THE Group for Authors! discussion

I find that suspicious, almost like the member is angry about something but not saying why. I received one of those one-star ratings and wish Goodreads would require a brief review in such a case so that the author can learn what is so unlikeable/offensive about the book. The member in question rated dozens of books as one-star on the same day, after being a member only a week. If you'd like the link to the member's page, please let me know. Thanks.

Goodreads won't do a thing, it is designed with the reader in mind, not the author.
Not everyone uses the rating system as goodreads intended, They could be marking books for future avoidance, one that are blue, have a font they don't like....any number of odd reasons.
I'm afraid it's a case of grin and bear it. DON'T contact them.

Members may use the star ratings in any way they choose. They do not have to follow the meanings suggested by GR. You would't be complaining if they gave every book 5 stars, but that would be every bit as "suspicious".

Emma wrote: "Goodreads won't do a thing, it is designed with the reader in mind, not the author.
Not everyone uses the rating system as goodreads intended, They could be marking books for future avoidance, one..."

Thanks. No, I would never contact the person.

Faith wrote: "Members may use the star ratings in any way they choose. They do not have to follow the meanings suggested by GR. You would't be complaining if they gave every book 5 stars, but that would be every..."

Thanks. Actually, I would be suspicious if a book received only 5 stars from every reviewer or if a member gave dozens of 5 stars on her first day on Goodreads. But usually the 5 star ratings I see are accompanied by a review explaining why the reader liked the book. I wish more 1-star raters would do the same. I do read low and high reviews when I'm looking for a new book.

I find it troubling that a reader would join 6 days ago and blanket GR authors with one star reviews. I agree, in any case, there should be an explanation in the review of what they didn't like. I also don't find it necessary to give a book a one-star review, I personally would opt to not review it. As an author, writing is time consuming and we reach into our souls to put our words and feelings down. I always elect to list the positive attributes and if I were critical it would be phrased politely and not bash the author. When I joined GR I spent time reviewing many books that I adored and had read over the years giving those all 5-star reviews. That gave me a presence on GR and depicted the books I favored.

But Luna, you are an author, you have a different perspective to a non-author consumer.
You understand other authors are real people, with real lives who might be offended, just as you would be, just as I would be. I doubt very much that this person has actually read all these books.

To many readers, books are merely products. It'd be the same as marking products in a supermarket as possible future buys or 'I wouldn't touch that in a million years'. No thought goes into the fact that the person who invented the recipe is going to be offended.

Always remember that reviews are not for authors, they are for the reviewer and fellow readers, however they want to use them.

And yep, it sucks getting a 'no reason' one star, but its better than a rant...

I do agree with Luna in that if I thought a book was only worth a single star, I wouldn't review it (unless there were some specific reason for doing so).

Luna wrote: "I find it troubling that a reader would join 6 days ago and blanket GR authors with one star reviews. I agree, in any case, there should be an explanation in the review of what they didn't like. I ..."
Thanks for joining the discussion, Luna. Usually, if I dislike or am greatly disappointed in a book, I don't finish it and therefore don't rate it. I wonder if this new member read only the description or an excerpt of these books, made a quick judgement (or judgment, if you prefer), and gave one star. That seems a disservice to other readers.

Emma wrote: "But Luna, you are an author, you have a different perspective to a non-author consumer.
You understand other authors are real people, with real lives who might be offended, just as you would be, ju..."

Yes, it's better than a rant, LOL.

Hmm, I remember a thread on here about a gr member appearing one day and one-starring books, then messaging the authors that they should pay 15 bucks to this person to remove the one-star. Silly stuff.

Mike wrote: "I do agree with Luna in that if I thought a book was only worth a single star, I wouldn't review it (unless there were some specific reason for doing so)."

I don't give one star ratings either, Mike. If a book isn't right for me, that doesn't mean it's not right for someone else who would like it enough to finish it. Now if it's simply poorly written regarding craft, that's another story. No pun intended.

That would be far easier to sort out, because Goodreads would deal with that quickly once they were made aware. It's useful to know these things go on though.

I actually find DNF reviews, if they give a reason, quite valuable when making reading choices.

Maybe they haven't been on goodreads long enough to judge what they are doing with their one star ratings.

