I rate stuff that I haven't read 1star simply to tell the system 'I don't want suggestions like this'.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I just wanted to tell you that if I had not seen you on Kboards I would not have gotten Hive.  Your blurb told me absolutely nothing unless I wanted to hit see more.  I really don't care that Hugh and friends loved it.  When I am buying a book, I want to know what the book is about.  Not what some Tom, Dick or Harry (that I may not have heard of) thought of it.    Please fix.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Griffin Hayes said:


> Thanks Catana! That's good to hear. I'll send them an email with the info and come back to follow up on their response.
> 
> @Quiss and Diana: I think you're right that people will sometimes downvote books in genres they don't want Goodreads to recommend to them. I was doing the same when I first joined before I realized my 'preferences' were showing up as ratings and I quickly fixed what I'd done. I also know that haters gonna hate and we the internet can often bring out the worst in people. In this case, I'm hopeful that GR will undo a blatant and petty attempt to harm, with the click of a mouse, thousands of hours of hard work.


You indicate that you understand how folks on GR use stars to drive their personal recommendations (not required to be used as a review) and then in the next sentence accuse this person of a "blatant and petty attempt to harm" as well calling them a "book trasher" in the title of this thread - because they used GR ratings in a way that is allowed?

It might be interesting to keep track of whether the number of your 1* ratings go up in the next few days as more Goodreaders decide they don't want to read your books because you publically called out someone for using the star ratings in a way they were intended to be used. A 1* on Goodreads without a review says nothing about you personally nor about the quality of your books, it can just mean that particular person has no desire to read your books.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

Perhaps someone reacted to you giving your own books 5 stars?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

AmsterdamAssassin said:


> Perhaps someone reacted to you giving your own books 5 stars?


Yeah, it was probably due to this.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Welcome to Goodreads! The land where up is down and down is up.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

crebel said:


> You indicate that you understand how folks on GR use stars to drive their personal recommendations (not required to be used as a review) and then in the next sentence accuse this person of a "blatant and petty attempt to harm" as well calling them a "book trasher" in the title of this thread - because they used GR ratings in a way that is allowed?
> 
> It might be interesting to keep track of whether the number of your 1* ratings go up in the next few days as more Goodreaders decide they don't want to read your books because you publically called out someone for using the star ratings in a way they were intended to be used. A 1* on Goodreads without a review says nothing about you personally nor about the quality of your books, it can just mean that particular person has no desire to read your books.


Yes this.

And in addition. I looked at your books. They have a very very high average rating. I had to search and filter to even find the one stars. And there are very few of them, some books only like 2. I couldn't even find the GR member you are calling out here without doing a filter. The ratings did not even show up in any normal viewing of your books. They are practically invisible. Well until now of course. 
And that member has their profile set to private, so there is no way to knowing how many 1 stars they gave to anyone. How would you even know that.

And yeah, giving yourself 5 stars when you already have a super high average rating with mostly 4 and 5 stars really looks bad.

Just move on, really. It always looks weird to me to have authors complaining about low stars when they have mostly 4 and 5 stars and a couple of 1 stars. Just odd that one.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

jsparks said:


> Don't worry too much about your rating on Goodreads. I usually browse for books to buy there, and I never really notice the rating, I just look at cover and blurb. And then I read the reviews that are there. The star ratings can't be interpreted in the same way as Amazon uses them. I rate stuff that I haven't read 1star simply to tell the system 'I don't want suggestions like this'.


I wouldn't worry about Goodreads too much when it comes to review scores.

Also, I would heed cinisajoy's advice. We want to know what the book/story is about, not whether the King of Siam and the Emperor of Tau Ceti V loved it. Or that Hugh Howey guy, whoever he is that everyone keeps talking about.


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)




----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

Some interesting reactions. Thanks to everyone who dropped in to share their thoughts. 

A special thanks to cinisajoy for picking up Hive. And I'll look into fixing the blurb. ;-)


----------



## TonyWrites (Oct 1, 2013)

I agree with those who tell you not to sweat this, Griffin.  The troll who gave your books those one-star reviews was just an Internet bully out having yet another bad day and trying to bring everybody down with him/her by posting bad reviews at Goodreads.

And look on the bright side: at least you were not fleeced by an Internet scammer like I once was (and not ever again!   )


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Report it to Goodreads - there should be a button if it's a review. If it's a rating I don't know if they have the same spam notification button.


----------



## Kevin B. Leigh (Oct 1, 2013)

Ratings Hackers are in every industry. There is a new thing going on in the business world where customers are giving bad reviews knowing that the company will try to make them happy, sometimes with cash or gifts. 
It really sucks. 
I hope you can get him/her removed from GoodReads, because I love their community almost as much as kBoards.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

TonyWrites said:


> The troll who gave your books those one-star reviews was just an Internet bully out having yet another bad day and trying to bring everybody down with him/her by posting bad reviews at Goodreads.


Sorry, but this is just WRONG.

As had been explained previously in the thread, READERS use Goodreads to keep track of what they've read and what they'd like to read. And if they are given a suggestion of a book or author they are not interested in, it is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE to mark those books 1 star so that GR will no longer suggest things like that. It is even appropriate for them to have read one book by an author, decide they don't want to read more, and go mark them all 1 star. Or to have only _heard_ about a book from a friend and decide, based on that, that they don't want to read them and mark them 1 star.

That is not being a troll.

That is not being an internet bully.

