# Goodreads fake rating -- Very annoyed



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

My book (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17834270-city-of-the-fallen#other_reviews) is not out until the 28th.

Nobody except my editor has a copy of it.

Today, I find that two people have rated it in Goodreads. Both gave it three stars. I'm really, really annoyed at this, because it means two random people clicked on it "just because."

I guess if they would've given the book four or five stars, I wouldn't be complaining, but clicking on a 3-star rating for a book you haven't read strikes me as mean spirited. And it brings my rating down even before the book is out.

I tried clicking on it to see who rated it, but it doesn't show me anything.


----------



## Steve W. (Feb 23, 2011)

Just remember that not everyone uses Goodreads the same way. I have friends who use Goodreads as a bookshelf for their own thoughts and feelings on the books. Some of them were SHOCKED when they learned others could see their bookshelf and ratings. 

Also, some people click the stars as a way to remind themselves to read a book when it comes out.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Click on "filter", then "3 stars" and you will see them...

It doesn't make sense when people rate books just because they can (and I have seen plenty of unpublished books with 1-star ratings!) but maybe this means something else to them? Like books they would probably like to read? Who knows, people can organize books as they like on Goodreads. It doesn't have to be malicious.


----------



## Steve W. (Feb 23, 2011)

Stella S. said:


> Click on "filter", then "3 stars" and you will see them...
> 
> It doesn't make sense when people rate books just because they can (and I have seen plenty of unpublished books with 1-star ratings!) but maybe this means something else to them? Like books they would probably like to read? Who knows, people can organize books as they like on Goodreads.* It doesn't have to be malicious.*


Before I was a writer, I used to do this. Hitting a star added it to my bookshelf and I'd be reminded to pick it up when it came out. I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that my single rating might impact anyone else. Then, one day I got a message from a writer who told me to please remove my rating as the book wasn't out and there's no way I could have read it yet. I know it shouldn't have bothered me, but it did, and although I removed the rating, I have never read another of that authors books. I only mention it as an anecdote to what might be happening here.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Interesting. I just clicked on the ratings (thanks Stella) and the two people who rated the book are friends with each other. And one of them has only 12 friends, so I'm thinking that person saw the other one rate the book and did the same. 

And one of them is a guy (who just joined Goodreads this month). Not the kind of reader I expect to have for this book, so the rating was for some other reason. 

ETA: Steve, I don't plan on contacting the people who rated the book, but thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Just count yourself lucky that you are one of the few who can manage to get sites to list the book pre-publication.

And every problem like this can be solved and prevented by the old adage: _Don't look at the reviews_.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Steve W. said:


> Before I was a writer, I used to do this. Hitting a star added it to my bookshelf and I'd be reminded to pick it up when it came out. I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that my single rating might impact anyone else. Then, one day I got a message from a writer who told me to please remove my rating as the book wasn't out and there's no way I could have read it yet. I know it shouldn't have bothered me, but it did, and although I removed the rating, I have never read another of that authors books. I only mention it as an anecdote to what might be happening here.


Same here, Steve. When I started using Goodreads years ago, all I cared about was to create a database for my own needs and it never crossed my mind that authors actually checked ratings. Of course, now I know better and I refrain from rating books unless I like them. I believe it's not a good idea to rate/judge the competition in public no matter what your profession. And I also believe it's a terrible idea in general to contact a reader to ask them to do ANYTHING in regards to a book...


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

The book I haven't even finished writing has over 5 ratings on Goodreads already and one is a two-star. Some people just click on stars by mistake when they want to add the book and some rate the book they didn't read to indicate how much they want to read it once its out. I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> Just count yourself lucky that you are one of the few who can manage to get sites to list the book pre-publication.
> 
> And every problem like this can be solved and prevented by the old adage: _Don't look at the reviews_.


I'm pretty sure anybody can add a book to Goodreads pre-publication. Did you try and have problems with it?

ETA: Ok, Katherine wins.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

dotx said:


> I'm pretty sure anybody can add a book to Goodreads pre-publication. Did you try and have problems with it?
> 
> ETA: Ok, Katherine wins.


You're right!
a. Katherine wins!
b. Anyone can add a book that is to be-published on Goodreads. I've done it with all my books.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

So what about those readers who do understand that stars mean a rating system, not organization, and use that to decide what to read.
Clearly, when you mouse-over the stars you get a tool tip that shows what the stars mean.
It would seem to me that the Goodreads systems of using "stars" is fairly useless as intended.  Aren't the "shelves" there for organization?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Goodreads recommends other books to readers based on how they rate the books they have rated, whether read or not. Some people just go around rating every book they encounter, in the hopes of getting better recommendations.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Some people also rate books on how much they want to read them.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

TattooedWriter said:


> The two people who rated your book are Goodreads 'Top Users', which means they have to rate and shelve a hell of a lot of books to retain that status. So the stars probably aren't any indication on what they think of your book but just them keeping their own stats high.
> 
> A book of mine on GR has 3 stars from the same two people and they appeared exactly the same time as yours did.