I actually find it very usual for new members to go through and start marking the books read or remembered for whatever reason right off the bat.

Maybe they are working through their past ratings so book comparisons can help them find friends here or because recommendations said to. Maybe they are not on long enough or haven't been active enough to have added all their ratings or begin adding their reviews but started by star rating.

Maybe it is suspicious. Suspicious where there's some issue you need to flag or report to goodreads staff attention (like suspected sockpuppet/duplicate account of someone deliberately gaming the ratings, a commercial/paid reviewer ad where someone was buying one or five star ratings, someone who has previously made personal attacks/threats on the one-starred authors, who is an author or connected to author trying to game the ratings to tank the books right above a book in Amazon or other rankings, some public post in the blogosphere campaigning for hordes of folk to come here and retaliate over something ...).

Actually, saying that starring/shelving their books when new is "very usual" is an understatement -- I know very few readers who didn't start adding their books as soon as they joined goodreads. As they have time, they may or may not go back and review but to click a star is a one-step-quick way to do that. They also tend to explore stuff on home page like recommendations, add currently reading and notice reviews where they might follow reviewes, locate their friends, etc.

How are they using star ratings? Maybe to rate books. Maybe a quick way to click a star to shelve a book. Maybe a quick way to create a shopping list from cell phone app. Maybe they are transferring ratings from another site or app and just started with the 1 stars to make sure they avoid those books/authors here. Maybe they aren't rating the books but using the stars to mark as whatever.

Maybe they are used to a rating scale of 1=A1, prime, top, first place, best and 5= worst (if they later review or comment positively where that seems to be happening, I wouldn't engage to tell them that goodreads' scale runs differently but I would flag that to staff in case staff might ask them).

Sometimes star rate because recommendations were annoyingly off. Because recommendations here say they need improving by starring more books--and new member is starting with the more memorable reads that were 1 and then 5 star or 5 star then 1 star reads either as remembered (1 and 5 star extremes tend to be memorable) -- likely from a spreadsheet, app or manual printout/list sorted by star ratings or from importing book data from another site (for example, Shelfari is closing and lots of new members are transferring data here).

Maybe adding star ratings means something totally different to them.

Maybe some of us readers on goodreads think it's their book catalog and it's no one else's business what they are doing with it if it's working for them (unless they ask us questions or there is some TOS violation reason to flag).

ETA: typos. And this does seem to keep coming up no matter how often staff reconfirm that members can use the stars however they want to. yes, while allowed, it's often suspicious seeming when a little known book is flooded with a bunch of ratings of any sort but even more so when a bunch of one star or a bunch of five star ratings -- these threads seem all to start over the one star ratings though. Yes, when I joined i imported a few thousand ratings and because file was too large to load quick I sorted from rated to unrated and broke it into pieces to import where it looked like I starred and reviewed thousands of books in one day.

D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "Maybe they haven't been in goodreads long enough to judge what they are doing with their one star ratings.

I actually find it very usual for new members to go through and start marking the books r..."

You've given this a lot of thought, Debbie. Thanks! :-D

The one-star scar to many of us writers is palpable. I'm still reeling from mine. I was a virgin to it so I wasn't ready for the forcible entry that pierced through my ironclad illusion. In fact, I'm just getting the mental stitches out today. Finally. I have to say that the whole rating system (or politics of it) is pretty unique here. I've seen several reviews for various novels that award an average three stars...yet state they disliked it and it just wasn't for them. Well, if you are giving a middle-of-the-road three to the book, then that signifies a "eh, it's good" score, does it not? I believe that sends mixed signals and/or shows a mild hesitance to step on any toes.

But you know, I actually would prefer the mystery of a low rating rather than the sting of an opinionated rant. Words are venom and I'm feeling woozy all of a sudden.

Noah wrote: "The one-star scar to many of us writers is palpable. I'm still reeling from mine. I was a virgin to it so I wasn't ready for the forcible entry that pierced through my ironclad illusion. In fact, I..."

A well-executed, writerly comment, Noah! Best wishes for recovery.

Marie wrote: "Hmm, I remember a thread on here about a gr member appearing one day and one-starring books, then messaging the authors that they should pay 15 bucks to this person to remove the one-star. Silly st..."