AND. . . THIS is a PUBLIC FORUM. You having said this is now there for the world to see. It is exactly the sort of thing that is very likely to influence readers AGAINST YOU.

I would remind all of you who are authors to keep that in mind when posting here. There are readers who care if a person is a jerk, or not, on public forums.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> As had been explained previously in the thread, READERS use Goodreads to keep track of what they've read and what they'd like to read. And if they are given a suggestion of a book or author they are not interested in, it is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE to mark those books 1 star so that GR will no longer suggest things like that.


It seems that this point needs to be brought up again and again.
I would suggest that because of this the entire Goodreads rating system is just broken. You have two types of users using it for two entirely different reasons. 
On one hand it helps some readers keep organized and on the other hand you have people relying on it to decide what books to read because they believe this to be an indication of quality, not personal preference.
It IS damaging for authors and it means that some books may not be read by people who may otherwise enjoy them.

Goodreads needs to make clear that the rating system is NOT an indication of quality OR they need to give readers some other way to influence what books are being presented.
You really can't blame authors for chafing under the current system.

In almost all other places low stars mean poor quality. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> As had been explained previously in the thread, READERS use Goodreads to keep track of what they've read and what they'd like to read. And if they are given a suggestion of a book or author they are not interested in, it is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE to mark those books 1 star so that GR will no longer suggest things like that. It is even appropriate for them to have read one book by an author, decide they don't want to read more, and go mark them all 1 star. Or to have only _heard_ about a book from a friend and decide, based on that, that they don't want to read them and mark them 1 star.


Inspired by this debate, I hovered over the stars at GR, just to see what they mean.

1 = "did not like it"
5 = "it was amazing"

I assume that "it" refers to the book being rated, and the past tense signifies that the reviewer has actually read the book.

Maybe I'm wrong, at the above means something totally different?


----------



## Nikki Pink (Jan 23, 2013)

Maya Cross said:


> I got about ten good reads accounts removed at one point when I was starting out. The support team there has certain criteria for when they can deem an account to be obviously fraudulent, but if it's literally all one stars on the same day or something similar, that's usually enough. I eventually gave up because it became more hassle than it was worth, but if the reviews are a high enough percentage of the total that they're significantly dragging your scores down, then there's no harm in trying to report the account.


So was someone after you for some reason? Do you know why? I'd hate to end up in the same situation!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

To clarify:  I am not, myself, a GoodReads user. Part of the reason is this mash up of ratings/reccos/reviews. But an awful lot of people are and use the system as I've described because that's the only way to tailor what it recommends. Me: I see them as two different systems and this is, perhaps, a failing of the GoodReads site.

Nevertheless: as it is, one ought to recognize that this happens and try to not get too bent out of shape with 'down votes'.  A better response than posting to complain on a public message board like this, is to contact GR directly and recommend that they separate the recco system from the review/rating system.

Amazon does separate things.  I can, when I get a recommendation from them, mark it as 'not interested'.  Which doesn't mean I don't like it and doesn't affect the books rating.  It just tells Amazon not to recommend that sort of thing any more.  Also my ratings don't count toward the overall book rating unless I go to the trouble to write a short review under their review system.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Report it to Goodreads - there should be a button if it's a review. If it's a rating I don't know if they have the same spam notification button.


Ratings or reviews, if you look at them in the list below your book title, you can hover in the lower right corner and find a flag to report the rating or the review. If it's a drive-by targeting all your books, as happened to me, you can just report them as 'malicious drive-by rating'.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Sorry, but this is just WRONG.
> 
> As had been explained previously in the thread, READERS use Goodreads to keep track of what they've read and what they'd like to read. And if they are given a suggestion of a book or author they are not interested in, it is COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE to mark those books 1 star so that GR will no longer suggest things like that. It is even appropriate for them to have read one book by an author, decide they don't want to read more, and go mark them all 1 star. Or to have only _heard_ about a book from a friend and decide, based on that, that they don't want to read them and mark them 1 star.
> 
> ...


I fully agree with Ann, and thank you for speaking up about Goodreads. I don't know why so many authors are so chicken-poop scared of the place, nor why so many authors trash on it (what terrible, awful, bad form, since it is the largest community of READERS on the planet. Who buys your books, if not readers?), nor why so many authors take a few one-star ratings so personally. Everybook that has ever been written has a few bad ratings...or will, once it's widely read enough.

Goodreads has always been wonderful to me, but then, I've never had so much disrespect for my readers to view them as trolls or bullies just because they didn't care for what I wrote...or what I said about them somewhere else on the internet...or any other thing I did or did not do. People have opinions, and people use social media for different purposes, tailored to the needs of that individual. It's not the end of the world, and if authors can't deal with readers being both vocal and honest, perhaps they ought to hold off on publishing until their skins are a little thicker, for their own comfort.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Quiss said:


> It seems that this point needs to be brought up again and again.
> I would suggest that because of this the entire Goodreads rating system is just broken. You have two types of users using it for two entirely different reasons.
> On one hand it helps some readers keep organized and on the other hand you have people relying on it to decide what books to read because they believe this to be an indication of quality, not personal preference.
> It IS damaging for authors and it means that some books may not be read by people who may otherwise enjoy them.
> ...


But ratings and reviews are not FOR AUTHORS. They are FOR READERS. They always have been.

So honestly, why on earth do you care how and why Goodreads readers use their ratings system? They've developed a system that works for them, given the tools they have on that web site.

