Review Group discussion

I've set up a poll re moving to genre specific rounds, instead of it being a 'one off' special event.

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/7...

Please take a minute to register your opinion, and feel free to add comments to this thread.

I think that the benefit of genre specific reviews is that books are more likely to attract enthusiastic reviews from people who enjoy the given genre. I read somewhere that about 90% of books sold on Amazon these days fall into the "big 3" genres; Romance, Sci-fi/Fantasy, and Detective/Mystery. Perhaps we could start with regular review rounds in these genres, as they are likely to fill up relatively quickly. And if and when significant interest in another genre becomes apparent, then a round in that genre can be set up. This should reduce the number of mods needed.

I would also advocate retaining the existing general groups, for people who enjoy being allocated a wide range of material, and for authors who write in a relatively small genre.

I support genre-specific review groups. They would allow me to read in an area I enjoy, probably making my review better, or at least better informed. They also let me keep up with authors with similar interests, something I should be doing anyway. Its a win-win in my opinion.

And as my books would generally fall in the Detective/Mystery genre, great idea Warren!

This is a great idea!

Love it. I agree. It seems that one receives better reviews when the reviewer enjoys the genre.

I honestly joined just in time for the 100 group special, so I didn't realize at first that it was done any other way. I was just thinking "Oh wow, they have enough people to make genres work?" But now I'm seeing that it could take a while for some groups to form, and you would definitely run the risk of getting grouped with the same people again and again and again.

I really like Warren's idea, though. Those are definitely the genres I see crop up the most often, and they're also genres that are just that extra bit harder for people outside of the genre to enjoy in the same kind of way as people inside the genre. So I think those genres would regularly get filled, and the reviews would be that extra bit more in touch with the work, which would be great.

Now that we have some genre-specific experience, there seems to be some vast differences in how things are going. I was in 100G, Thriller group, which filled up in 3 days and I was reading in 5 days. When I finished my reviews in 100G and started to look for another opportunity, I was amazed to see 100D still open. So, some limit on how many and what types of genres are needed, as Warren said, is probably a good idea. But I am still a strong supporter of the basic idea.

As for seeing the same people over and over, I've done 3 of these rounds, and have only seen one person twice. And since I had a second book to offer, there was still no conflict. At least for me, this has not been a problem. Now Emma, who has to schedule around any conflicts, might see it differently.

The genre specific groups have brought a lot of new members out of the closet, many of the new groups have up to 6 new members, which is a vast change from the old system. We were lucky if we had two new members in a group which made it almost impossible at times to sort out non-reciprocal reviews.
However, we might find the problem even worse the more genre specific reviews rounds we hold. Thriller authors might only want to join thriller rounds, and if the same people come forward each time...

It's a bit of a catch 22 situation, but we can only see how it goes.

I voted for 'both' because a) I like the genre specific; and 2) if it becomes unsupportable, the old way is still pretty effective.

I like the idea of the genre specific, but would like a short fiction category too. Seems unbalanced to have to read and review a 90,000 word novel when you're putting in a 10,000 word novella.

Lynn wrote: "I like the idea of the genre specific, but would like a short fiction category too. Seems unbalanced to have to read and review a 90,000 word novel when you're putting in a 10,000 word novella."

There are novella rounds that come up. I don't think we'd have enough genre specific to be 'that specific'. :) But those rounds do go quickly.

Melody wrote: "Lynn wrote: "I like the idea of the genre specific, but would like a short fiction category too. Seems unbalanced to have to read and review a 90,000 word novel when you're putting in a 10,000 word..."

Thanks Melody, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten in a genre specific reshuffle. Gotta look out for the little guy :D

Me? Forget something? Never.

(picture me shuffling off to look up the last time we had a novella round).

Melody wrote: "Lynn wrote: "I like the idea of the genre specific, but would like a short fiction category too. Seems unbalanced to have to read and review a 90,000 word novel when you're putting in a 10,000 word..."