Seriously?! LOL

Noah wrote: "The one-star scar to many of us writers is palpable. I'm still reeling from mine. I was a virgin to it so I wasn't ready for the forcible entry that pierced through my ironclad illusion. In fact, I..."

LOL, Noah, well written!

Cynthia wrote: "Marie wrote: "Hmm, I remember a thread on here about a gr member appearing one day and one-starring books, then messaging the authors that they should pay 15 bucks to this person to remove the one-..."

And hopefully every one of those messages got flagged for violating TOS (no commercial use, gaming the system, illegal extortion, etc.).

Well, as long as we're bandying 'suspicions' around, Cynthia, I see that out of the 33 text reviews on your first book, 17 are from other authors, all four and five stars. 14 of those authors you have given 4/5 star ratings of your own.
People see suspicious activities from many perspectives.

ETC: changed 13 to 14

Consumer reviews have been "gamed" by so many authors to the extent that many avid readers are now extremely skeptical of their honesty, accuracy or effectiveness.

Although a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation requires any consumer review obtained through some type of compensation such as a free book, money, gift card, swap, etc. include a disclaimer stating so, many are obviously unaware of it or just choose to ignore it.

Noah wrote: I've seen several reviews for various novels that award an average three stars...yet state they disliked it and it just wasn't for them. Well, if you are giving a middle-of-the-road three to the book, then that signifies a "eh, it's good" score, does it not?

Not necessarily. If the writing, concept, and execution is generally okay, and/or the character development is fine, but I didn't like it and it wasn't for me, I might give a book three stars with an explanation. Doesn't mean it wasn't done okay, just that it didn't click with me.

Miss M wrote: "Well, as long as we're bandying 'suspicions' around, Cynthia, I see that out of the 33 text reviews on your first book, 17 are from other authors, all four and five stars. 14 of those authors you h..."

As in any profession, authors do get to know one another, often after they've read another's book. Sometimes a book is read and reviewed and then the reviewer becomes a published author himself later. I research and only read books I think I will like, so it's not often I need to give lower than three stars. I can't speak for anyone else in that regard. In my experience, authors in general have been good about stating if they've received a book from another author or a publisher. If authors stop reviewing books by authors they are even remotely acquainted with, that will eliminate most authors from reviewing most of the books they read. But most authors whose reviews I've read often point out any issues they might have with a book as well as point out the things they like about it. I see balance more often that not. Perhaps some authors have many friends and family members who review for them. That's not something I worry about. I read the content of reviews to see what I might like about a book.

Miss M wrote: "Well, as long as we're bandying 'suspicions' around, Cynthia, I see that out of the 33 text reviews on your first book, 17 are from other authors, all four and five stars. 14 of those authors you have given 4/5 star ratings of your own.
People see suspicious activities from many perspectives."

This ^ It's all about perception. A reader could peruse the activity on your profile/books and draw the conclusion you are an author who engages in review swaps. That's why you should never jump to conclusions about people's activities. Some authors are quick to subscribe nefarious intentions to people who are new members or who have possibly bulk uploaded their books from another source. GR members use the rating system in many different ways, some assign a star to indicate the book's priority in their TBR pile.

I am always suspicious when authors are quick to start threads complaining about 1-star ratings/reviews but how often do you see an author complaining about a 5-star...?

Emma wrote: "But Luna, you are an author, you have a different perspective to a non-author consumer.
You understand other authors are real people, with real lives who might be offended, just as you would be, ju..."

I'm glad to see such active discussion. I am only going to put my comment here, but i am responding to all the comments. I don't think that person read anything! I think it someone callous, and with nothing better to do than bash. Maybe a frustrated wanna be author, maybe a child pulling a prank on their mom's Kindle! And that's why I think GR should investigate when there are 100 posts in one day that make no sense. Amazon is very, almost too strict, about reviews. I won't even get into that!

K.A. wrote: " Noah wrote: I've seen several reviews for various novels that award an average three stars...yet state they disliked it and it just wasn't for them. Well, if you are giving a middle-of-the-road th..."

