![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Goodreads star update
Mar. 5th, 2015 02:23 pmBirdsedge contacted Goodreads about the stars problem. It is a known glitch and has been fixed for now. More info at http://birdsedge.livejournal.com/297821.html
..a zero star review.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
birdsedge points out that if you don't put a star rating on a Goodreads review, Goodreads treats that as a zero star review when calculating the star average for the book, i.e. as low a rating as you can give, and not as an abstention.
Amongst other things, this means that if you don't give a star rating because as an author you feel uncomfortable doing that to other authors, or (as I sometimes do) because it was a book you didn't like but recognise as this being you and not the book, what you're inadvertently doing is rating the book as even lower than 1 star, even if you thought the book was worth 4 or 5 stars. On a book with few reviews, that can significantly affect the average rating.
birdsedge points out that if you don't put a star rating on a Goodreads review, Goodreads treats that as a zero star review when calculating the star average for the book, i.e. as low a rating as you can give, and not as an abstention.Amongst other things, this means that if you don't give a star rating because as an author you feel uncomfortable doing that to other authors, or (as I sometimes do) because it was a book you didn't like but recognise as this being you and not the book, what you're inadvertently doing is rating the book as even lower than 1 star, even if you thought the book was worth 4 or 5 stars. On a book with few reviews, that can significantly affect the average rating.
Janet at the romance blog Dear Author has posted an excellent essay discussing the three main strands that go into a reader's reactions to a book (correctness, style and taste), noting that only one of these is objective, and considering how that can lead to misunderstandings in online discussions.
The subject is something I've often seen discussed in fanfic circles, which has a whole critical vocabulary to indicate stories/books which have a high score on one aspect but a low score on another. But this is one of the best single-post discussions of the subject that I can remember seeing, and while it's written from a romance reader's perspective, it does not rely on prior knowledge of any particular fiction genre or fandom in-group knowledge. The comment thread has some good discussion as well. If you're interested in meta, you may well find this an interesting read regardless of your preferred genre.
The subject is something I've often seen discussed in fanfic circles, which has a whole critical vocabulary to indicate stories/books which have a high score on one aspect but a low score on another. But this is one of the best single-post discussions of the subject that I can remember seeing, and while it's written from a romance reader's perspective, it does not rely on prior knowledge of any particular fiction genre or fandom in-group knowledge. The comment thread has some good discussion as well. If you're interested in meta, you may well find this an interesting read regardless of your preferred genre.
Where to request reviews of sf
May. 3rd, 2008 11:16 amSnagged from the Broad Universe mailing list -- Anne Wilkes is putting together a database of places to request reviews of your sf:
http://wilkes.zftp.com/ReviewPlaces.html
http://wilkes.zftp.com/ReviewPlaces.html
Scalzi's meme: Owning my one star reviews
Apr. 30th, 2008 12:15 pmJohn Scalzi has started a new game for writers -- posting choice excerpts from their favourite one star reviews of their books on Amazon. Initial post here:
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=663
with the follow-up here:
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=685
Why? Because we can. And because grown-ups can handle getting bad reviews. Since I'm epublished, I've only got the one book available on Amazon (not counting a couple of anthologies that include a short story of mine), and that book has only the one bad review. It so happens that the review in question is a good example of what I was saying last week about even a bad review can sell a book to a reader with different tastes. Here's an excerpt:
Now, he was being snarky. But the review he wrote has almost certainly sold a few copies to people who thought that a book with a misanthropic gay geek as hero sounded mighty fine. So although I wince every time I read that review, I have no problem at all with the guy having posted it. It's a competent review that's all about the book and not about me.
[I will copy-and-paste something Charlie Stross said when he posted his: "(NB: please don't contact Amazon about these reviews, or pester the reviewers. (I've deliberately left their names off in order to make it harder to do that.) They're perfectly entitled to their opinions; as every novelist learns very early on, whatever you write, you can guarantee that at least 20% of the population will hate it. If you disagree with them, that's your problem, not theirs. I'm posting this for my own amusement, and because I happen to agree with John: "Own your one-star reviews, man. And then, you know. Get past them. If you’re lucky, some of them might actually be fun to read.")"]
