Sign in with Facebook
Books that end up on a LOT of listopia lists, voted by a lot of users who seem to do little but add that book to many lists. Self published books with 20 reviews, on 500 lists? Put it on one more list, here for our enjoyment. Authors, in this case, feel free to add your own books to this list!
394 books ·
57 voters ·
list created July 14th, 2014
by Hirondelle (not getting notifications) (votes) .
Hirondelle (not getting notifications)
3299 books
172 friends
172 friends
Krazykiwi
1228 books
40 friends
40 friends
Misfit
5492 books
530 friends
530 friends
Alexandra
7877 books
414 friends
414 friends
Rodeo
1049 books
0 friends
0 friends
Susanna - Censored by GoodReads
3385 books
853 friends
853 friends
Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship
3937 books
172 friends
172 friends
Laura
13052 books
315 friends
315 friends
More voters…
Comments Showing 1-50 of 89 (89 new)
message 1:
by
Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship
(new)
Jul 16, 2014 05:47PM
You know, I think Orphan Train is a lousy book, but with 53,000 ratings and an average over 4, its doing well in listopia isn't inexplicable. Are popular books allowed on the list?
reply
|
flag
I think it would depend what lists it shows up on. I know Ender's Game shows up in weird places, like top 10 sci fi books that aren't Ender's Game....and people vote for Ender's Game.
Oh, but that's easily explicable. Ender's Game has a very large fan base, and many of them are not particularly mature. They may add the book to lists inappropriately, but they're real fans, and I doubt Card is adding the book to lists himself or using sock puppets to vote for it.
True. I may just spot it more because of my distaste for it.
Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship wrote: "Oh, but that's easily explicable. Ender's Game has a very large fan base, and many of them are not particularly mature. They may add the book to lists inappropriately, but they're real fans, and I ..."Yeah, Twilight ends up in some weird places, but I'm betting those are all legitimate fan votes.
Emma well seen. That is not the type of book I meant. I meant books in much much more lists than the number of ratings they have. And it´s only on 3 pages of listopia lists, which is quite modest by the standards of a few of those books with 60 ratings.I will delete it, I don´t think it belongs quite.
For me it's less about the number of lists a book is on than the number of votes on them - there are books I'm evangelical about and vote for a lot (though only where they fit the purpose of the list!), and I don't know any authors personally. But given that most readers rarely to never vote on listopia, it raises a huge red flag for me when a book's voting score exceeds its number of ratings. Because how many fans of some obscure self-pubbed book are really likely to vote on any particular list?
Yep, like the book which totally drove me mad had 31 votes, 31 votes on a list of mine and is on 11 pages of listopia lists. It has a total of 103 ratings, and guess what a lot of those ratings are from the 
I'm still uncomfortable deleting books from lists that are not mine and don't have some announced criteria, even when the number of listopia votes exceeds the number of reviews. On my own lists that's easy - I'll change the criteria. I kind of like the idea that a book that is less than ten years old needs to have 100 or even 1000 ratings to be on a list. Older than 10 years and it basically isn't being pushed.
Er, in the list title, shouldn't the first word be INexplicable?
What an interesting and informative list.
Oh, I wish I knew about this list when I made my 5 star wonders list. I'm noticing that books are being taken off irrelevant lists when they have been reported. (It doesn't seem to last long because they reappear - kind of like whack a mole). Thanks for this!
I just cleaned out one of the lists I created and added every author that voted for themselves to this list. I wish GR would make it a policy to tell SPAs that basic ethics like not voting for yourself on lists looks really bad.
I'm surprised more people haven't voted on Truly, Madly, Deeply. I used to see it absolutely everywhere, though it's been a little while.
Ha, I notice a few of these are always up for "OMG SIGNED COPIES" giveaways too.
Heather wrote: "I just cleaned out one of the lists I created and added every author that voted for themselves to this list. I wish GR would make it a policy to tell SPAs that basic ethics like not voting for your..."Last time I checked the ToS said that no authors could add their own books to any lists.
Miriam wrote: "Heather wrote: "Last time I checked the ToS said that no authors could add their own books to any lists. .."
It hasn't stopped them from doing so or having their circle add their books to irrelevant lists.
It sure doesn't! And I don't know what you can do about the author-friend adds. But if authors add their own books you can report it and goodreads will delete.