Thanks. That makes a lot of sense and it makes me feel better. Well, maybe not better (still not happy about receiving three stars from people who haven't read the book) but I guess happier to know it was just random.


----------



## Natasha Holme (May 26, 2012)

I wish it were more widely broadcast that Goodreads members use the star system for the random reasons outlined above.


----------



## OliviaF (Feb 3, 2013)

I had this happen with my last book. I know at least one person (who didn't have an advanced copy) rated it before it was published. I'm also pretty sure that a few of my ratings are from people using the stars to shelve books. In my case they at least gave 5 stars which was great... until someone questioned whether I was padding out the reviews even though I had absolutely nothing to do with it :-/ 

I think it all comes down to an inconsistency in how people use Goodreads, which just confuses some people and angers others.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

This year I participated in an M/M group where writers submit free stories for the readers. It's the only year I did it and I think it will be the last. Lots of 1 and 2 star reviews for my story (which brings my overall rating down on GR) and it just depresses you a bit after you've worked on it (for free) and seem to get no appreciation. Some people did like it, but not the majority who've rated it.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

TattooedWriter said:


> The two people who rated your book are Goodreads 'Top Users', which means they have to rate and shelve a hell of a lot of books to retain that status. So the stars probably aren't any indication on what they think of your book but just them keeping their own stats high.


The guy just joined GR _this month_. Not sure why he's interested in gaming the system like that. Maybe he thinks ppl will send him free books if he's a top reviewer.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

katherinef said:


> The book I haven't even finished writing has over 5 ratings on Goodreads already and one is a two-star. Some people just click on stars by mistake when they want to add the book and some rate the book they didn't read to indicate how much they want to read it once its out. I wouldn't worry about it.


Just wondering - how do they know about your book if you haven't finished writing it? I never finalise a title until the book is finished.


----------



## wolfrom (May 26, 2012)

I'm sure I had the same two people (not that I checked) rank my book that's also out on the 28th, but I got one 3 star and a delicious 1 star. So my book that hadn't even been completely read by my beta readers (yes, I'm behind schedule, _quelle surprise_) now has a rating of 2.5.

Goodreads would make me cry if I'd let it.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Just wondering - how do they know about your book if you haven't finished writing it? I never finalise a title until the book is finished.


If you want to start a giveaway before the book is actually published, you have to assign the ISBN and create the book record on Goodreads. After you've done that, then anyone can find it. I got a one-star on a book that wouldn't be out for almost a month, just because I wanted to set up the giveaway.

As far as Goodreads goes, I log in, create my giveaways, and then back away slowly...


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Just wondering - how do they know about your book if you haven't finished writing it? I never finalise a title until the book is finished.


I added all of the books I plan to write in a series so my readers could know how many books there will be and add them to their shelves. It's easy to add untitled books and change the title and everything else once you have it. But instead of simply adding my book to their shelves, some of my readers went on to rate it.


----------



## LanaAxe (Jun 24, 2013)

I just registered for an account so I could reply to this. The exact same two people rated my book, along with a third person on their friends list. They also entered my giveaway to win a copy of my book. One gave me 5 stars, one 3 stars, and the third 1 star. I'm guessing the post above about it reflecting their interest could be correct. However, the person rating me at 1 star is unlikely to ever come back and fix that rating if she doesn't win. She has over a thousand books on her to-read list, and if she only has 1 star interest, she will probably never get back to my book. A 1 star rating could be very problematic if I had no other reviews. I was lucky to have a small book club rate my book, and they were very generous.

I hope these people don't realize that they could potentially damage an indie author's sales by rating them as such. Usually, I ignore star ratings and read a sample of a book that sounds interesting. Other reviews mean nothing to me. I may love what someone else hated. 

I dislike that people who haven't read the book are allowed to rate it, but that's up to goodreads. I would prefer it if people had to answer questions to prove they read it before rating it. Perhaps goodreads could include a separate rating system to remind you how badly you wanted to read a book on your to-read list.

People do strange things to stay at the top of a list. Remember top friends on myspace? People like being the mayor on foursquare and the first to comment on a famous person's post on twitter. It wouldn't surprise me too much if someone rated random books just to make a list. In this case, however, I am inclined to think it is their interest level since they also entered my giveaway. I would prefer goodreads to limit giveaway entries to one per household, since they could easily share the book.


----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

First of all, I hate when that kinda thing happens on Goodreads. It's one of the reasons I think reviews should have a mandatory word count. That being said, I believe I know how/why this happened. If you look, you'll see that one of them joined in May and one joined this month (June). When you open an account on Goodreads, the first thing they make you do is rate a bunch of random books as a means of getting an idea of what you enjoy reading. I'm sure your book popped up during their account set up and they slapped on a star rating and moved on.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Some people also rate books on how much they want to read them.





Cherise Kelley said:


> Goodreads recommends other books to readers based on how they rate the books they have rated, whether read or not. Some people just go around rating every book they encounter, in the hopes of getting better recommendations.





katherinef said:


> The book I haven't even finished writing has over 5 ratings on Goodreads already and one is a two-star. Some people just click on stars by mistake when they want to add the book and some rate the book they didn't read to indicate how much they want to read it once its out. I wouldn't worry about it.


