The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

I just got up to speed on the whole sock puppet controversy. Does anyone have a trick for dealing with this kind of deception outside of ignoring all five star reviews? http://t.co/D4TrqjuT

Thanks.
Gamal

If a review is by Harriet Klauser, forget it. She has never read a book that she did not like.

I personally only give good reviews to books I enjoy. I am from the generation that if you have nothing good to say, don't say it.
I do sometimes state my disappointment with a book if I normally enjoy the author. I truly believe that most books are subjective, everyone having a different personal preference. Just because I love something, it doesn't mean everyone else will like it. The easiest way to decide if something is good, is read it or at least give it a shot. I couldn't get past the first few chapters of 50 SHADES, so I just didn't bother to review it. Is that wrong? Maybe, but if you look at the types of books I enjoy, you can probably decide if my recommendations or reviews fit into what you would like.

@ Rose: Duly noted. Thanks for the tip.

@ Dawn: I also write elite reviews for Yelp and most of my reviews are 3 or 4 stars. Very few businesses get a 5 or a 1, but some do. I'm just concerned that customers reviews are going to become nothing more than paid advertising.

Thank you for the replies ladies.

Rose wrote: "If a review is by Harriet Klauser, forget it. She has never read a book that she did not like."

I would really like you both to review my book,'Who's Killing All The Lawyers.'How do I go about it, Dawn? Rose?
Thank you,
A.G.Hayes.

that's horrible - I would never review something I didn't actually read ):

A.g. wrote: "Rose wrote: "If a review is by Harriet Klauser, forget it. She has never read a book that she did not like."


From what I gather, that is not a condoned behavior. As members of GOODREADS we are not supposed to promote our own work with the reader membership. I wish I could. We are allowed to promote our work on the AUTHORS group, so try asking for reviews there. I did look through my past reviews and I have found incidences where I did not give a five star. If five star meant TOLSTOY or DICKENS or TWAIN, then I doubt any of the novelists today would receive a 5 star review. If the 5 star means DID YOU ENTERTAIN the reader, than I would say if you gave 5 stars it is appropiate if you enjoyed the book.

This has been a thread in one of the other groups I belong to. I guess ultimately if you're concerned about fake reviews, trust your own judgement. Read the blurb on the book and if it interests you, go with your own heart. Or read reviews by people you know, e.g. from your group and such. I think it's kind of shabby if you have to fake good reviews to get people to read your stories.

I think if you have common interests with other people you will like the books they review as 5 star. I have heard from a friend of mine,(also author) how someone has written 1 star reviews and made very mean comments and it is a personal issue between the two. It works both ways.

I think there is a huge difference between giving a negative review and an all out mean review. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion be it good or bad, but I think it should be given in a constructive, adultly manner. Not everyone is going to like every book out there that they read and that's okay, but you don't have to be mean-spirited when you give your thoughts.

Same goes for books that have all five star reviews-- us readers expect honesty from our reviewers. I say just use your best judgement and go with the opinions of the people you trust.

Sorry about breaking the rules, I should have known better than to mention the name of my book in this section. I got carried away by the topic.

A.G.

Bill wrote: "This has been a thread in one of the other groups I belong to. I guess ultimately if you're concerned about fake reviews, trust your own judgement. Read the blurb on the book and if it interests yo..."

Bill, I think that is the best way to consider a book, but my impression is that real or fake book reviews manipulate the algorithms used to recommend books. If enough books have sock puppet reviews, they can push other books so far down in the search results that a reader never gets to a chance to choose books for themselves because they never get to see them. Does that make sense or am I making this up?

A.g. wrote: "Sorry about breaking the rules, I should have known better than to mention the name of my book in this section. I got carried away by the topic.

A.G."

You're forgiven... we are only human

I give my honest opinion. I try not to be snarky. There are some books that just don't cut it with me. I try not to carve authors to pieces with my reviews but if I really didn't like the book, I feel it would be an injustice to them if I wasn't truly honest. If I love a book, and could not put it down, they get 5!

I'm actually somewhat concerned because so many of my reviews fall into the 3-start category, but I also generally leave at least a sentence to explain why I rated something. Three is "liked it" I think that it's likely that that most books most people read fall into that category but I agree with the commenter who said that today there aren't many books that could have a four or five star aggregate rating given the number of people who are rating books. The more people who rate a book, the harder it is to get a high rating.

