# Are Goodreads Reviewers Harsh?



## Heather Walsh (Jan 22, 2013)

Is it just me, or are Goodreads reviews harsher than Amazon reviewers? Maybe it's because you can just fill in your little 1 or 2 or 3 stars in seconds. No justification needed--or encouraged. At least at Amazon it's expected that you have to write something to justify your rating, and others can vote you as unhelpful. 

I look around at some great novels and they are rated 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 on Goodreads. And much higher on Amazon.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

Yes, usually by a star or more.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

See and for me a 3.7 is a very very high rating. Some of the best books in the genres I read have that. Or maybe a 3.8. 

I don't take most reviews or books serious if they have 4.5 and such average ratings. Especially for unknown authors. 
I find goodreads reviews to be more honest. And one of the reasons I don't review on Amazon is the unhelpful button. 
I don't want to have the authors friends and family and fan mob descend down on me, just because I didn't happen to like their book as much as they think I should. 
Heck, some seem to think that a 3 star is a bad review.  

And no reader needs to justify their ratings or reviews to anyone. It is what it is.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

It's because of how Goodreads describes their stars. On Amazon, for example, a 3 star is "It was ok", a 4 star is "I liked it" and a 5 star is "I liked it a lot". On Goodreads, a 2 star is "It was ok", a 3 star is "I liked it", a 4 star is "I liked it a lot", and a 5 star is "It was amazing".


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Maybe Amazon reviewers are easy graders.    Like Atunah, I tend to look at the ratings on Amazon and see them as inflated.  Sorry.

A book I enjoyed is 3 stars.
A book I enjoyed enough to read again is 4 stars.
A book I think is among the best I've read is 5 stars.

I use the stars the same way on both sites.

No matter the system, a star rating is going to mean different things to different people.  I do review on Amazon; and occasionally on Goodreads.  On Amazon, I do review for other buyers.  On Goodreads, it's for me.  I know Goodreads has a lot of social aspects, but I don't use it that way.

Betsy


----------



## Anotherdreamer (Jan 21, 2013)

I keep reading this, and it does seem to be the case with a lot of books, but I'm dead even.


----------



## Anjasa (Feb 4, 2012)

My favourite author has a 3.9 rating, so obviously everyone there is simply wrong and hates books.



(I tease. Yes, people tend to rate lower on GR, and at least part of it is how they describe their books. I mean, on GR "It was okay" is a 2. Plenty of books I've read are okay, and I don't consider that a bad rating. It seems bad, though, because 2 stars seems really crummy, but hey, writing an okay book is decent!)


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

Wouldn't it be cool if there was a review site that rationed stars?  like for every hundred books reviewed a reader could only give out one "5 star" and maybe 10-20 four stars max.  That way it would really force you to think about how a book affected you.  It would make those top ratings really mean "this is one of the best books I've ever read" which, I think, is really what those top ratings mean.  And then books that really were average wouldn't be seen as "lacking"- there would be a lot of them, but people would know that they really were an adequate, entertaining book and not just "eh another 3 star" because there would be less of a flood of 4 and 5 stars above them.  (I'm as guilty of giving out too many 5 stars as anyone else.  I know if I had to choose just one every hundred it would be much harder and much truer to what I really thought anyway)


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

Review ratings are both subjective and given the variability in both the reviews as well as review criteria make the comparison of any mathematical results such as averages foolish.  They are personal feelings of the reviewer and likely a dozen or two of 1 star ratings means the book is likely very poor or at least void of any commercial value.  Similarly, books with five stars or mostly 4 and 5 stars are on the opposite end of the spectrum. For example, we got a 2 star review because it was well written but the subject matter brought memories they were unprepared to deal with.  Those that handle the subject matter well all rated it a 4 or 5 stars.

I think stretches the intention of the star system beyond its usefulness.


----------



## Heather Walsh (Jan 22, 2013)

I also think that all of these promo sites that require 4.0 and above ratings is what is coloring my view on this. It makes a 2 star rating seem pretty bad.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

hwalshwriter said:


> I also think that all of these promo sites that require 4.0 and above ratings is what is coloring my view on this. It makes a 2 star rating seem pretty bad.


Totally agree.

Also an issue is the fact that you need a whole bunch of those to get promo spots for your book. I have a new title and I have cash budgeted to pay for ads but I can't because the book is too new.

I want to kick something every time someone signs up for my mail list or 'likes' my Facebook page instead of leaving a review! Come on, ppl!


----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

I totally agree that Goodreads reviews are at least a full star lower. I will admit that Amazon reviews tend to be over-inflated. I'm not sure if the issue is that Goodreads reviewers are more honest. 

I have a theory that it has more to do with the way new Goodreads members are ushered into the site. They're led to a page which asks them to rate dozens of books in various genres so Goodreads can get a sense of what you enjoy reading. For me, I tended to rate horror a bit better than romance for that reason. I thought I was supposed to send a clear message about the kinds of books I liked. I must have rated over 100 books. A number of the really low ratings I've received seem like those kind of drive-bys, although I have no way of proving it.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

Rating stars drive the recommendation engines.
Properly used, they reflect the readers future desires.


----------



## Anjasa (Feb 4, 2012)

Quiss said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> Also an issue is the fact that you need a whole bunch of those to get promo spots for your book. I have a new title and I have cash budgeted to pay for ads but I can't because the book is too new.
> 
> I want to kick something every time someone signs up for my mail list or 'likes' my Facebook page instead of leaving a review! Come on, ppl!


Not to mention erotica readers/lovers tend not to give reviews as often, as they don't like having their name tied to the review. So it's rare to find erotica with any reviews, let alone enough to get on one of the promo sites.

And yea, the *25 5 star reviews!* promos do put a lot of stress on people, I think.


----------



## MarcyB (Feb 10, 2013)

Your explanation of the goodreads vs. amazon scale makes sense. The same reviewer gave my short story a 3 on goodreads and a 4 on amazon. Now that is a reviewer who reads the fine print. Ha!