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=663
with the follow-up here:
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=685
Why? Because we can. And because grown-ups can handle getting bad reviews. Since I'm epublished, I've only got the one book available on Amazon (not counting a couple of anthologies that include a short story of mine), and that book has only the one bad review. It so happens that the review in question is a good example of what I was saying last week about even a bad review can sell a book to a reader with different tastes. Here's an excerpt:
If you're a misanthropic, gay, IT geek with a chip on your shoulder, you might enjoy this book. Otherwise, I'd get something else.
Now, he was being snarky. But the review he wrote has almost certainly sold a few copies to people who thought that a book with a misanthropic gay geek as hero sounded mighty fine. So although I wince every time I read that review, I have no problem at all with the guy having posted it. It's a competent review that's all about the book and not about me.
[I will copy-and-paste something Charlie Stross said when he posted his: "(NB: please don't contact Amazon about these reviews, or pester the reviewers. (I've deliberately left their names off in order to make it harder to do that.) They're perfectly entitled to their opinions; as every novelist learns very early on, whatever you write, you can guarantee that at least 20% of the population will hate it. If you disagree with them, that's your problem, not theirs. I'm posting this for my own amusement, and because I happen to agree with John: "Own your one-star reviews, man. And then, you know. Get past them. If you’re lucky, some of them might actually be fun to read.")"]
On dealing with bad reviews
Apr. 22nd, 2008 11:31 amI'd been meaning to do an "unsolicited advice" post on the subject of how to cope with bad reviews, but hadn't got to it in the aftermath of Eastercon. And then a week or so ago an enormous blogstorm erupted over one author taking bad reviews far too seriously, giving an example of authors behaving very badly indeed. It's a *very* touchy subject at the moment, so I'm simply going to pull up a comment that I posted at Dear Author back in January, in a completely different discussion.
And I said something along the same lines a year ago in a comment on an EREC thread. I can't even remember now what outbreak of angst we were referring to, because authors regularly get in a public snit about less than glowing reviews.
Bad reviews hurt. But they're part of the job. And yes, I put my money, or at least my review copies, where my mouth is. I don't send out many review copies, because my publisher handles the routine review copies, including all the ones sent to the fluff review sites. But the few that *I* send out go to reviewers who are willing to say that they didn't like a book and why they didn't like it. Reviewers like Mrs Giggles, or Jan (the manga reviewer) at Dear Author. I know what sort of reviews I take seriously when I'm looking at reviews with my reader hat on, and that's the sort of review I want for one of my books, even if it means taking the risk that they'll shred it.
On the topic of less-than-rave reviews, I don’t like getting them any more than the next author does. But one of the useful bits of advice I’ve had out of hanging around more experienced writers is this:
There is no book written that is going to appeal to everyone who reads it, because people have different tastes. So if your book reaches a wide audience, sooner or later it’s going to get a bad review, no matter how good a book it is. If it reaches a really wide audience, it’s going to get the sort of review that strips paint from walls. The thing to worry about is when you *don’t* get any bad reviews — because it means that not many people have read the book.
The duelling reviews on Dear Author and other sites occasionally demonstrate the truth of that. What one reviewer adores, another loathes, and sometimes for exactly the same reason. Bad reviews are part of the job description. You don’t have to learn to like them, but you do have to learn to live with them. And an honest review of the book isn’t an attack on the author, even if the reviewer didn’t like the book. A thumbs-down review may help sell the book to someone with different tastes, if the reviewer sets out clearly why the book didn’t work for her.
And I said something along the same lines a year ago in a comment on an EREC thread. I can't even remember now what outbreak of angst we were referring to, because authors regularly get in a public snit about less than glowing reviews.
