←back to thread

Authors hit by bad reviews on Goodreads before review copies are even circulated

(www.thebookseller.com)
97 points healsdata | 5 comments | 25 Jun 25 11:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.621s | source
Show context
nkrisc ◴[25 Jun 25 12:18 UTC] No.44376422[source]▶
> Long-time romance author Milly Johnson said: “I had a one-star rating for a book that hadn’t even been seen by my copy editor. When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not. I’m afraid at that point I washed my hands of them as a serious review site that should have some code of conduct. We all get bad reviews but at least we should expect any review to be fair."

Is Goodreads not a review site but just a soapbox for readers? What kind of serious review site would allow reviews where the reviewer simply speculates whether they would like something or not? Seems strange Goodreads would allow these kinds of reviews, it completely undermines any credibility their ratings might have.

Does anyone take Amazon review scores seriously?

replies(5): >>44376459 #>>44376539 #>>44376561 #>>44376568 #>>44377290 #
1. mingus88 ◴[25 Jun 25 12:34 UTC] No.44376568[source]▶
For a long time, Amazon reviews could be somewhat useful if you ignored all the 5 and 1 star reviews and only looked at verified buyers.

But Amazon allows sellers to swap different products in under an existing listing so you don’t even know anymore if the review is for what you are buying. This allows sellers to cheat. It’s insanity.

It reminds me of the phone network. It’s so riddled with bad actors that entire generations now have been trained to never pick up the phone.

Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed? For abusive callers to operate unrestricted? Even the audio quality of the calls seems to have gotten so bad in my parents rural backwater.

I don’t get it. Is engagement the only metric that matters?

replies(4): >>44376694 #>>44377196 #>>44377200 #>>44377749 #
2. nyeah ◴[25 Jun 25 12:47 UTC] No.44376694[source]▶
"Is engagement the only metric that matters?" Yes.
3. ableal ◴[25 Jun 25 13:37 UTC] No.44377196[source]▶
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?

Our protocols are descended from the postal system - the sender is a bit of text written on the wrapper.

Certifying that is out of the scope of delivering to the addressee. It would involve back and forth with an authority - e.g. showing someone your id before being allowed to post a letter.

4. sidewndr46 ◴[25 Jun 25 13:37 UTC] No.44377200[source]▶
it also changes your purchase history when they do this, which is certainly interesting. There have been a number of times when I want to purchase something again, then go to my order history. The 'product' is now something like a hair accessory targeted at teen girls.
5. friendzis ◴[25 Jun 25 14:28 UTC] No.44377749[source]▶
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?

Call centers want the ability to call "on behalf of" and are willing to pay for that. Unless strict id verification is mandated by a regulatory body, even in the presence of a network-wide agreement the first to defect eats the whole pie.

> But Amazon allows sellers <...> This allows sellers to cheat.

Things like this allow for a secondary market of "amazon experts" to be formed, which brings sellers to amazon in particular. Again, revenue.

> Is engagement the only metric that matters?

Yes. Welcome to the world of enshittification.