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

Goodreads is definitely a tougher crowd.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

I like the idea of reviewers being forced to ration their own stars, but I'd prefer an evenly tiered system. I know the extreme ratings (1 star and 5 stars) are overused, but striking out on your own to "fix" this by making those ratings extremely rare doesn't help much. In fact, all it does is effectively reduce the number of different star ratings you can apply to new books down to _three,_ which is inherently less useful than 5.

If you imagine an imaginary endless bookshelf, from "Best Book Ever" to "Worst Book Ever", in descending order _according to your own personal preferences_ (i.e., books from your favorite genre strongly predominating at the top, with books from your favorite genre often beating books that are objectively better for subjective reasons) --- and THEN divide that bookshelf into percentiles, you'd assign 5 stars to those books above the 80th percentile, 4 stars for those at 61st up to 80th, and so on, reserving the 1-star ratings for those at the 20th or below.

Imagine a review site that guaranteed that it would always maintain the spread of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stars _as evenly as possible._ To maintain integrity, the reviewers there might have to hold back from posting 5-star reviews (or 1-stars) until they'd posted sufficient reviews in the middle rankings to round out the curve. I think that would strike many readers as more reliable.

Whether it would actually _be_ more reliable . . . I don't know.

Of course, I've always wished for a possible rating of 10 stars, to reduce the "hourglass" effect that we now have with only 5. That could be easily be adapted to the evenly-tiered rationing detailed above, but it would also probably improve the systems we commonly use now (even without any other changes). I think 5 stars is preferred just for ease of fitting a row of fewer stars into the row of thumbnails (to fit more "also boughts" on a scrolling row to be visible at one time on Amazon or other retail sites).


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

JB: Sounds like grading on the curve.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Goodreads uses the star system the way normal, meat-based humans do. Three stars is good (because it's more than half of five), four is excellent and five is the best possible.

Amazon uses it in the way a robot on the verge of going HAL 9000 on everyone would. Five stars is optimal, four is operating within acceptable parameters, and 3 is too flawed to be acceptable/I can't do that Dave.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I think giving a rating out of ten would, in the end, average more fairly than five.

And everyone should have to leave a written review. These fly-bys aren't doing readers OR writers any good. If you didn't like a book, at least say why. 

I don't pay attention to stars-only reviews at Goodreads because of the various reasons (some of them mentioned in this thread) for them. So a star rating doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the book.


----------



## James Bruno (Mar 15, 2011)

Goodreads has many more snarky, flippant drive-by shooters than any other site I know of.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

cdvsmx5 said:


> JB: Sounds like grading on the curve.


Exactly. Very bad idea for comparing pieces of hard data involving immovable definitions of desirable results (like grading a math exam, or showing which experimental drug regimen's more likely to cure a certain disease) . . . very effective for measuring squishier, subjective things like popularity among people drawn from a wide range of interests, opinions and age groups.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

When I got onto Goodreads originally, it was many moons ago, back before I was an author.  I joined mainly to keep a record of books I read, but also to share them with my friends.  Seeing as how my friends actually read my reviews and purchased books based upon my recommendations, I was pretty brutally honest because it would be ON MY HEAD if money was spent on something a friend later decried as lame, and they knew where I lived.

Since becoming an author, I pretty much only leave five star reviews now and just don't mention it if I read a book that isn't up to par.  Figure the rest of the world has the lower star ratings covered.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

Star ratings are not grades.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Haha, Goodreads amuses me. I've been hammered on there a couple of times. If any of my books pokes its nose above 4 stars from time to time I feel like I'm doing okay.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

Does it really matter that GR is harsher (either just in absolute stars or levels of people leaving harsh text reviews)?

After all, if GR is harsher, in general, than everybody's on an even playing field in terms of ratings there. That seems to be fine to me for both readers (as long as they compare the GR ratings to GR ratings, which there'd be no reason not to) and writers (we're all sinking together and just as 'disadvantaged" together).

If you get a decent number of reviews, it all seems to even out. I was amused by how much my rating on  my first book bounced around until I hit about 100 ratings, now it just basically bounces back and forth in the same .02 range. 

Every time I get a bad rating I just shrug and say, "Oh well, if I wait a few days, somebody will come along and give me a good rating to balance that one out." I get just as many drive-by lower ratings as I do "drive-by" higher ratings without any explanation.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

KateDanley said:


> When I got onto Goodreads originally, it was many moons ago, back before I was an author. I joined mainly to keep a record of books I read, but also to share them with my friends. Seeing as how my friends actually read my reviews and purchased books based upon my recommendations, I was pretty brutally honest because it would be ON MY HEAD if money was spent on something a friend later decried as lame, and they knew where I lived.


This explains pretty well why Goodreads reviewers are more brutally honest, I think.

Like Kate, I, too, now only leave a review if I can give a book 5 stars. In fact, I only enter a book as "Currently reading" after I have read it and determined I can give it 5 stars. The book that it shows I am "currently reading" is actually the last book I finished and loved. I don't rate it until I have the next one finished, loved, and ready to enter.


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

I've heard Goodreads is harsher, but so far on both GR and Amazon it's been fairly equal for my book.  I do have some crossovers, but even without that, it's still about equal.


----------



## Andrea Harding (Feb 27, 2013)

I cringe at some of the reviews I've left on GR, though they were 'honest and warranted'.
In particular I feel a little uneasy about where I've told someone to 'get an editor' - though in my defence that was before I started freelance editing, I wouldn't say so now.

I don't leave bad reviews on Amazon though, unless I've been particularly offended - usually only 4/5 stars get passed over to there, on the authors' request.


----------



## Barbara Morgenroth (May 14, 2010)

I had a quite long review at Amazon recently where the person spent about a paragraph trying to decide if they were going to rate the book on the Amazon ratings system or the Goodreads ratings system.  To relieve any suspense you may have about it, they opted for the GR.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Quiss said:


> I think giving a rating out of ten would, in the end, average more fairly than five.
> 
> And everyone should have to leave a written review. These fly-bys aren't doing readers OR writers any good. If you didn't like a book, at least say why.
> 
> I don't pay attention to stars-only reviews at Goodreads because of the various reasons (some of them mentioned in this thread) for them. So a star rating doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the book.


