THE Group for Authors! discussion

To quote a pastor friend: "It's usually the hit dog that yelps! Enough said.

If this is going to be what this thread is all about, I don't need to be here anymore.

I don't plan on writing a review of my own work, but I do plan on marking it as "to-read" or "read". To me, it would feel a bit tacky if I wrote myself a glowing five-star review.

Agreed, One, at least with your comments about authors having a right to rate their work.
Case in point: I rate my books every time I read them. Every single time. And as a result, I find things that should be changed.
I'm at least four edits into my book, Darwin's World. Every time I read I see something that I consider technically wrong. Have readers ever complained? Not at all--but I"m looking for that mythical perfection of prose where the fewest possible words convey the full meaning and at the same time flow as they're read. Explaining further, you should be able to read the book out loud and the words sound natural, something you might comfortably say while telling a story to a friend.
I'm not there yet, but I'm getting closer.
Rating: I haven't changed the plot, nor the characters/characterization at all, though I did (slightly) tone down the two scenes involving sex to make them less graphic for publishing on Amazon. I'm aware that Amazon wouldn't have hesitated at the original words, but the story is about surviving a savage world and building relationships and a civilization, not about sex. So I changed it.
Other than that, every time I read, I 'rate' the words I used, the punctuation, whether there's excess verbiage, whether I used the same word/phrase when describing a scene or some aspect of it.
Self rating: I'm a pretty good writer, but not quite as good an editor; even so, I'm getting the hang of that esoteric art! :D

Your friend may be right Sharon. I hear you loud and clear.

Jack I don't actually do an online written review of my own writing. Where a page ask, how would I rate the book, I push the star where I think it's rated, that's it. Other opinions may differ. I'm not against an author writing a written review of his or her own work online but I haven't done so at this point. I could see that helping readers to better understand an author and his or her growth in the writing process. From reading the above Jack, I know what your target is and it'll be more fun to read one of your books now as I get to judge how well you did at hitting your target. I can then incorporate that into my review of your book.

Christine has the right to point out how readers perceive authors who rate their own book.

Of course authors can do whatever they want, just as readers can look at a book page, see one lone 5 star from the author and decide "nope, not for me."

A.W. wrote: "Christine has the right to point out how readers perceive authors who rate their own book.

Of course authors can do whatever they want, just as readers can look at a book page, see one lone 5 sta..."

I totally agree - my point was simply adapting to your customer base and advertising in a manner that attracts rather than repels your customers.

This thread certainly has raised a lot of issues (and emotions)! The one thing I haven't seen discussed widely here is WHY would an author want to rate his or her own book? Goodreads offers many opportunities for authors to ask for reviews and ratings. Many readers seem willing to give their opinions. In this vast universe called Goodreads, I'm not sure why it'd be necessary to rate your own book. My publisher told me at the outset of my foray into publishing that once you launch a book into the world, it's like a child. The world is going to "do stuff to it. So, be confident you raised (read: wrote) it right." As someone wisely said above, ratings and reviews are for the readers. Happy reading and writing to us all.

Elizabeth wrote: "The one thing I haven't seen discussed widely here is WHY would an author want to rate his or her own book?"

Unfortunately there is a simple answer to that, some authors rate their own book 5 stars to artificially inflate their overall book statistics. Some will go as far to not claim their author profile, so they can rate their book twice. I suspect this is why many readers find the practice distasteful.

Christine wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Christine has the right to point out how readers perceive authors who rate their own book.

Of course authors can do whatever they want, just as readers can look at a book page, see o..."

I would say that whether or not an author adapts to a customer base depends on that author's motives for writing. An author could always just be him/her self and let his/her readers find him/her as is without making any adaptations to gain favor. It seems to me, that's the way to pick up true support for an author as opposed to support for the image an author portrays.

If say "Jesus" were to write a new Bible and rate it five stars, I think it would be short of some readers not to want to read it because he rated it. He'd probably say that's on them.

Elizabeth wrote: "...The one thing I haven't seen discussed widely here is WHY would an author want to rate his or her own book? ..."

