Would you have a problem with a five star in anticipation? If not, then shade on it for disliking the book seems hypocritical. If you're against any review that is based on levels of anticipation - or not - then at least there's consistency. My problem has been with people who hate on the negative pre-releases and who dump on them while cheering on the positives. Not only because hypocrisy, but because they tend to be rabid fans who attack the one stars.
As for me, I've always taken those as showing levels of anticipation. I never had an issue with it, personally.
Hi, Grimlock! Like I said in my discussion: one star, five stars and EVERYTHING in between. I have a slight pet peeve with ANY kind of rating (specific types are also specified in my discussion). I have NO PROBLEMS with any reviews that don't have a rating.
I'll show you why I don't like any rating: so around the time Winter was coming out, I saw a bunch of five star ratings, because the Goodreads app isn't reliable, it didn't show me the shelves.
I was reading these pre-release reviews and looking at their ratings and although I gave Winter 5 stars I was so confused because half of the themes that were discussed in these reviews weren't even in the book. Then I go on my computer and I realize these ratings were pre-release based on NOTHING. They loved Cress! They pretty much figured that Winter would be the same.
These are just extremely misleading. And yes, I managed to tell Goodreads that on my app, these were being shown as "read" based on their ratings, and Goodreads fixed it for me. But it is still something that confuses me over.
Also, I am completely aware that people may think that this is because of the negative ratings, but like I said, I am very specific in them. I will literally roll my eyes to my brain if I see a book marked as "to-read" with any kind of rating.
I also don't think that I'm being a hypocrite, as five star ratings are very, very misleading. And as someone who has been attacked for posting a one star rating, I understand that there is loving a book, and then there is LOVING a book.
There's nothing wrong with anticipation, but if people like me at the time see these ratings, they could base it off of a sample. My Goodreads shelves and stuff were messed up at the time, so "anticipation" ratings (positive AND negative alike) made me have completely different expectations from Winter.
No, if you're against all pre-release reviews, then that's not hypocritical. But in the past, it's been like Moonlight Murder has said: people get their panties in a twist over the negative reviews, but are completely okay with five stars. I'm so tired of that issue, especially since anyone going 'negative' seems to get attacked.
GR allows pre-release reviews because of ARCs. They've said so. They can't allow that, then disallow some people from rating.
I honestly don't really chose a lot of books based on pre-release ratings, so it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care. I can understand why others might, but I simply don't.
What I'm not getting about this whole nonsensical controversy is that there are a total of 1741 ratings, and of those 1367 are 5-star ratings and 122 are 1-star ratings. Pre-release 5-star ratings outnumber 1-star ratings more than 10 to 1. And yet, everyone has their nickers in a twist over the 1-star ratings only.
I don't understand why everyone is so worried about Sarah J. Maas. For chrissakes, there are already 84,000 to-read shelvings on that book. It has a 4.51 star rating before it has even been released. If she is upset that 122 people one-starred her book, then she needs to log onto her bank account and watch the numbers fly upwards, while murmuring cha-ching, cha-ching over and over and over and chill out.
I know, such controversy! Not that how people do or do not use the ratings and any pre-release ratings/reviews haven't seen a lot of debate; but, this book sure has revived the furor.
Exactly! There are people rating this thing everywhere and less than half of them are ARC, sampled, or any other type of rating! LOL Moonlight Reader, the reason people are concerned about Sarah J. Maas is because she has been receiving death threats.
I’ve read some pre-release reviews where it’s also a debatable topic (something about it being made up and lack of evidence). Death threats aside, what else were you talking about when you mentioned people being worried about her? Because the threats is the only thing I’ve heard. Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts :)
It was mentioned in some reviews (obviously the five star ones *eye roll*). Basically, these reviews don’t necessarily cite these death threats, but this is, once again another topic of discussion that I’ve seen. Personally, this isn’t the first time there’s been a mention of death threats to any author, but this is apparently what her fans are concerned about. I wouldn’t go as far to say that they may or may not be true though, since the author has not mentioned this herself.
Normally when there are death threats, there's something there. Now, they may be worried that she might get some later on, and I can understand that: authors have received death threats for writing things others don't like. Harris and Sookie Steakhouse for example.
But until it happens, or I see the author say that/proof, I don't believe there have been. When there have been, authors usually speak up - death threats are NOT okay, nor is physical violence against someone, no matter how much you hate what an author writes.
I can link one review that doesn’t have a rating if you want. I think it’s the one that I saw first. If you want to, of course. I can definitely find it again.
Goodreads could block reviews and ratings on unread or on pre-release books if they were unwanted. Or handle ARC ratings or average rating calculations differently -- provided not violating U.S. and California, goodreads has a huge amount of leeway in site policies and review/rating guidelines.