Being able to leave only a star rating is the reason I review on Goodreads and not Amazon. If I didn't like a book, I am under no obligation to anyone to say why. Sometimes I just can't put that in words. I just didn't like it. Would you prefer me writing that? " I didn't like it?"

The star rating is important on goodreads for comparing books with other readers. It only uses the star rating to determine how much stuff readers have in common. Like the Netflix system in a way. Star ratings are also used on the recommendation pages. So the more you rate, the more accurate those results are. Some of us read 1000's of books over the years. I have no time to write words to everything I rate. And many times, if I don't write something within a day or so of reading the book, I don't remember much beyond that I liked it or didn't like it. I can remember a star rating. I am already engrossed in the next book by that point.

I think sometimes writers try to get into readers business a bit too much and dictate how and where and what they are suppose to write in their reviews.

And this isn't pointing towards who I quoted, but in general. I see this here and there, the opinion that goodreads is "harsher".
I sometimes wonder that with all these new authors that never go through any rejections and many don't go through critiques, they don't understand the reality out there. That some will not like what they write and its not some shortcoming of the reader all the time. It doesn't make anyone a fly by, a troll or any of the other lovely things I have heard reviewers described around here. It means nothing more than someone didn't like the book. Period. Move on.

I just got a blog post from Marsha Canham that I think touches on some of this. It was a good read.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

Readers don't owe you a review.

Readers don't owe you a set star rating.

Readers don't owe it to you to worry about your feelings.

You are a manufacturer selling a product. The ONLY thing a reader owes you is that they obtain a legal copy of the book.

Particularly on Goodreads, the rating system does not exist to help YOU get discoverability. It exists to help READERS find books they want to read. Anything a reader does on Goodreads is for the reader's benefit to help him or her sort and track his or her books.

I hate these threads. Force readers to leave a review? Why? Because authors don't think a reader who spends his or her hard earned money on a book deserves to just shrug and say "I didn't like it?" What next, require book reports or suspend their posting priveledges?

The problem is not that Goodreads reviewers are "harsher" or snarky or meaner. The problem is thay too many writers feel an enormous, inflated sense of entitlement to their dream and anything that does not fit into that happy fantasy is a personal insult or attack.

I write because I have to. I write because I have all of these stories running around in my head that want out. I write because it is who I am. But...

I _publish_ because I want to make money. And because I want to make money, I swallow my pride and sense of entitlement and think about the needs and wants of my potential customers. I'm pretty sure my potential customers DON'T want me looking over their shoulder, scolding them for being mean to me or not supporting my dream. I'm pretty sure they don't want me talking smack about them behind their backs and trying to guilt them into being "nicer" to me.

I swear, sometimes indies are their own worst enemies.


----------



## Heather Walsh (Jan 22, 2013)

I certainty think readers are entitled to whatever opinions they may have. And I don't think they need to leave a review. I'm just questioning if the Goodreads system encourages lower ratings. I am glad I started this thread, as I did not fully understand the Goodreads star rating (i.e. that 2 stars means "it's OK").

But I still think the ratings seem to be lower there. For example, here are the ratings of three novels I taught when I was a high school English teacher:

Catcher in the Rye 
Goodreads =  3.76 
Amazon = 4.0

Adventures of Huck Finn
Goodreads = 3.77
Amazon =4.2

Great Gatsby
Goodreads = 3.78
Amazon = 4.2


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

hwalshwriter said:


> Is it just me, or are Goodreads reviews harsher than Amazon reviewers? Maybe it's because you can just fill in your little 1 or 2 or 3 stars in seconds. No justification needed--or encouraged. At least at Amazon it's expected that you have to write something to justify your rating, and others can vote you as unhelpful.
> 
> I look around at some great novels and they are rated 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 on Goodreads. And much higher on Amazon.


I don't think so. I think Goodreads users are serious, hardcore readers, and they are very honest with their opinions. Just because a book is famous doesn't mean it's universally loved. Goodreads users get much more critical, more analytical, and more thoughtful about their ratings.

Personally, I love Goodreads. I figure if my books are holding a higher overall average there than on Amazon, I'm really doing something right. I think Goodreads is the best tool authors have for self-evaluation.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

In the course of these many threads on this topic, I've seen everything from "Amazon should be more like Goodreads; it would be easier to get reviews if all people had to leave was a star rating" to the comment in this thread to the effect that reviewers on Goodreads should be forced to say why they rated the book the way they did."

In each case, the attitude does seem to be that the review system should suit the authors' needs, when, in fact, reviews aren't to serve the author (as has been said on KB many times).

Betsy


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

After reading all the way through this thread, I have to say I'm kind of surprised that so many people won't leave a review if they can't give 5 or 4.  Why is that?  Is it a fear of hurting feelings, or of being thought "mean," and worrying that a bad reputation with regard to reviews will ruin your reputation as an author?  I don't get it.

I leave honest reviews for everything I read.  I read all the reviews that are left for my books (although I virtually never respond to them) and I have found some fantastic insight into what needed improvement as well as what I was doing right.  I have taken criticism directly from reader reviews and used it to write better books.  I figure that if I see serious problems in other writers' work, I owe it to them to point it out.  Hopefully they will listen.

Plus, when I review books, I'm a reader, not a writer.  Sometimes books have made me angry, they were so bad.  If they do, I'm going to review them honestly.

I suspect maybe the hesitancy to leave honest bad reviews is a case of writers putting themselves in other writers' shoes.  I suppose I get that, but I have a ridiculously thick skin, and harsh criticism has never bothered me personally, so I wouldn't care if somebody hated my book and wrote an honest review as to why they hated it.  If it carried some good advice within the ranting, I'd use it to improve my work.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

ElHawk said:


> Goodreads users get much more critical, more analytical, and more thoughtful about their ratings.


Well I don't get this impression based on the text reviews of my books at GR. I find the text of the reviews at Amazon to be more thoughtful, generally speaking.