I like and support this, especially since my next few books will be collections of short stories and a novella. I do have a couple of longer books in the works.

I'd be very interested in a group to review historical fiction. I usually read historical fiction. I would also be open to a general review and expand my horizons a little.

I was wondering about this issue of lack of fresh blood in review rounds. At present, our forming rounds tend to be found principally by active members of the Review Group, which is perhaps why they often become incestuous.

Is it not possible to cast the net wider by posting news of forming review rounds in a more general area of Goodreads? If not, what ethics would be involved in encouraging group members to post such news in appropriate places in other author support groups to which they belong?

Posting to other social media wouldn't be a problem, and I occasionally mention the group on other goodreads forums I belong to, but only when the topic is appropriate. We have to be careful about spamming people.
I hate it when I get spammed so I expect others probably feel the same way.
There are also a sizeable number of people who think authors exchanging reviews, even non-reciprocal ones as we do here, are unethical.
I mention the group, but don't engage in conversations in open threads, well not often anyway.
There are one or two 'author review haters' who seem troll every such thread threatening apocalyptic damnation to anyone who receives a free book for review. As an organiser of such a devil worshipping cult, you can guess how popular I am. (Grin).
I can't count the number of times said happy people with too much time on their hands have threatened that it is just a matter of time before 'goodreads' finds out what we do and shuts the group down.
As we are the most prolific review group on goodreads (we have 2,259 members and have produced around 5,000 reviews since the group started) I somehow think 'they'already know.

if it ever does happen, I'd take the group to a separate website and simply carry on.

I wasn't aware of the thorniness of the issue. Perhaps the doubters should be referred to the Special Group 100 thread discussions to show that no reciprocal favours are sought or received here!

Warren wrote: "I wasn't aware of the thorniness of the issue. Perhaps the doubters should be referred to the Special Group 100 thread discussions to show that no reciprocal favours are sought or received here!"

Indeed. This group is in the business of real reviews, and they can be quite rough. I don't think we violate any ethical code.

You'd be surprised how vitriolic people can get about this issue.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I stepped back from the above discussion when the knives came out. They were particularly sharp.

Emma wrote: "You'd be surprised how vitriolic people can get about this issue.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I stepped back from the above discussion when the kniv..."

Oh, for the love of... can anyone say 'sanctimonious'?

Blatant favoritism by reviewers (friends, family, paid hacks, self-aggrandizing literary reviewers -- pick a faction) has been a fact of life since Shakespeare. Maybe Aeschylus, for all I know.

Thoughtful, non-reciprocal reviews are a whole lot more ethical than any of the above - all or which are rampant from the NYTimes to Amazon.

/end rant

On the topic of 'new members', I do occasionally post links to this group when appropriate. There is a rather shocking number of indie and self-published authors who want reviews but aren't willing to invest time in providing them.

In that case, they won't get many reviews, we all know how hard it is to get them, hence this group.
What has everyone else found, how many of your books are downloaded before you get a completely unsolicited ( in any way whatsoever with not even a tenuous link between you and the reviewer) review?

Well done for trying Emma!

The bottom line is that suppliers of products and information like Amazon and Goodreads are targeting fake reviews and endorsements with their rules and regulations. For me, the difference between fake and genuine reviews is usually blindingly obvious, like when there is a set of five star reviews containing words like "amazing", "wow", and "couldn't put it down" (generally two or three lines in length), juxtaposed against a set of two/three star reviews with a much deeper analysis.

As for all those laws and regulations, the authorities should be referred to the argument between gods in Hock's Agamemnon Must Die where the Furies say "Do you think to make men good by enacting more laws?"

Perhaps our group should have a fixed rule about disclosing the receipt of a free copy (except where the reviewer elects to buy the copy); I have noticed that some of our reviewers don't mention it.

Emma wrote: "In that case, they won't get many reviews, we all know how hard it is to get them, hence this group.
What has everyone else found, how many of your books are downloaded before you get a completely ..."