It's interesting someone would automatically discount 5 and 1 star reviews. Since joining GR, my goal has been to provide a written review for everything I read. I think my average star rating is aroun 3.75, but I do have 5 star reviews--and a couple 1 star. I make a point in my reviews to state why they reached those extremes for me. I only start to wonder about sock puppets with new/self-published reviews that are all 5s with no comments, or only insipid comments. I really don't think the 'sock puppet' reviews are that much of a problem.

But I laughed out loud to Rose's comment about Harriet Klauser, the B&N 'reviewer.' :D

I see it as being absolutely objective for each reader. What a 5 to me is also, if I can't put it down. I looked over my own reviews and perhaps I have been generous, but I am a late comer and I have scanned and added as many books in my library that I have kept because I love the author or series or book. If it is in my library it is special to me.
But from now on I will try and be more objective. Also now that I do ebooks, and I don't have them sitting on my library shelf it may not rate as much. I recently ordered Ken Follett's new book, and Nelson DeMille's book in print because I want those in my library. It is the only two books I have actually bought in print in the last six months since I got my Nook.

Gamal wrote: "Bill wrote: "This has been a thread in one of the other groups I belong to. I guess ultimately if you're concerned about fake reviews, trust your own judgement. Read the blurb on the book and if it..."

Interesting, Gamal. Shows how much I know about the power of the internet. I never considered how the ratings (algorithms?) might affect a book in such a manner. I guess I'm still a bit of a luddite and for the most part still check out books in the book store and that's where I get most of my ideas for what to read next. (Not that I don't now check out friends comments and ratings in goodreads as they pass on their thoughts.)

My two cents worth and apologies for coming in late to the conversation: I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on publishing reviews while entirely doing away with starred ratings? In my experience, people read reviews for the variety and nuances of opinion they offer; in contrast, the starred rating system seems limited and antithetical to nuance and learning.

I've noticed the issue of ratings/reviews is one that's being discussed in a number of GR forums. I'd like to know if others think the present system is the most effective for conveying people's views? It could be that it is.

I find the star rating system difficult - I read a good few classics, and if I'm comparing, say, Ellis Peter's Never Pick up HItch-hikers (my last light read) to Pride and Prejudice, well, I'd have to give P&P 5 and NPUH 1 - but I enjoyed them both very much, in different ways. I do give a lot of 5s, but that may be because I'm getting ruthless - life is to short to plough through a book that hasn't hooked me. I promise, though, that I'm not "sockpuppeting"! (What a wonderful phrase ...)

Elle wrote: "My two cents worth and apologies for coming in late to the conversation: I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on publishing reviews while entirely doing away with starred ratings? In my experienc..."

I think you could really be on to something Elle. Besides, a 5 to you could mean something totally different than it does to me. I like reading reviews for the specifics of why the reviewer did or did not enjoy it.

I like the no star idea.

I like having both the stars and comments. I have tried to write reviews on the books that I am reading for another group's challenge, so that I give both a "rating" and my reasons for the rating. But it is a challenge - for some of the books I read this year, I might have scored them differently at other times of my life.

I agree that having stars with no context doesn't work very well, though Goodreads does define the stars. So, if I really like something, I will give it 4 stars, versus liking (3) and loving (5).

I rarely give anything below 3 stars because I quit reading it and don't feel it is fair to rate something I haven't completed. Oh, I hope I'm not "Harriet Klauser"-lite!

I also like the idea of no stars, just comments..
When someone gets excited about a book they express it much better when they talk about it. The stars leave it so much more subjective. Marsali is right in one sense you can't compare a classic to a trashy, fun novel that keeps you up all night reading, but they both may deserve a 5 star rating. Comments would explain why.

It really disappoints me that some authors will try to influence ratings by buying good reviews, or worse, creating fake profiles to sabotage a rival with bad reviews.

Personally, I first look at reviews from my friends, then at the general reviews. The Goodreads star rating has its limitations (I would love ½ stars but I know that is not in the works), however, if there are enough ratings it can be helpful and a book with 5, 5-star ratings and no other ratings is seriously suspect in my mind.

Writing reviews deepens my learning about and response to other authors' work. Even writing a few words about a book just read is an enjoyable experience that expands understanding. But for me anyway, ranking a book is depressing and horribly stressful.