I think the differences a lot of people see in the stars is because of: (1) the different directions provided by GR and Amazon in regard to assigning stars, directions which encourage lower ratings on GR; and (2) a difference in reader populations. My impression is GR users are more hardcore readers, that Amazon reviewers read fewer books, hence the GR population has developed higher standards for the books they read over time.

I'm not sure what the lack of a requirement at GR to explain one's ratings, via text, is. I'm sure it has one.


----------



## Andrea Harding (Feb 27, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> After reading all the way through this thread, I have to say I'm kind of surprised that so many people won't leave a review if they can't give 5 or 4. Why is that? Is it a fear of hurting feelings, or of being thought "mean," and worrying that a bad reputation with regard to reviews will ruin your reputation as an author? I don't get it.


I believe it may be protection from what is known as 'revenge reviewing', where authors whose books you've rated badly will review your work in turn - most likely with an unfavourable bias if you've criticised them. Plus there's also the rabid packs of fans that seem to follow certain authors who will undoubtably do this along with or instead of the author.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

For me, Goodreads has always been a little tougher. One reviewer recently gave me 4 stars on Amazon and then 3 stars on Goodreads. So, even he distinguished between the two.


----------



## Maya Cross (May 28, 2012)

GR does tend to offer lower scores on average, probably due to the ratings scale. I'm fairly confident GR is also a prime location for authors who aren't above dirty tricks to drag down the competition. There seems to be almost no actual monitoring of reviews at all, and it's incredibly easy to just make new accounts over and over again. With something like Amazon, you're risking your ability to buy books and other things if you get caught, but getting caught playing the system on Good Reads is all but irrelevant.

I'm totally fine with getting legit one stars -- I can't please everyone, and I'm not deluded enough to think my work is much better than "pretty good" -- but there are some truly comical accounts that have one starred my book in the last two weeks. One appeared today that had 938 books rated, every single one of them one star. Another has one starred about 40 books, but five starred everything about the band One Direction. That actually made me laugh pretty hard. There's seriously 30 odd books about them. Who knows, maybe it was just a rabid One Direction fan, but I have my doubts.

I've mailed Good Reads about some of the more obvious puppet accounts, but haven't gotten a reply for days, so I assume they won't do much. Guess it just has to be taken as part of the GR experience. I think the actual text reviews are probably more important to generating interest over there anyway.


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

Quiss said:


> And everyone should have to leave a written review. These fly-bys aren't doing readers OR writers any good. If you didn't like a book, at least say why.


A lot of people only use GoodReads to keep track of their own reading, though. In those cases, users aren't rating for anyone but themselves. IE, I read "Book X" and didn't like it, but when I report it as finished, I star it "1". Maybe I'll add a thought or two. Then I read Book Y loved it, 4 stars, no comments. That's where the "fly by" reviews come from. Goodreads is a lot more than review site. There are reading challenges (read 10 vampire books! read X book a month) and social circles where people compare ratings to see who has similar taste, reviews or no.

It doesn't help the average reader deciding what to read or the author at all, but that's not why most people use GoodReads. There are book bloggers over there who's goal is to review but that's only a small number of overall users.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

People in the creative arts are some of the bravest people I know. 

Oh, they aren't "rescue a baby from a burning orphanage" type of brave, but it takes a lot of guts to create a piece of art or literature out of your own head and put it on display for all the world to see. 

Once you put yourself out there--which you do when you display the work of your hands and your eyes and your mind--you discover very quickly that you are not the center of the universe, that your ideas are not universally shared, that some reasonable people hate you, that some crazy people love you, and that nobody just reads the words or looks at the paint or hears the music but that everybody brings something personal to the perception of the work.

It takes guts to put yourself out there for public comment, to say, "Here I am, I'm naked, judge me!" It takes guts to endure silently the poking and the prodding. And it takes guts to get out there on stage and do it over and over again.

Reviewers are not just giving their opinion on "a product." Books, songs, paintings are not widgets stamped out to perform a function. If an author is so removed from his work that he sees nothing of himself in it, then he might as well get a factory job, union benefits and, if he's lucky, a pension.

People are free to say what they want in a review, of course. But their reviews will say as much about them as about the book. Are they kind or are they cruel? Are they self-absorbed or are they generous? Are they smart or are they stupid?

But reviewers are generally not reviewed. Authors don't respond for fear of reprisals, because they don't want to seem to be bullying reviewers, because they don't want to appear thin-skinned, and because that way lies madness. Better to spend your time creating new work than arguing the merits of the old.

That's the system, my friends. Strange, unforgiving, one-sided, wonderful and awful.

It's a rough-and-tumble game, not one for the easily bruised.


----------



## Meka (Sep 8, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Being able to leave only a star rating is the reason I review on Goodreads and not Amazon. If I didn't like a book, I am under no obligation to anyone to say why. Sometimes I just can't put that in words. I just didn't like it. Would you prefer me writing that? " I didn't like it?"
> 
> The star rating is important on goodreads for comparing books with other readers. It only uses the star rating to determine how much stuff readers have in common. Like the Netflix system in a way. Star ratings are also used on the recommendation pages. So the more you rate, the more accurate those results are. Some of us read 1000's of books over the years. I have no time to write words to everything I rate. And many times, if I don't write something within a day or so of reading the book, I don't remember much beyond that I liked it or didn't like it. I can remember a star rating. I am already engrossed in the next book by that point.
> 
> ...


^^^^THIS^^^^ Very well said!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

Jan Strnad said:


> Reviewers are not just giving their opinion on "a product." Books, songs, paintings are not widgets stamped out to perform a function. If an author is so removed from his work that he sees nothing of himself in it, then he might as well get a factory job, union benefits and, if he's lucky, a pension.


Thes two statements have nothing to do with each other. Just because the author sees himself in his work doesn't mean the reviewer isn't just reviewing a product. The reviewer didn't buy the book because she wanted to get to know me better. She bought it because it served her needs/wants/desires at the time. If the book failed to deliver on that need or want, then the reviewer is going to judge the product accordingly.

