Authors Lounge discussion

Isn't it weird to get a review from someone who hasn't read the book?

"Insulted by the language! Didn't read it!" http://amzn.to/Q7FXIp http://on.fb.me/Sgh0wc

I got a one star rating on GR with no explanation at all. And the poster was anonymous. That just shouldn't be allowed if you ask me.

I know how you feel Steve. I got my first (and only) two star review. My situation was a bit different because the person actually read the book, but I found myself curiously questioning the review.

If critique for your work is overwhelmingly positive, sometimes you wonder if people are just out their to denigrate you for the sake of being different than others. Every five star work has its fair share of 2's and 1's. It's just the nature of the beast and to sum it up, I leave you with this:

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.

-John Lydgate

It is annoying that any online forum allows anonymous ratings posts. I'd just chalk it up to either a troll, or someone who read outside their comfort genre, or a forum clown, etc. Don't even give it a second thought.

My guess is that Goodreads figured they wouldn't get enough posts if they required posting ratings with ID.

Richard wrote: "It is annoying that any online forum allows anonymous ratings posts. I'd just chalk it up to either a troll, or someone who read outside their comfort genre, or a forum clown, etc. Don't even give ..."

I agree, Richard. It isn't worth worrying about. The other reviews were great. =)

I am personally guilty of once not being really careful when posting a review of a book I loved -- I clicked only three stars -- thought I'd clicked four. It was especially embarrassing because the author is a friend. I tried and tried to amend the review, to no avail. He eventually accepted my lame excuse. Now I'm really focused when I leave a Goodreads review, just in case they author might track me down! ;)

Not saying it worries me, more that it delights me. My Uncle Jerry, a very successful businessman, always you used to say, "Just make sure they spell your name right."

The online world of instant comments, including shoot-from-the-hip reviews, is a free-for-all, which is exactly why it's so much fun, humorlessness and all.

I can usually learn things from a negative review, too, by the way, as painful as it may be.

As for this particular one-star review, it just confims my original intent, which was to write a funny book for people who can think.

Richard wrote: "I am personally guilty of once not being really careful when posting a review of a book I loved -- I clicked only three stars -- thought I'd clicked four..."

Richard, this ought to be very easily fixed. It's a Goodreads review? 'Edit review' to adjust your stars. I'd be lost if I couldn't change my mind on stars!

Steve wrote: "Isn't it weird to get a review from someone who hasn't read the book?

"Insulted by the language! Didn't read it!" http://amzn.to/Q7FXIp http://on.fb.me/Sgh0wc"

I read the review.
Interesting. And Ridiculous.
I recently got a one star rating. Then a couple of days later it turned into a two star rating with a one word review. I wasn't insulted so much as I just wanted to know why. To each his own and all that jazz.
Then a few days after the two star rating it turned into a three star review.
I actually think the reader (and I just assume) was moved to anger by the characters. So, if that is the case then that means that I have done my job. (I hope that I am right.)
Don't give that idiotic review a second thought.

Bryn wrote: "Richard wrote: "I am personally guilty of once not being really careful when posting a review of a book I loved -- I clicked only three stars -- thought I'd clicked four..."

Richard, this ought to..."

Nope. Sad to say, it was B&N.

I think that Goodreads should eliminate the un-commented star-only reviews. They really don't mean much at all, and the possibility of flagrant misuse is a real temptation to those of the troll persuasion.

Richard wrote: "I think that Goodreads should eliminate the un-commented star-only reviews. They really don't mean much at all, and the possibility of flagrant misuse is a real temptation to those of the troll per..."

The only problem with that is, the one-star review saying "Insulted by the language! Didn't read it!" wouldn't be deleted in that case, because it would be commented on. It's ridiculous though, and reviews like that should be spammed. The person reviewing it didn't even READ it so they have no right to say that.

What helps me deal with the idea of negative criticism is knowing that it happens to every author. Now, some reviewers are just trolls, and they should be ignored entirely because it's just wrong. But for many other readers, it comes down to personal taste. For every book written there will be people who love it and people who hate it. And the way I look at ratings is not that the person rating my book is the judge of how many stars I get for the quality of my work--they're just rating what they personally thought of it. That's not to say that you should ignore all reviews, if the majority of reviews you receive are low-rated or there's a similar criticism in most of them, that's something to think about. But when there are just a few negative reviews in the mix, I think the criticism should be taken with a grain of salt.

Then, we should get Goodreads to kill all anonymous reviews, period. I think most writers are adult enough to deal with real reviews. It's the troll spawn that I have issues with, or the Fan Mob garbage, like the NY Times article yesterday: A Casualty on the Battlefields of Amazon's Partisan Book Reviews

The thing that really gets me about the reviews is Amazon's clumsy effort to clean up the mess involves removing so many legit reviews. As far as I can tell, it's pretty arbitrary.

If you're an author and you write a review of someone else's book, they'll probably take it down, not all the time, but a lot of the time. WTF is that all about? What's the criteria?

This happened: A relative of an author whose book I bought reviewed my book. Amazon removed it.

This happened, too. I sent a gift from Amazon to a friend a few years ago. Her Dad bought the book, reviewed it, and Amazon removed the review.

If they're leaving the 1-star reviews from people who haven't read the book, then they should just leave all the reviews alone and let people sort it out for themselves.

Re: The Michael Jackson book. As distressing as the fan mob bullying may be, the free publicity this brouhaha is generating for this book is a PR bonanza. Except for that the only people who would buy a book about Michael Jackson are his fans, I bet this book ends up doing more than okay.

Richard wrote: "Then, we should get Goodreads to kill all anonymous reviews, period. I think most writers are adult enough to deal with real reviews. It's the troll spawn that I have issues with, or the Fan Mob ga..."

I agree. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. LOL. I'm too busy on the next book. =)

How right you are!

The anonymity allowed in most rating/review systems is akin to bullying, IMO. I received a 1 star review way back when from someone who had only ever left that single review. It was one of those "mean" reviews, too. The person recently sent me an email saying "Time for this to come down, don't you think?". And, surprisingly, he took it down. The whole thing was kind of bizarre.

Scott: that's just bloody strange.

Yeah, it sure is. Now if I could just get rid of the other one where the person left 1 star because he didn't like the ending. Oh, and he gave away the ending, too.

Must have been a twelve-step program.

My one-star was odd too. The user one-starred my free 1st, and at the same time added to-read the $5 book, half of which consists of the free 1st. Seems a protest vote, though I can't figure out what s/he objected to.

And some people think writers are a strange bunch. :-)

Writers should demand an end to anonymous ratings, and also to star ratings with no attached review copy. If yer gonna be a tough guy, then have the huevos to say why!

I think a good first step is for reviews to not be visible until a reviewer has ~5 reviews, each with a minimum length of ~200-250 characters. Each review should also be a verified purchase. This would at least make it easier for the review cops to get rid of the ones left by trolls and maybe make it just enough work that the casual drive-by review doesn't get left.

unfortunately, it would also preclude reviews from reviewers who received advance copies.

Yep. There's no "one solution fits all" answer, unfortunately.

I agree with all of you, there's no one solution...but you can email GR if the review is totally insane. Not saying they will do anything, but at least they will look into it -- they did for me. And I think if enough people did contact them over ridiculous, anonymous (no huevos) reviews, maybe they would be more sympathetic.

I disagree with the verified purchase to post a review. I often post reviews of books I receive for free from the author or buy second hand on several sites, including Amazon & B&N. If I had to go through any hassle to prove I'd bought the book, I wouldn't post a review. Not good for new authors that need them.