When it comes to lurking goodreads for something new to read, I don't normally check out the reviews anyway. I usually just read the description, and if I like what I've read there, I'll give it a try. The only times I pay attention to the reviews is when I notice someone on my friends list has rated it. I also don't want to be spoiled, as there are some people rude enough not to flag their review with a spoiler warning.

As far as it goes when I write reviews, I don't normally do it. I am always afraid since I'm not very good with grammar and spelling, that I may get negative remarks on my reviews. So the few times I actually have taken the time to make them, I really enjoyed what I've read, or I feel like I really should warn my friends what I didn't like about what I read.

What I'm trying to get at is, if you're worried about not trusting many of the ratings, just don't bother with them. Trust your gut, read the description. It's the same way with video games and movies. Sometimes, the best buys are made on impulse.

Marsali wrote: "I find the star rating system difficult - "

I have to say I do as well. The best I can do is go by what the stars mean, which is why the majority of my reviews are probably 3 stars (I like it) ... if I read all the way through and it doesn't hit any of my pet peeves and I am entertained by it, I like it, so 3 stars.

The 4 stars are for books that I read and will be looking for more by that author or in that series, though not necessarily to go out and buy instantly. Kind of in between the 'will look for it in the library' or used paperback store and on the wish list if I run out of new things to read.

The 5 star ratings for me ... again purely personal ... are those books that I read the first in the series, know I'm going to want to re-read it at some point in time and can't wait to buy the next one and there aren't a lot of those for me ...

I think one of things available to today is the free sample you can read on the NOOK and AMAZON sites. If it catches my interest and I want to read more..I buy it and usually I am happy. If you question the ratings someone gets, just try that...this way you don't waste your money or time.

Very interesting discussion. I had no idea that people paid others to review their books!!

I was offering tacos to people who 'liked' my reviews ;)

Please see my blog from yesterday.
Fraud Authors: Pillory or Gallowshttp://www.jamesthompsonauthor.com/bl...
It explains IP tracers. They're readily available online. I've used them and even located the home address a post originated from. If you have multiple posts with different user names from the same IP address, you have found your sock puppeter. It's easy as pie.

Sorry, the link was bad. I'll try again
http://www.jamesthompsonauthor.com/bl...

I don't care either way. I'm just happy if someone reads and hopefully enjoys my scribblings.

I'm repeating myself, but the mention of chick lit compels me. What's wrong with it? Why should we be snooty? You enjoy it! Everyone is entitled to enjoy a genre, and there are better and worse books in every genre. My considerations when reviewing.

What did the author set out to accomplish?
Was it a worthy goal?
Did the author accomplish his/her goal?
Why or why not?

Isn't that enough? We can't all have the same tastes, after all. For this reason, I only review books in certain genres. I don't feel that my expertize in, for instance, chick lit, is sufficient me to pass judgement on it.

I think I have an easier time with reviews than many do as I don't review books I don't read from beginning to end and I don't have much patience for books that don't appeal to me from the start and hold my interest all the way through.

I do try to make it clear that any criticisms are strictly personal ... not 'professionally' critical ... but then that is what I read reviews for myself, when trying to decide whether a new to me book/author is a good risk.

James wrote: "I'm repeating myself, but the mention of chick lit compels me. What's wrong with it? Why should we be snooty? You enjoy it! Everyone is entitled to enjoy a genre, and there are better and worse boo..."

James, I think you must be referring to my previous post. After rereading my post I can certainly see how my use of the term chick-lit could have been misconstrued. I hope you don't think I was putting down chick-lit, quite the contrary, I put it in parentheses because I was trying to make a point that I think all genres are worthy of recognition. I picked the term chick-lit as an example because it is the one genre that has the most fun made of it by literary snobs. My apologies if I offended anyone.

Oh, I don't think you offended anyone, and I'm not even sure I was referring to your post. I was just making a case against snobbery. When I was younger, I was a snob about literature and music. Then I realized, what the hell? If boy bands and Brittany Spears make people happy, more power to them! I still catch myself being a snob. Some corporate author like James Patterson cranks out a dozen books a year and didn't even write them, just oversees projects, but sells a bazillion copies, I get miffed, but as he put he it, "Thousands of people don't like my books. Luckily, millions do." The public votes with their credit cards. Even if it grates on me, them's the facts.