It is not brave to release a product and then expect praise. In fact I would call it cowardly to release a product and then demand praise and expect people to keep their mouths shut so as to avoid hurting your feelings ("If you can't say something nice, don't say anything"). Any coward can upload a file and then complain about bad reviews.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

I just left a review on a trad-pubbed "best-seller". Not the best book I've read but I left an honest review. I'm kind of wishing I hadn't now as I started to look at the other reviews the book has (100s of them) and every vaguely negative review has an army of comments criticising the reviewer. They're going to hunt me down and find me, aren't they?


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Thes two statements have nothing to do with each other. Just because the author sees himself in his work doesn't mean the reviewer isn't just reviewing a product. The reviewer didn't buy the book because she wanted to get to know me better. She bought it because it served her needs/wants/desires at the time. If the book failed to deliver on that need or want, then the reviewer is going to judge the product accordingly.
> 
> It is not brave to release a product and then expect praise. In fact I would call it cowardly to release a product and then demand praise and expect people to keep their mouths shut so as to avoid hurting your feelings ("If you can't say something nice, don't say anything"). Any coward can upload a file and then complain about bad reviews.


Yes, the reviewer is concerned with his own needs/wants/desires and is judging accordingly. However, my basic assertion is that a book, a painting, a piece of music is inherently much more than "a product." It is a product that imbued with the mind and spirit of the creator. Therefore it is impossible for a reviewer to review that "product" without implicitly passing judgment on the creator.

No, it is not brave to release a product and then expect praise for it. However, I said absolutely nothing of the kind. It is brave to put your work--and by extension, yourself--out there for public scrutiny rather than pulling an Emily Dickinson and hiding your work in a drawer.

<< In fact I would call it cowardly to release a product and then demand praise and expect people to keep their mouths shut so as to avoid hurting your feelings ("If you can't say something nice, don't say anything").>>

Cowardly? "Naive," maybe. "Unrealistic." "Self-delusional." But cowardly?

Again, however, since I suggested nothing of the kind, since nowhere in my post did I even remotely imply that reviewers should not criticize, I assume this is just you taking the conversation into different waters. Or perhaps, just putting out a product.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Goodreads users are meaner than a bagful of snakes.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

I just don't see how the Amazon and Goodreads systems can be conflated, because they're completely different and used for completely different purposes.  Despite advertising concerns, this won't be a severe issue unless Amazon decides to merge the two review sets.

On Goodreads, I'm going to give Atlas Shrugged one star because I don't want to be recommended books like that.  If I was to review it on Amazon, I'd probably give it three stars - I loathe it but I can see some literary value in its presentation.  The difference is on Goodreads I'm rating for myself and my close friends, and on Amazon I'm rating for everyone, everywhere.  (Disclaimer - I no longer review on Amazon because of all the mixed signals they're giving about authors being reviewers.)

Similarly, I'm going to give Choose Your Own Adventure books 5 stars on Goodreads, because I like to see who else is into them/has memories of them.  As literature, most of them rate 2 or 3 stars at best.

And, the Goodreads system is messed up.  By one reasonable interpretation two stars, "it's okay," is a single gradient above "worst book ever."  That's really not usable data - it's weighted to dump low-end books and elaborate on high-end books, because the GR system really breaks down to "I want books like this / I do not want books like that."  It's practically binary.  You can't build a representative set of review assessments out of the GR methodology.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

swolf said:


> Goodreads users are meaner than a bagful of snakes.


HEY!
I'm a Goodreads user.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Quiss said:


> HEY!
> I'm a Goodreads user.


I was thinking of you when I wrote that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jan Strnad said:


> Yes, the reviewer is concerned with his own needs/wants/desires and is judging accordingly. However, my basic assertion is that a book, a painting, a piece of music is inherently much more than "a product." It is a product that imbued with the mind and spirit of the creator. Therefore it is impossible for a reviewer to review that "product" without implicitly passing judgment on the creator.


As a quilt artist who regularly puts work out there to be criticized and rejected, I don't feel this^ way at all. Someone can not like my work; it says nothing about me or how they feel about me. I don't take it personally at all. Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when someone doesn't like something I love, just that I know it's nothing personal. Maybe it's because I've been doing this a long time.... EDIT: And had my stuff hated by experts. 

Edit to add: What is the reviewer saying about the artist when he or she likes one work and doesn't like another?

Betsy


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I dont know Betsy, do you get emotionally attached to your quilts? (I'm seriously asking)

Because I think just about all writers and artists, no matter how professional, have some level of emotional attachment to their work.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> Therefore it is impossible for a reviewer to review that "product" without implicitly passing judgment on the creator.


I'm not sure it's the reviewer passing judgment on the creator. But it's very hard for the creator to distinguish between insults to the work and insults to themself.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As a quilt artist who regularly puts work out there to be criticized and rejected, I don't feel this^ way at all. Someone can not like my work; it says nothing about me or how they feel about me. I don't take it personally at all. Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when someone doesn't like something I love, just that I know it's nothing personal. Maybe it's because I've been doing this a long time.... EDIT: And had my stuff hated by experts.
> 
> Edit to add: What is the reviewer saying about the artist when he or she likes one work and doesn't like another?
> 
> Betsy


Betsy, if it hurts, you're taking it personally. One can build up a thick hide as protection, but that doesn't mean that nothing gets through. It isn't that nothing hurts; it's that you accept the hurt as the price of doing business.

Your question about liking one work and not liking another is a good one! I'd have to resort to quoting Walt Whitman: "I am many. I contain multitudes."

I don't consider a review to be a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on the entire person of the writer. I'm only saying that most writing (and painting and quilting), as with any creative activity, reflects more intimately the thoughts and feelings of the artist than, say, manufacturing a pack of matches. I believe it takes courage to put your creative work out there to be judged by people who don't give a hoot about you or your sensibilities.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Of course I do. Art is extremely personal. I have some pieces I can't sell because they mean too much to me.  It hurts when someone doesn't like something I've worked months on.  Some comments are extremely painful.  But...I never think that means the reviewer was talking about me.  The reviewer is talking about one of my pieces.  The same reviewer might like another piece very much.  A reviewer liking my work doesn't say any more about me than a reviewer not liking a piece.  It only means I was able to create art that touched someone.  And they might see in it something totally different than what I saw when I was making it.  It's personal to them, not in how they feel about me.