Ratings aren't for you.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

And a reminder that "troll" is a four letter word here.  

Thanks!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> So honestly, why on earth do you care how and why Goodreads readers use their ratings system?


Because I am also a reader and I look for highly rated books. I can't rely on that at Goodreads.

Whether or not ratings are for readers isn't the question. We all know what they're for. But if someone uses the rating system the way it is used everywhere else then I (as an author) am not finding my readers, and vice versa. That's why I care.

Hence my point about Goodreads making it clearer how their site works, since not everyone is aware of it.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I also use GR as a reader, but I don't pay attention to ratings-only "reviews" (without any explanation for the rating or thoughts on the book.)  So the "non-text reviews," as GR calls them, don't influence my decision to buy a book or to not buy it.  

Text reviews that clearly have no solid reason for the rating they gave (i.e., are obviously just a grudge review for goodness knows what silly reason, and don't share an opinion on the book or on the author in general) don't influence my opinions, either.  The only reviews that make a difference to me as a reader are those which indicate the reviewer actually read the book (or tried to) and had clear reasons for liking it or not liking it.

I wonder whether the non-text ratings and the obviously grudge-fueled text reviews influence ANY reader.  If they do, it has to be a very, very tiny percentage.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

ElHawk said:


> I also use GR as a reader, but I don't pay attention to ratings-only "reviews" (without any explanation for the rating or thoughts on the book.) So the "non-text reviews," as GR calls them, don't influence my decision to buy a book or to not buy it.
> 
> Text reviews that clearly have no solid reason for the rating they gave (i.e., are obviously just a grudge review for goodness knows what silly reason, and don't share an opinion on the book or on the author in general) don't influence my opinions, either. The only reviews that make a difference to me as a reader are those which indicate the reviewer actually read the book (or tried to) and had clear reasons for liking it or not liking it.
> 
> I wonder whether the non-text ratings and the obviously grudge-fueled text reviews influence ANY reader. If they do, it has to be a very, very tiny percentage.


Yes this. Why do some authors think that us readers are dumb as a box of rocks. We can see for ourselfs and make a decision on that. We don't need authors to hold our hands looking at only cleansed from low star type reviews.

And here is the thing, the ratings that started this thread are invisible. You don't see them at all when you look at goodreads as a user. I had to go look for them on purpose to see them. The OP also has a very very high rating with almost no low stars. On goodreads the whole point is to find other readers that like some of the stuff you like so you can compare the books they read and you read. That system uses the star rating only, just like netflix. Its one of the reasons many of us GR. Once you start getting friends and follow people, those are the reviews and ratings you always see first. Most of us never have to scroll any further to see the rest. 
And when one of my friends rates a book, even if there is no text review, I know. It helps me if I know they liked a book, or didn't like it. I don't need to know more. I am already familiar with how they rate the books they rate. Its between us readers.

This same calling of readers on a regular basis is really tiring. I mean really, bully? For someone leaving a 1 star on a book site? Ever been really bullied? I have and its an insult to use that term so lightly.

Stop trying to dictate how readers and reviewers are suppose to cater to your wishes. Stop trying to cleans reviews and rating of any and all lower stars, it looks really bad. I see an indy now with nothing but 4 and 5 stars, I wonder. Its not organic. Look at any other books by big authors, any genre. See all those no text star ratings all over the place? Does anyone care? No.

I say it again, we readers have a brain just like you. We are not children that need a hand holding while looking at other readers ratings.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> I also use GR as a reader, but I don't pay attention to ratings-only "reviews" (without any explanation for the rating or thoughts on the book.) So the "non-text reviews," as GR calls them, don't influence my decision to buy a book or to not buy it.
> 
> Text reviews that clearly have no solid reason for the rating they gave (i.e., are obviously just a grudge review for goodness knows what silly reason, and don't share an opinion on the book or on the author in general) don't influence my opinions, either. The only reviews that make a difference to me as a reader are those which indicate the reviewer actually read the book (or tried to) and had clear reasons for liking it or not liking it.
> 
> I wonder whether the non-text ratings and the obviously grudge-fueled text reviews influence ANY reader. If they do, it has to be a very, very tiny percentage.


THIS x100. Yes, GR uses its rating system differently -- and readers who use GR KNOW THAT.

Star ratings without reviews are 100% useless to me. If I see a book with a 2-star overall rating, then I might go "Wow, why?" and read some reviews. If the reviews are mostly thoughtful and positive, those one-stars don't influence me. A one-star doesn't hurt unless a case is made for that one star, and the same is true in reverse for a five star. (Of course, authors never complain about a 5-star rating without a review.)

Sometimes I'm surprised at the perception of readers here - like they're not capable of independent or intelligent thought, putting two and two together, etc. On GR, especially, I've found that there are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful readers who also, y'know, read a LOT. Just saying.

ETA: Ninja'd by Atunah!


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Quiss said:


> Because I am also a reader and I look for highly rated books. I can't rely on that at Goodreads.
> 
> Whether or not ratings are for readers isn't the question. We all know what they're for. But if someone uses the rating system the way it is used everywhere else then I (as an author) am not finding my readers, and vice versa. That's why I care.
> 
> Hence my point about Goodreads making it clearer how their site works, since not everyone is aware of it.


By that standard where can you rely on the ratings? Are only 5* rated books (lots of those on GoodReads without a supporting review) the ratings you trust? Why is it only the self-published/indie/whatever-the-politically-correct appellation is now, who don't understand the TOS at GoodReads? Thank you to Ann, ElHawk, and Atunah for once again trying to explain how the site is used. Please don't hurt yourselves banging your heads against the wall.