As if we didn't have enough reasons for why the rating system is broken and useless. Grrrr.


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

LanaAxe said:


> I just registered for an account so I could reply to this. The exact same two people rated my book, along with a third person on their friends list. They also entered my giveaway to win a copy of my book. One gave me 5 stars, one 3 stars, and the third 1 star. I'm guessing the post above about it reflecting their interest could be correct.


That, and GoodReads suggests you shelve a book when you enter giveaways and some people don't like to shelve without a star rating and/or use stars to indicate their interest on their to-reads list as you've said.



> I hope these people don't realize that they could potentially damage an indie author's sales by rating them as such.


They don't, and further more, they don't really care. They don't approach GR with any idea it's a tool for promotion for authors because despite what GR says about using it for publishers and authors, the readers there think of it as a reader's space. It's a way to track and organize and talk about books, not help authors sell books (or prevent them from selling).


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> They don't approach GR with any idea it's a tool for promotion for authors because despite what GR says about using it for publishers and authors, the readers there think of it as a reader's space.


I view that as a good thing. The last thing we want is for readers to start thinking that Goodreads is some kind of shill for authors.

Everyone I've communicated with at Goodreads has made it clear that their primary concern is for readers. They give us tools to present our books to their membership because GR thinks that has value to their members, not to help us out or to support indie publishing in any way.

If the pre-rating of books is something that concerns us, our best bet is to convince GR that readers need a better solution for marking the books they want to read most. In other words, we need to identify the ways that stars are being "abused" and suggest alternatives that _serve the readers better_. Otis & Company might be more willing to take action if we present a compelling argument that does not focus on how the current system hurts us.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

DRMarvello said:


> As if we didn't have enough reasons for why the rating system is broken and useless. Grrrr.


Especially on Goodreads. My ratings there are, on average, a full star lower than elsewhere, and I know many of those low ratings come from people reading the blurb only, not the book. Don't know how Amazon might reconcile this when they (inevitably) begin to report Goodreads ratings on a book's Amazon page.


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

scottmarlowe said:


> The guy just joined GR _this month_. Not sure why he's interested in gaming the system like that. Maybe he thinks ppl will send him free books if he's a top reviewer.


I'm thinking the same thing. People will do just about anything to get free stuff. The rating system needs to be disabled for unpublished books.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

dotx said:


> I guess if they would've given the book four or five stars, I wouldn't be complaining, but clicking on a 3-star rating for a book you haven't read strikes me as mean spirited. And it brings my rating down even before the book is out.


To be honest, I find this to be a bit disturbing. So its not the fact that the book is not out yet and gets ratings that is the issue, its the fact they they dared not to give fake 5 stars. So as long as a book gets artificially inflated ratings, its all good.

And since when is a 3 star, which is "liked it" on goodreads anything bad?. So you don't want folks to fake-like your books, you want them to find it fake-amazing?


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Atunah said:


> To be honest, I find this to be a bit disturbing. So its not the fact that the book is not out yet and gets ratings that is the issue, its the fact they they dared not to give fake 5 stars. So as long as a book gets artificially inflated ratings, its all good.
> 
> And since when is a 3 star, which is "liked it" on goodreads anything bad?. So you don't want folks to fake-like your books, you want them to find it fake-amazing?


No. What I meant was: If you're going to give a fake rating, at least make it 4 or 5 stars.


----------



## ChristopherDavidPetersen (Mar 24, 2011)

TattooedWriter said:


> The two people who rated your book are Goodreads 'Top Users', which means they have to rate and shelve a hell of a lot of books to retain that status. So the stars probably aren't any indication on what they think of your book but just them keeping their own stats high.
> 
> A book of mine on GR has 3 stars from the same two people and they appeared exactly the same time as yours did.


This is exactly the kind of nonsense that has turned me away from Goodreads. I found their policies very frustrating after several "incidents" (drive-by one stars, uncooperative with book management, etc.), I'm now at a point that I won't even list my new books with them. It's just not worth it to me... bigger fish in the sea and all.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

RM Prioleau said:


> The rating system needs to be disabled for unpublished books.


I think this would be really helpful. I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be to disable that feature until after the date in the "publication date" field?

At least that way there wouldn't be any "fake" one-stars or five-stars.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> And since when is a 3 star, which is "liked it" on goodreads anything bad?. So you don't want folks to fake-like your books, you want them to find it fake-amazing? Huh?





> No. What I meant was: If you're going to give a fake rating, at least make it 4 or 5 stars.


Seriously? So it would be okay to lie to readers and give it 4 or 5 stars, saying it was super good just so the author is happy? Goodreads is for readers. Why should they be lied to any more than we as authors should have our ratings ruined. I agree the system is bad. I wish Goodreads gave readers a different way to mark books for interest. I wish they wouldn't let the stars be used that way. But they do.