My experience with reviews, whether unsolicited or hoped for from friends, is that most people are too busy/lazy/timid to post a review.

Emma wrote: "
What has everyone else found, how many of your books are downloaded before you get a completely unsolicited ( in any way whatsoever with not even a tenuous link between you and the reviewer) review?
..."

Interesting question. I went and checked. For my first novel, The Cartel: The Apprentice, Volume 1, my first unsolicitated review came about 2 months after a free promo (354 downloads). While it's possible it came from a purchase, the timing says otherwise.

When I released my third in the series, Transgressions: The Apprentice, Volume 3, within a week I had a reviews from a fan of the series.

Of the 33 Cartel Reviews currently in goodreads 19 are friends/review group/R2R reviews. Of the 11 reviews for Transgressions, all are long-time readers of the series, four of which are 'friends'. (I count myself in that number - I always put a brief comment out with a new book, since Goodreads not only allows it but encourages it.)

Amazon follows the same pattern.

Warren wrote: "My experience with reviews, whether unsolicited or hoped for from friends, is that most people are too busy/lazy/timid to post a review."

There's some truth to that - although a lot of readers don't feel their reviews are important. Also, Amazon is making it more and more difficult to leave a book review with its pre-questions and title requirements.

I've had honest reviews bumped because they were 'too positive'. So if the reviewer is a 'gusher', they'll give up when Amazon refuses to post the review.

E.G. wrote: "Warren wrote: "My experience with reviews, whether unsolicited or hoped for from friends, is that most people are too busy/lazy/timid to post a review."

There's some truth to that - although a lot..."

I've also had honest/genuine reviews removed by Amazon, while a review by someone who obviously didn't read the book was left up. So whatever. Anyway, as a new member I'd love to jump in and bring some fresh blood to a review group, preferably genre-specific. I write epic fantasy, so I'm not sure how much value there would be in making people who hate fantasy (it can be surprisingly polarizing) or who only read/write novellas review my books. On the flip side, horror is a hard limit for me, so if I were assigned a horror book, I rather doubt I could evaluate it properly and give it a decent review. Just my two cents!

Hi my name is Tania and this site was recommended by a BGS member. I have read through all of the posts on the topic of "genre specific" reviewing. One thing I have noticed in my experience is if we keep an open mind, most of us can read books outside our favored genre. In fact, I think writers should read outside of their genre; it expands our universe. Another setback, is there are certain genres that are prevalent and others that are obscure. I wrote a memoir, which is a small genre in the big picture. I have had many people who were asking for a specific genre agree to read my memoir with 100% positive outcome. Lastly, if we catagonize books, taking into consideration the the word count, I think there would be similar books in ever genre. Food for thought. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Welcome T.M. this is why I think we will be going to keep the 'general' rounds as well as the odd smattering of genre specific ones.

My name is Janine and this site was recommended in an eBook I'm reading on how to get honest reviews. I have written a non fiction book on homesteading which is a tiny niche in an obscure genre but I would be happy to read and review books in other genres.

How flattering! I think me and the other mods are blushing.
Care to share the book with us?
Look out for the next round that is appropriate (either a general, clean or non-fiction genre round) with 'Now forming in the title.

Emma

Hi Emma,
I have joined a couple of groups here in Goodreads. I don't seem to be doing it right because I haven't received any feedback at all. You mentioned the next round of 'Now forming'. I have no idea what that is. Can you explain it to me?
Thanks so much, Tania

Hi Tania,go here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
Currently we have two 'now forming' rounds.
From a quick look at your book, I think it would either fit into a 'general' or an 18+ round. Both of which are currently unavailable although I will be setting up new rounds soon.

I'd support the idea of genre specific rounds for the most popular genres, sci-fi,/fantasy being the kind of book I have been asked to review most often. I think you do get a better informed review from someone who reads and writes in that genre. Having said that, I would also agree that general groups should continue. As writers we all ought also to be readers; good writing is good writing in any genre and we ought to be able to recognise it.