As this thread has displayed many authors are new at this and have no idea what they should or should not be doing. I think sometimes they do things because they think they're supposed to.

In other cases, I agree with A.W. its about inflating their average rating.

Then there are the arrogant writers who feel entitled to display their very important opinion on their own work claiming to be unbiased.

This idea of giving yourself a rating screams of unprofessional self-published work - its like a giant caution sign for readers.

One wrote: "An author could always just be him/her self and let his/her readers find him/her as is without making any adaptations to gain favor. It seems to me, that's the way to pick up true support for an author as opposed to support for the image an author portrays."

I now get the impression you are insulting authors who, in your perception, have some how sold out to "gain favour".

Obviously you have a dedicated reader base who enjoy your books and rate/review accordingly and the image you are projecting must be working for you in the sales department, or you wouldn't keep doing it.

However, don't assume the rest of us are manufacturing our image in some attempt to gain readers. I write books, I release them into the world and I let them go. I have never rated my own books and never will. Yes I use the review space to add my own comments and that's it. I am who I am, I do not "adapt" myself to gain support. Here's the thing - I leave it entirely up to readers. If they read my books and like them, then that's fantastic. If someone reads my books and doesn't like my style, then I hope the next author they read is more enjoyable for them. Some readers, through genuine interactions, have turned into friends as we share common interests and favourite authors.

When you have genuine readers there is no need to artificially inflate your ratings.

Christine wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "...The one thing I haven't seen discussed widely here is WHY would an author want to rate his or her own book? ..."

As this thread has displayed many authors are new at this and ..."

Christine, why do you think you can speak for all readers? Or narrow down the motives of all authors that would rate their work five stars? That seems to be a bit arrogant to me. If Goodreads gives an author the option to rate his/her work and the author exercises that option, why should a potential reader hate the author for exercising that right? Please explain that with some logic involved since you're implying that you're a seasoned author?

One wrote: "If Goodreads gives an author the option to rate his/her work "

Goodreads also flags such ratings as "from the author" so readers can discount them.

My understanding is they were also supposed to be removed from calculating average ratings which suggests that although the ability is there to rate your own work, in practice it is discouraged and again readers perceive it as distasteful.

A.W. wrote: "One wrote: "If Goodreads gives an author the option to rate his/her work "

Goodreads also flags such ratings as "from the author" so readers can discount them.

My understanding is they were also..."

Okay A.W., I got the point about "some" readers finding the practice distasteful although I don't understand all the emotional fluctuations involved. I'm a reader, I don't find it distasteful and there are others like me. I don't mind my "self rating" being flagged as such but I do think my vote should count as much as the next persons vote. If it doesn't, no problem.

If you are really interested on readers opinions, why not start a thread on a mainly readers group and see what the majority opinion is.
Every author is an experienced reader, we all wear at least two hats and some wear a great many more, being professional editors or cover designers as well.
As a reader, having an author rate, or review their own work is distinctly off putting. Having an author use the review space to add extra detail isn't a problem for me.

A.W. wrote: I suspect this is why many readers find the practice distasteful. i>

Christine wrote: I think sometimes they do things because they think they're supposed to. i>

Thanks for responding. Quite an emotional thread here!

A.W. wrote: "One wrote: "An author could always just be him/her self and let his/her readers find him/her as is without making any adaptations to gain favor. It seems to me, that's the way to pick up true suppo..."

Here's where I think you're off the mark A.W., assuming that an author is attempting to "artificially inflate" his or her ratings by exercising the right to a rating. I don't think it's a fair assumption, particularly if the author rates his or her work two stars. Some people are the hardest on themselves.

If an author is making adaptations to gain sales or even readers, that author has sold a certain portion of his or her true being for gain. A.W. I'm 100% behind you not rating your books, as you should be 100% behind an author who does rate his or her work. It's available to do and it's not a violation of anything sacred. I'm perfectly satisfied with any author that doesn't want to rate his or her work as well as readers that won't touch my work because I did rate it. I'm not driven by dollar signs. My readers will find me, I believe that.