Just a quick comment here... YES!! I have recently received a 3 star that praised the writing, and atmospheric descriptions on one side. But they were disturbed by a very dark character, possibly even triggered because there are abuse themes. They also said it was too long and they were not accustomed to a book of 400 pages in length. They said they appreciated the book, and its quality, but it wasn't for them. Therefore they gave it 3.5 stars. I am totally thrilled with that type of review. It has thought behind it!!

D.A. (Debbie) wrote: "Maybe they haven't been on goodreads long enough to judge what they are doing with their one star ratings.

I actually find it very usual for new members to go through and start marking the books r..."

Maybe they are a nine year old who got hold of Mom's iPad and is pulling a prank!

Luna wrote: "Emma wrote: "But Luna, you are an author, you have a different perspective to a non-author consumer.
You understand other authors are real people, with real lives who might be offended, just as you..."

People import (and export) their book collections to/from Goodreads all the time - most recently with Amazon shutting down Shelfari and 'merging' with Goodreads. If I imported my LibraryThing collection right now, I'd have 3000 more books on my GR shelves, all at once.
'That person' has over 500 ratings on their shelves of which 100+ (according to Cynthia) are one-stars.
You have absolutely no clue what that person's reading habits are.

A.W. wrote: "Miss M wrote: "Well, as long as we're bandying 'suspicions' around, Cynthia, I see that out of the 33 text reviews on your first book, 17 are from other authors, all four and five stars. 14 of thos..."

Absolutely! And it's always the same old, uninformed author complaints that don't take into account how GR reviews and ratings actually work.

Luna, if you read any of the previous posts you would see there are many, many completely innocent reasons why the one star ratings suddenly appeared. I am sure that the member didn't give the authors a second thought. As for your "jealousy" argument, since there are no longer any impediments to someone self publishing a book, how could anyone be jealouse of someone who merely publishes? They could be jealouse of someone's success, but not the act of publishing. GR has no reason to investigate.

Luna wrote: "I don't think that person read anything! I think it someone callous, and with nothing better to do than bash. ."

Does that mean you will report your 5-star ratings with no accompanying reviews to Goodreads staff? Because obviously those people never read your book since there's no review and those 5-stars should be removed.

Or just maybe authors should stop ascribing motives to readers who leave ratings/reviews they don't like? As I said, funny how many authors in this thread are complaining about 1-star reviews but they are keeping quiet about the suspicious 5-stars on their own books which artificially inflate the overall average....

This has been an eye-opening discussion. I appreciate learning more about the readers' perspectives as well as those of other authors. I didn't know a reading list could be imported, or maybe I saw that somewhere and ignored it because I didn't need the information. Thanks, and have a good evening.

I disagree that authors disclose their review circles and review to get review programs and agreements.

Goodreads is not Amazon despite ownership. Review guidelines and even the star rating scale are not the same n both sites. Goodreads has no editorial description section for commercial (aka pad or incentivized ) reviews and prohibits those here -- even if just paid by the service of reviews on your own book.

Outside of what Amazon deems too close of a connection or as from direct competitor -- I cannot imagine any book review that could only be on Amazon in the editorial descriptions being allowed in with goodreads reader reviews reviews. Not 100% the same policies on the two sites but both sites are 100% subject to same U.S. laws on deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, and consumer endorsements.

I know that's getting quite off topic from how suspicious it is a reviewer is one starring books but -- Cynthia wrote: "...Perhaps some authors have many friends and family members who review for them...."

Which goodreads actually (last I knew) allow unless illegal because not disclosing the connection and when applicable the payment via free book. Meaning even wife, mom, niece, or whoever from author's real life can review so long as they start wth some variation on "I'm related to ..." and any payments including free products received, such as "I got the book (or review copy, ARC, etc,) free."

Just meeting author on a writer's panel, when in line for a book signing or other casual things doesn't make a connection that has to be disclosed because the laws are concerned with things that would not be open to or readily apparent to the general public.

And authors can certainly participate just like any other reader here within site TOS and U.S. law, including reviewing. Goodreads took the precaution of marking reviews of own book by author as such so at least that material connection is disclosed for them (no idea if because authors were not disclosing).

