THE Group for Authors! discussion
Writer's Circle
>
Aspiring Author Review Group
message 1:
by
Lorna
(new)
Mar 28, 2016 05:57AM
Wouldn't it be nice if all of the aspiring authors in this group developed a unique review group where we share our books among one-another for free, in exchange for reviews? Has anyone ever tried this or does it already exist somewhere?
reply
|
flag
There are lots of places on Goodreads to look for reviews, but be aware that reviews received in review exchanges cannot be posted on either Goodreads or Amazon.
And if posted in with consumer reviews on any U.S. sites that do allow such reviews, federal law requires all payments and conditions — including payment by free review copy and payment by service (service of a review on your own book however exchanged or assigned) — be disclosed.Those review-in-order-to-get-reviewed ones can be quoted in the editorial description section of Amazon.com.
You can search groups here (under "Community" "Groups") to find dozens of authors reviewing books to get reviews -- none of which can post on goodreads or in with Amazon customer reviews (of course) and all of which no doubt are clear that disclosures are needed if posting in with consumer reviews. (goodreads used to allow so some older posts may seem confusing; goodreads presumably stopped allowing because almost bloody every author participating was committing consumer fraud by refusing to disclose it was review-to-get-review or even if a free review copy).
Or you can search the same groups for readers willing to review, read-to-review, free-for-review, read-for-review, r2r, r4r, etc. If a free review copy is provided, that has to be disclosed. (It's not funny to some of us when we get requests from authors to " don't say you got book free for review" -- seriously not worth losing review or risking goodreads account, much less FTC fines and criminal charges for a free book.). A couple of examples: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/... , https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... , ...
Many groups will also have a folder/thread for that purpose (harder to find; I'd suggest looking in groups that read your genre).
ETA:. typos
This group has been working successfully on goodreads for years. We have never had a complaint from goodreads or amazon.https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
The founding principle is non-reciprocal reviews, which must be posted whatever the star rating, good, bad or indifferent.
The key is non reciprocal, although I don't see how you get around the FTC rules that you must disclose that you got the book free for review.
Emma wrote: "This group has been working successfully on goodreads for years. We have never had a complaint from goodreads or amazon.https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/......"
Which means you haven't been caught. It has nothing to do with either site's policies or U.S. laws both sites are subject to.
If you aren't doing anything unethical, against site policies or illegal, why not put in the consumer fraud laws required disclosure saying reviewing as part of an author-to-author program to get reviews of own book? Do you think readers will find that a more or less honest review than one discovered or suspected to be part of a review circle/assign/exchange/whatever program? I actually liked it when goodreads allowed author review programs (provided properly disclosed) -- many were very good, very enjoyable reviews from people who did read the book and the disclosure cut back on retaliatory ratings and such from the less professional review programs members.
Neither site nor the FTC cares if the reviews are directly reciprocal. On all U.S. consumer review sites or sections, have to disclose payment (even if payment is just to get a review and/or a free book/ product). Amazon and goodreads flat out do not allow authors reviewing to get return reviews (reciprocal or not).
Maybe those reviews have not yet been flagged to or discovered by site staff and members. Maybe any FTC complaints are slow to process (years even) because their mandate doesn't rate those as priority in terms of harm to consumers.
Don't think I'm correct? Don't believe me -- ask Amazon and goodreads if they allow those reviews. Ask FTC (not always a quick answer or any response beyond links to where they already said so).
Maybe look at goodreads staff posts just in these feedback groups repeatedly confirming commercial reviews are not allowed (including ones reviewing for payment of a review by fellow commercial interests, aka authors, on own book however assigned) with the exception of payment via a review or won copy of the book clearly disclosed in top fold of review text with no conditions on the review.
The FTC is clear that anything behind a review, particularly paymentts--including payment by fee and by service--not readily apparent to general public must be disclosed (they've even specifically given some payment examples: getting reviews on own product however assigned or achieved; buying, offering or doing advertising; to get a contest entry ; discounts for reviewers not available to everyone; buying related services -- like an editor willing to review it if they are hired to edit; et. al. )
Think it's always so very book promotional when someone gets caught? That readers and blogger's really trusts those reviews?
Yes, I do know of authors who have successfully used to game their book's average rating long enough before getting caught to be allowed to buy space with some promotion companies like [insert whoever] that require minimum ratings. Who don't mind that sites will remove when found or even risking accounts on those sites; who are pretty sure that even the FTC is likely to just tell them to remove or disclose before taking further actions.
Heck all kinds of things against policy, even hate speech and outright illegal threats of real world violence and making sockpuppet accounts to rate your book, hang around until discovered or reported/flagged. Not at all putting author review to get a review programs in same category as threats and hate speech -- just mean that not being caught yet or complained about is not the same thing as being legal or being within site policy.
ETA: typos. clarity. And to add that authors can of course review and catalog their reading. If doing so because of material connection (own book, book by another member generating your household income, publisher request it supporting their publisher ...) have to disclose. If you review your own book, goodreads discloses that for you. If doing so for any payment (including fees, services like receiving reviews of own book, advertising considerations, free book or review copy, ...) - disclose. If any conditions placed on your review - disclose (some review programs, arc approvals or blog tours require certain ratings, phrasings, etc. ) - disclose. Some things disclosed mean sites will or won't allow the review to post according to their policies ( or might require specific wording in the disclosure).
