THE Group for Authors! discussion
General Discussion
>
Goodreads Giveaways Algorithm
D.A. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "In addition, I must say that this language looks fairly tongue in cheek to me, with the addition of the statement about "phases of the moon" since I think we all know that..."No cake for him.
night music -- bring on the clowns ♫ wrote: "once we even had virtual ponies"A single crystal tear slides artfully down my cheek.
D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never realized that was a criterion for the giveaways. No wonder people complain on how hard it ..."
re: matching books on my shelf.
You are very good at twisting words, and deliberately misrepresenting what was said. I never indicated that this was a criterion. I was simply pointing out the complete lack of a match. Perhaps you aren't aware that Goodreads maintains compatibility scores -- when people have zero percent compatibility, it means none of the books on their shelves are the same, and none of the categories they read are the same. If any of the selected winners had greater than zero percent compatibility, then they would have had some matches with books on my shelf. It seems reasonable to believe that if Goodreads is using books on the shelf as part of a selection algorithm, then compatibility would be greater than 0. Simple idea. Except, there is no algorithm. It is 100% random, despite what they say.
re: 71 year olds.
This person also identified himself as a retiree who was "just staring [sic] to read". Doesn't seem like a highly probable tech startup guy. Not impossible, but certainly highly improbable. And, no expressed interest in business books. Although I didn't fully explain the details (and haven't here either in the interest of brevity), I did earlier, and you can rest assured, he's not qualified.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "night music -- bring on the clowns ♫ wrote: "Paul wrote: "...Goodreads says: "The factors that go into our algorithm are: randomness, site activity, genre of books on your shelves, cu..."
Only telling you what tech support says when asked. The point is, it's either random or it isn't. Goodreads says both, and both can't be true.
Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never realized that was a criterion for the giveaways. No wonder people complain on..."
He is qualified. He has a goodreads account and he entered your giveaway. Those are the qualifications. You don't get to unilaterally add qualifications once the giveaway has been completed.
What part of "random" and "at the discretion of Goodreads" are you having trouble understanding?
Paul wrote: " ...I'm not in a position to be able to afford to make good on their misrepresentations ..."I take it back that I would understand your business book. I don't get how financial considerations enter into it. Yes, I realize you pay to print and ship the books -- but, you knew that when creating the giveaway. My math doesn't stretch to how that changes if goodreads "misrepresented" or not.
I completely do not understand how it costs more to send the same giveaway books to the same winners when author feels goodreads behaved illegally than it costs to send the same
giveaway books to the same winners if author was satisfied both goodreads and the winners were exactly as author expected (wanted/promised/qualified).
Moonlight Reader wrote: "What part of "random" and "at the discretion of Goodreads" are you having trouble understanding?"Which is what numerous people have said, continually. It's random and at GR discretion. While I admire your persistence in trying to explain what random means, it might be better to let GR sort this out when the winners start complaining that they never received their paperbacks.
A.W. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "What part of "random" and "at the discretion of Goodreads" are you having trouble understanding?"Which is what numerous people have said, continually. It's random and at..."
You are so right.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "OK, in spite of the fact that this is a total waste of my time, I went looking for the information that Paul is referring to.I found the following bits and pieces:
This is at the top of th..."
"Randomness" is one stated factor, but not the only one. I can have a random drawing from people who read business books, or from people who match books on my shelf, or from people who live in NYC.
When pressed, Goodreads says it is 100% random. The statement above, even with fanciful language like "phase of the moon" says the opposite. It clearly indicates factors other than randomness. Both statements can't be true, and whether I was naive to believe them or not, I relied on their statement that books on your shelves matter.
You can criticize me for being stupid, naive, a first time author who doesn't know his way around, or even an f**ing idiot -- whatever you want to call me, it doesn't change the fact that Goodreads misrepresents how selections are made, and that DOES have a direct impact on me.
And, their claims about review percentages are sufficiently high that even if you took a broad range such as plus or minus 30%, you would still expect a significant number of reviews. They are clearly selling this as the primary reason to do a giveaway -- not the only one, but certainly the primary one, and they are strongly pushing you to giveaway as many as possible to get more reviews. This isn't even in a grey area. Their claims are very strong and misleading, and do not reflect that results that other authors are reporting. A purely random algorithm cannot consistently deliver such a result under any conditions, except possibly for works of fiction, so clearly it is a misrepresentation if the algorithm is 100% random.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "OK, in spite of the fact that this is a total waste of my time, I went looking for the information that Paul is referring to.I found the following bits and pieces:
..."
I don't believe I called you stupid or a f**ing idiot.
You can have a random drawing on all of those things, but that isn't what GR promised you. You weren't naive, you were seeing what you wanted to see, and believing what you wanted to believe. If it was important to you that the giveaway wasn't random, you should have clarified it before you set it up, since it is pretty clear that the giveaway winners are random.
In addition, you should know that "anecdote" does not equal "evidence." The fact that other authors are reporter lower than 60% review response is irrelevant, unless you are querying every publisher/author who conducts a giveaway on GR, which I am quite certain you are not.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "A.W. wrote: "Paul wrote: "What is unforgivable about this is the false and misleading information provided..."No, I actually went out of my way to understand how giveaways work before deciding to do it.