One wrote: "Here's where I think you're off the mark A.W., assuming that an author is attempting to "artificially inflate" "

Unfortunately, having seen authors utilise underhand and deceptive practices to inflate their ratings, I'm not off the mark at all in my assumption. You only have to read the threads about the issue with sock puppets to see the size of the problem. It also seems to be those indie authors with very few ratings/reviews who employ those practices in an attempt to make themselves look better/popular (I'm not sure what the mindset is behind it?) to potential readers.

I am not "driven by dollar signs" and I find it rather insulting to the majority of authors that you seem to imply that if we don't follow your personal creed we have sold out. Making money by selling our novels isn't trading your soul for financial gain. Again it seems to be those authors with few sales who accuse those who are selling of devaluing the craft/selling out.

As I said, you are obviously happy with your sales & ratings and it's working for you. No one is saying you have to change, we have merely pointed out the reader viewpoint, which you have chosen to disregard.

I saw this discussion pop up on my notification feed and I was just going to come here and type "no" but was surprised to find a pretty lively and interesting discussion.

Here're my thoughts. Look, I'm an anxiety-riddled mess 99% of the time, especially when a new book comes out. I can hardly function until I start to get some feedback, mainly because I'm the type of person who does 95% of the things I do for me (a student of mine recently got mad when I told her I delete a lot of the things I write), and the other stuff...I think it could work elsewhere. I can hardly function until I get SOMETHING from SOMEONE, and it's completely narcissistic and irrational but it's a thing. And most people here feel the same way, it's unavoidable.

Having said that, I could never imagine that rating a book of mine five stars would give me any sort of validation or appease that sense of "what do people think?" and because of that, I can't imagine anyone else operating on that level.

If you take the validation out of it, then, you're left with the marketing aspect. I'm lucky in that I've had most of my books put out by publishers, so I know at some point someone will rate it and then someone else and I'll know if I was right in this being a "public" work. But until it gets a star or five...I'm that mess again. And I can imagine that feeling being in someone else, and I can imagine someone deciding to rate their own book because, as authors, we're all hungry for SOMETHING, and we can't deny the snowball effect. We can't deny the fact that even if one person sees a five-star review and doesn't note who reviewed it, they may check it out.

I'm all for people finding a way to eat. SO I changed my answer...if no-one's reading and reviewing your book and you think it's a good book - go for it. It doesn't matter. One review will never matter - not for people who put their stuff out there for the world to read. If one person sees it and takes a chance and tells another person - you started the process. If no one ever else ever reviews it, it should tell you something about your work. And if it doesn't, and if you never look at the work and figure out what's wrong...well, that's on you.

Jason wrote: "...One review will never matter - not for people who put their stuff out there for the world to read. If one person sees it and takes a chance and tells another person - you started the process. ..."

It may not matter to the authors who put their stuff out there - but it matters to the readers who buy that stuff. Why would any reader take a chance on it, when they know that the author's rating is biased and inappropriate.

When the author reviews his own book and rates it 5* here at GR, it is noted that it is "reviewed by the Author". As I and others have tried very hard to explain it DOES matter for 2 reasons.

1. It is figured into your average rating - therefore you have upped your own rating - sounds a bit unethical.

2. Readers see an unprofessional author who rates his own work.

Given these conclusions, readers tend to pass on buying the book. You haven't started anything - you've actually brought your progress to a screeching halt.

To clarify - I'll never review my own work. Having said that, and maybe it's just me, I can't imagine caring, really. If everyone's giving you one star and you gave yourself five, doesn't do much. I don't know, maybe my perspective is more along the lines that I won't check out any book that only has one rating, whether it's from the author or not, unless someone I know and trust tells me to check it out.

My point is that it really doesn't matter, at all. On a much larger, big-picture scale, it doesn't matter. It's not going to make ME look at it, but if it makes someone else look at it, and that person likes it, good for you. One person saying a book is good will never help, whether it's a reader or an author saying it. If the data suggests that I'm like everyone else and no-one will read a book if a single person (regardless of who it is) gives it a bunch of stars...it won't make a difference.