I got so annoyed with Shane K.P. O'Neill's books taking over my favorite 'Books with Dracula' list, I looked up everybody who voted for him, and sure enough, most of them were authors as well with the same high list count. They also gave his bookings stunning five star reviews. It's very irritating. Supposedly, Shane's book is so awesome and famous, that it's better than the original Dracula.
Willow wrote: "I got so annoyed with Shane K.P. O'Neill's books taking over my favorite 'Books with Dracula' list, I looked up everybody who voted for him, and sure enough, most of them were authors as well with ..."I don't get how a book with 51 reviews can be on 90 listopia lists.
I've seen Fifty shades of grey appear in a Listopia so often... and I can't for the life of me see why anyone would consider it a good book / interesting story / erotic novel. It is sooo badly written...
Miriam wrote: "But if authors add their own books you can report it and goodreads will delete."Thanks for the tip! One of my lists was spammed by such a thing. The book shouldn't have been on there in the first place, as it did not fit the description (and I deleted it as a result). When I looked to see who had voted for it, it turned out all voters were GR authors (and had all given the book five stars) and the author of the book was among the voters. The book became #1 in my Listopia in no time.
Booklovinglady wrote: "Miriam wrote: "But if authors add their own books you can report it and goodreads will delete."Thanks for the tip! One of my lists was spammed by such a thing. The book shouldn't have been on the..."
Did you report it to GR support? Please do. These spammers are ruining the integrity of the lists.
AH wrote: "Did you report it to GR support? Please do. These spammers are ruining the integrity of the lists. ..."I have to think and see if I can still remember the name of the author.... But at least I now know what to do :-), should it happen again.
It's nice that you can do that, but if i reported every time spammers did that on GR, I would probably crash the internet.
What does genre have to do with a self published book with no ratings getting 300 votes on a list?
Why is "Vulnerable (Little Goddess, #1)" on here? It is on 13 lists and has 711 votes. That seems fairly proportional actually. A lot of these books aren't on very many lists - unless they have recently been removed from a bunch?
Some were previously on a heck of a lot of lists, yes. Isn't It Pretty To Think So?, for example, is currently on less than a page of lists, but was at one time spammed onto over 30 pages of lists. Librarians cleaned up a lot of that, and GR got the rest, I think.
Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "Some were previously on a heck of a lot of lists, yes. Isn't It Pretty To Think So?, for example, is currently on less than a page of lists, but was at one time spammed onto over 3..."Problem is, that no sooner than they get cleaned up, they get added to multiple lists again. If I see them, they go on the not interested shelf.
A sensible response.
Charming wrote: "Why is "Vulnerable (Little Goddess, #1)" on here? It is on 13 lists and has 711 votes. That seems fairly proportional actually. A lot of these books aren't on very many lists - unless they have ..."I just took a look and it's on 23 lists, including this one. If it was added to 10 new lists in the 4 hours since your comment I'd say it does belong here.
I just wish these authors realized that spamming their books everywhere results in negative publicity.
Ha, I wonder how many authors have just spam added their book to THIS list without looking at what its about.
I know they added to another list like this. Kind of amusing.
AH wrote: "I just wish these authors realized that spamming their books everywhere results in negative publicity."They probably figure any is better than none.
Speaking of which, yesterday I realized the blogger who did the expose on Stanek's lies and self-promotion methods also did a hilarious chapter-by-chapter sporking of his book, here: http://conjugalfelicity.com/keeper-ma.... I have never been so tempted to read a clearly awful (read: virtually incoherent) book!
You could add it. It's easy to add books to lists; at the top of the list, at the tab next to "all votes."
Grack21 wrote: "Ha, I wonder how many authors have just spam added their book to THIS list without looking at what its about."There is a woman in comment 38 doing just that!
Miriam wrote: "Grack21 wrote: "Ha, I wonder how many authors have just spam added their book to THIS list without looking at what its about."There is a woman in comment 38 doing just that!"
It's not her book, but she does solicit free books in exchange for 5-star reviews: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Books that end up in lots of lists - Not who end upAlthough I agree with the sentiment and it annoys me as much as anyone else I can't agree that unpublished authors should be refused the right to plug their work - after all isn't that what all advertising is about? Are we just saying that we only accept material approved by the corporate establishment? If so could Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, Punk etc ever have made it? I have read several unpublished books, some not very good, others quite good but then I do like the rough/unpolished nature of amateur works - but that's just me I guess - each to his own.
Alan wrote: " I can't agree that unpublished authors should be refused the right to plug their work - after all isn't that what all advertising is about? ..."But are Listopias meant for advertising....???