Be glad you got a 3 star. I got my whole series 2 and 2 starred by a new GR member who couldn't have possibly read the 5th book at that time that fast. Mine are the only books on their account. I don't know what it means. Either they don't like me, or they REALLY want to read my stuff (if 1 star means read this quick for some reason to them)or they REALLY want to avoid it. It is annoying for sure, but you can't do anything about it. I would be turning cartwheels if she or he had marked them 3 stars for whatever reason. 

And about all 3 star ratings: What is it with so many indies that they feel a 3 star ("liked it" on Goodreads or "okay" on Amazon) is an insult? Do those indies really think their book is so much better than everyone else that it should only get 4 or 5 stars from each person who reads it? 3 stars on a real review means they felt you're book was OKAY on Amazon, liked it on GR. Still, some indies bitch. If they expect all 4 or 5 stars AND that tons of people will read it they are delusional. What one hopes is to write good enough that over time one averages 4 or above, not that every single reader totally loves every book you write.

When I see a movie that I rate a 5 or 6 I tell people, "It was okay. Go see it, just don't expect to want to see it twice." Okay is, well, okay! Many readers base their buying decisions on 3 stars. If an author has all 4 and 5 stars it makes them suspicious.

Of course I cherish my 4 and 5 star reviews. Of course I always hope for them. More than that, though, I want a TON of people to read my books. That means there WILL be 3 stars (and 2 and 1 stars) because no one writes a book that every single reader falls so totally in love with it has to be 5 stars.

More than anything else that many indies do that many find annoying (like yelling "buy my book" every five minutes, etc) I find whining about 3 stars annoying. It reeks of insecurity or false illusions that their work stands above the many best selling authors in history that have many more 3 stars than they will ever dream of. I say give me 3 stars if you thought my book was okay. Give me 4 if you loved it. Give me 5 if you thought it rocked your world and was one of the best ever. If you rate it on GR I know it will likely be a star lower to mean the same thing (provided you read their star meanings). Hell, if you dislike my book, give me 2 or 1. Just buy it and read it! And, regardless of if you love or hate it, my hope is that you say WHY. Don't say, "I love this book" and leave it at that. Don't say "This book sucks" and leave it at that. Give the upcoming readers some information about WHY so they can see if that is something they find appealing or appalling in a book. That way the correct target audience can buy my book and guess what? My ratings will go up because they knew what they were buying and knew it fit them.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

H. S. St. Ours said:


> Especially on Goodreads. My ratings there are, on average, a full star lower than elsewhere, and I know many of those low ratings come from people reading the blurb only, not the book. Don't know how Amazon might reconcile this when they (inevitably) begin to report Goodreads ratings on a book's Amazon page.


The reconciliation problem goes even deeper than you might think. The reason most of us average one star less on Goodreads is because _the stars mean different things_ on Goodreads versus Amazon. If you hover over the stars and read the descriptions on Zon vs GR, you'll see what I mean. For example, "I Like It" is 4* on Amazon, whereas "liked it" is 3* on Goodreads. Goodreads readers don't actually rate us lower, they are just using a different scale.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I think this would be really helpful. I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be to disable that feature until after the date in the "publication date" field?
> 
> At least that way there wouldn't be any "fake" one-stars or five-stars.


While I agree it would be nice for not-yet-published books, this still doesn't solve the issue of using stars to mark interest in books that are in giveaways.  I had one marked with 1 star and as soon as the giveaway was over the star was removed. Evidently the reader marked books she had entered to win. I don't know. Not a big deal in the scheme of things, I'm just saying it isn't only happening to books not yet available.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

ChristinePope said:


> I think this would be really helpful. I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be to disable that feature until after the date in the "publication date" field?
> 
> At least that way there wouldn't be any "fake" one-stars or five-stars.


Except that lots of books on Goodreads CAN legitimately be reviewed before the release date. Many of us use NetGalley or the various read-to-review groups on Goodreads to get pre-release ARCs into readers' hands so we do have reviews on Goodreads before release -- just like the traditional publishers do.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> Except that lots of books on Goodreads CAN legitimately be reviewed before the release date. Many of us use NetGalley or the various read-to-review groups on Goodreads to get pre-release ARCs into readers' hands so we do have reviews on Goodreads before release -- just like the traditional publishers do.


Okay, then that won't work. I wish there were an easier way for people to sort books using something other than the star rating, though.

Luckily, I just don't worry about it too much.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Goodreads has gotten a LOT of very bad publicity recently - I would not be surprised if there are major changes over there.


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

Amanda Brice said:


> Except that lots of books on Goodreads CAN legitimately be reviewed before the release date. Many of us use NetGalley or the various read-to-review groups on Goodreads to get pre-release ARCs into readers' hands so we do have reviews on Goodreads before release -- just like the traditional publishers do.


If that's the case, then why not just disable the star-rating, but still allow people to post text reviews only, since the book is not officially on sale? This would force actual reviewers to post a legitimate text review and not just go the lazy route and click on a star.

[quote author=JanneCO]Goodreads has gotten a LOT of very bad publicity recently - I would not be surprised if there are major changes over there.[/quote]
Well, if I'm not mistaken, they were recently acquired by Amazon.