Hi Emma
Just joined you all last night and getting ready to do my first set of reviews. Am reading my way through all the group discussions and was interested by this one. I agree with those who think genre-specific groups would be a good idea but also with those who think the general groups should continue. Quite a few people have pointed out that it's good to step out of your comfort zone. This has happened a lot since I got a Kindle; being a voracious reader I generally download anything that's free, so this has introduced me to books which I've hugely enjoyed (and become a fan of the author) but which I'd never have bought in a bookstore where I head straight for my favourite genres.

It's pretty obvious that some of the genre rounds have proved very popular. SF & Fantasy in particular fill up quickly with Thriller a close third. We currently have a novella round forming here but I guess the next toe to dip into the water could be genre novella rounds. There may be authors out there with genre novellas who don't want to go into a general novella round and are also unwilling to review four full length novels when all they are submitting is a novella.

I'd be interested in another general, 18+, or sci-fi/fantasy group (my book is a full-length dystopia).

I'd be interested in another fantasy group if one becomes available!

I still have 1.5 books to read in the current round, but Star Bridge is a trilogy, so I am also interested in submitting Thunder Moon and Fire Island for future groups.

I haven't read all the posts here but it appears that genre specific reviews got most of the positive replies. Seems like a good idea to me too. Now to see what genres have groups and how to get involved.

Sounds like a really sensible idea. If someone is into the genre you're writing for then they have a much better appreciation of our work. Thanks, Emma. Brian O'Raleigh.
Emma wrote: "I've set up a poll re moving to genre specific rounds, instead of it being a 'one off' special event.

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/7...

Please take a minute to reg..."

Emma wrote: "I've set up a poll re moving to genre specific rounds, instead of it being a 'one off' special event.

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/list/7...

Please take a minute to reg..."

I think the specific genre idea is great. Obvious - once its realized! I write in different genres and am amazed at the lack of cross over of my readers from one book to a new one of a different genre. I received a comment from a fan who'd left a wonderful review on amazon.com for my memoir but was not impresses with rather gruesome murder mystery I wrote later. "You should have warned people!" she wrote, "Frightened the life out of me!" Different genres, different strokes! Brian O'Raleigh

I also like the specific genre concept. I finished all 4 of my reviews as quickly as possible (prior to the start of the new school year). If a new novella round opens, I would be interested in participating in that.

IDK. I think there are valid arguments on both sides of this. On the one hand, genre specific groups would likely result in better overall reviews in each group. Good if you're an author. Maybe not quite as good if you are a reader. On the other hand, having to step out of our comfort zones to provide thoughtful reviews helps us to grow as both readers and writers.

Hoping a new round of out of this world opens soon, i'm available!!!

I like this idea, because it's not fair to give a poor review solely based on the fact that the reviewer does not read romance or erotica. I had one person his wife who was not a member of the review group to read and review my book. He even stated in his review that's from his wife. I've read many books of all genres for review and many weren't my cup of tea, but I always found something positive to say about it. And when I see the review starting with "I don't read romance so my review may be biased..." My question is then why did you read it? I immediately know this is a review exchange because let's face it, why would anyone read and review a romance novel if this is not his/hers typical genre they would pick up to read? Obviously they've been assigned the book.

It just seems obvious that someone who focuses on a specific area of interest, personal and professional, will do a much better review. I couldn't even deal with YA, poetry, etc. But I can nail legal, business, etc.
Just my thoughts.

Genre-specific groups: YES PLEASE!

The problem with tight genre specific groups is that it soon becomes almost impossible to arrange non-reciprocal reviews.
The broad categories we have at the moment seem to be working quite well

Re: tight genres - I subscribe to this: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

It isn't a replacement by any means for this group (as this one is larger, more timely, obviously regularly and effectively modded and generally more active) but it may offer another avenue to you.

I think this group works precisely because of its broader categories and, to be honest, I quite like reading work I wouldn't normally pick up.