Bad reviews hurt. But they're part of the job. And yes, I put my money, or at least my review copies, where my mouth is. I don't send out many review copies, because my publisher handles the routine review copies, including all the ones sent to the fluff review sites. But the few that *I* send out go to reviewers who are willing to say that they didn't like a book and why they didn't like it. Reviewers like Mrs Giggles, or Jan (the manga reviewer) at Dear Author. I know what sort of reviews I take seriously when I'm looking at reviews with my reader hat on, and that's the sort of review I want for one of my books, even if it means taking the risk that they'll shred it.
More RT weirdness
May. 2nd, 2007 12:17 pmI'd held off posting about this morning's other romance uproar, because it wasn't clear whether the letter that sparked this was a hoax. But it has now been confirmed that it was indeed the RT publisher who sent a long letter to a reader's blog, taking her to task for being mean, and saying that women must support each other, in a letter that was itself very rude -- and manipulative.
There's a good summary at another reader's blog, Dear Author:
It was first discussed here:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/01/why-romantic-times-reviews-are-not-credible/
In the comments thread, a number of people commented on the hypocrisy displayed in the letter. I mentioned the disconnect between the "support women, male-run businesses are evil" and the treatment of the mostly female Manlove group, supposedly because businessmen (who should not have been in Promo Alley in the first place) had complained about the gay content of their promo material.
There was a second post on Dear Author explicitly addressing the issue of Manlove's promo being removed for being "too risque" while much more risque het material, including explicit threesomes, was left untouched:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-internet/
[ETA:l_prieto has posted the poster deemed too risque, and examples of some of the het material that *wasn't* removed -- compare and contrast...]
Further post about a possible conflict of interest issue in RT attacking reader-reviewers for their blunt review of a particular book (which is what set this off):
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-kathryn-falks-vested-interest-in-elloras-cave/
And here it is confirmed that the post was indeed by Kathryn Falk:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-rt-confirms-comment-by-kathryn-falk/
Note the spin being put on what happened to the Manlove promo material at RT. Please compare the RT staff member's insinuation that the poster involved a sex act between men with the actual material on display here:
http://sensualwriter.blogspot.com/2007/05/rthyatt-author-targeted.html
Also compare the suggestion that the other promo material was left untouched with Laura Baumbach's description of how most of the promo items were removed and placed somewhere else almost out of sight.
And if you're wondering about my views on tough reviews -- I blogged about reviewing last year:
http://julesjones.livejournal.com/61433.html
and posted from the author's perspective in the comments thread here:
http://www.erecsite.com/2007/03/thing-about-book-review-websites.html
There's a good summary at another reader's blog, Dear Author:
It was first discussed here:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/01/why-romantic-times-reviews-are-not-credible/
In the comments thread, a number of people commented on the hypocrisy displayed in the letter. I mentioned the disconnect between the "support women, male-run businesses are evil" and the treatment of the mostly female Manlove group, supposedly because businessmen (who should not have been in Promo Alley in the first place) had complained about the gay content of their promo material.
There was a second post on Dear Author explicitly addressing the issue of Manlove's promo being removed for being "too risque" while much more risque het material, including explicit threesomes, was left untouched:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-internet/
[ETA:
l_prieto has posted the poster deemed too risque, and examples of some of the het material that *wasn't* removed -- compare and contrast...]Further post about a possible conflict of interest issue in RT attacking reader-reviewers for their blunt review of a particular book (which is what set this off):
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-kathryn-falks-vested-interest-in-elloras-cave/
And here it is confirmed that the post was indeed by Kathryn Falk:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/05/02/romantic-times-update-rt-confirms-comment-by-kathryn-falk/
Note the spin being put on what happened to the Manlove promo material at RT. Please compare the RT staff member's insinuation that the poster involved a sex act between men with the actual material on display here:
http://sensualwriter.blogspot.com/2007/05/rthyatt-author-targeted.html
Also compare the suggestion that the other promo material was left untouched with Laura Baumbach's description of how most of the promo items were removed and placed somewhere else almost out of sight.
And if you're wondering about my views on tough reviews -- I blogged about reviewing last year:
http://julesjones.livejournal.com/61433.html
and posted from the author's perspective in the comments thread here:
http://www.erecsite.com/2007/03/thing-about-book-review-websites.html
