I have noticed a weird pattern.

The number two book on this list, "Blood in the Skies (The Hellfire Chronicles, #1)," has nineteen votes, all of them number one (i.e. it has 1900 points). Most of the people who voted for it, if you look at their voting records, have voted for very little else anywhere on GoodReads (Although most of them have voted this one book their number one choice on many, many other lists).

Okay, maybe it's a good book, but then why is it all the same people voting it their number one choice (and not voting for much else anywhere), and nobody else voting for it at all?

Sheesh. Now it has 22 votes, all number one, with no other votes.

I had no idea this was an ongoing problem.

There is evidence this is a common scheme by people not active in the GR community to artificially boost books' presence on lists.

If anybody is interested in how the voting scheme works, please see the list:

Ballot Box Stuffing: Books For Which People Have Gamed the Listopia System

Alessandra wrote: "Sheesh. Now it has 22 votes, all number one, with no other votes.

I had no idea this was an ongoing problem.

There is evidence this is a common scheme by people not active in the GR community to..."

Also did you notice that Blood in the Sky's has only 84 ratings, while the 3rd voted for book has over 350,000... Suspicious...

I hadn't, but thanks.

Now that you mention that, "The Night Watchman Express" and "Devil's Kitchen" look like they're doing something that, too, except that it looks like the voters (they're mostly the same for both books, but didn't vote for anything else) swapped around #1 and #2 votes so they don't quite have exactly 100x the points.

I would not call Artemis Fowl steampunk.

Why are Twilight and Of Mice and Men on the list?

My theory on Twilight is "because it's on all the lists." No clue on Of Mice and Men.

Somebody needs to clean up this list!!

That someone will, alas, have to be someone who knows more about YA than I do.

The Old Man and The Sea. Steampunk?

My theory is that when someone starts a profile intended to be a bot, they do a few quick meaningless actions with it to make the profile look like a person is active.
The originator of this list should be able to clean it up; at least, to remove the misfits.

If they're a GR librarian, certainly. (I don't believe list originators have clean up powers.)

I see what you mean, Susanna. I visit the Librarian forum to ask for author bios to be added and so on; I don't see any place there to report list oddities. Maybe under Clean Up if someone wanted to report the issue.