In the last two weeks, GoodReads has bent over backwards to appease authors who don't like the way readers have used the ratings/reviews/shelving of books. Thousands of users have abandoned the system, removed their thoughtful reviews, and taken them to other sites that remain a system of cataloging books to their personal preferences.

They just want to review/rate as they see fit rather than be an additional sales tool for Amazon (now that they have purchased GR) when they are not allowed to say or shelve anything that may be perceived as negative (with the words troll, bully, and trasher being used frequently against them) with risk of having everything deleted on a whim of one person who's feelings are hurt. You may find GR a friendlier place now that it is being converted to a sales site instead of a reader's cataloging site.

Do some people abuse the system? Yes, absolutely, with both positive ratings and negative ratings. In the grand scheme of things should it matter? No. Different people have different reasons why they rate a book the way they do, it is still a personal opinion. If a lot of fans rate a book 5* and I buy it and decide that I think the writing is dreck do I start a thread saying, "OMG, how can all of these people think this is the best book they've ever read, they must be trolls!" Of course not. But I can rate it 1* and never want to read anything else by that author again, ever.

Unfortunately there is probably never going to be agreement between writers/readers/reviewers/raters, so I will keep my fingers off the keys from here on out.

If one or two readers rate something 1* for whatever reason, I can take it with a grain of salt and make up my own mind. If many people rate it 1*, I find there is usually a reason for it. Have I veered too far into WHOA territory? If so, moderators, feel free to edit or delete my post.


----------



## Nikki Pink (Jan 23, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I wonder whether the non-text ratings and the obviously grudge-fueled text reviews influence ANY reader. If they do, it has to be a very, very tiny percentage.


I suspect it's not those specific things which upset authors, but the fact that those ratings still affect the number of stars next to the title of their book. As a very casual Goodreads reader, as I suspect most authors who never used it until they started publishing are, I might not bother to look at the books with, say 3* or lower when I'm just browsing, even if it turns out that the reason their score isn't higher is because of a bunch of people who didn't even read the book 'down'voting it.

But I, and most authors, are not the average Goodreads user. Goodreads 'real' readers are looking for very specific things. They aren't thinking "I want a book to read." They are thinking "I want a historical novel set in Ancient Egypt, and gosh-darned, when I find one, I'm actually going to read the reviews and see if it might suit me - whether it currently has 1 star or 5 stars, I'll make the effort to see whether it fits." For these users, the 'real' Goodreads regulars, the *s next to a title aren't that important - if they want something in their micro-niche they're going to at least check out the 'real' reviews. If the reviews say "I hate books about Egypt", they're going to ignore them. If they say, "I'm an Egyptologist with two PhDs and three pyramids uncovered, and this book is not only historically accurate, but an awesome read, I give it 1* because it's no. 1!!!", they're going to buy them -- no matter how many stars next to the title.

Basically, authors shouldn't get hung up on the * rating on Goodreads. The users aren't dumb, and if you're writing in a specific area they want to read, they'll check your work out in a bit more detail than just the * rating. If you're writing in an area they don't want to read... well... if no one on Goodreads wants to read it, you might want to adjust either how you portray your book, or what you write in future. They're a MASSIVE group of voracious readers, and if you can't find a few to at least check it out there, then there is probably something wrong. This might be why pure 'literary' has a hard time online - it's too 'vague'. I reckon most literary-fiction authors should take a careful look and then stick their works in a genre. For example, if I was Kazuo Ishiguro and no one had ever heard of me and I'd just decided to self-publish "Never Let Me Go" you're gonna bet it'd be in sci-fi and dystopian, NOT literary fiction.

OK, I'm wandering now... anyway: Authors, don't worry about *s too much on Goodreads. They're not for you.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Ahhhh, I get it now.
I am not a real Goodreads user. That certainly explains things. 

I'm not even being all that facetious. I don't use Goodreads extensively. There, I said it. Therefore when I see the above-mentioned:
1 = “did not like it”
5 = “it was amazing”
I tend to assume that's what it means.

I stand corrected.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Nikki Pink said:


> *OK, I'm wandering now... anyway: Authors, don't worry about *s too much on Goodreads. They're not for you.*


I'm pulling this out and bolding it so hopefully people will read it and not only read it, but take it to heart.

There ARE some people out there who are mean and nasty and want to rate you down.
BUT there are a lot more people out there who use goodreads to help other readers and more importantly to help themselves to not look at stuff they are not interested in.

Don't ascribe to malice what can be attributed to some other motivation.

And lastly, remember that almost every internet fracas is solved by stepping away from your keyboard and having something to snack on.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I think Nikki's assessment is right, that authors tend to get way more hung up on the number of stars that appear next to their title than readers get.  It's an understandable reaction, since we wrote the darn things and we love 'em, and we want to see the greatest possible number of stars. But we have to keep in mind that some of the most highly regarded books ever written often have average ratings in the three-star range...because the more people who read a book, the more divergent the opinions of the readers.  If Lolita or The Great Gatsby or Harry Potter has roughly a three-star average, does that stop anybody from buying those books and reading and possibly loving them, if that's the kind of book those individuals are looking for? Nope.