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jan Strnad said:


> Betsy, if it hurts, you're taking it personally. One can build up a thick hide as protection, but that doesn't mean that nothing gets through. It isn't that nothing hurts; it's that you accept the hurt as the price of doing business.


Well, yeah, kinda. But it's not a hurt that I think they were saying anything about me. EDIT: And I don't expect reviewers to take my feelings into account. I do want honesty.

Betsy


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And I don't expect reviewers to take my feelings into account. I do want honesty.


Well, you hit on something there. Most people will say they want honesty, but when they get it, they dont always take it with grace.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

MarcyBlesy said:


> Your explanation of the goodreads vs. amazon scale makes sense. The same reviewer gave my short story a 3 on goodreads and a 4 on amazon. Now that is a reviewer who reads the fine print. Ha!


I used to think it was very strange, but then someone explained to me the different meanings of the ratings at Amazon vs. Goodreads.

Totally explains why I had a reviewer who gave me a B+ on her blog, 4 stars on Amazon, and only 3 stars on Goodreads. 

Each of my books on Goodreads have ratings in the 3.something range (3.5, 3.7, whatever), whereas they all have 4.something ratings on Amazon and B&N.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

IMO although lots might go into the difference in reviewing styles, the largest factor is probably this. Goodreads reviewers are heavy readers, versus Amazon reviewers who are a mixture that includes casual readers. So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines. After tasting many a bottle of the $300 stuff, they're unlikely to be impressed with the best wine from Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart wine might be very good and just right for the average person. Someone without much experience might even call it the best they've ever tasted. But the connoisseur is unlikely to give it more than a 3 star rating because their palate has become very refined and they've reached a point where they expect a lot more from their drink. I don't think it's a bad thing to be that cheap wine. Cheap wine is ideal for the every man.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Dara England said:


> IMO although lots might go into the difference in reviewing styles, the largest factor is probably this. Goodreads reviewers are heavy readers, versus Amazon reviewers who are a mixture that includes casual readers. So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines. After tasting many a bottle of the $300 stuff, they're unlikely to be impressed with the best wine from Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart wine might be very good and just right for the average person. Someone without much experience might even call it the best they've ever tasted. But the connoisseur is unlikely to give it more than a 3 star rating because their palate has become very refined and they've reached a point where they expect a lot more from their drink. I don't think it's a bad thing to be that cheap wine. Cheap wine is ideal for the every man.


Gee Dara, are you a writer or something?  That was an excellent analogy.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Jan Strnad said:


> Therefore it is impossible for a reviewer to review that "product" without implicitly passing judgment on the creator.


Totally disagree with this. When I review a book, I review the book. I do not not pass judgment on the author if I don't like a book.

I don't think that what is in a book is how the author is in real life. Its called fiction.

If an author takes it personally that someone doesn't like their book, that is on the author, not the reader. It is the author that cannot separate from the book. As a reader I can and do all the time.

I want to be entertained. I buy a book, I read it, I either like it or not and then I can put that opinion down. Then I move on to the next book.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Dara England said:


> IMO although lots might go into the difference in reviewing styles, the largest factor is probably this. Goodreads reviewers are heavy readers, versus Amazon reviewers who are a mixture that includes casual readers. So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines. After tasting many a bottle of the $300 stuff, they're unlikely to be impressed with the best wine from Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart wine might be very good and just right for the average person. Someone without much experience might even call it the best they've ever tasted. But the connoisseur is unlikely to give it more than a 3 star rating because their palate has become very refined and they've reached a point where they expect a lot more from their drink. I don't think it's a bad thing to be that cheap wine. Cheap wine is ideal for the every man.


I buy cheap wine all the time. And when I have a little more money, I get something that is a bit more. There is some mighty fine cheap wine out there. I drank a lot of nasty acid tasting ones to find those though. . I have also drank some really expensive stuff over the years. It all has its place and someone can enjoy both.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Dara England said:


> So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines.





> The book was really bad. It was like being in a porno movie. I hated it. You can tell just by reading the book that this book was written by a male author. NO OFFENCE TO MEN. I am not the type of person to read the description on the back of the book which was my biggest mistake.
> 
> I like to say something to guys/men who wonder upon reading this book.
> 
> ...


Yes, I see what you mean.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Totally disagree with this. When I review a book, I review the book. I do not not pass judgment on the author if I don't like a book.


I'm sure that's true for you but I can't tell you how many times people have tried to psychoanalyze me based on something I've written.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

swolf said:


> Yes, I see what you mean.


One does have to titter indulgently when one reads about what men think women do when left to their own devices. Or wish they did.
My only memory of the girls' locker room is the smell of sweaty armpits and fear of athlete's foot. Majorly erotic.

Moral (ahem) of the story: Don't try to write porn for women, guys. Leave that to the experts.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

When they just don't tell lies or gross inaccuracies, I'm good.
Even then I don't bother to correct them.
_(No, dear reviewer, I don't have family in Costa Rica, Canada, Germany, the UK and eight different states in the US who write reviews for me.)_

I want readers to be happy when they buy one of my books. If a snarky review by a thirteen year old with an ulcer, a hard liquor problem, a bad attitude and a Goodreads account keeps others of that kind away from my books, that's a bonus. They wouldn't have liked the book and I don't want them to waste their money.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

swolf said:


> I was thinking of you when I wrote that.


 

I grade the same books differently on Goodreads than I do on Amazon, because I follow the descriptors of the star systems. So, a book might get 4 stars from me on Amazon, and only 3 on Goodreads.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Quiss said:


> Moral (ahem) of the story: Don't try to write porn for women, guys. Leave that to the experts.


Well, there are other women connoisseurs on there who like it just fine. And most of my sales are to women.

