Yeah. And I can understand on some of them I saw -- I mean, their TOS still gives lip service to not allowing personal attack on another member and past decisions have been to leave reviews about the book but remove ones attacking someone. I get that.
But, reviews that merely showed a screenshot or quoted the author's own words? Just who was attacking who there?
I did flag the author profile photo and commented she was trying to game/hurt the system by campaigning to get flags. ( TOS violations) , linked to a good screenshot showing, and added that she was clearly making personal attacks against her reviewers which while mostly happening outside of goodreads they should be aware of in case content from her and her followers on goodreads got flagged to their attention.
And review still didn't sound that bad to me. It even had details that might have interested other readers in the book.
Sometimes a reviewer rating a book as average just means they found the book average ★★½☆☆☆ on goodreads (a ★★★½☆☆ on Amazon) is a very generous rating judging from how little the reviewer liked their read.
Doesn't make the reviewer a bitch, attacking anyone or doing anything against review guidelines in goodreads. If it's a consumer review or posting in with consumer reviews, of course it's unprofessional. Even if they were a bitch, how is attacking your customers publicly a good idea outside of the attention the drama gives you?
What's so bad about your book being rated "a half star above average" in a single review that hadn't even caused your average rating to fall? Hadn't even hurt your chances at buying promotions with companies like Bookbub -- and for the love of whatever you hold holy just why oh why oh why do authors think their customers have a responsibility to provide the review and rating quotas needed to meet their marketing goals anyway rather than just being one person rating a book?
Yes, I went there, I saw the almost high enough for prized promotion company spots average rating with more than the required number of reviews where if author could get a handful of the not-5-star ones removed thye might make it. Which somehow makes this top 20 reviewer calling the book barely above average and detailing what she did and didn't like a bitch -- *ack*
Oh well. The attention has gotten the book more reviews and ratings I guess; hard to tell how average rating impacted until the rating details refresh from cache -- a lot of activity though. Probably author will soon be complaining about the revenge one stars and hiw goodreads must force readers to explain in order to star rate ...
I was just talking to my daughter today about disgruntled authors. She's reading "The Bone Clocks" where the author takes a unique revenge on a reviewer. These authors just don't seem to understand that their objections to bad reviews only will backfire on them.
99.9% of authors I know about or have interacted with = fine. Oh, I'm sure they've vented to BFF or had all kinds of feels about their reviews. But that just doesn't make them go attack customers or try to drum up others to go ...
I sympathize that it's hard for new authors -- particulalry indies -- to get discovered because so many of them. That stops when that makes them decide to attack anyone -- particulalry to call on others to gang up on anyone -- or think customer reviews are anything they can control in any fashion. Frankly, it's not a consumer review if it's written to meet author's marketing quota needs or to author's needed format or to ensure a certain average rating.
This one is apparently going after all the less than 5 star goodreads reviews on her books. Which is even more ridiculous because she cannot write everyone's idea of the "perfect" book.
What if authors like her do succeed? Once the reviews clearly aren't honestly from readers, will readers still pay any attention when making purchasing decisions? Are those prime marketing opportunities just barely finally opening up to indie authors provided their application can show quotas of reviews and ratings and pass the muster (or luck into being one of few books advertising in that category in that day) -- still going to get via goodreads reviews once goodreads reviews remaining are all what the author wanted?
Authors convinced attacking customers and getting reviews removed will leave the playing field to their undisclosed personal reviewers spouting commercials for them aren't going to succeed at anything other than getting review sites to lose members no longer reviewing or reading reviews there.
When I see only five star reviews, it makes me suspicious that they're true reviews and not just a bunch of the authors' friends. NO book will please everyone all the time. I once knew a musician who said that he was pleased even if he got negative reviews because at least they were talking about his work and not just ignoring it.
I actually enjoy lukewarm or bad reviews. It means someone read the book long enough to dislike it. Further, if a bad review (or even a series of them) is enough to crush a writer's precious spirit, then perhaps it's best if they give up now and do something that involves less criticism. To publish, by definition, is to make public, after which the author has to live with the idea that someone will not like the work.
Yeah, most readers and authors I know prefer reviews that explain why liked or disliked over ones that say basically nothing beyond love/hate or just outright rant or rave about it. That's usually "why" reader reviews can impact buying decisions -- seeing something in the review that intrigues you or speaks of something you know you like or hate in a book.
Authors with all bland positive ratings not mentioning something another reader might not like will start getting low ratings from readers who won't like that instead of them just ignoring the book.
Authors with negative or positive ratings mentioning something those reviewers hated or loved (but another reader loved/hated differently) can attract the readers who will review the book positively.
No one has to write a consumer review to be "helpful" to anyone, but the details still are helpful to anyone reading the review because considering the book. They'll know what strikes a chord, what they connect to, what they look for or find helpful in the review ... people follow different reviewers for reasons of their own.
*sigh* it's just not supposed to be about the quota, the review and rating numbers, and mass churning out bland promotional content deceptively in with reader reviews -- a reviewer with popular/helpful reviews like the one this author tried to downvote on goodreads writes a review with more impact on readers and book sales than a dozen says-nothing-other-than-praise plus-cliffhanger-mentioned-so-no-reviewer-gets-to-bitch-about-without-being-attacked plus-release-dates-keywords-and-other-phrases-publicist-required-for-free-review-copy reviews.
Sheesh, if the author cannot handle that review, which I didn't think was particularly negative, then it will be interesting to see how she'll handle a snark filled review.