Also, bear in mind that ratings tend to skew lower on Goodreads than on Amazon because the stars represent different levels of enjoyment on each site.  On GR, three stars means "I liked it," while on Amazon I believe it means ambivalence.  That will probably change now that Amazon owns the site and is obviously using it for a marketing tool...but as of right now, the rankings are fundamentally different at each site because of the way they are labeled.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

TonyWrites said:


> I agree with those who tell you not to sweat this, Griffin. The troll who gave your books those one-star reviews was just an Internet bully out having yet another bad day and trying to bring everybody down with him/her by posting bad reviews at Goodreads.
> 
> And look on the bright side: at least you were not fleeced by an Internet scammer like I once was (and not ever again!  )


I agree with Ann. This is just wrong. 

The reviewer bashing is ridiculous if the person is using the site as intended/instructed.

Also, what the heck does your being "fleeced by an Internet scammer" have to do with this thread?


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

Thanks to those who have already said what I'm about to say and have said it better. Since this thread has royally pissed me off, I've decided not to set away from the keyboard and repeat what has already been said.

Readers are not stupid. Some of them have actual reading comprehension skills. Shocking I know.

People who 1* a book on Goodreads are not trolls, haters, trashers, bullies or any of the myriad other names they have been called. They are most likely people who either didn't like the book or don't want to read the book. They are people who want relevant recommendations.

1* ratings on Goodreads are not drive-bys. They mean "Hated it" "don't recommend books like this to me". Most likely the reader has never even heard of the author beyond that book. It is not personal.

The ratings are not there to help authors sell books. They are there to help readers find books. It sucks for writers that it impacts advertising opportunities. However, it is not the responsibility of the individual reader to consider the author's need to make a living when rating a book. My responsibility on Goodreads is to ME. I want to find good books to read. At least right now, Goodreads does that through their recommendations and friend recommendations.

What some people seem to forget (or didn't know), is when you join Goodreads and when you look at recommendations, you are encouraged to rate books. I checked my stats. I have rated hundreds of books. I did most of those in a few days. Those were not drive-bys. Those ratings did not make me a troll, hater, trasher or bully. What it did was give me damn good recommendations.

I acknowledge there are mean people in the world. But most of what you are seeing is not mean spirited. It is readers using Goodreads the way it works best for them. For readers and authors who don't want to learn how Goodreads works or don't like how Goodreads works, go someplace else. There are plenty of sites I don't like. I don't hang around trying to get the members to change. I leave. Try it. It works.



> In the last two weeks, GoodReads has bent over backwards to appease authors who don't like the way readers have used the ratings/reviews/shelving of books. Thousands of users have abandoned the system, removed their thoughtful reviews, and taken them to other sites that remain a system of cataloging books to their personal preferences.


I have not noticed this. It is unfortunate if they are doing this. It makes the place a lot less useful to me as a reader. Although this isn't my concern, it would seem to make it less useful to authors as an advertising tool because the people they are trying to reach won't be there.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> But an awful lot of people are and use the system as I've described because that's the *only* way to tailor what it recommends.


[Emphasis mine.]
I see this so often, and it's simply not true. However, the user interface on Goodreads is so not user-friendly that it's not surprising that most people think that rating a book is the only way to influence what books Goodreads recommends.

You can setup a bookshelf and set it so that Goodreads will not recommend any books to you based on that shelf. So if you see a book that you're not interested in, you simply move it to that bookshelf, which doesn't require that you rate the book. You can also click on "not interested" under a book recommendation and it tells the recommendation engine that you're not interested in those type of books. Again, no rating required.

However, until Goodreads makes it easier and more convenient to influence what books are recommended without rating, people will continue to use the rating system the way they do, especially since there's a big widget when you login telling you to go rate books to get better recommendations. *So people who one star books they're not interested in are using the system exactly as designed and as Goodreads is telling them to.*


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I definitely agree that the user interface on GR could be WAY more user-friendly, and not only with regards to smoothing out the recommendation algorithm, so one doesn't have to rely on one-starring books as the simplest way to make it work.  :/


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

caethesfaron said:


> [Emphasis mine.]
> I see this so often, and it's simply not true. However, the user interface on Goodreads is so not user-friendly that it's not surprising that most people think that rating a book is the only way to influence what books Goodreads recommends.
> 
> You can setup a bookshelf and set it so that Goodreads will not recommend any books to you based on that shelf. So if you see a book that you're not interested in, you simply move it to that bookshelf, which doesn't require that you rate the book. You can also click on "not interested" under a book recommendation and it tells the recommendation engine that you're not interested in those type of books. Again, no rating required.
> ...


I find goodreads quite user friendly. But I just want simple and it does that for me. As to the recommendations, the ratings are used when you compare books with other users. Goodreads are not the only ones that recommend books. Most of us use other readers to do that. For that, you need the stars. Its helpful for readers. Without that tool I wouldn't get recommendations based on what I rated, but just based on what is on my shelves. Goodreads recommendations are pretty much based on books you have on your shelves. 
That is as useless to me than knowing on amazon what else someone bought. I want to know what someone else liked.

So there are several ways to use the ratings. They are reader tools other sites don't have, which is why some of us go there to find what to read. Its tailored to our actual tastes.

As to setting up a bookshelf to put authors and books in one doesn't want recommended, we did that. Goodreads just went and deleted shelves and the reviews in them. Because some thin skinned authors complained about being shelved in things named like "not in this lifetime", don't like this author, P2P, hormel, etc. So we are not allowed to shelve anymore based on author. So if I want to stay away from an author and books for whatever my reasons are, the only thing to do now is to rate. In the past, we would just make a shelf and no rating.