I think the real moral of that story is, don't let kids read erotica.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> If a snarky review by a thirteen year old with an ulcer, a hard liquor problem, a bad attitude and a Goodreads account keeps others of that kind away from my books, that's a bonus. They wouldn't have liked the book and I don't want them to waste their money.


Bravo. Well said.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

If a reader is not a fan, you are just a dancing monkey to them. They put in the coin and they expect you to caper around and be entertaining. They don't care if your feet hurt or your belly's rumbling. If you want to do anything but dance, you better get your monkey butt back in the box.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

Quiss said:


> One does have to titter indulgently when one reads about what men think women do when left to their own devices. Or wish they did.
> My only memory of the girls' locker room is the smell of sweaty armpits and fear of athlete's foot. Majorly erotic.


I don't have a lot of fond memories of the girls' locker room, either.

I have a young man in my Monday night gaming group who is playing a female character. It is a lot of fun to watch him make decisions based on how he thinks women think.


----------



## Anjasa (Feb 4, 2012)

Jan Strnad said:


> Reviewers are not just giving their opinion on "a product." Books, songs, paintings are not widgets stamped out to perform a function. If an author is so removed from his work that he sees nothing of himself in it, then he might as well get a factory job, union benefits and, if he's lucky, a pension.


I hated "The Woman" by Jack Ketchum. I thought it was torture porn, and gruesome and horrific. I gave it a 2 star rating because I found it poorly written and not at all compelling. I just really didn't like it.

I don't know anything about Jack Ketchum. I barely know the man's name. I know a lot of people like his stories, and I'm not one of them.

Art is subjective, and because of that, ratings shouldn't be taken personally. Someone else might absolutely love what a gritty novel it was, and how it made them feel a bit sick or whatever. They might thing the book is the best thing ever. I didn't.

Yea, it takes guts to deal with bad reviews and whatever, but most readers aren't concerned with the author when they give a rating. They're concerned with the art. With whether they liked it or not, whether it resonated with them or not. The artist needs to separate enough from their craft that they can recognize it.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> Gee Dara, are you a writer or something?  That was an excellent analogy.


Thanks! My dad would be proud of me for working his cheap wine into an analogy.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Adam Pepper said:


> Well, you hit on something there. Most people will say they want honesty, but when they get it, they dont always take it with grace.


Yeah, I want to know. Then I decide whether I agree or not that they have a point from their perspective. Sometimes I agree and file it away for the next project; sometimes I see their point but don't agree with it for that piece, and sometimes I think they're full of [crap].


Betsy


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Betsy said "shit"


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, aren't our filters lovely?  So freeing...


Betsy


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Heck, some seem to think that a 3 star is a bad review.


I have no reviews yet, so I have no ax to grind, but to me, getting 3 stars out of 5 would be like getting 60% on a test.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Shayne said:


> I have no reviews yet, so I have no ax to grind, but to me, getting 3 stars out of 5 would be like getting 60% on a test.


When I see star ratings, or tomato ratings, or whatever rating a website uses, I look to see what the rating means on that site.

But to compare the stars to grade, I think you'd be more accurate to compare it to "average" for the text...which may or may not be 60% depending on the test.



Betsy


----------



## Anotherdreamer (Jan 21, 2013)

I like to drink cheap wine while reading formula romance...lol.

I just watched someone post about six status updates on Goodreads with video as they read my book. It wasn't super flattering, but it was quite funny. It was similar to falling down and laughing at yourself, but then realizing it hurt a little. It's hard to be too upset when they are funny about it.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

That's been my sense too so I just checked my most popular book's ratings on both Amazon and Goodreads. It was interesting.

There are 61 Amazon ratings(reviews) that average 4.5 stars
There are 162 ratings on Goodreads that average 3.65

I think this shows that the easier it is to rate a book, the more likely readers are to do it. Amazon requires a sentence or two with the star rating whereas Goodreads lets readers just post stars with no opinion.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

John Blackport said:


> I like the idea of reviewers being forced to ration their own stars, but I'd prefer an evenly tiered system. I know the extreme ratings (1 star and 5 stars) are overused, but striking out on your own to "fix" this by making those ratings extremely rare doesn't help much. In fact, all it does is effectively reduce the number of different star ratings you can apply to new books down to _three,_ which is inherently less useful than 5.
> 
> If you imagine an imaginary endless bookshelf, from "Best Book Ever" to "Worst Book Ever", in descending order _according to your own personal preferences_ (i.e., books from your favorite genre strongly predominating at the top, with books from your favorite genre often beating books that are objectively better for subjective reasons) --- and THEN divide that bookshelf into percentiles, you'd assign 5 stars to those books above the 80th percentile, 4 stars for those at 61st up to 80th, and so on, reserving the 1-star ratings for those at the 20th or below.
> 
> ...


I love this. The system could still be abused, but it would be a little harder.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> When I see star ratings, or tomato ratings, or whatever rating a website uses, I look to see what the rating means on that site.
> 
> But to compare the stars to grade, I think you'd be more accurate to compare it to "average" for the text...which may or may not be 60% depending on the test.
> 
> ...


Do you mean that 3 stars should be considered average? Or that the 3-star should be compared to what the book has averaged up to that point?


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

Dara England said:


> IMO although lots might go into the difference in reviewing styles, the largest factor is probably this. Goodreads reviewers are heavy readers, versus Amazon reviewers who are a mixture that includes casual readers. So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines. After tasting many a bottle of the $300 stuff, they're unlikely to be impressed with the best wine from Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart wine might be very good and just right for the average person. Someone without much experience might even call it the best they've ever tasted. But the connoisseur is unlikely to give it more than a 3 star rating because their palate has become very refined and they've reached a point where they expect a lot more from their drink. I don't think it's a bad thing to be that cheap wine. Cheap wine is ideal for the every man.


You're smart


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Shayne said:


> Do you mean that 3 stars should be considered average? Or that the 3-star should be compared to what the book has averaged up to that point?


I think that three stars should be considered whatever the website in question says they should be considered.

I was just saying that, if one is going to compare the stars to a test score as you did, I think it would be more accurate to compare it to being "average" for that test; i.e., in the middle of the score range. Which might or might not be the 60% for a test that you mentioned.