Alan wrote: "Books that end up in lots of lists - Not who end upAlthough I agree with the sentiment and it annoys me as much as anyone else I can't agree that unpublished authors should be refused the right t..."
Listopias are NOT advertising. They are lists kept by GR members on a myriad of topics. When a book is spammed on a multitude of lists most members will add that book to their not interested/do not read/spam shelf.
Also a lot of these authors put their book on EVERY single list regardless of the content of their book. I've seen a book with about 20 ratings (5 stars of course) be on 36 pages of listopias. That is just not an acceptable marketing method.
AH wrote: "Alan wrote: "Books that end up in lots of lists - Not who end upAlthough I agree with the sentiment and it annoys me as much as anyone else I can't agree that unpublished authors should be refuse..."
Hi AH - Don't get me wrong - I agree they are spam but then all I'm saying is that all advertising is spam but we accept it from merchants, authors, artists etc that we are told are acceptable - If I click on a web page and look at products google will dump that web advert on every site I then visit or page I open [for instance I checked out weight training kit for one of my nephews for xmas, now the advert appears on every page I go on - including Goodreads - how does that happen?], just as annoying but my point is aren't we simply punishing the underdog simply because they have no large corporate body behind them working on a daily basis to convince us that their product/book/track is worth our time and money - In my opinion they are simply using the tools available to them to compete in a rigged game and by conforming to rigid concepts we are complicit in our own cultural stagnation - even if these self published authors are bending the rules a bit are they not merely doing the same as google and others?
Booklovinglady wrote: "Alan wrote: " I can't agree that unpublished authors should be refused the right to plug their work - after all isn't that what all advertising is about? ..."But are Listopias meant for advertisi..."
I agree they're not - but I'll bet people go out and buy books they see on a listopia so it does act as a form of marketing. Anyway listopias always contain the same old books - Harry Potter, 1984, animal farm, hunger games, 50 shades of rubbish etc. By accepting the limitations of a concept we are actively narrowing our horizons - very soon we will all be reading the same 10 books at exactly the same time and we will all say how great they were because that's what we're meant to do - remember - selling books isn't about creativity or spreading a new idea, it's about making this quarters profit and they don't care which book you buy as long as you buy one and that's the point behind listopias - to get us all buying the same book from the same publishing house. This Xmas we'll all buy each other the same books, same films, same CDs, PC games etc - everything is marketing - that's all I'm saying and by restricting what we are willing to see marketed we are doing the advertising agencies jobs for them.
Alan wrote: "but I'll bet people go out and buy books they see on a listopia ..."I must be the odd one out then, 'cause I don't... :-)
Neither do I agree with the fact that Listopias always contain the same books. It all completely depends on the creator of the Listopia, and although several are (very) similar, there are also lots of completely different ones. Listopias can be informative, or funny, for example: Best books by female Flemish authors and One Name as a Title.
Booklovinglady wrote: "Alan wrote: "but I'll bet people go out and buy books they see on a listopia ..."I must be the odd one out then, 'cause I don't... :-)"
Ditto.
Booklovinglady wrote: "Alan wrote: "but I'll bet people go out and buy books they see on a listopia ..."I must be the odd one out then, 'cause I don't... :-)"
Good for you :) I must admit I have read some duff stuff but then there have been some good ones as well - merry Christmas Booklovinglady - I'm now going to add some of these books to my to-read list - fingers crossed :)
I am wondering whether the creator of this list is aware that the list description has been modified/censored by Goodreads staff. It always used to say “Books who end up in a LOT of listopia lists, voted by a lot of users who seem to do little but add that book to many lists. Self published books with 20 reviews, on 500 lists? Put it on one more list, here for our enjoyment. Authors, in this case, feel free to add your own books to this list!”
but now the description has been shrunk down to a simple and flattering “Books that end up on a LOT of listopia lists.”
I would say this new “improved” description drastically repurposes the list, so I’m curious to know if the original creator was consulted about these changes??
The Goodreads account that changed the description claims to be one that handles marketing campaigns on the site. But why would it be any of their business to overwrite lists created by regular Goodreads users? Is anyone aware of official plans for reining in listopias or restricting them from now on to marketing for Goodreads authors?
Fjóla wrote: "I am wondering whether the creator of this list is aware that the list description has been modified/censored by Goodreads staff. .... I’m curious to know if the original creator was consulted about these changes??"Well, I guess you can always send 'Hirondelle' a message and ask... No law against that :-)