----------



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

I think there are users on Goodreads who don'ts realize you can add a book to one of your shelves without rating it.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

RM Prioleau said:


> Well, if I'm not mistaken, they were recently acquired by Amazon.


Yes, which is why I suspect Amazon will not put up with the BS that's been going on over there for years. I predict a fairly rigorous overhaul of the "customer support division" to be one of the first things on the list since the whole place is sorta run like some 1969 hippie commune where you need to sit in a circle and hold the talking stick to be "heard".

I also predict support for authors and more attention to readers abusing authors, because frankly, it's gotten out of hand and they know it.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

caethesfaron said:


> I think there are users on Goodreads who don'ts realize you can add a book to one of your shelves without rating it.


This.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

caethesfaron said:


> I think there are users on Goodreads who don'ts realize you can add a book to one of your shelves without rating it.


I have seen a lot of authors that rate their own books 5 stars and some when pointed out say, they had no idea they could add their book to a shelf without doing so. So its not just readers.

I don't believe at all they will change anything much on goodreads. Its a reader site mainly. It is after all called goodreads and not goodwrites. So some of the recent issues I have been seeing and reading about are from the bigger pushes they allow the authors to do there. It has resulted with an influx of author spam directly into the inboxes and on groups. I think this is because of some of the confusing language goodreads uses in their mailings. 
The abuse of readers and reviewers has also gone up quite a bit. I think this thread is just a small slice of the issues. 3 stars now being some kind of offense, not minding "fake" 5 stars, but minding 1-3 stars, etc. 
The more readers and reviewers get pushed, the less they like it. 
There is a reason many of us only review and rate on goodreads and not on amazon.

We love books and we want to talk about them any way we want.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> They don't, and further more, they don't really care. They don't approach GR with any idea it's a tool for promotion for authors because despite what GR says about using it for publishers and authors, the readers there think of it as a reader's space. It's a way to track and organize and talk about books, not help authors sell books (or prevent them from selling).


That may be so, BUT reviews and ratings are also supposed to assist readers in recommending/warning OTHER READERS about certain books, no?
Surely, the average reader is bright enough to know that if they give something a one or two star rating because it means "to read some day" to them that others will see this and assume that they didn't like it.

In any case, Goodreads ought to post something in big letters saying "Take heed, our ratings system is meaningless if you're looking for recommendations"


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Quiss said:


> That may be so, BUT reviews and ratings are also supposed to assist readers in recommending/warning OTHER READERS about certain books, no?
> Surely, the average reader is bright enough to know that if they give something a one or two star rating because it means "to read some day" to them that others will see this and assume that they didn't like it.
> 
> In any case, Goodreads ought to post something in big letters saying "Take heed, our ratings system is meaningless if you're looking for recommendations"


I disagree. For me, as a reader I find goodreads ratings and reviews much more useful than for example those on amazon. They are plenty meaningful for me. The few lost ratings here and there have never gotten in the way of the full picture for me. That is why we can pick friends and people to follow. Those stats are always listed first. So its much more tailored towards what one likes. You can pick people to follow based on comparing their ratings with yours. Their books with yours. 
All combined, it gives you a higher probability that a book that your friends and followed folks liked, you might like too. 
The system has worked pretty good as a whole for readers there. Are there some bugs and such? Sure. But for me its still the best and most reliable review and book statistic site out there.

Goodreads recommendations have been way better for me than what Amazon recommends. And I think its because we have different ways to get recommendations, system wise based on your shelfs and of course again reader based on what you and they liked.


----------



## Barbara Morgenroth (May 14, 2010)

H. S. St. Ours said:


> Especially on Goodreads. My ratings there are, on average, a full star lower than elsewhere, and I know many of those low ratings come from people reading the blurb only, not the book. Don't know how Amazon might reconcile this when they (inevitably) begin to report Goodreads ratings on a book's Amazon page.


For a while I had an original tradpub edition and my republished kindle edition side-by-side on my dashboard. One version the readers at GR hated and the other they quite liked. Same book. Slightly different title, different cover.


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

Griffin Hayes said:


> First of all, I hate when that kinda thing happens on Goodreads. It's one of the reasons I think reviews should have a mandatory word count.


Goodreads is not a review site. It's a cataloging site for readers to keep track of what they read and share that with friends -- which includes both rating and reviewing a book _if they so choose_.

The first thing most people do when they join Goodreads is rate every book they can remember reading. This means searching for an author and going down the list of their works clicking on stars. Making them review every book would make the task too time consuming and would lead to a bunch of reviews saying, "Yeah, I read this book in 6th grade and I remember liking it a lot."

And frankly as someone who reads more than a hundred books per year, I don't have the time or energy to review every single one, especially if it's the 17th volume of a manga series and I don't have anything to say different from the previous 16 installments, but I still want to put down a rating.



JanneCO said:


> Yes, which is why I suspect Amazon will not put up with the BS that's been going on over there for years. I predict a fairly rigorous overhaul of the "customer support division" to be one of the first things on the list since the whole place is sorta run like some 1969 hippie commune where you need to sit in a circle and hold the talking stick to be "heard".