Not completely on topic, but authors should also be cautious if trying to get goodreads reviews from sites, persons or programs that say the reviews can only go on Amazon in the editorial section. Likely what they should have said is that their reviews are ones needing disclosures on all U.S. consumer review sites such as goodreads (and that even if disclosed may or may not be allowed depending on site policies). Most likely they just say "Amazon" because (a) got in trouble with or even sued/threatened-suing by Amazon or (b) sometimes the indie and self publishing sites tunnel in to always think "Amazon," particularly with all the kindle exclusives.
I know of sites where authors innocently go to get the advertised reader reviews that are actually offering paid, commercial reviews that cannot post here. The authors are not paying for reviews (which is why I'm not calling them out or sending readers to that site to see which authors); the sites are paying reviewers out of a pool of their paid services and revenues from ads and purchase links. Again, it's not authors necessarily buying reviews but those are still commercial reviews.
Back away very quickly from any site, author or reviewer asking that review not mention the free book, free arc or free review copy. That's plain illegal on goodreads and all U.S. consumer reviews. (Not the same thing as a book that's free to general public, those don't have to be disclosed any more than anything else readily apparent to the general public, just the "free for review" freebies that have to be disclosed .)
I don't believe I said that the review group encourages people not to mention that they received the book in exchange for a non-reciprocal review.Hi Debbie, nice to 'see' you again. We do seem to meet up on these threads regularly don't we?
This is one of the things I appreciate about goodreads, people that are passionate about books, even if they don't see eye to eye on a particular issue, getting together to debate.
Lorna wrote: "Wouldn't it be nice if all of the aspiring authors in this group developed a unique review group where we share our books among one-another for free, in exchange for reviews?."No. Because apart from being unethical, review swaps among authors are against both Amazon and GR TOS.
If you want genuine reviews, find R4R groups for your genre. GR is full of them. Ask *readers* for an honest review in exchange for a free copy.
Short version of payment/incentive pieces of U.S. consumer review regs: When you "agree" to review in order to get [whatever] then [whatever] has to be disclosed. *Emma wrote: "I don't believe I said that the review group encourages people not to mention that they received the book in exchange for a non-reciprocal review.
Hi Debbie, nice to 'see' you again. We do seem to ..."
Yet, care to point out a sampling of reviews from those groups that do disclose (whether or not a review on goodreads)? Or show me where group says not to post them on goodreads because against policy or to always disclose? That would convince me of your point. (Presumably op was wanting goodreads reviews, though.)
Care to point out any of those groups who remind authors to not mix those in with unincentivized reader reviews without the disclosure?
Not an issue with authors just tracking and reviewing their own personal reading--any more than a review of a book free on Amazon has to say reviewer got book free because that's something anyone in the general public can. And that group says in its 2014 welcome message that it started in 2012 -- back when goodreads allowed an exception to "no commercial use" provided incentives were disclosed as required by U.S. law and provided complied with site policies like not gaming the system (don't bulk give/get retaliatory or supportive ratings from group members).
I'm one that thinks authors should be able to review--even via author-to-author programs (provided disclosed in reviews) -- and I actually dislike that goodreads changed the past policy (I think it used to be okay if complying with U.S. law and goodreads' no commercial use policies which make an exception for a few disclosed instances) to outright prohibit these versus cracking down to enforce disclosure requirement (or even requiring all such groups to spell it out in the group rules). I'd rather goodreads just insist, particularly to the author review-to-get-reviewed groups right bloody here on goodreads that details have to be disclosed (or even prohibiting using the star ratings and instead optionally noting the rating in the review to avoid gaming average reader ratings).
Authors who can write well in books generally write well in reviews. But, disclose if writing a review to get [whatever] and no one is defrauded. Sites still can set their own policies about all kinds of review issues (no choice about laws subject to) and may or may not permit such a review. When you get an account on a site, you agree to their policies. Goodreads no longer allows these; Amazon never did and still doesn't (except quoted in editorial description)--presumably from some combination of against site TOS and policies because commercial use, gaming the system, violating laws subject to ...
Groups requiring ratings or requiring low ratings kept to private feedback -- a whole other can of worms in terms of generating consumer product opinions. I've always suspected that retaliatory ratings by fellow authors after some review program member low rated another had to also have been a major headache for goodreads and 100% gaming the system.
It's sad to me that there are so many more of these review-to-get-review groups than groups trying to get unincentivized reader reviews or wanting pre-publication feedback from fellow writes or readers (like a writer or critique panel). But that's also not a policy or legal issue. They just keep growing, almost seemingly even faster now that goodreads prohibits posting those reviews here. And some keep trying all kinds of wording to lure unknowing authors into thinking they are not doing anything illegal or against site policy -- on U.S. consumer reviews if you agree to review to get [whatever] you have to disclose [whatever] : even if you try to call it peer review, non-reciprocal, just don't put acknowledge you " got book free" or was "reviewing to get reviews as part of xyz group/program/site" in it and so long as not getting caught it's perfectly legal ... (I know, Emma only said group didn't do direct swaps but that list is of some common phrasings for these groups aiding and abetting consumer fraud and violating site policies and "no one gets caught" or " no complaints yet" is just not the same as "it's not wrong, illegal or against site policy.")
*That is, short version of consumer fraud laws that apply to any site with consumer reviews, including goodreads and Amazon, subject to U.S. law. Plus many will have additional review and commercial use policies for that site.
[Hi, Emma, -- wasn't stalking you. I'm in another round of a favorite group challenge so currently more active here than usual: goodreads still has the best bookclubs/groups of all my sites.]