I have no idea why many publisher accounts here illegally try to game the ratings by rating all the books they publish ★★★★★ without disclosing they are the publisher. That's not only illegal on all U.S. sites in what even appear to be consumer reviews if not disclosing material connection -- but it's silly. Because if a publishing company had, for example, six employees -- all six could write glowing reviews on goodreads so long as not paid by anything other than a free (unconditioned) disclosed review copy and made sure to disclose they worked for the publisher.

There are reviews on goodreads that say things along the lines of "I was given this book by my publisher to review ..." (almost never from non-mainstream published authors).

Most authors here do not seem to disclose stuff here more than a free review copy unless their publisher's legal department provides stock wording and insists -- even when illegal . I don't see how you can say they are good even about disclosing if they got the book free from another author or publisher -- thread post after thread post and messages and emails teach us that some even try to get reviewers and fellow authors to not say they got the book free (a payment that has to be disclosed). One clueless author was going around threatening to press charges against and sue top reviewers who were careful to disclose the free review copies ...

Goodreads even now prohibits authors writing reviews in order to get a review on their own book -- even if not directly swapped/exchanged/reciprocal. I cannot remember seeing even one author review-to-get-a-review of one book program/group/site that disclosed all the payments/incentives and conditions -- sure, a few did say got book free but following to those reviews I never saw even one disclosing the other payment -- the service of a review being written on their own book however assigned, exchanged or obtained.

I can't blame goodreads for niw prohibiting authors reviewing to get reviewed. Thise just flat out refused to disclose they were. Even sites and groups that voluntarily (or from Amazon lawsuits and threats of legal action) later added a disclaimer that said author review-to-get-review ones could only be quotes in amazon editorial descriptions (not in with customer reviews) keep trying to post those same reviews on goodreads.

Some days I'm sorry how many years an FTC complaint takes to get investigated. But most days I'm satisifed those reviews can be flagged/reported for staff to remove and am very glad a single book review on a consumer review site isn't exactly top priority for our legal system, Doesn't change what is or isn't illegal (nor does not getting caught or only getting an initial notice from FTC to comply with disclosure laws or remove that goes no further because you complied) or what sure policies are.

And most certainly doesn't mean authors in review circles or other programs reviewing books in order to get reviews are very good about saying so. Check any of those author agreements, sites or even groups on goodreads -- are any of their policies advising or Insisting that's done (other than the ones noting have to go in Amazon editorial section)? Can anyone link to a resulting goodreads review from one of those that discloses the review was incentivized by the service of reviews on own books?

I've not seen the review circle group participants disclosing the details in their reviews -- granted, of course, I haven't read all 50 million reviews here. I've seen quite a few author complaints (justifiable) that other authors in that group were making or changing ratings in retaliation ... prbably another factor in goodrwads prohibiting the things.

Cynthia wrote: "... I didn't know a reading list could be imported,..."

If anyone needs to do that, it's under "My Books" down lefthand see where it says import/export (direct link is https://www.goodreads.com/review/import ).

Csv files, spreadsheets and even URL links to books can be imported. Can also link to Amazon account to pull books (plus on Amazon.com under your account under orders can export all non-digital purchases to a file goodreads will import). The URL method works best if ISBN numbers are displayed in the page.

With Amazon closing Shelfari, I expect many might migrate to or at least try out goodreads. A shame if they got the same welcome I got when migrating to goodreads after Living Social closed Visual Bookshelf -- suspicions over their imported data. (Other friendlier members were quick to point out I could just delete comments on my reviews and how to block them and put books on consumer boycott shelves.)

ETA: other members helped counteract my "suspicion" intro to goodreads plus goodreads staff have always been very clear we could use the star ratings however we wished and used to be very quick to remove content in favor of the reviewer in any question of author vs. reviewer.

I experienced something similar. I had a three star review from someone who rated over 400 books within a day or two of joining, then nothing.

When I raised this in another forum, someone suggested that it might be in their interest to have lots of reviews on their profile as it could help them to be a top reviewer, which in turn could mean that companies would send them freebies. I don't know if that is the explanation, but it sounds plausible.

I'm not sure that there is much we can do about it.

I remember someone once saying that there was this person using one stars as a reminder to read those books! People do all sorts of strange things.