I personally see shelves as how readers organize, tag or catalogue their books, their reading, their planned reading, etc. Sporadically as consumer boycotts (for example -- and nothing to do with this author -- if a book was clearly an unedited upload or if an author has ever chased down a reviewer and hit them with a bottle because of a review). Maybe their friends or followers understand their cataloging and maybe not -- but if it works for them to organize that way, fine. I miss being able to follow along the quirkier shelf names myself.
Without a review, I never assume anything about a rating. Could be anything from a cellphone typo to not understanding that U.S. rating scales generally run 1=worst/5=best to order in wishlist to not wanting to get goodreads recommendations based on that book to ...
With a review, I do think reviews should be about the book, even if not completely finished. Other stuff including previous books and personal anecdotes can creep in, sure. I don't see the use of "anticipating/dreading" only in the review space but goodreads policies permit; much rather see that in a comment on a shelved book than in review space.
*shrugs* but I'm also willing to just let readers make whatever use of review space however they want if not violating TOS conditions like prohibitions against hate speech and personal attacks. If I don't find them interesting or useful, I just won't follow that reviewer.
I do consider the pre-release reviews saying they one or five starred a book to offset all those rabid five or one star ratings as gaming the system because openly stating they are trying to manipulate the ratings. Those I'll flag.
Hey, Debbie! I agree. Especially with Empire of Storms, it now seems that 5 star and 1 star ratings are about the debate from the reviews that I am reading. I don’t really have the energy to flag them all but it seriously seems annoying now. I’ve seen actual books with around 1 000 ratings and seriously… sigh
8 years ago
I agree with your position. Rating a book without ever reading a word of it is gaming the system, up or down. If people want to shelve hate-the-author or love-the-series or whatever, that's their business but false ratings hurt reviewers by damaging our credibility. GR reviews are already considered biased because of rating wars in the past.
Thank you, Lora! I think what you mentioned about credibility is completely true. Because it now seems like a popularity contest for authors and the sad thing is that fans are doing it themselves. When the rating system is used as a projection of anticipation or hate I feel like it just doesn’t seem reliable anymore.
How do you know when someone is rating an ARC or just rating something not read (unless review specifies)? How do you know if rating in anticipation partly so shows when looking at new releases so you don't keep clicking thru to investigate the book and partly to manage goodreads recommendations?
Ratings wars aren't unique to goodreads; the fans and authors and authors that do that will do so on all popular review sites. It's even worse on Amazon are because can be used to downvote a review where it doesn't display and because really impacts visibility and promotional quotas on Amazon.
Saying the ratings on goodreads are gamed/wrong/wars does presuppose that goodreaders putting a star rating are actually rating the book versus the also acceptable on that site rating their anticipation of the book, tweaking the recommendations, ordering in "my books" shelves and any other reasons members want to use the stars.
Not that the below hasn't been discussed to death over in gr feedback and other groups, but it's not just the prerelease ratings and buzz.
Goodreads really should not calculate average ratings without asking (or asking as default) if you are using the stars as ratings before including yours in the average. Maybe add an option to mark book as "do/don't base recommendations on this book" for folk using stars for that purpose. Add another numbering feature for readers using ratings for that purpose.
Stop putting the dang community average at top of book page; replace that with the average rating among friends and followed reviewers.
Display suggested scale meaning next to rating (meaning instead of "★★★☆☆" and "★★☆☆☆" display "★★★☆☆ liked it" and "★★☆☆☆ it was okay"). Why? Doesn't stop anyone rating or using stars however they want but reminds what suggested scale is before the whackados go off over someone merely liking the book. Heads off the stupid gaming and rating campaigns over ignorant promotional sites and authors and fans not comprehending that not every site uses the Amazon rating scale. Some of the nastier gaming and attacking I've seen happened because someone on goodreads basically rated a book "liked" or "okay" and those star ratings on Amazon would be considered negative (WTH Amazon puts an okay/average rating as negative when you look at their community reviews with the two column display of most useful positive/critical reviews I have no idea; average is just average and not necessarily negative but oh boy does that get a reaction).
Umm… if you’ve read my discussion then I said that I have no problem with DNFs, ARCs, or even a review of a sample. There is pre-release buzz and actual reviews that I can respect but then there’s some people posting anticipation ratings either to prove that their author is popular or to bash a series. I’m not going around looking for these reviews and commenting and saying something on them and I respect the fact that everyone has an opinion. But I’m not putting this situation in concrete and looking at it black and white.
So, no. Like I’ve said. I don’t have a problem with any of those.
As for me, I've always taken those as showing levels of anticipation. I never had an issue with it, personally.
I'll show you why I don't like any rating: so around the time Winter was coming out, I saw a bunch of five star ratings, because the Goodreads app isn't reliable, it didn't show me the shelves.
I was reading these pre-release reviews and looking at their ratings and although I gave Winter 5 stars I was so confused because half of the themes that were discussed in these reviews weren't even in the book. Then I go on my computer and I realize these ratings were pre-release based on NOTHING. They loved Cress! They pretty much figured that Winter would be the same.