ETA: rewrote a lot attempting clarity and giving up n shortening.
Emma wrote: "...This is one of the things I appreciate about goodreads, people that are passionate about books, even if they don't see eye to eye on a particular issue, getting together to debate ..."I don't consider this a debate.
Goodreads staff have repeatedly confirmed those commercial reviews aren't allowed here in consumer reviews. Even though the payment making it commercial is commercial interests just getting a review of their own commercial products.
Like on all sites subject to U.S. laws, all incentives behind reviews have to be disclosed in order to post in with unincentivized (or also disclosing incentives) consumer reviews.
Personally, I don't mind them so long as not fraudulently appearing to be unincentivized reviews -- that is, just say you are reviewing to get reviews on your own book, trading a review, or whatever. Not passionate either way until not disclosing -- that I'm passionately against not disclosing in terms of sites like goodreads who need reviews to be trusted as reader reviews and on behalf of the suckered in innocents who don't have the wherewithal to deal with it when one person's "no complaints yet" was site support's or FTC's "not done investigating to know if valid complaints yet or filed but not processed yet because not current priority". But, I've seen eniugh bad reader and blogger reactions to what they call the "circle jerk reviews" that I'm positive not every reader feels the same way.
Kelly wrote: "@_@"LOL. Sorry to rant on but these things just never seem to die. And I actually don't object to them when aboveboard and not illegal ( like when not disclosing incentives in the apparently consumer review).
I enjoy(ed) many of those reviews (okay, maybe not the ones that are so generic and bland you cannot even tell if they read any part of the book but those aren't unique to the author review incentive programs).
But the site policies and group rules cannot change federal regulations that all incentives have to be disclosed in purportedly consumer reviews -- even if from a "peer," not directly reciprocal, so long as no complaints or no one gets caught ...
Heck, you can get by with all kinds of things if you don't get caught. Including online things against that site's stated policies. And the groups ,Emma linked to is nothing compared to some worse ones scamming fellow authors and readers -- at least that one is just authors reviewing to get reviews without making it clear that none of those reviews can post here.
Non-reciprocal reviews/review pools does not get around the legal issues. It is still an exchange of services for reviews, which is against the rules. It doesn't matter whether I pay for your pizza and you pay for mine, we are still purchasing pizzas...
I get the intent for disclosure, which isn't much to ask, as to lend legitimacy to the review, and I would think for an author-to-author arrangement, one would confer with the other before thinking to post a review (or not). :) More of a beta-beta read just to get to know where the work stands.I can't say that I don't see anything wrong with the author-to-author review, because once that happens, the authors can't (or shouldn't) view themselves as consumers. Under such a condition they are professional peers, and if a work is so terrific that they are compelled to rave about it, then I would have to think that's what a blog is for, yeah?
Any way, I'm waiting until Wednesday to follow up on a R4R--my first--to which I have an understanding of where the review is to go and what i can do with it. It's a learning exercise still. As it'll be 7-10 days then, I'm hoping the process will work out (i.e. the reviewer will deliver A review). I made it pretty clear that I am open to constructive criticism, so regardless of his opinion, I just want an objective review for the money paid.
Kelly wrote: "would confer with the other before thinking to post a review (or not)."That whole "confer" thing is one of the reasons why I usually think that reviews by authors don't have any legitimacy at all. I read a lot of ARCs from traditionally published authors. Sometimes I check to see if there are any reviews before I request a book. When I see a few reviews, all five star, I know the reviewers are either related to the author, or they are fellow authors (which is easy to confirm on Goodreads). I have never seen the relationship disclosed even though it's obvious the reviewers got free pre-sale copies. You'd have to be a fool to believe these reviews. If I were a more compulsive person, all authors involved would go on my "don't ever read" list, but I don't waste my time that way. I just shake my head and try to figure out whether I really want to read that book.
Faith wrote: "Kelly wrote: "would confer with the other before thinking to post a review (or not)."That whole "confer" thing is one of the reasons why I usually think that reviews by authors don't have any leg..."
I see, Faith, and I love your "About me" and the broccoli analogy. ha ha.
Kelly wrote: "I get the intent for disclosure, which isn't much to ask, as to lend legitimacy to the review, and I would think for an author-to-author arrangement, one would confer with the other before thinking..."And despite so many of us directing authors to look for groups and places to get readers who will read-4-review -- those *sigh* will also have some bad apples and scammers just out for a free book. Or readers who at best take the book but don't follow through with promised review. Just like some giveaway entrants trying to get free books to re-sell...
Bad guys everywhere on this public internet; so nothing is scam-free or safe.
Doesn't hurt to check out some of the readers posting in those group/sites to see if posts were followed through on, if group actively kicks out scammers,, asks authors who posted looking for reader reviews what their experience was ...
And if you do get a review by giving away a free review copy -- it should disclose the book was free. That's not the death of every reader or goodreads member trusting that review; it's actually something very commonly seen in goodreads and other consumer reviews. Different readers will, of course, consider that differently. Many of us are just used to it.
Some other misinformation that seems to be spreading around goodreads is that Amazon only counts in average ratings (or even only allows) reviews of books purchased there. Or that reviews showing "Verified Purchaser" are weighted differently or always shows if book purchased on Amazon. All wrong (reviewer even decides if their reviews show "Verified..." or not). Your r4r reviewer can review on both sites if they wish. Neither goodreads nor Amazon require review be exclusive to their site.