The customers -- readers, not writers -- like how things are run, including the hippy-dippy do-your-own-thing attitude, and if Amazon changes that there will be a mass exodus.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

STOHara said:


> The customers -- readers, not writers -- like how things are run, including the hippy-dippy do-your-own-thing attitude, and if Amazon changes that there will be a mass exodus.


That's what I was thinking.
While it's possible that Amazon bought Goodreads for the sole purpose of burying it (since it includes books sold at other vendors) I don't think they'd want to change the format to duplicate what they already have.

C.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

ChristinePope said:


> I think this would be really helpful. I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be to disable that feature until after the date in the "publication date" field?
> 
> At least that way there wouldn't be any "fake" one-stars or five-stars.


I am a programmer, and it wouldn't be that hard.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Amazon bought Goodreads to make money.  You guys are all crazy if you think they'll leave it the way it is.  While some of it works well, it needs MAJOR changes.  I predict they'll be sooner rather than later.  They want authors to be JUST AS happy  as readers so they can make money off both sectors.  Right now authors are P*SSED OFF.  Goodreads has gotten a lot of very bad publicity lately.

Amazon does not care about hurt feelings or shelving books.  They care about customer service surveys.  And guess which sector contacts customer service?  Authors or readers?  

Amazon has cleaned up their game from last summer.  I had a one-star review for one of my books on Amazon recently.  I read it, shrugged, went about my day.  Came back two hours later - GONE!  I knew it was fake, they knew it was fake.  That review was pulled almost immediately after being published and I never even reported it.

Guess what happened that same week on Goodreads?  Same. F-ing. Thing.  One-star "review" GONE.  Wiped away.  LOL... It was almost too good to be true. (I did report that one because it was malicious.)

Goodreads has already changed.


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

I get three star markings all the time. It's usually people who have bought the book or plan to and just haven't read it yet. When I check back a couple weeks later, they usually put up a review or their true rating. (could be higher or lower than three stars!)

I've accidentally clicked the stars before, and couldn't figure out how to remove my rating on books I haven't read. I leave it at three to make it 'fair' and then come back and fill it in later when I've read the book. 

That's how a lot of readers handle it. They'll mark it in the middle to show 'don't listen to my opinion yet'. And yes, it's totally for their own reference only, not for you. GoodReads is where they get to be selfish because it's 'their' virtual bookshelf where they keep track of what the liked or didn't. 

I'm trying to get myself out of the habit of reading reviews. It's a time suck reading and then spending time wondering what people 'really meant' and then the extra time spent trying to 'come down' from what readers think to get back into the voice of my characters without letting other opinions sway what my original ideas were.

But the last thing you want to do is engage readers on their ratings. There's a like button or a "did you find this review helpful" buttons on Amazon if you wish to use them.  

And agreeing with who said you can't write for everyone. My books have a very selective audience and I know it's going to hit some soft spots with some readers. I didn't write it for them though.


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> Amazon bought Goodreads to make money. You guys are all crazy if you think they'll leave it the way it is. While some of it works well, it needs MAJOR changes. I predict they'll be sooner rather than later. They want authors to be JUST AS happy as readers so they can make money off both sectors.


Here's the thing, though -- Goodreads needs readers more than authors. As long as they're the largest online reader community in existence, writers will put up with anything Goodreads wants. But readers won't do the same -- if the site starts making changes to satisfy authors at the expense of readers, they'll jump ship and there'll be no reason for the authors to stick around either.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

STOHara said:


> Here's the thing, though -- Goodreads needs readers more than authors. As long as they're the largest online reader community in existence, writers will put up with anything Goodreads wants. But readers won't do the same -- if the site starts making changes to satisfy authors at the expense of readers, they'll jump ship and there'll be no reason for the authors to stick around either.


This. And Amazon feels the same way. They cater to customers/readers first in all things.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

STOHara said:


> Here's the thing, though -- Goodreads needs readers more than authors. As long as they're the largest online reader community in existence, writers will put up with anything Goodreads wants. But readers won't do the same -- if the site starts making changes to satisfy authors at the expense of readers, they'll jump ship and there'll be no reason for the authors to stick around either.


Who cares? Where are they gonna go? Seriously? People will still buy from Amazon, so Amazon does not care if a million people leave (and that will never happen). I'm sure eventually they'll get around to purging "readers" anyway. Since there's so many fake accounts used to bash authors and boost rankings.

The whole place is corrupt which means it's not useful. And I never said they'll satisfy authors at the _expense _of readers, I said they want to satisfy authors JUST AS MUCH as readers. And right now, it's absurdly disproportionate in favor of the nasty readers. (Which by no means implies _all_ readers are nasty, just that the nasty ones get away with far more than they should).


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Monique said:


> This. And Amazon feels the same way. They cater to customers/readers first in all things.


They cater to customers - YES. Authors are also customers. And guess who fills out the customer service surveys? Readers? Nope. Right now Amazon is hearing nothing but crap from authors about Goodreads. I guarantee it.