These are just extremely misleading. And yes, I managed to tell Goodreads that on my app, these were being shown as "read" based on their ratings, and Goodreads fixed it for me. But it is still something that confuses me over.
I also don't think that I'm being a hypocrite, as five star ratings are very, very misleading. And as someone who has been attacked for posting a one star rating, I understand that there is loving a book, and then there is LOVING a book.
There's nothing wrong with anticipation, but if people like me at the time see these ratings, they could base it off of a sample. My Goodreads shelves and stuff were messed up at the time, so "anticipation" ratings (positive AND negative alike) made me have completely different expectations from Winter.
GR allows pre-release reviews because of ARCs. They've said so. They can't allow that, then disallow some people from rating.
I honestly don't really chose a lot of books based on pre-release ratings, so it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care. I can understand why others might, but I simply don't.
I don't understand why everyone is so worried about Sarah J. Maas. For chrissakes, there are already 84,000 to-read shelvings on that book. It has a 4.51 star rating before it has even been released. If she is upset that 122 people one-starred her book, then she needs to log onto her bank account and watch the numbers fly upwards, while murmuring cha-ching, cha-ching over and over and over and chill out.
I read that whole thing. That was fucking ridiculous. That whole thing was blown out of proportion in my opinion.
But until it happens, or I see the author say that/proof, I don't believe there have been. When there have been, authors usually speak up - death threats are NOT okay, nor is physical violence against someone, no matter how much you hate what an author writes.
I'll check out the five star reviews, thanks.
I wasn't going to spend that much time on it, TBH.
And if you do, I'm heading out in a bit, so I'll be reading on the boat again :D
I think this one is better since it doesn’t have a rating. Also the discussion talks about how these death threat rumours are circling around.
I personally see shelves as how readers organize, tag or catalogue their books, their reading, their planned reading, etc. Sporadically as consumer boycotts (for example -- and nothing to do with this author -- if a book was clearly an unedited upload or if an author has ever chased down a reviewer and hit them with a bottle because of a review). Maybe their friends or followers understand their cataloging and maybe not -- but if it works for them to organize that way, fine. I miss being able to follow along the quirkier shelf names myself.
Without a review, I never assume anything about a rating. Could be anything from a cellphone typo to not understanding that U.S. rating scales generally run 1=worst/5=best to order in wishlist to not wanting to get goodreads recommendations based on that book to ...
With a review, I do think reviews should be about the book, even if not completely finished. Other stuff including previous books and personal anecdotes can creep in, sure. I don't see the use of "anticipating/dreading" only in the review space but goodreads policies permit; much rather see that in a comment on a shelved book than in review space.
*shrugs* but I'm also willing to just let readers make whatever use of review space however they want if not violating TOS conditions like prohibitions against hate speech and personal attacks. If I don't find them interesting or useful, I just won't follow that reviewer.
I do consider the pre-release reviews saying they one or five starred a book to offset all those rabid five or one star ratings as gaming the system because openly stating they are trying to manipulate the ratings. Those I'll flag.
Ratings wars aren't unique to goodreads; the fans and authors and authors that do that will do so on all popular review sites. It's even worse on Amazon are because can be used to downvote a review where it doesn't display and because really impacts visibility and promotional quotas on Amazon.
Saying the ratings on goodreads are gamed/wrong/wars does presuppose that goodreaders putting a star rating are actually rating the book versus the also acceptable on that site rating their anticipation of the book, tweaking the recommendations, ordering in "my books" shelves and any other reasons members want to use the stars.
Not that the below hasn't been discussed to death over in gr feedback and other groups, but it's not just the prerelease ratings and buzz.
Goodreads really should not calculate average ratings without asking (or asking as default) if you are using the stars as ratings before including yours in the average. Maybe add an option to mark book as "do/don't base recommendations on this book" for folk using stars for that purpose. Add another numbering feature for readers using ratings for that purpose.
Stop putting the dang community average at top of book page; replace that with the average rating among friends and followed reviewers.
Display suggested scale meaning next to rating (meaning instead of "★★★☆☆" and "★★☆☆☆" display "★★★☆☆ liked it" and "★★☆☆☆ it was okay"). Why? Doesn't stop anyone rating or using stars however they want but reminds what suggested scale is before the whackados go off over someone merely liking the book. Heads off the stupid gaming and rating campaigns over ignorant promotional sites and authors and fans not comprehending that not every site uses the Amazon rating scale. Some of the nastier gaming and attacking I've seen happened because someone on goodreads basically rated a book "liked" or "okay" and those star ratings on Amazon would be considered negative (WTH Amazon puts an okay/average rating as negative when you look at their community reviews with the two column display of most useful positive/critical reviews I have no idea; average is just average and not necessarily negative but oh boy does that get a reaction).
So, no. Like I’ve said. I don’t have a problem with any of those.