D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "Kelly wrote: "I get the intent for disclosure, which isn't much to ask, as to lend legitimacy to the review, and I would think for an author-to-author arrangement, one would confer with the other b..."Right. That's the deal. The reviewer is to post to his site, but then I get it to place as an editorial review on Amazon or the like.
Kelly, didn't you say in message 15 that your reviewer is being paid? If that is the case, review cant be posted on Goodreads. There are so many readers on Goodreads willing to review, and even critique, for free it doesn't seem necessary to pay for a review.
Kelly wrote: "I just want an objective review for the money paid."Are you aware that paying for reviews is against both Amazon & Goodreads TOS and can't be posted on either site?
Crap, I didn't pay attention to that last "for the money paid" line. If money is paid, how is that r4r or even author-to-author instead of just being a commercial review?My previous post was in response to where Kelly said it was her first r4r. (Doesn't that usually mean "read for review")?
She didn't say was posting on goodreads but that she was quoting in editiorial section of Amazon "and the like." Which is fine in sites with editorial sections or without consumer reviews.. The "my first r4r " comment really made me think it was r4r.
If it had been an r4r review and the reviewer said author had to quote in editorial on Amazon: HUGE RED FLAG. Red flag meaning either (1) reviewer is getting paid by whatever program author went through (whether or not she directly paid the reviewer) or (2) author paid more than review copy for the review directly via money, agreeing to write a review for another author or by other means.
Extremely unlikely a "r4r" review only allowed on Amazon in editorial would be allowed to post on goodreads.
If an unincentivized reviewer wants their review on Amazon, they'll usually post it there. If an unincentivized reviewer just doesn't wants their review on Amazon, they're not likely going to want it in editiorial description either.
ETA: typos, clarity and difficulties posting (threw me out several,times to home page).
In the review group, authors are directed to have no more contact with their reviewers other than to say 'thank you'. Reviews are not validated by the reviewed author before posting and authors can be, and are very harsh reviewers, because they can see where other people went wrong. We definitely have our fair share of one and two star reviews. Which is another reason not to have reciprocal reviews. There is no 'back-scratching' or' if I give you five will you give me five?'
In my experience, goodreads does care about members soliciting for paid reviews. Those individuals are banned as soon as they are reported, I know because I have reported more than a few. People contact me, because of my involvement with the group and I report, every single time.
Over the last 3 years the review group has generated coming up to 5,000 genuine reviews on goodreads and amazon for indie authors. We have over 2,000 members none of whom has ever reported having a problem with reviews (via the review group) being removed.
@ D.A.: "She" is a male. :) @ Faith, A.W. and D.A.: I may have gotten my terms mixed up. (Wouldn't be the first time.)
It was my understanding and expectation that the work would appear on a "third party" site, reviewed, and along with an author interview (which doesn't sound quite right now that I think about it). Then if I wanted to, which it was my intent, take that review and post to the editorial section on Amazon. Of course, I should say I was also looking at this as a very inexpensive alternative to Kirkus.
Now, this may be a case of all rectangles being squares, but not all squares are rectangles, as far as how I've used the term "R4R". I understood the editorial section to be for commercial reviews, but seemingly applied "R4R" in a synonymous way. Then again, I may have it all wrong. Either way, I stand corrected, as it is apparent my understanding of reading for review is off.
That said, I haven't done anything yet. As it happened, I approached two review sites and inquired about using the reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, letting it be known that I knew paid reviews weren't allowed at least on Goodreads; but then also letting it be known that I knew of the relationship between Amazon and GR. One went radio silent on me and hadn't heard from them since; and the other acknowledged and confirmed my understanding and said: "The review will be posted on our website, however it can also be published on Amazon under the "Editorial Review" section. As per Amazon TOS it cannot be posted as a regular user review, but as an Editorial Review there are no issues, almost all authors add a part of it under that section giving it much more exposure.".
But seemingly I should retract my intent to use any such review on Amazon and just let the review stand on the "third party" site. And so long as that happens, which is I am giving it until Wednesday, then I'm good.
Emma wrote: "In the review group, authors are directed to have no more contact with their reviewers other than to say 'thank you'. Reviews are not validated by the reviewed author before posting and authors c..."
I didn't even think about the "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". As one who spent 20+ years in professional services (serving AT&T), I come from an ethical business culture, where if you mess up, you fess up; and you just call it as it is; and information is vital.
You're something fierce, it seems Emma, but thanks for answering one question I had.
Faith wrote: "Kelly, didn't you say in message 15 that your reviewer is being paid? If that is the case, review cant be posted on Goodreads. There are so many readers on Goodreads willing to review, and even cri..."I'm on a learning curve, Faith. :)
Kelly wrote: "... I should retract my intent to use any such review on Amazon ..."It's 100% okay to quote paid reviews in Amazon's editorial section. That's how the Kirkus and other paid reviews are handled -- nothing wrong there at all. So long as not posting on goodreads. That's the exact intent of that section. It's in the consumer review sections we had issues.
Sorry about pronoun mixup.
I may or may not be using "r4r" correctly -- I assumed it was one of the handful of abbreviations used for "reader + author provided free book = review" that could post on goodreads. Never heard it used to describe a commercial review.
You confused me because this started as a thread about a "new" suggestion that authors should review among themselves and post those reviews here. Which is no longer allowed here on goodreads (past issues like refusing to disclose payment via review of own book), never was on Amazon, and if incentives/payment undisclosed is outright illegal on all consumer review sites subject to U.S. law.