James wrote: "Oh, I don't think you offended anyone, and I'm not even sure I was referring to your post. I was just making a case against snobbery. When I was younger, I was a snob about literature and music. Th..."

I think we are on the same page and I'm glad I wasn't offensive. That's true about James Patterson and I feel sorry for the people that don't get credit for their writing. Still, I hope they are making a large percentage of his millions.

Judi/Judith wrote: "James wrote: "Oh, I don't think you offended anyone, and I'm not even sure I was referring to your post. I was just making a case against snobbery. When I was younger, I was a snob about literature..."

As stated by Patterson, if I recall correctly and usually do, he uses a very few authors and pays them very well. I would think it a very good opportunity for some writers, just not so great for readers.

I can tell you without reservation that corporate writers such as those who write for Patterson, Clancy, et al, are carefully chosen, well paid, and the work highly sought after.

Good to know, James.

Gamal wrote: "Bill wrote: "This has been a thread in one of the other groups I belong to. I guess ultimately if you're concerned about fake reviews, trust your own judgement. Read the blurb on the book and if it..."

That's the way it works. In a nutshell.

Interesting discussions. Overall if compared with Italian discussions where in some GR groups there is a snob attitude.

I try to rate each book according to their genre so Dickens doesn't compete with say Neil Gaimon or Ray Bradbury. I've rated children's books and literary fiction both with 5* which I think they earned in their respective genres. That doesn't mean I think they are equal but anyone who know my reading tastes will readily recognize that. I've only recently started writing reviews because, quite frankly, I'm a much better reader than writer.

James, that was a very interesting and informative article that you wrote. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are such unethical people out there but I am. One of the things to look for on GR is the date that the people who give 5* ratings joined. If there are say 10 ratings of 5* on a recent book and the reviewers all joined just about the time of the book release you know the ratings are bogus. Sad.

This may be on he other end of the sockpuppeting spectrum but I would like to make a comment on people who write, what they must consider, a review and rating when they are actually upset with the publisher or the cost of the book. The first time I saw this happen was on Amazon when Ken Follett's novel Fall of Giants was published. I noticed that it had a 3 star rating and that seemed unusual to me since he almost always has a much higher rating. When I started reading some of the reviews there were many, many 1 star reviews from people who were angry because the kindle price was the same as the published novel. I sympathized with their anger but didn't think they should post a 1 star review when they had not read the novel because they were upset with Amazon and the publisher. These 1 star ratings brought Follett's over all rating way down. I have began to notice this happening more and more with other books and products, in fact the same thing is going on now with Winter of the World, the sequel, which will be published tomorrow. I guess the bottom line is that you really can't trust reviews to give honest opinions about the content of novels, you just have to decide for yourself.

James wrote: "I can tell you without reservation that corporate writers such as those who write for Patterson, Clancy, et al, are carefully chosen, well paid, and the work highly sought after."

James, do you know if specialized reviewers are sought after because they impact which books appear in Amazon display results?

I am under the impression that sock puppets can manipulate what books people do and don't see when they browse. My concern is that people casually browsing for books will only see the books inflated by sock puppets and never see the books that only have unpaid reviews.

One of the beauties of GRs is that you build up a network of people with similar tastes or at least get to know what their tastes are. When I'm debating over a book selection I first check their reactions to it. I very rarely read a review unless it was written by one of my friends and then I'll decide whether or not to read the book. One of the best sources for book suggestions is your trusted friends read shelf.

I can imagine what headaches the unethical reviewer can give an author but believe this problem has been around a long time.

Hi Gamal. I'm no expert in these things, but I don't know how they could. But then again, I don't know a lot of things. I haven't even figured out how they decide how to order them here on GR when you read down the row.

Certain reviewers have a great deal of impact and are highly sought after. However, publishers forbid authors from contacting them directly. It's a breach of etiquette and a great way to get them to NOT review your book. It should go like this:

My publisher has a list of reviewers it will send ARCs (advance review copies) to. I have my own list, and request that they sent to those reviewers as well. My part in it is then over. I communicate with some reviewers about other authors' books, leave comments etc., just like almost everyone here, but I NEVER flog my books to reviewers. Hopefully, they will read the ARCs, write reviews and/or request interviews. They communicate with the publicist asigned to me about these things, then the request if passed on to me.