There are many ways to use goodreads. Its what we like about the site. Or at least used to. It was the only place to get tailored recommendations based on what you actually like from other readers. Its also why I trust reviews and ratings on GR much more than amazon.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

For me, the situation is rather philosophical. You see, I LOVE GoodReads, I have 2 accounts there for my 2 pen names (which is what GR encouraged me to do), and I found some wonderful friends and readers there. I’ve never felt it was anything but friendly and “normal” until I saw some lamentations on author forums. 

Here’s my dilemma. 

I understand the recommendation algorithms; and the way I use them is by rating the books I love “5”. That’s because ... I’ve read them, I can guarantee that IMHO, it’s an “amazing” book (using the GR language).

Now, I don’t like reading poetry. But somehow it feels awfully “wrong” (sorry for the emotionally charged word) to me to go around putting 1-star ratings on poetry books I’ve never read, and will never read. Like it or not, a rating in our culture carries an element of assessment. How can I assess something I haven’t tried, on an open forum? 

So I join the voices I consider reasonable that advocate clearer algorithms, maybe separating “assessment ratings” and “degree of interest in this type of books”. 

I’m a positive, generally happy person who writes books for children, so I don’t suspect those who leave mass 1-stars in having any negative intent behind their ratings. I’m sure they do it so GR recommends them a different type of books. I don’t know a single person in my life who’s guided by malicious intent. 

It’s just we need to recognize that stars do mean “quality assessment” for many people, and GR’s own definition of stars is positioned as assessment of quality, something they may need to change. Thus, the conflict that we’re observing in this very thread.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Atunah said:


> As to setting up a bookshelf to put authors and books in one doesn't want recommended, we did that. Goodreads just went and deleted shelves and the reviews in them. Because some thin skinned authors complained about being shelved in things named like "not in this lifetime", don't like this author, P2P, hormel, etc. So we are not allowed to shelve anymore based on author. So if I want to stay away from an author and books for whatever my reasons are, the only thing to do now is to rate. In the past, we would just make a shelf and no rating.


I just recently started doing this and I just named the shelf something that no one could possibly find offensive. I'm up against a deadline right now, but once I have some time, I plan to go through and shelve a whole bunch of books. One solution to the whole fiasco you mentioned would be to make it possible for shelves to be private. Apparently that's a feature people have been asking for and it makes a lot of sense.



> There are many ways to use goodreads. Its what we like about the site. Or at least used to. It was the only place to get tailored recommendations based on what you actually like from other readers. Its also why I trust reviews and ratings on GR much more than amazon.


Yes, there are many, many ways to use the site. I only use the features that make sense to me, and I'm learning new things about it all the time.

Personally, I think Goodreads could do a lot to make things better for everyone, but it doesn't seem like they are interested in adding new features or revamping existing features (like making shelves private). That's one of the reasons I'm glad people have been moving over to Booklikes. I've been a fan of Booklikes from the beginning, but it's only useful if other people are using it. They update every week, implementing changes the community has asked for.


----------



## Sebastiene (Dec 15, 2011)

DDark said:


> If Goodreads ratings are used to drive recommendations, why not have an extra option that does not count as a rating. One listed below the stars that says "do not recommend titles similar to this."
> 
> Or, if a user selects a star rating of any kind, they get a small popup that asks "Have you read this book?" yes or no.
> Any no answers will not count toward your rating, but will drive their recommendations.
> ...


FANTASTIC recommendation!!!


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

DDark said:


> If Goodreads ratings are used to drive recommendations, why not have an extra option that does not count as a rating. One listed below the stars that says "do not recommend titles similar to this."
> 
> Or, if a user selects a star rating of any kind, they get a small popup that asks "Have you read this book?" yes or no.
> Any no answers will not count toward your rating, but will drive their recommendations.
> ...


Exactly! Things like that would work both for readers and the authors, I think.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

caethesfaron said:


> I just recently started doing this and I just named the shelf something that no one could possibly find offensive. I'm up against a deadline right now, but once I have some time, I plan to go through and shelve a whole bunch of books. One solution to the whole fiasco you mentioned would be to make it possible for shelves to be private. Apparently that's a feature people have been asking for and it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Yes, there are many, many ways to use the site. I only use the features that make sense to me, and I'm learning new things about it all the time.


But that is the issue, totally unoffensive shelves have been either deleted or the user gotten emails to get rid of them or else. How is P2P offensive, or hormel, or clouds or due to author. That is the issue, we can't name them what we want because we never know what they want to delete. So we are now following their site rules and rate instead. 
Private shelves don't do me any good. I don't just want to see my own stuff, I want to see what my friends have shelved here and there. And I want to see what their friends shelved, even if I am not friends with them. If they are invisible, then its pointless and useless.

And again, most of us readers are fine with the way it works. I don't want non star ratings used for recommendations. I want to see the stars. Sometimes I don't feel like writing a review and a star rating is what I got. It helps me seeing it on others too. I don't always need a text. So its not just for recommendation, I just want to see whats there. I don't need things hidden to save me from evil. I can think and make up my own mind, thank you very much.

When I compare books with a user, you click on compare books. You need the stars for that. I want to know what the matching percentage is. I want to know how other users rate stuff. I will make that decision on how I use that rating. I don't need authors to tell me how wrong we are all doing it, really I don't. 
I have never heard from a reader, not reader/writer, reader, that they have issues with how the ratings are done. Its a social site for readers about books.