Putting a paid review in editorial section of Amazon is a whole other topic than this thread. I didn't think r4r meant paid review (again, I might not be using r4r correctly either).
Faith wrote: "There are lots of places on Goodreads to look for reviews, but be aware that reviews received in review exchanges cannot be posted on either Goodreads or Amazon."Hi Faith, Thank you for providing me with this information. I didn't know that. I just thought it might be a good idea to form a group like this; however, if it violates Goodreads policy, of course, other options should be explored. Thanks again.
D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "And if posted in with consumer reviews on any U.S. sites that do allow such reviews, federal law requires all payments and conditions — including payment by free review copy and payment by service ..."Hi Debbie,
Thank you for the suggestions.
A.W. wrote: "Lorna wrote: "Wouldn't it be nice if all of the aspiring authors in this group developed a unique review group where we share our books among one-another for free, in exchange for reviews?."No. B..."
A.W. wrote: "Lorna wrote: "Wouldn't it be nice if all of the aspiring authors in this group developed a unique review group where we share our books among one-another for free, in exchange for reviews?."
No. B..."
A.W. wrote: "Lorna wrote: "Wouldn't it be nice if all of the aspiring authors in this group developed a unique review group where we share our books among one-another for free, in exchange for reviews?."
No. B..."
D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "Kelly wrote: "... I should retract my intent to use any such review on Amazon ..."
It's 100% okay to quote paid reviews in Amazon's editorial section. That's how the Kirkus and other paid reviews ..."
Hi Kelly,
I didn't realize there was so many rules with attaining reviews. After reading all of the replies here, I'm very glad I asked the question. I think I have better understanding now. Thank you so much.
"Lorna wrote:" Hi A.W.,
Thank you so much for this information. Please note, I am a new author so I don't know all of the rules/laws on this, but I'm glad I asked the question because I definitely need to understand them. Do you have a link to the federal laws on this?
Goodreads guidelines on reviews.https://www.goodreads.com/review/guid...The only part that mention commercial reviews is placed far down the list of do's and don'ts:
Commercial reviews are not allowed and will be deleted. If you received a free copy of the book, you are required to disclose that in your review in compliance with federal law.
Goodreads does not elaborate on what it considers commercial reviews, although I assume they mean money has changed hands between reviewer and reviewee for a favourable opinion.
As I have never known goodreads to remove a single peer review from such a group I will continue to assume that author peer review groups on goodreads are allowed. Surely if they were not, then they would have contacted the mods of such prolific groups during the many years they have been thriving on the forum.
Emma wrote: "Goodreads guidelines on reviews.https://www.goodreads.com/review/guid...The only part that mention commercial reviews is placed far down the list of do's and don'ts:
Commercial reviews are no..."
Please see message 5 of the following thread re review swaps.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
That was posted by Debbie, and unfortunately she isn't the organisation 'goodreads', she's just another member, just like you and me.I posted goodread's ACTUAL published review guidelines. There is NO MENTION of review exchanges between authors, reciprocal or otherwise. Which is probably why review groups thrive on goodreads.
Emma wrote: "That was posted by Debbie, and unfortunately she isn't the organisation 'goodreads', she's just another member, just like you and me.I posted goodread's ACTUAL published review guidelines. There..."
Message 5 posted by Jaclyn, a moderator of this group reads:
"Costa, Iola is quite right - review swaps are also against Goodreads' reviewing guidelines. "
There is a clear gap in clarity between Amazon's statement about not allowing paid reviews:"We do not permit reviews or votes on the helpfulness of reviews that are posted in exchange for compensation of any kind, including payment (whether in the form of money or gift certificates), bonus content, entry to a contest or sweepstakes, discounts on future purchases, extra product, or other gifts.
The sole exception to this rule is when a free or discounted copy of a physical product is provided to a customer up front."
And what Goodreads says:
"Commercial reviews are not allowed and will be deleted. If you received a free copy of the book, you are required to disclose that in your review in compliance with federal law."
Amazon makes it clear that they are talking about any compensation for reviews (compensation is a legal term that does not equate to 'money' and does include services like swapping reviews.)
Goodreads' use of the phrase 'Commercial reviews' is far more ambiguous, and nowhere in their policies do I see a definition as to what qualifies as a Commercial review. There is not a generally accepted legal definition. When I think of Commercial reviews, I think of Kirkus and big firms that are in the business of providing reviews; but the Merriam Webster definition of 'commercial' is 'related to or used in the buying and selling of goods and services'. Which sounds suspiciously like the Amazon definition - any compensation for a review.
Golly gee whiz, I guess if guidelines and laws were to say that it was "illegal to [do whatever] " but failed to specifically say that it was "illegal for Tom Bupkus and Tom Bupkus's Coalition of Indie Businesses doing [Whatever] in a different way to [do whatever]" that Tom and his TBCoIB are exempt from the rules ... Or that if no one complains when TBCoIB does [Whatever] that means not illegal ... seriously? Yes, like Emma I am a member of goodreads.
Staff posts on these threads are identified as such. See the example at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... where staff member Jaclyn flat out says "...review swaps are also against Goodreads' reviewing guidelines. " to see how staff are differentiated from members.
No, I actually didn't exactly quote from or refer to the Review Guidelines. Since you bring it up, I will later in this post.