Another viewpoint is that it's not exactly necessary to fight for top reviewer status to get free books and review copies. In fact, many of the actual top consumer reviewers on blogs and sites where they can be contacted, unlike goodreads which considers such contact spam, (versus just having most reviews on certain dates) will frequently display or answer that they are not accepting more review copies at this time or will submission guidelines making it clear that due to high volume of requests that no review is promised.

Will wrote: "...which in turn could mean that companies would send them freebies. I don't know if that is the explanation, but it sounds plausible...."

Some patterns:

By "companies" that's generally big 5 publisher ARC (Advanced Reader Copies) direct or via services like NetGalley and Eidelweiss -- all of whom are mostly quite clear about the disclosures needed (publisher Crown gets iffy on some of their requirements for what are posting as if consumer reviews or on personal blogs but they also called those reviewers "evil book hoarders" so who knows what they are thinking). If a prolific arc reviewer, you'll see a lot of their reviews disclosing the free review copy, often shelved as "NetGalley" "arc whatever" type of shelves. Publishers seem to have a good handle on how goodreads "top reviewer x date" stuff works, reviewer arc performance (how long to and if review free book), compliance with disclosures required, number of followers/friends on goodreads and personal blogs ... not quite as simple as "top reviewer" gets more free books.

If doing that for free review copies from indie and self publishing authors -- again you might see a lot of reviews that disclose free review copy/book. Lots of posts in the group's here that connect authors to reviewers and about review offers and acceptances. Not that "hidden" or mysterious.

Amazon VINE program, while those reviewers might echo here, are very liked strictly basing the invites to that program by the Amazon reviews only -- Amazon identifies VINE reviews as such so avoids reviewer not disclosing.

Top reviewers are more visible targets for individuals wanting reviews, but, a lot of authors just need reviews and will provide review copies. (Again, should see the free copy disclosed in those) Beyond the potential discoverability of a review shared out to other readers, reviews or posts/activities with the book on goodreads and other social media feeds might be the only way an indie book is seen unless happen to browse the book page. Not like on a lot of brick and mortar bookstore shelves.

While hardly the reader's responsibility to the author that they get needed consumer site reviews and ratings (just rating the edition they read at the time and not supposed to be adjusting to match some commercial,nterest's desired quota) -- even the more reputedly effective promotions they can pay for nowadays require a certain number of reviews and average rating on sites like goodreads to even apply. Heck, Amazon's retail site reputedly requires 25 reviews before putting book in visibility things like also liked and also bought-- and even more to include in several spotlight, newsletter type of features., ...

It's usually only the forthcoming bestsellers everyone is wanting that have reviewers scrambling for publisher approval for the limited copies available. Mostly the top reviewers are drowning in offers. The number of authors now wanting reviews -- not that hard to get free books. Plus borrow programs like Kindle Unlimited ... the sheer volume of what's out there makes it easy for reviewers to get books and very hard on an individual book's discoverability.

Once there are reviews, the ratings-only ones dump so far down the page (unless from someone friended/followed), it's not that big an issue to potential readers checking out reviews on book page. Readers here aren't responsible for author's needed quotas or average ratings and are truly possibly just cataloging books in a way that suits their needs.

Might even be planning on coming back when have time to write reviews of books they starred. Not impossible that some readers upon finishing a book quickly star then write fuller review after they've gotten thoughts together. Not impossible that extreme reactions are harder to put into more words than "I hated/loved" than 2-4 star reviews where you can describe likes and dislikes.

The mass ratings, reviews, "read" shelvings -- really very likely to be even more common these next months. Shelfari was a very large, very active book community. Not the only reason for those, but truly a lot of book data is being auto imported or manually imported ( and by manually they're probably using lists sorted by all kinds of things including ratings to work from).

ETA: yes, it's also possible the ratings only ones are suspicious -- but only if there's another reason beyond too-many, too-fast, too-unexplained. The reasons why those might be suspicious -- again, not because too-many-fast-reviewless -- need to be emailed to site support because cannot callout individual members on these threads (reasoning being that until,staff investigates may or may not be guilty of anything but public posts on the Internet can smear someone for a really long time).