Austin_Briggs said:


> Exactly! Things like that would work both for readers and the authors, I think.


No it wouldn't. Know why? Then you get whines when a reader didn't read every 45678 words of the novel before saying they read it and rate it. It never ends. All of this stuff "suggested" is only meant to be in benefit of the author. Higher average, rah rah rah 4 and 5 stars, lets make sure no 1 stars ever unless someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt they read the book. I never hear all these demands for all the fan girly 5 star ratings and reviews on goodreads. Not once have I heard an author complain here or elsewhere and make a thread about these horrible 5 stars they have been getting and they didn't even read their book.

It just never seems enough until only other writers get to write reviews, readers that have blogs writing reviews, readers that know how to write book reports writing reviews. And they have to make sure to not post anything under 3 stars. If they do, they get called trolls and bullies.

We regular readers are not a marketing tool. We are regular readers that use a site the way it was designed and works for readers.

eta: and *crebel* head meets wall now.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Surely, recommendations for improving Goodreads should be sent to Goodreads, rather than posted here?


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Austin_Briggs said:


> For me, the situation is rather philosophical. You see, I LOVE GoodReads, I have 2 accounts there for my 2 pen names (which is what GR encouraged me to do), and I found some wonderful friends and readers there. I've never felt it was anything but friendly and "normal" until I saw some lamentations on author forums.
> 
> Here's my dilemma.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a thoughtful, reasoned, non-confrontational post about why you think something should be changed in how GR allows their site to be used. You currently use GR in a way that works for you within their Terms of Service, but you still have concerns about how others use it.

The point I would like to make is that people need to bring those concerns to GoodReads, not KBoards. If they think your concerns are valid, they can change their TOS and notify users of the change. Users of GR are no happier to lumped in as "bullies", "book trashers", "drive-by 1-starrers with malicious intent", etc. than authors are to be called "badly behaving" because they comment on a book review. The few who abuse it have created a great deal of discontent for all on both sides.

Is there a line between starting a thread that says, "I received a negative review; is there something to take away from it or does this person just have a nasty way of expressing their negative opinion" and "I've been hit by a book trasher on GoodReads"? I think there is. We all here (I think I am safe saying "all") have a love of the written word, maybe we need to be more careful about how we use it on a public forum.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2013)

I no longer bother uploading my new books on Goodreads.  For 5 months I pushed my books by making comments on the fantasy forum.  I always talked about other books hoping someone would click on my name and check out my books.  Maybe it happened once or twice.  

It wasn't worth the time I was putting into it, and now I just briefly scroll through their daily email and then delete it.  It's a waste of my time and I feel happier now that I don't fiddle with that nonsensical site.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

crebel said:


> Thank you for a thoughtful, reasoned, non-confrontational post about why you think something should be changed in how GR allows their site to be used. You currently use GR in a way that works for you within their Terms of Service, but you still have concerns about how others use it.
> 
> The point I would like to make is that people need to bring those concerns to GoodReads, not KBoards. If they think your concerns are valid, they can change their TOS and notify users of the change. Users of GR are no happier to lumped in as "bullies", "book trashers", "drive-by 1-starrers with malicious intent", etc. than authors are to be called "badly behaving" because they comment on a book review. The few who abuse it have created a great deal of discontent for all on both sides.
> 
> Is there a line between starting a thread that says, "I received a negative review; is there something to take away from it or does this person just have a nasty way of expressing their negative opinion" and "I've been hit by a book trasher on GoodReads"? I think there is. We all here (I think I am safe saying "all") have a love of the written word, maybe we need to be more careful about how we use it on a public forum.


Thanks! I'm thinking that maybe I'll drop the GR admin a note... I'm sure they have enough on their plate, but as you say, if they see a trend in suggestions, they may react to it. After all, they want to stay relevant.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Greg Strandberg said:


> I no longer bother uploading my new books on Goodreads. For 5 months I pushed my books by making comments on the fantasy forum. I always talked about other books hoping someone would click on my name and check out my books. Maybe it happened once or twice.
> 
> It wasn't worth the time I was putting into it, and now I just briefly scroll through their daily email and then delete it. It's a waste of my time and I feel happier now that I don't fiddle with that nonsensical site.


The thing is, folks can upload your books for you.

An example: I was running a free private giveaway of a short story at my site. It wasn't even published, so it wasn't available to general public. I just wanted to see how it did (it was based on true events from the Aztec past). Well, I got what I wanted, in a way: one reader went to all the trouble of uploading that story to GR, linking me as the author, and leaving a 1-star rating without any further comments. I was sort of taken unawares.

I actually contacted the reader, telling her that the story was experimental, unavailable, and I wanted to remove every mention of it in the world, and she was kind enough to delete the GR record.


----------



## Sebastiene (Dec 15, 2011)

Hmm. It seems to me a thread about Goodreads was started, about the negativity on the site, and then the Kindleboards thread began to get pretty negative.

Coincidence?

P.S. I don't imagine any of the writers over here think readers are "morons". I know I don't. We love readers because we are readers. And because we're also readers, that's why a reviews like: "WTF is this," doesn't sit well with most of us. And yes, that's an actual review.