Yes, the goodreads terms of service and review guidelines both prohibit commercial reviews. In fact, see spoiler if you care to see the exact wording in the Review Guidelines to judge for yourself. (view spoiler).
Emma presumably interprets the review guideline wording as goodreads allows undisclosed commercial (aka paid or otherwise incentivized) reviews because that group's not-directly-reciprocal process is not specifically itemized in the prohibitions (by "process" I mean the way the linked to group of commercial interests making commercial use of goodreads does their incentives for their commercial reviews ). I interpret that like the TOS as merely reinforcing that goodreads is not for commercial use and that no commercial reviews are allowed (exception of free review copy).
Yes, the goodreads terms of service makes it clear site and site members are governed by U.S. and California laws.
Yes, U.S. consumer laws prohibit posting reviews in with consumer reviews or what appear to be consumer reviews without disclosing some things -- which include but are not limited to disclosing any payments or incentives behind the review. (With the general guideline that anything about a review not readily apparent to general public needs disclosing.)
U.S. laws are also very specific that by payments/incentives they do not mean just monetary fees; that services -- like getting reviews of your own commercial product, buying someone else's product or services, advertising considerations -- are definitely considered a payment that needs disclosing. So are free products.
Yes, goodreads at one time tried to allow authors reviewing to get reviews. Yes, they no longer allow. (No, goodreads staff did not specify details of policy change but experience says the author review-to-get-reviews in the consumer product opinion sections on goodrwads and elsewhere just flat out were not disclosing even that they got a review copy free much less that they were reviewing to get reviews).
Yes, staff have repeatedly confirmed no commercial reviews. Yes, staff have repeatedly confirmed that includes author reviews that were paid/incentivized with reviews of that commercial interest's own commercial product.
Yes, goodreads has made an exception -- for reviews paid only with a free product (book, review copy, arc, ...). Yes, they also clarified that exception in the review guidelines. Yes, that exception was made only with the provision that such reviews complied with federal law (meaning discloses got free book, any applicable payments, conditions, connections ...).
ETA: added links, hopefully clarity and to add --
*headdesk* just what sites are people using that have policies along the lines of -- while our TOS, guidelines and staff answers clarifying on help desk queries are clear that "we prohibit all cartoons" when a commercial interest member says "those guidelines never specified no orange cartoons so my orange cartoons get to be here" then staff has to admit the commercial interest is correct and has cleverly found a valid loophole so now they have to change the site policies to allow orange cartoons ... reality check *sheesh*
Lorna wrote: " am a new author so I don't know all of the rules/laws on this, but I'm glad I asked the question because I definitely need to understand them. Do you have a link to the federal laws on this? "I would recommend you read this thread on the k-boards. It breaks down Amazon's TOS, talks about ethics, FTC requirements and goes through numerous scenarios and explains what is and isn't allowed. It's well worth making a coffee and reading :)
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topi...
Gee, anyone care to point me to a few examples of author review-to-get-reviews (however exchanged, assigned or gotten) reviews that do disclose they were written to get reviews (however phrased) as required by federal law? Keep in mind, my objection is to the lack of disclosure = fraud; I don't mind author reviews or author review-to-get-reviews if disclosed. However, I'm not goodreads; goodreads does prohibit commercial (aka paid/incentivized) reviews on their site with exception of payment via disclosed free book.
Point me to examples on sites subject to U.S. law that is, like goodreads and Amazon. To best of my knowledge, Poland and Italy's EU Consumer Directives don't have same disclosure requirements (yet) so sites like Booklikes and Anobii don't count.
Emma wrote: "...Which is probably why review groups thrive on goodreads..."
Probably there are a lot of authors wanting reviews.
Probably those thrive like other groups because have largish membership actively participating.
Maybe goodreads hasn't gotten complaints that would justify removing the entire group.
Maybe some started back when goodreads did allow such reviews provided stayed in compliance with federal laws.
Maybe the presence of some encouraged the creation of more.
Maybe all members aren't from U.S. (I think Emma is a U.K. author) and some groups have become more careful to avoid mentinning posting such reviews undisclosed on U.S. sites. (Slim maybe because I get the impression most do predominantly seem to want Amazon and goodreads reviews even when careful of public wording ...)
Maybe some are careful enough in their wording that thye even seem like despite being a group on goodreads they don't post goodreads reviews.
Maybe any removed to even possibly be effective at book sales, discoverability, or promotions method authors can use -- particularly if free like creating a group on goodreads -- can appeal to the multitude of authors. Frustrated authors willing to give it a try. Authors who will also spread it to go viral around the blogosphere, accurate or inaccurate, legal or illegal, no longer permitted or still within site policies ... with many authors preferring to accept at face value or on the basis "but these groups are thriving so everyone else is doing it so why not me and if I don't ..l and they're must not be a lot of complaints." rather than actually investigating the facts goodreads staff already put in TOS, guidelines, help desk threads ...
Might even be that goodreads basically leaves groups to be autonomous. That even if a specific comment got flagged in most cases would still leave group moderators to deal with it (or else would judge it so bad that goodreads might outright delete commenter's account rather than just the comment). Particulalry groups with many members who are enjoying or finding useful (more to most of these groups than just skirting over that it's consumer fraud if the author-review-to-get-reviews don't disclose when in consumer reviews). Particularly if have useful discussions and answers ... I really don't see goodreads dealing with or commenting in groups much other than these officially moderated help desk ones.