Personally, I wouldn't compare it to a test score. I posted what the stars mean for me earlier in the thread. 

Betsy


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I think that three stars should be considered whatever the website in question says they should be considered.


That may be true for websites with a review staff.

I doubt very much that all people follow the rules on sites like Amazon and Goodreads. Double for Goodreads: you can just vote without any explanation. Anything goes: there is no, repeat, _no_ language filter. At all. The most vulgar expletives to describe a book _and_ the author are allowed. Think 4chan. There is no down-vote button, only a like-button. All this makes voting trivial and leads to irresponsible behavior by some. This means the ratings on GR are even less reliable than those on Amazon for readers to base their choice on.

E.g. in a thread about ratings one reader said that she habitually rated a book two stars lower when she was on her period than she would have otherwise. LOL, she added for good measure.

I have said it before and will say it again: ratings on these kind of sites mean nothing, unless a vast majority of them agree _(except when they're mostly 4 and 5 stars because, obviously, this is the family and the sock puppets of the author gaming the system)_ or when there are enough of them (at least 1000+) so that they become statistically significant.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Dara England said:


> IMO although lots might go into the difference in reviewing styles, the largest factor is probably this. Goodreads reviewers are heavy readers, versus Amazon reviewers who are a mixture that includes casual readers. So the Goodreads reviewers are like connoisseurs of fine wines.


Not only that, but Goodreads reviewers go to GR to pretty much focus on books --- compare this to Amazon, where you may go 3-4 times a week and still buy books only occasionally. A lot of my friends sign in to Amazon, head straight for the mp3s, and ignore books until they start their Christmas shopping; so if they _read_ fewer books, is it any wonder they _review_ fewer books?

Compare that to Goodreads. How many people frequent Goodreads who don't love reading?

Given that GR reviewers read and review more books, AND at a faster rate, AND put a lot of stock in what their friends recommend --- well, they're going to step outside their "comfort zone" more often than a casual reader. I think that's likely to end up meaning they give more negative reviews; but I think that result is just an inherent effect of their _giving more reviews overall._ Goodreads has a lot of positive reviews too, but no one's interested in trying to prove that.

Since GR reviewers tend to put more thought into their reviews, their "harsh" reviews stand out a lot more, especially from the point of view of a self-conscious author scanning the site for harshness.

So no, while I admit that GR can *seem* harsher, I don't think the overall difference in harshness between the two sites is that great. I think it just seems that way because a lot of people express opinions on the matter, expect to see a big problem, scan the site for evidence that problem . . . and find what they expect to find.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "In each case, the attitude does seem to be that the review system should suit the authors' needs, when, in fact, reviews aren't to serve the author (as has been said on KB many times)."


Anything published to the whole world on the Internet is for whatever purpose the consumer chooses. That includes books, articles, reviews, blogs, comments, etc. The consumer decides what use the material will serve.



> "After reading all the way through this thread, I have to say I'm kind of surprised that so many people won't leave a review if they can't give 5 or 4. Why is that? Is it a fear of hurting feelings, or of being thought "mean," and worrying that a bad reputation with regard to reviews will ruin your reputation as an author? I don't get it."


Perhaps they won't finish a book that they don't like. That would mean they only finish books they can rate 4 or 5. If they think a review should be about the book rather than the reviewer, they might not consider themselves qualified to review a book they didn't finish.



> "People in the creative arts are some of the bravest people I know.
> Oh, they aren't "rescue a baby from a burning orphanage" type of brave, but it takes a lot of guts to create a piece of art or literature out of your own head and put it on display for all the world to see. "


Brave? Perhaps. But I don't see them as any braver than the rest of the world. People take all kinds of risks all the time, and the downside is often considerably worse than a review on Amazon.



> "Therefore it is impossible for a reviewer to review that "product" without implicitly passing judgment on the creator."


We can only judge what we know. We know the book because we read it. We don't know the author. So judgements about an author when we don't know the author are meaningless.



> "If an author is so removed from his work that he sees nothing of himself in it, then he might as well get a factory job, union benefits and, if he's lucky, a pension."


I don't have the standing to make that decision for another author.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I have said it before and will say it again: ratings on these kind of sites mean nothing, unless a vast majority of them agree _(*except when they're mostly 4 and 5 stars because, obviously, this is the family and the sock puppets of the author gaming the system*)_


Looking at your Amazon reviews, it seems that all of your books fit this criteria. Are you saying those reviews are from family and sock puppets?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

swolf said:


> Looking at your Amazon reviews, it seems that all of your books fit this criteria. Are you saying those reviews are from family and sock puppets?


<sarcasm>

Of course.

I first told my family to move to different places all over the globe. Then, cunningly, I told them to review several books before reviewing mine. I carefully planned for them to publish their reviews, not days after publication and all at once, but starting several weeks later (so as to give the impression they had actually read the book) and with months between them. I looked over them so they wouldn't seem too similar, and I made sure they all had a different style and that they commented on different aspects of the book. To mislead everybody, I had them introduce minor mistakes.

How to make your sock puppets appear as if coming from Costa Rica one time, and from Finland the other is rather technical so I won't go into that. Suffice it to say that my technical prowess is far greater than that of all the professionals at the Zon.

But we don't need to get technical. When you see a lot of high star ratings you can _just assume_ that family-rating and sock puppetry has been going on. Start blabbering that around and eventually some people might believe you. Just accuse the writer of being a fraud. Just assume, fabricate, lie and slander. You will look so clever not falling for their tricks and you can always say that it's "just your opinion."

What can they do, after all? The least reaction and you can start shouting hysterically "Badly Behaving Author Who Can't Stand Critique." That'll shut them back up again.

Who do they think they are, these writers? People?

</sarcasm>


----------



## Heather Walsh (Jan 22, 2013)

Thanks to everyone who commented. Very informative--and spirited--discussion!

I think the consensus is that Goodreads ratings are going to be lower than Amazon ratings for various reasons (different rating systems, users, etc.). Perhaps harsh wasn't the best word to describe them...


----------