S.L. wrote: "Cynthia, all you can do is take a deep breath and let it go. I just got a two star rating on a book I haven't even finished writing yet (I found a massive plot hole), presumably because it had the ..."

Thanks, S.L. I didn't let it upset me. Because I'm new as an author, I still look at my reviews. Whether someone liked my book a lot or a little, I take a peek at what else they read. There's always something to learn as an author from doing that. That's when I noticed page after page of one-stars from a particular person and wondered why that might be. Everyone here has shed a lot of light on the subject.

@Cynthia, just keep in mind that star ratings here aren't even necessarily used to rate books. And if you do later find cause to find those to be suspicious, just contact staff with the cause. One or more of the other authors getting rated by that account might know something they could point you to even if not getting involved.

Sometimes just clicking on to a book to read about it, if you are on an iPad or phone, can result in an erroneous 1*. I was shocked to discover I had rated a book I had never read as a 1* although that worked out well for the author as I immediately bought the book, read it, enjoyed it and rated and reviewed it properly. At no time had I realised I had accidentally clicked the one star rating. In fact, I enjoyed it enough to buy all her other books.
It is easier than we think for newbies to click the wrong things without realising.

Most of the 42 comments posted in this thread are plausible, accurate and logical. That said; the vast majority of avid readers never post a consumer rating or review for any book they've read. Those that do are under no obligation to explain the reasoning behind their evaluation of a book.

Consumer reviews are merely personal opinions and, therefore, subjective, not objective. Those authors who obsess and stress over ratings and reviews would be better served by refocusing that time, effort and attention upon striving to continuously improve upon their technical writing and narrating skills instead.

If I see a low-rating with no review, I'm inclined to ignore it (the low rating, not the book). If I see author bashing in a review, I'm also inclined to ignore it. There is never any justification to make personal attacks in public in a forum for literary discourse. There will always be those out there (mercifully, a small percentage of the populace) who have an ax to grind but are too obsessed in themselves to let anyone else know what it is or why, or what their ax-grinding has to do with the literary work (or author) in question.

When I have had some issues with a book that I enjoyed, issues that I thought the author should be aware of, I have posted those comments privately and directly to the author. When I have had major issues with a book I've read, and did not enjoy because of those issues, I have posted a public review with those reasons clearly stated.

Possibly a new member importing a list from Shelfari, LibraryThing, etc. Possibly just a new user of this site, in general. Also many users of this site may:

A. Use the scale of 1 being best and 5 being worst.
B. Rate books 1-5 by how excited they are anticipating reading it, or by where it ranks on their to-read list.
C. Many don't write reviews, just give star ratings. (If reviews were required it would likely either result in as short a review as possible, such as "I read this book and it was OK," or the active member base dropping in activity.)
D. Many rate a book, before going back, when they have more time available, to write a review of it.
E. Sometimes the GR app misfires and gives an erroneous rating. (I don't use it myself, but this is what my friends who use the app say happens to them occasionally.)
F. Most members of GR are not authors, and are merely considering the question if they enjoyed reading a book, or not. They don't "consider the author's feelings." But does an author "consider the feelings" of the musician whose recent CD they just panned in a review on Amazon? I think not. These are just consumer reviews, like any other consumer reviews. The products just happen to be books.

Cynthia, we'd be happy to take a closer look at the account if you're concerned. You can email us a link to their profile to support (at) goodreads (dot) com.

Responding to Jim Vuksic's comments, I completely agree that we should not obsess about reviews and the vast majority of our effort should be about creating a work that defines itself by its quality.

That said (wait for it) there are now 350,000 books a year being published in the US alone if I heard right. At that rate it is actually possible even for a very good book to be buried so deeply it never finds any success in the marketplace.

Since none of us can plan on going viral, and heavy duty advertising costs big money and is not guaranteed success, and endless self promotion can cost too much of our time, that pretty much makes reviews the lifeblood of writers with names that are not yet household words.

As a sign of the times, more and more blogs and advertising channels are refusing to even look at books that have less a than a certain number of reviews and don't meet a designated average score. That's not a rule I embrace or support but I understand what is driving them to it and I just don't have a good alternative to suggest.