ETA: Spam groups can be flagged for removal. Meaning the bots that create group after group with no goodreads members joining to do things like push a new diet supplement, get people to help that poor Nigerian Prince, buy discount ... Groups that really have members and member participation they generally do leave alone.
@Lorna A.W. gave you a very good link If you still want to wade through federal and state government sites -- in addition to the relevant CFRs, faq's and "guides to" over on FTC.gov, the FTC has also done several podcasts and Q&A sessions, some specifically for book bloggers and reviewers that might be more understandable.
It's applicable to U.S. consumer review sites -- not everywhere.
Shortest way I know to put it is just that if there is [anything] behind or received or setting conditions on a review, [anything] has to be disclosed.
When in doubt, I'd advise to disclose -- if sure doing nothing wrong, why not? Even if not allowed and gets removed or you have to edit -- at least it wasn't fraud or deceptive. Can be seen by readers as "more honest" than ones not disclosing.
I have no doubt U.K. and other country's laws are different. But, anyone getting an account on goodreads does agree to comply with U.S. ones for their goodreads activity. Ditto for Amazon. And no doubt they are way, way, way less at risk for legal actionunder those laws over cnsumer fraud and deceptive trade activities than U.S. citizens ( well, I certainly wouldn't want to think my government's priorities let them even bothering considering trying to go after a foreign national over a piddly review of an indie book on goodreads that staff probably already removed anyway ... ).
No complaints, hmphf. That's *snark* what defines policy and law. And most review sites always act quickly on complaints and post them out for public view and the FTC *snark* never takes longer with lower priority complaints than goodreads has been in business ...
I have to leave this "debate" of what a U.K. author is sure goodreads policies and FTC rules are, trouble reading this site's new visual design too long. Abandoning thread but I really hope no newbies get sucked into anything just because internet strangers said it was okay -- find out. Read links here, read the staff threads, email support explaining the review issue in question, take my advice and when in doubt disclose, ask legal advice from actual lawyers, ask anyone more official than just believing the ones doing or considering doing something claiming not doing anything wrong because whatever ... I'm just the consumer.
A.W. wrote: "Lorna wrote: " am a new author so I don't know all of the rules/laws on this, but I'm glad I asked the question because I definitely need to understand them. Do you have a link to the federal laws ..."
D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "@Lorna A.W. gave you a very good link If you still want to wade through federal and state government sites -- in addition to the relevant CFRs, faq's and "guides to" over on FTC.gov, the FTC has ..."
Thank you Debbie and A.W. I sincerely appreciate your advice and I plan to check out the sites recommended to gain a clearer understanding of policy and law related to acceptable reviews. Thanks again.
Faith wrote: "There are lots of places on Goodreads to look for reviews, but be aware that reviews received in review exchanges cannot be posted on either Goodreads or Amazon."@Faith: Lorna wrote: "Thank you Faith."
A.W. wrote: "Lorna wrote: " am a new author so I don't know all of the rules/laws on this, but I'm glad I asked the question because I definitely need to understand them. Do you have a link to the federal laws ..."
@Lorna, none of this discussion or any of the laws are about reviews from readers/consumers that got the book like any member of general public -- with no connection to author/book/publisher, no agreement to review/rate, no incentives/payment to review.Reader reviews -- simple, exactly what general public expects to see on consumer review sites like goodreads.
It's when commercial interests (like authors) are somehow behind what posts in with the consumer reviews that there are issues. Legal issues that mostly get resolved just by disclosing everything behind (reviewers posting in with consumer reviews also cannot be asked to only use certain star ratings).
Once disclosed, goodreads is pretty much okay with everything unless the commercial review was paid/incentivized by more than just a free book (if review not okay, they'll tell reviewer and delete it). A commercial interest (author) reviewing for payment of return reviews (however assigned, exchanged or handled) isn't allowed here and is illegal in with consumer reviews on other sites unless disclosing (and other sites may or may not permit them even with the disclosure -- Amazon.com restricts them to the editorial descriptions)
@ Debbie,So, basically, you are saying, 1) when a consumer purchases your book in the traditional way, whether it be online or at a physical store, they can write a review. This is allowed. 2) Goodreads giveaways allow authors to give away books in a contest that Goodreads approve. If consumers of Goodreads giveaways write author reviews, these reviews must be disclosed. 3) When a commercial vendor writes a review for hire, this is illegal and 4) Swapping books for review is also illegal. With that being said, numbers 1 and 2 are acceptable and 3 and 4 are not, correct?
Lorna, I think you are making this too hard. There is no such thing as an illegal review. Some reviews require certain disclosure and/or are restricted to certain placement due to FTC rules and/ or the terms of service of the site. With respect to your numbered points: 1) correct, 2) correct, 3) simple answer is that if you pay for a review that fact needs to be disclosed in the review and depending on the tos that review may not be permitted on a site or its placement may be restricted, 4) swapping reviews is not illegal (personally I think its unethical, but that's for another discussion); the tos of some sites prohibit posting these reviews, FTC disclosure is required because free book given for review. The law, tos and ethics are often ignored.
Faith wrote: "Lorna, I think you are making this too hard. There is no such thing as an illegal review. Some reviews require certain disclosure and/or are restricted to certain placement due to FTC rules and/ or..."@ Faith. Please accept my apology. I think with the reading of so many views on this topic, I may have become confused. I think one of the discussion threads on this topic spoke to certain types of review as being illegal. This is why I definitely plan to read the policies or laws on this as I want to gain a clearer understanding. Yet, I sincerely appreciate your feedback as I do want to gain reviews that are ethical and acceptable. Thanks again, Faith. With sincere appreciation.