Like I said, it's already done. Who has _ever _heard of a nasty review being removed from Goodreads? Not me! Yet it's gone! And it wasn't even that nasty - I mean, I've seen some filth over there like you'd not believe. Mine was _one _sentence. Erased along with the star rating And it wasn't the girl who took it away, I know that for a fact.


----------



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

dotx said:


> I guess if they would've given the book four or five stars, I wouldn't be complaining, but clicking on a 3-star rating for a book you haven't read strikes me as mean spirited.


I haven't read this whole thread yet so apologies if I'm just repeating what's already been said. I just want to say I think many/most Goodreads members use the star ratings the same way I use those on Netflix - clicking low stars on stuff I've no interest in watching and high stars on stuff that looks like my niche. It's not intended to be mean-spirited; it's a way of manipulating what recommendations I'll be shown in the future. I can't say whether that's fair or unfair in the case of Goodreads but people will use a site in the way that's most convenient for them.


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> Who cares? Where are they gonna go? Seriously?


Any business that runs with that attitude isn't going to be in business long.

Goodreads is a social network, just like MySpace. You remember MySpace, right? You remember what happened to it when it stopped being a fun place to visit? You know how much money NewsCorp lost on MySpace?

And the things I hear authors suggesting for the site -- restrictions are what people can do, what they can say, whether they're even allowed to rate a book -- will remove the fun and turn it into a haven for low-rent spammers. Just like MySpace.



> People will still buy from Amazon, so Amazon does not care if a million people leave (and that will never happen).


Yeah, just like NewsCorp didn't care when MySpace turned into a ghost town.



> The whole place is corrupt which means it's not useful.


Says who? Are there threads in the feedback forum I'm not seeing where users are clambering for changes because the system is corrupt?


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

STOHara said:


> Says who? Are there threads in the feedback forum I'm not seeing where users are clambering for changes because the system is corrupt?


Feedback forum on GR? You're joking, right? I mean, that's just a _joke_, right? You don't run a business using a "feedback" forum (AKA "hippie-commune talking stick"). Especially when the forums on Goodreads are almost unnavigable. It takes a lot of effort and willpower to participate in any substantial way beyond rating books over there.

When you have a problem with Amazon, you click the contact us button and get help. Ditto for GR, at least that's how I do it. And then I get whoever is on call that night for "Customer Service". I don't go to the "Feedback Forum" That's just... part of the problem, I guess.

Goodreads needs leadership. I think Amazon will provide that and make the experience better for everyone. Part of that leadership role is recognizing the fact that authors and readers are EQUALLY important. Thus, I predict abuse of authors on GR will decrease dramatically over time as those reviewers will no longer be tolerated either by the community itself, or the leadership.


----------



## Andrea Harding (Feb 27, 2013)

The hostility in this thread is actually making me feel queasy.


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> Feedback forum on GR? You're joking, right? I mean, that's just a _joke_, right? You don't run a business using a "feedback" forum (AKA "hippie-commune talking stick").


Why not? A discussion allows for far more feedback than an email address -- instead of getting one person's opinion about what's wrong, you get the views of the whole community, including those who like the feature being complained about, and you get better quality suggestions as people build upon the ideas of others. If that's how "hippie-commune talking sticks" work, it's a great idea.



> Especially when the forums on Goodreads are almost unnavigable. It takes a lot of effort and willpower to participate in any substantial way beyond rating books over there.


Not really. You find a group on a subject you're interested in. You click the join button. You go to the Goodreads homepage -- presto, there's a list of the most recently updated threads for that group. Click the big red "New" next to a thread and you go straight to the most recent unread message. There's nothing esoteric about it.



> When you have a problem with Amazon, you click the contact us button and get help. Ditto for GR, at least that's how I do it. And then I get whoever is on call that night for "Customer Service". I don't go to the "Feedback Forum" That's just... part of the problem, I guess.


You should. Go and make some of your suggestions and see what users think.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Andrea Harding said:


> The hostility in this thread is actually making me feel queasy.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

Goodreads is probably being used to fine-tune Amazon's marketing.  In my case, Amazon's terrible at sending me recommendations based on what I buy, and I doubt I'm alone.  Many people rate and review on Goodreads far more than at Amazon, and if Amazon knows who those people are, they'll be able to email you a better set of recommendations based on your Goodreads data.  Goodreads catalogues a lot more of your reading past than Amazon ever could, such as library checkouts, used books bought through a non-Amazon partner, books you borrowed from your sister, etc.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon chooses to quell the most militant negative reviewers on Goodreads, though Amazon may pick and choose among these reviewers according to their usefulness.  For example, if you write a lot of negatives, but still have plenty of positives, they may keep you.  If you write mostly negatives, you may be kicked off Goodreads because the aggregate results of your acts is to suppress book sales.  Another point to consider is that if Amazon thinks their own reviewing policies are good enough for their own site, they may import them to Goodreads.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

One of my titles has a two star 'it was OK' review at Goodreads as its only review - versus two four star reviews on Amazon. You know what? I'm perfectly happy with that. She was fairly critical, but I'm grateful that she took the time to leave a review. I'd be perfectly happy with one star reviews on Goodreads too. I trust readers to make up their own minds about whether or not they want to read my books - but they can't make that decision if they don't know my work exists. Every rating there, every shelf placement, helps visibility.