How many reviewers do you know who just luv first in series novels that end with cliffhangers and love them so much that every release date and keyword author used on Amazon and social media would get worked into their review because they just luv ... I find those reviews more suspicious than Lana's. (No, not flagging and not trying to get anyone to flag because flags only work for hiding review for spoilers or removing as being against TOS/review-guidelines -- which don't mention that loving cliffhangers is grounds for removing a review.)
I think an outright cliffhanger to get you to buy the next book is a horrible practice that I barely accept from a very favorite series that only did in a couple of the later books.
The vitriol of "flag that b*tch" this author used was crazy and the fact that Lana clearly said in her review, it could be a her problem and you should give the book a chance. What set that author off so much?!
Author only wants 5 star reviews apparently. Although why she thought a mass "flag on goidreads" campaign would do anything other than annoy whoever had to process them ... like a toddler wanting attention temper tantrum I guess.
Oh Lordy. This author apparently has a publicist -- several recent reviews note review copy from blah blah blah. I don't envy anyone trying to do pr after she posted publicly against customers.
Just was checking number of review likes (912) and that it was still there when signing off of goodreads (in s team challenge with members in very different time zones to coordinate with) and noticed that public relations firm.
Why pay a publicist you don't listen to (or else twisted something they said without running it past them)?
But, reviews that merely showed a screenshot or quoted the author's own words? Just who was attacking who there?
I did flag the author profile photo and commented she was trying to game/hurt the system by campaigning to get flags. ( TOS violations) , linked to a good screenshot showing, and added that she was clearly making personal attacks against her reviewers which while mostly happening outside of goodreads they should be aware of in case content from her and her followers on goodreads got flagged to their attention.
Sometimes a reviewer rating a book as average just means they found the book average ★★½☆☆☆ on goodreads (a ★★★½☆☆ on Amazon) is a very generous rating judging from how little the reviewer liked their read.
Doesn't make the reviewer a bitch, attacking anyone or doing anything against review guidelines in goodreads. If it's a consumer review or posting in with consumer reviews, of course it's unprofessional. Even if they were a bitch, how is attacking your customers publicly a good idea outside of the attention the drama gives you?
What's so bad about your book being rated "a half star above average" in a single review that hadn't even caused your average rating to fall? Hadn't even hurt your chances at buying promotions with companies like Bookbub -- and for the love of whatever you hold holy just why oh why oh why do authors think their customers have a responsibility to provide the review and rating quotas needed to meet their marketing goals anyway rather than just being one person rating a book?
Yes, I went there, I saw the almost high enough for prized promotion company spots average rating with more than the required number of reviews where if author could get a handful of the not-5-star ones removed thye might make it. Which somehow makes this top 20 reviewer calling the book barely above average and detailing what she did and didn't like a bitch -- *ack*
Oh well. The attention has gotten the book more reviews and ratings I guess; hard to tell how average rating impacted until the rating details refresh from cache -- a lot of activity though. Probably author will soon be complaining about the revenge one stars and hiw goodreads must force readers to explain in order to star rate ...
I sympathize that it's hard for new authors -- particulalry indies -- to get discovered because so many of them. That stops when that makes them decide to attack anyone -- particulalry to call on others to gang up on anyone -- or think customer reviews are anything they can control in any fashion. Frankly, it's not a consumer review if it's written to meet author's marketing quota needs or to author's needed format or to ensure a certain average rating.
This one is apparently going after all the less than 5 star goodreads reviews on her books. Which is even more ridiculous because she cannot write everyone's idea of the "perfect" book.
What if authors like her do succeed? Once the reviews clearly aren't honestly from readers, will readers still pay any attention when making purchasing decisions? Are those prime marketing opportunities just barely finally opening up to indie authors provided their application can show quotas of reviews and ratings and pass the muster (or luck into being one of few books advertising in that category in that day) -- still going to get via goodreads reviews once goodreads reviews remaining are all what the author wanted?
Authors convinced attacking customers and getting reviews removed will leave the playing field to their undisclosed personal reviewers spouting commercials for them aren't going to succeed at anything other than getting review sites to lose members no longer reviewing or reading reviews there.
Authors with all bland positive ratings not mentioning something another reader might not like will start getting low ratings from readers who won't like that instead of them just ignoring the book.
Authors with negative or positive ratings mentioning something those reviewers hated or loved (but another reader loved/hated differently) can attract the readers who will review the book positively.
No one has to write a consumer review to be "helpful" to anyone, but the details still are helpful to anyone reading the review because considering the book. They'll know what strikes a chord, what they connect to, what they look for or find helpful in the review ... people follow different reviewers for reasons of their own.
*sigh* it's just not supposed to be about the quota, the review and rating numbers, and mass churning out bland promotional content deceptively in with reader reviews -- a reviewer with popular/helpful reviews like the one this author tried to downvote on goodreads writes a review with more impact on readers and book sales than a dozen says-nothing-other-than-praise plus-cliffhanger-mentioned-so-no-reviewer-gets-to-bitch-about-without-being-attacked plus-release-dates-keywords-and-other-phrases-publicist-required-for-free-review-copy reviews.
I think an outright cliffhanger to get you to buy the next book is a horrible practice that I barely accept from a very favorite series that only did in a couple of the later books.
Just was checking number of review likes (912) and that it was still there when signing off of goodreads (in s team challenge with members in very different time zones to coordinate with) and noticed that public relations firm.
Why pay a publicist you don't listen to (or else twisted something they said without running it past them)?
Review likes currently at 1,025