Maybe my feelings on this is really just a whole bunch of indifference. Anyway. Thanks for the discussion. Always fun to see different viewpoints.

A.W. wrote: "One wrote: "Here's where I think you're off the mark A.W., assuming that an author is attempting to "artificially inflate" "

Unfortunately, having seen authors utilise underhand and deceptive prac..."

A.W. I said if an author is making artificial changes and adapting his or her positions to fit readership that author has compromised his or her self and is in threat of becoming a cookie cutter type image and persona. I'm not attempting to insult the majority of authors. I hope the majority of authors are not that way. As far as selling goes, I don't know who's selling or who's not selling, I'm new to this. I just published my first in September 2014. I'm indie and I don't have many sales but what unknown author does straight out of the gate in a month without a marketing budget? I'm just doing what feels real and fair to me but people seem to be angry that I'm not adapting to the mass readership opinion.

Jason I'm sort of like you, just indifferent to high or low ratings no matter where they come from. For my dollar, it's going to boil down to what I think about an author's writing. For me, it's the description and what I read in the store or online from the book that sells it. The subject matter has to interest me first and then the writing itself. I don't think I've ever purchased a book that was wrapped in plastic. I guess whether or not an author rates his or her own work when given the opportunity, depends on the author. You're not a monster if you don't and you're not a monster if you do.

If you're writing a review under a pen name, you're artificially inflating your book.
Fairly useless, IMO; a reader begins reading what he's just paid money for, thinks uncomplimentary words, heads immediately to Amazon and gets his money back. Then writes a scathing review of his own.
But then there's the other side of the coin.
What do you writers think of your work?
If you answer that question honestly, replying by using the same name you published under, you've done no one a disservice.
FWIW, all the ratings I post are under the same name or a slight variation (I go by Jack, not Jackie; that latter version confuses people when they see the beard), the one on my voter ID card and driver's license and the one my friends use.
I'm known to pass out business cards with my name, my blogs addresses, and the name of published titles to friends and acquaintances. In so doing, I'm 'rating' my own work and associating the books with my name.
People 'rate' their work when they hire professional help. I'm currently employing a cover creator I found here on Goodreads; the book is already in publication, but hasn't been 'noticed' by many. I'll simply point out that no matter how fancy the cover, it's advertising; if the product doesn't live up to the cover page, readers know how to let others know the book was inferior...and they will.
As to whether a writer's enthusiasm for his work is unprofessional, that's opinion; I don't share it. I also don't believe that putting that opinion down with a letter rating or 5 stars makes a professional writer less so.
That said, the only time I've done this other than here on Goodreads (where authors are invited to rate their books when they list them) is once, on Amazon, when I got a listing asking me to rate the books. My book was there, I sent the rating in, and Amazon rejected it. I wasn't surprised, it was more of a silly impulse anyway and done only because they blanket-request a rating for everything you've ever bought from them. That's THEIR marketing tool, I simply piggybacked my own on their coattail...which they rejected.
My part of this conversation's done.

Question: if Goodreads, as it seems to be, is established to help writers and readers connect and connect well, why would the site mgrs have a button that allows writers to rate their own work, unless they felt/thought it best?
Just wondering...open to all comments...

Maybe it's a case of not putting the software in place to prevent it, rather than thinking it's a good idea. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how big or small a job it would be to do that.

Have to admit I was one of the ignorant ones that thought I was supposed to put something in the box marked 'ratings'. Would it not be simpler to eliminate the box and just put a link to wherever there might be a legit. review available?

Sylvia I agree it would be simpler and more clear...and Emma yes, I'm not a programmer either but you raise a really good point...perhaps Goodreads mods can help us out here?

Well, I did say my piece on this but I do have an another question. Again, reminding ya'll that I don't review my own books.

...but curious to see where the line is drawn, right? Surely your husband or wife or mother or other immediate family could easily step in and give you five-star reviews and the reader will never know that. Friends, too. When I put a book out I need to remind my mom, every time, not to review it publicly...because it's kind of disingenuous and at the same time I'm pretty sure it would sound something like, "This is my sun [sic] and hes [sic] so talented!"