So, although we should not obsess over reviews, we need them and therefore need to understand as much as we reasonably can about getting more and better ones. They can also be a good source of constructive feedback on occasion.

Cynthia wrote: "I find that suspicious, almost like the member is angry about something but not saying why. I received one of those one-star ratings and wish Goodreads would require a brief review in such a case s..."

Maybe they are rating directly from their Kindle. It's a pain to leave reviews from the non-tablet devices. Maybe they picked up tons of freebies, and each one they couldn't get into right away got 1 starred before moving to the next selection. Maybe they mark any uninterested book that shows up in their recommendations. Maybe they just joined, and most of the books initially presented by the system at set up were not liked. There are so many legitimate reasons that fit TOS to explain a lot of 1 stars. A few of these same reasons could also apply to a ton of 5 stars in a brief period too.

Michael wrote: "...As a sign of the times, more and more blogs and advertising channels are refusing to even look at books that have less a than a certain number of reviews and don't meet a designated average score..."

Which has what to do with a reader's personal book cataloging? Or even with reader reviews?

I'm not trying to be cruel, but, it's just no longer reviews from readers that other readers pay attention to when it starts being slanted into what authors need, the quotas required by advertising campaigns authors want to use, ...

It's not no-commercial use goodreads fault that some promo sites (and Amazon visibility options) have started requiring x number of reviews or y number of ratings because goodreads reviews pre-buyout were trusted to be reader discussions trusted by other readers.

It's certainly not any reader here's responsibility to rate or review with any of that in mind. If they are, they're no longer writing a consumer review.

I read a book (or try to). I'm responsible for legally obtaining (no piracted books) and for respecting copyright. The end. Anyone expecting any additional responsibility from retail customers and potential customers has no right to. Sure, everyone wants success and discoverability and to market their product -- but, that's their business needs and not the responsibility of their customers to aid in anyway other than buying or obtaining the product legally

I, the customer, decide to star rate or not according to whatever that means to me. I, the customer, decide if will post a review or not. For my own purposes. What the retailer, author, publisher, cover artists, editor, promotions folk or anyone else on the business wants or needs is just their business needs/costs.

I'm not responsible, any more than any other non-commercial interest member of goodreads, for the promotion companies who used to never promote indies deciding to use reader reviews/ratings as a gatekeeper to allow. Not my fault authors and some marketing options decided my personal book cataloging was anything beyond that. Yes, I'm aware it's visible to others and can help get a book discovered by other readers here -- but, that's not the same as being responsible for meeting someone's "quota."

Heck, most of the promotion sites I've seen clearly don't know goodrwads even well enough to require a different average star rating here than on Amazon.

I don't think I'm the only reader on goodreads unhappy that authors seem to feel entitled to question how we organize, rate and review our reading and reading needs/wishes. Even question how fast we do or don't read or if we read it or why this star rating or how this many star ratings and why would non-retailer goodreads ...

If anyone thinks a reader cannot 1-star books or give book ratings below the quota/averages authors need for their promotions -- they need to suggest goodreads do away with the one star rating completely and lobby for that.

I'm personally not sure if goodreads converted to let everyone either not rate a book or else give every book a big ★★★★★ rating, a single big fat gold star or thumb up/down system that the promotion sites could use that. Or that it would encourage readers to slap on the gold star. Or that other readers would find that useful when discovering books.

Jaclyn wrote: "Cynthia, we'd be happy to take a closer look at the account if you're concerned. You can email us a link to their profile to support (at) goodreads (dot) com."
Thank you, Jaclyn. I recorded the email address. After learning the variety of reasons a reader might mark with one star so many books at once, I tend to agree with several commenters who suggested that so many at once may indicate a type of initial designation that may or may not be permanent. Thanks again!

Parker wrote: "Marie wrote: "Hmm, I remember a thread on here about a gr member appearing one day and one-starring books, then messaging the authors that they should pay 15 bucks to this person to remove the one-..."

One flag of an extortion attempt like you describe would cause the GR staff to permanently remove the offender. If anyone is stupid enough to pay, that's their problem. Your post totally misunderstands the nature if GR. It most certainly is not a "sales page" in spite of how hard authors, in their self-centered, narcissistic view may try to turn it into one.