Faith wrote: "...swapping reviews is not illegal ... FTC disclosure is required because free book given for review..."Actually, the disclosure is required because author is reviewing to receive the payment of a review on their own product/book -- which makes it a commercial review instead of a consumer review. Even if the return reviews were not directly swapped/reciprocal; even if particpants purchased the books instead of getting free (free is just more common).
Lorna wrote: "@ Debbie, ...3) When a commercial vendor writes a review for hire, this is illegal and 4) Swapping books for review is also illegal...."
@Lorna, Even paid reviews are not illegal or even unethical (unless. not disclosing when in with reader reviews). Reader/consumer, noncommercial reviews on goodreads don't have to worry about anything discussed on this thread.
Don't worry if readers are just buying/getting your book and voluntarily reviewing it here and other sites. If reviewing because you offered them a free book or free review copy -- that's fine (but they do need to say they got the book free for review). Both goodreads and Amazon allow those free-book-for-review ones.
The issues come up only when the paid/incentivized reviews post undisclosed in with the reader (consumer) reviews. Illegal on all U.S. sites if those post in with consumer reviews without disclosing that -- but perfectly legal if disclosed..
Some consumer review site policies allow the paid (commercial, incentivized) reviews provided they disclose they are. Goodreads and Amazon do not allow paid reviews (with the exception of payment via a disclosed free book). Amazon allows paid reviews to be quoted in editorial description (not in with customer reviews). Other sites will vary but should state in their terms of service and review guidelines/policies.
Readers do not have to purchase the book retail (used, was free to every customer on retail site, library borrow, got from friend, borrowed from program like kindle unlimited or scib'd, read in waiting room, ... are okay).
Sorry to cause any confusion. This thread really has nothing to do with reader (consumer) reviews. It started because a commercial interest (author) wanted to offer payment of reviews to other commercial interests in order to get commercial reviews of own commercial product (book) -- was told that those reviews could not be posted on goodreads then ...
@ (Debbie) Actually, I started this discussion thread because I thought it would be nice if the authors within this group could share their books for free in exchange for reviews. The responses from my initial thread were more than I expected. Thank you everyone. However, after reviewing the collective responses, I found that some threads contradicted other threads. This is where I became confused. Since I do not know the rules, and I am a new author, I wouldn't know which person in this discussion was right and which one was wrong. It appears that the discussion literally became a debate. This was the reason that I requested valid links on the subject so that I may read the official information on reviews. At the end of the day, if nothing else was achieved from this, the discussion served to provide valuable resources for review and consideration. Hopefully, those that may have similar questions or concerns may benefit from this thread as well or at the very least double check their own responses to make sure they are sharing accurate information. Again, I sincerely appreciate every response and thank all for your input, links, and feedback.
I misunderstood. Your initial post sounded like directed to authors, that you were asking for aspiring authors to exchange reviews among themselves (and provide free review copies). I suspect Emma thought so, too, because is a U.K. author who linked you to an author review-to-get-reviews group.
I actually misread the original post as asking for commercial interests (authors) writing commercial (paid by review of own product and by free product) reviews to be posted in with consumer (reader) reviews on goodreads.
(The free review copies weren't the issue for anyone, except that in consumer reviews they are also considered a payment or incentive to disclose -- goodreads allows that. Authors reviewing to get reviews are not allowed -- and on sites that do allow them that's still an incentive/payment that legally has to be disclosed if posting in with reader reviews.)
Outside of goodreads, consumer review sites will have different policies if you ever do want to do author review exchanges or review-to-get-review (but the disclosures are still legally required if subject to U.S. law). Sorry I misunderstood and thiught you were asking for aspiring authors to get together to exchange reviews.
U.K.'s EU Consumer Directives aren't yet that specific, so some U.K. consumer review sites may allow (Amazon.co.uk does not except in editorial descriptions).
D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "I misunderstood. Your initial post sounded like directed to authors, that you were asking for aspiring authors to exchange reviews among themselves (and provide free review copies). I suspect Emm..."
@ (Debbie) Your willingness and patience with clarification on acceptable and non-acceptable "review" usage is sincerely appreciated. I definitely have a better understanding of disclosure as it relates to receiving reviews. The "Goodreads Review Guide," provided by Emma was also very useful as it pertains to how reviews are ranked. Additionally, the link provided by A.W. spelled out acceptable usage 'best' as it pertains to customer, consumer, editorial, and paid reviews. Please note, with the threads here, credible links definitely served to help me better understand usage as opposed to personal opinion.
Quote: "To help illustrate, here are a few examples of reviews that we don't allow:" (Source: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topi...)
. A product manufacturer posts a review of their own product, posing as an unbiased shopper
. A shopper, unhappy with her purchase, posts multiple negative reviews for the same product
. A customer posts a review in exchange for $5
. A customer posts a review of a game, in exchange for bonus in-game credits
. A family member of the product creator posts a five-star customer review to help boost sales
. A shopper posts a review of the product, after being promised a refund in exchange
. A seller posts negative reviews on his competitor's product
. An artist posts a positive review on a peer's album in exchange for receiving a positive review from them "
The last bullet touches on my initial thread best. Therefore, I do NOT plan to do this. Again, thanks to everyone that contributed to this thread.