Additionally, I tend to edit large anthologies. The book I just put out, Colonial Comics: New England, 1620 - 1750 (which has an official release date of tomorrow, stress!), has 33 creators in it, including myself. I tell the creators to be careful when reviewing the book but I certainly can't stop them from doing it and I 100% can't stop them from asking their friends and family to review it. I tag them all as contributors so that readers would automatically know that they were in it...but still.

So I guess that's what I mean by one review not really mattering. Solicited reviews are inherently asymptotic (and a book with a single self-review doesn't even have a curve to it), and if the book does catch on, the real reviews will eventually begin to dominate.

Anyway...

Good clear points Jason. I had not really thought about this angle before. Thank you.

Jack wrote: "If you're writing a review under a pen name, you're artificially inflating your book.
Fairly useless, IMO; a reader begins reading what he's just paid money for, thinks uncomplimentary words, heads..."

There are no rules here and all I have tried to do is relate what READERS do when selecting a book. We can spend hours trying to find a new read. The book market is so flooded with books, that as a reader I eliminate titles quickly and maybe for the wrong reasons, but I do not have time to read every blurb or "Look Inside" out there to find a good read.

Self-published authors have given themselves a terrible reputation. Some have used unethical practices, published unedited books, formatted incorrectly or written terrible stories. Any indication of unprofessional behavior, such as rating your own book, becomes a red flag for me.

Authors can definitely do whatever they want to do in this regard. My comments addressed those who want to cater to their readers in an attempt to sell their books. I would think any action that might help sell a book, would be a consideration in this near impossible marketplace.

Charlene wrote: "Question: if Goodreads, as it seems to be, is established to help writers and readers connect and connect well, why would the site mgrs have a button that allows writers to rate their own work, unl..."

Many authors use this space to update their readers on new developments or to quote reviews from other sources. That's very practical and informative for readers.

The ability to give their own work a star rating is a bit confusing and I have no idea how that is considered good for anyone.

Maybe the two are linked together and they didn't feel it necessary to separate them.

Judging from all the comments, it looks as though Goodreads would do well to adjust this particular feature.

Jason wrote: "...but curious to see where the line is drawn, right? Surely your husband or wife or mother or other immediate family could easily step in and give you five-star reviews and the reader will never know that. Friends, too. ..."

Please do not assume readers are stupid. We are aware of the use of family reviews, friend reviews, sock puppet reviews, author circle reviews, and paid for reviews. They tend to be very recognizable.

Any book with only 5* reviews is always considered suspicious. Not everyone absolutely loves the same book. We may read reviews, but prefer to read lower star ratings and reviews from people we know.

Once you get thousands of reviews it becomes a different matter.

Sylvie wrote: "Judging from all the comments, it looks as though Goodreads would do well to adjust this particular feature."

You are absolutely correct and hopefully Goodreads does make the change.

Initially as an author I refused to post reviews of any author's work on Goodreads, so that I was not seen as inflating a colleague's star rating. Then I discovered that you can review without a rating and that is what I now do. I still will not place reviews on retailer sites, but if a retailer chooses to lift reviews from Goodreads that is their lookout, not mine.

I'm a reader first and foremost. And I rate and review books I read. But now that I'm also an author, I no longer leave bad reviews. Maybe that's disingenuous, but I now understand that being torn down in public is tough and I can't do that to another writer. But I've also come to the realization that if a book isn't doing it for me, I don't actually have to finish it (I never used to be able to abandon a book, no matter how bad). And if I don't finish a book, I feel no obligation to review it.

Tacky... the functional equivalent of a dog licking its own genitals.

This is an interesting discussion. There are definitely strong feelings on both sides.

I think rating and/or reviewing one's own work is a personal choice. An author certainly has the right to voice an opinion, albeit a biased one. I couldn't be unbiased about it, but some might. Readers have the same right to respect or reject that opinion.