To be honest, when I check out books on Goodreads as a reader, I pay very little attention to the number of stars a book has. I read the blurb, and I look for spoiler reviews to tell me what the writer has done with the plot. If it sounds like my sort of thing, I'll sample - or take a gamble and buy it sight unseen. I don't really care how much someone else liked something. I care about how much *I'll* like it!


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Another fake rating at Goodreads. Also by a man (I'm only pointing this out because this is paranormal romance and I really doubt these people are truly interested in my book) and he gave the book one star. So yeah, thanks for the tips. I'm done checking my ratings there!

_whoa. . . no need to call people out publicly, thanks._


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

My first 1 star review (only I think) on goodreads was by some guy who had 30 one star reviews and nothing else. Average rating of one star. Wool was in there too.

Sigh. Goodreads. Sigh.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, it sucks to get a one star review in general. But on the bright side 289 people have marked your book as 'to-read'. That's fantastic! The averages will increase as more people love your book and give it higher ratings. Try not to dwell on it too much and keep writing.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

KJCOLT said:


> Yes, it sucks to get a one star review in general. But on the bright side 289 people have marked your book as 'to-read'. That's fantastic! The averages will increase as more people love your book and give it higher ratings. Try not to dwell on it too much and keep writing.


Thanks. I know the average will increase as people actually read it. I don't think it's the one star that bothers me. It's a one star rating given when there's no possible way these people read the book yet. If it was an actual review (they read the book and hated it), then I would understand it.


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

Zelah Meyer said:


> Every rating there, every shelf placement, helps visibility.


I tend to agree. I think even if someone writes a bad review, they cared enough about it to spend a few minutes crafting a review! I had one lady who _HATED_ my book on Goodreads. Good! To me, extreme emotions are better than a void of silence.

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde.


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

AgnesWebb said:


> I tend to agree. I think even if someone writes a bad review, they cared enough about it to spend a few minutes crafting a review! I had one lady who _HATED_ my book on Goodreads. Good! To me, extreme emotions are better than a void of silence.
> 
> "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde.


I would agree if this was a review. This is just a one-star (or a three-star) click on a book that nobody has read yet. No review.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm not that familiar with Goodreads, but maybe there should be two kinds of ratings, the "how much do I want to read this" sort, and the "this is how much I liked this book," sort.

Coz, yea, they're not the same things. The "I read this book" rating could count toward both personal recommendations and a book's quality rating, while the other would only factor into personal recommendations.


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

Ava Glass said:


> I'm not that familiar with Goodreads, but maybe there should be two kinds of ratings, the "how much do I want to read this" sort, and the "this is how much I liked this book," sort.


Yeah! That is confusing. To me, the whole website is strange. Not user-friendly.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, several posts have been deleted or edited as they were very clearly WHOA (What Happens On Another site, etc.) and bordering on personal attacks.  Please try to keep the discussion civil. . . hate to have to lock the thread.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Folks, several posts have been deleted or edited as they were very clearly WHOA (What Happens On Another site, etc.) and bordering on personal attacks. Please try to keep the discussion civil. . . hate to have to lock the thread.


Isn't this whole thread WHOA, though?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Cherise Kelley said:


> Isn't this whole thread WHOA, though?


I think so and the deleted posts were v enlightening.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Monique said:


> I think so and the deleted posts were v enlightening.


I agree regarding the light shed by the now-deleted posts.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

A little bit of empathy goes a long way people


----------



## jenminkman (Mar 2, 2013)

Yeah, those exact same two people also rated my poetry volume three stars a few days ago and they're both participating in my giveaway on Goodreads - seems to me that they're using the star system to indicate they are really interested in getting it no matter if they win or not!


----------



## dotx (Nov 4, 2010)

Too bad the post about the person leaving the one-star rating was deleted. It said a lot about the character of the person posting and how Goodreads can easily be abused. 

It also makes clear that Goodreads ratings (I'm not talking about reviews, just the star rating system) is completely useless.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

A few months ago, someone on KBoards one-starred every single book under my name on Goodreads after I disagreed with something Dean Wesley Smith said. It might have been a coincidence, but they also five-starred several KB authors who disagreed with me (several of whom I consider friends/colleagues, for the record). All of this happened within a day of the thread.

I contacted Goodreads and presented the links and evidence, but the profile "didn't raise any of our standard red flags for illegitimacy."

One of the books they'd one-starred included a title published by someone else with my name. But I'm sure it was a coincidence they hated the book by that other Edward W. Robertson--by the way, he was an illustrator for a title published 55 years ago--just as much as they hated every single one of mine.

Not trying to get all WHOA. But that's Goodreads right there.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Locking this thread while under discussion in admin. Yes, there was an element of "WHOA" from the beginning, but we don't always assume people can't be civil. Sadly, there is still a pretty negative vibe going on here that is NOT the Kboards way.

_after discussion, thread will stay locked._


----------

