←back to thread

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

(www.thebookseller.com)
97 points healsdata | 2 comments | 25 Jun 25 11:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.444s | source
Show context
rurban ◴[25 Jun 25 12:06 UTC] No.44376325[source]▶
Frequent experience with movies also. letterboxd is rife with ratings on movies, which didn't pre-screen at all yet. Most of them by paid shills. A24 being the worst, but Warner also amongst them. And lb fails to hit them.

Same on IMDB, and even Rotten Tomatoes. There's a lot of money in movies. But books?

replies(6): >>44376339 #>>44376517 #>>44376926 #>>44376947 #>>44377270 #>>44380249 #
soco ◴[25 Jun 25 12:28 UTC] No.44376517[source]▶
I was shocked to read the new rules for the Academy Awards jury members: newly they must watch the movies before giving their verdict. As in, before they didn't have to...
replies(2): >>44376684 #>>44377296 #
1. bluGill ◴[25 Jun 25 13:46 UTC] No.44377296[source]▶
Perhaps in the past people had ethics and so it didn't need to be stated. I'm surprised they need it in the rules, as I would expect since they pick the jury they pick people with ethics. But then I'll admit complete ignorance to how they do anything (and no care either since I'm not a movie person)

Online reviews don't have enough control over their reviewers and so it only takes a small number of unethical people to cause a big problem.

replies(1): >>44377446 #
2. kevin_thibedeau ◴[25 Jun 25 14:01 UTC] No.44377446[source]▶
They've discontinued mailing out screeners and members have to watch them through the private Academy Screening Room streaming service. The academy now knows who watched what and can use that data for fair voting.