Civility. That's what the site really needs. Civility, and the option to say you're not interested in a book rather than give it a one-star rating.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Atunah said:


> But that is the issue, totally unoffensive shelves have been either deleted or the user gotten emails to get rid of them or else. How is P2P offensive, or hormel, or clouds or due to author. That is the issue, we can't name them what we want because we never know what they want to delete. So we are now following their site rules and rate instead.
> Private shelves don't do me any good. I don't just want to see my own stuff, I want to see what my friends have shelved here and there. And I want to see what their friends shelved, even if I am not friends with them. If they are invisible, then its pointless and useless.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply stating my experience. I don't think what Goodreads did was right. However, just because you don't want private shelves doesn't mean others don't. I've seen numerous people ask for it on Goodreads (that's where I first heard about it). I would like it. I'm a pretty private person, and I don't think it's everyone's business how I shelve my books. Giving me that option would be nice.



Atunah said:


> And again, most of us readers are fine with the way it works. I don't want non star ratings used for recommendations. I want to see the stars. Sometimes I don't feel like writing a review and a star rating is what I got. It helps me seeing it on others too. I don't always need a text. So its not just for recommendation, I just want to see whats there. I don't need things hidden to save me from evil. I can think and make up my own mind, thank you very much.


Again, I totally agree.



> When I compare books with a user, you click on compare books. You need the stars for that. I want to know what the matching percentage is. I want to know how other users rate stuff. I will make that decision on how I use that rating.


Personally, I would find it much more helpful if there were separate star ratings for interest vs opinion after reading the book. For instance, when comparing books it would be really helpful if I knew if my friend was giving one star because they're not interested in reading the book or if they did read it and it was terrible. If they did read it and it was terrible, then I would probably find it terrible too. However, if they're just not interested in that particular sub-genre and don't want recommendations on it, that would be helpful to know because maybe I am interested in that sub-genre. As it works right now, I have no way of knowing if this is a horribly written book or a book that my friend is just not interested in. Because of this, the comparing books feature isn't very helpful to me, so I don't use it.

Just because I have a different opinion on how I would like to use the site, doesn't mean I'm telling you how you should use it. 

[quote author=DDark]I disagree on one point. As a reader, I get annoyed when I go to check out a book that's been released and find 5,000 5-star reviews from readers who have not read it, but simply love the author. This isn't to eliminate just the 1-star ratings. I have a lot of friends who complain about this issue where it's even more difficult for them to determine if the book is worth reading based on the stars. Many want to avoid spoilers so they don't read the reviews, but the majority of those are people who are either rating it for recommendations, or for other reasons.[/quote]

+1


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Sebastiene said:


> Hmm. It seems to me a thread about Goodreads was started, about the negativity on the site, and then the Kindleboards thread began to get pretty negative.
> 
> Coincidence?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The thread was started on KBoards about a "book trasher" who happened to be on Goodreads. Users of GoodReads who are also on KBoards (both author/readers and not author/readers) came in to explain how the system works and objected to the use of the name "book trasher" for someone using the site in a way that is currently allowed by the terms of service. Nevertheless there has been some good discussion. What's coincidental about that?



> P.S. I don't imagine any of the writers over here think readers are "morons". I know I don't. We love readers because we are readers. And because we're also readers, that's why a reviews like: "WTF is this," doesn't sit well with most of us. And yes, that's an actual review.


No, I don't think most writers here think readers are morons, but there are lots of posts throughout this thread where people allude to readers being unable to have the thinking capacity to judge a review or rating for what it is. I'm sorry that "WTF is this" doesn't sit well with you and others, but that does not make that person's review invalid. Would it help make up my mind whether or not I want to read that book? No, it is not useful information to me, but it's still a valid review.



> Civility. That's what the site really needs. Civility, and the option to say you're not interested in a book rather than give it a one-star rating.


I agree that civility should be maintained. For changing the way the site is run, tell it to the GoodReads staff.



> Can't we all just get along?


That would be nice, wouldn't it? I've already posted in this thread 2 more times after I said I wouldn't anymore. Sorry, I'll try to stop going in circles now. *Atunah*, can I have the ice pack back now?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

*hands out ice packs and chocolates*

the title of this thread is "hit by book trasher on goodreads"

those who use goodread stars as a way to not have books recommended to them have responded that one stars are not necessarily trashing. 

some people accept that goodreads one stars are not trashing.
some people think that goodreads one stars are trashing.

some people think that this thread is just another dead horse that keeps being resurrected in the ongoing difference of opinions between goodreads users and goodreads non-users.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

caethesfaron said:


> Personally, I would find it much more helpful if there were separate star ratings for interest vs opinion after reading the book. For instance, when comparing books it would be really helpful if I knew if my friend was giving one star because they're not interested in reading the book or if they did read it and it was terrible. If they did read it and it was terrible, then I would probably find it terrible too. However, if they're just not interested in that particular sub-genre and don't want recommendations on it, that would be helpful to know because maybe I am interested in that sub-genre. As it works right now, I have no way of knowing if this is a horribly written book or a book that my friend is just not interested in.


I think this sums it up very nicely and I think most can agree on this. 
While using the stars to influence recommendations is great for the one ticking off those stars, it's not helpful for OTHER readers.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

Quiss said:


> While using the stars to influence recommendations is great for the one ticking off those stars, it's not helpful for OTHER readers.


This is definitely so true. I didn't realize that was how their system works. I seldom go to GR because I had always wondered how someone gave a 1 Star rate for a book they had not read, but now I know.  But Ann is correct (as are others who commented) that GR should consider making their system better understood.


----------