I think it's unethical for an author to try to artifically inflate a book's rating. It's a poor business practice. I personally do not rate my own books, nor do I review them. I haven't even put them in my "read" books, but that's my choice. I don't think an author's work should be overlooked just because it has a self-rating.

I choose to consider a book based on the blurb, then I read a few pages. This is how I do it in a brick-and-mortar bookstore and how I do it online. I choose to take the time to do that.

Yes, I want lots of people to read and enjoy my books, but I want them to make that choice on their own. Reviews and ratings should be a factor, but, to me, not a deciding one. So, if an author self-rates, that's not an automatic turn-off just because there are lots of other books out there to consider.

I do not self rate and I do not self review. I have had a couple of friends to review my books, but I did not ask them to do so. And I feel they left honest reviews. They were good reviews, because my friends enjoy the same type of writing style as I do.

No one should presume to know the mind of every reader or every author. Should we judge a book (or an author) by it's cover? Certainly, but don't make it the only factor.

From the POV of a reader, I don't think you should, actually, it doesn't send a good message, to be honest. If anything, that's an automatic 1 star, whether I've read the book or not.

You see, rating your own book could tell (another) potential reader that the author is full of it or that their work isn't really all they're hyping it up to be. Either way, it doesn't make the reader want to read it, instead, they may avoid it.

Reviews/ratings should be based on the readers opinions, not the authors. Not saying the authors can't have good opinions and such about their works (and, more often than not, they will) but they shouldn't review/rate their own works. It doesn't look good.

There is an adage often quoted within the business management community that applies to this topic.
"Your work speaks for itself. Don't interrupt!"

If one's performance or work is well executed and of exceptional quality, others will eventually take notice, acknowledge its value, and inform others. Self-aggrandizement and egocentric praise is seldom necessary or appropriate.

You don't have to add a star rating.
The 'review' box can be used to give additional information about the book, rather than an actual review.
And NEVER reply to bad reviews.

Very sensible suggestion.

I was uncomfortable with reviewing and rating my own book. I marked it as read (obviously) and then instead of a review, I decided to post an interview with me that I did when the book launched. It shows in My Activity on the book page.

Emma wrote: "You don't have to add a star rating.
The 'review' box can be used to give additional information about the book, rather than an actual review.
And NEVER reply to bad reviews."

Good advice. When my book published in 2015 I did a number of interviews. I marked the book "read" and I posted one of the interviews. It shows up in the My Activity area on the book page.

I am both an author and a reader.

Speaking as an author, it makes me cringe when I see authors rating their own book. I would never do that, though I concede that is every author's choice.

Speaking as a reader, when I see an author giving themselves five stars, it makes me think they are too full of themselves to bother with, or they're trying to pump up their rating. Either way, I won't give their books a second look. Obviously I'm not speaking for all readers here, only myself.

And, someone mentioned whether reviews from the author count, I was looking at an easy example last night. Author review - five stars. Only one other review - one star. Book ratings show two ratings, two reviews, average three stars. So, yes, they do count.

One thing I think authors should do with their books' review spaces is shelve them on the standard 'genre' shelves that they think fit. (It only takes two listings on a shelf like "mystery" for a book to get a genre tagging, which helps in discovery.)

Another voice here in favor of never reviewing or rating one's own books. It makes me kind of sad sometimes to see authors doing that, and it feels kind of tacky... But Susanna's idea of shelving them in genres is intriguing...

I rated and reviewed my own book, but only because I use the information in it every day. My book is Faith-based non-fiction, so it isn’t like I said I was a great writer or anything. It was just about the content.

I probably wouldn’t do it again.

I am more interested in reading the reviews or comments on other books by authors - not telling the whole story though.

For whatever reason, the vast majority of avid readers choose to never post a rating or review in a literary website or periodical. Those that do, post them to share their thoughts with other readers, not the author.

It is important to remember that a book rating and/or review is the personal, and therefore subjective, opinion of the reader. One person's Best book ever! may very well be another's Worst book ever!

A rating or review of a work posted by the author of the work is worthless. Asking the author if they love their book is like asking a parent if they love their child. Guess what the answer will be 999 times out of 1,000?