I am quite happy to be banned from the site if Goodreads maintains this position. Misinterpretation isn't possible with clear and truthful language. Goodreads has neither.
I get what your position is -- you think I'm wrong not to supply books to people who shouldn't get them because of Goodreads false claims and representations. If I had unlimited resources, I might honor this just to make it go away, but if I had unlimited resources, I would also go after Goodreads on my own on principle.
What they have done is wrong, and I'm not in a position to afford to buy additional copies of my own book for a fraud. These books were the last I had of my supply from the publisher, which means I'm out several hundred dollars for nothing if I make good on Goodreads bad business.
I would be much more interested in hearing from other authors. I understand your position clearly. The little guy (author) is wrong. The big guy (Goodreads) with deceptive language is right. Strange position, but I get it.
I never got the impression that goodreads presented the primary reason to do giveaways as getting reviews. Certainly never in any of the materials cited throughout this thread. Personally, I think a book almost no one ever discovers always gets fewer reviews than a book at least discovered for being in a giveaway.That's always been something authors say -- that it's why they do giveaways (in hopes of reviews) or why they recommend for/against giveaways as a means to gaining reviews to other authors.
OT for this particular giveaway discussion: Publishers are presumed to do giveaways here for the same reasons they offer Advance Reader Copies, mostly for the "buzz" and their beloved pre-order sales. (I have frequently heard many of the self-publishing authors refer to the ARCs as Advance Review Copies for some reason -- usually when complaining that they gave out directly or used an ARC program like Netgalley to give out the "review" copies and got no reviews).
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never realized that was a criterion for the giveaways. No wonder peopl..."
What part of "genre of books on your shelves" don't you understand? That isn't random. I understand that I'm a newbie and you've been around the block 5 times, but seriously being snarky just to be snarky or argumentative is not an endearing trait.
D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: " ...I'm not in a position to be able to afford to make good on their misrepresentations ..."I take it back that I would understand your business book. I don't get how financial cons..."
I've probably already answered this somewhere, but it's quite simple. These books are the last of my original supply from the publisher. If I want any more, I have to buy them, which means several hundred dollars of cash out of my pocket to replace wasted books. I was quite happy to give them to people who fit the descriptions provided by Goodreads. I'm not happy to give them to a 100% random drawing consisting of people who do not fit that description.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "OK, in spite of the fact that this is a total waste of my time, I went looking for the information that Paul is referring to.I found the following bits and ..."
60% is a very large number. And, it's the only number in their presentation. I daresay that most authors would react to that the same way. I want reviews. If I giveaway more books, I'll get more reviews. Goodreads clearly says that. It's not even a question.
I've said this before, but clarity is important in something like this. Actually, it's important in most things like terms and conditions. You seem to want to accuse me of misinterpreting, or reading what I wanted to read, but "book on your shelves" is a pretty clear factor. Why would I ignore that, and assume 100% randomness, which is never stated? The only reason for Goodreads to say "books on shelves" is a factor is if it is. If it isn't, then they aren't telling the truth.
Black and white.
Paul wrote: "The little guy (author) is wrong. The big guy (Goodreads) with deceptive language is right...."I'd say the commercial-interest guy (author) misrepresented they would send the books and the free-service-providing guy (Goodreads) representing that said service was at their sole discretion, myself. Not quite Tomat-Oh, Tomat-Ah.
And the unlucky guys (customers) entering your giveaway are ...?
I have no clue what links, screenshots, or other information from the goodreads site I could possibly add to this discussion. Everything I know about the giveaways algorithms and conditions/claims has already been well linked. One of the authors on this thread feels that his interpretation means he doesn't have to honor his part of the giveaway.
Other authors on the thread don't seem to bringing up any new questions about the giveaways.
Goodreads deliberately doesn't share their algorithms for anything (generally in an anti-game the system vein when they discuss that).
One statistic I have personally wondered about was how long on average after winning a giveaway did it take a winner to mark the book currently reading/read or actually review. I'm also curious about the longest time between giveaway ending and a book getting reviewed, partly because I see a lot of authors doing giveaways expecting reviews to occur in conjunction with some launch or promotion they are doing.
Librarians get a lot of misdirected requests/questions/bug-reports about goodreads giveaways. The most a librarian can do is make sure your book data is accurately in the database for whatever edition you wish to giveaway.
D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "The little guy (author) is wrong. The big guy (Goodreads) with deceptive language is right...."I'd say the commercial-interest guy (author) misrepresented they would send the books a..."
Actually you have your descriptors wrong again. Goodreads has huge commercial interest. You seem to believe they run a business out of kindness, rather than to make money. In fact, Goodreads sold themselves to Amazon for $190M a couple of years ago. And, Amazon is the largest ecommerce merchant by far, outselling the next 5 combined (which includes companies like Apple, Walmart, Dell, and Staples). I am a one person small business who took a year off with almost no income to write a book. I don't think there is any question about who the big guy versus little guy is. I'm not yet making any money on the book, and may never.
As I said, I'm happy to give it away to people who will benefit from it as part of promotions, but I'm not happy to give it away for no reason. And, I'm not happy to be duped by the world's largest online retailer for their own benefit.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never realized that was a criterion for the g..."
The information doesn't say anything about "genre of books on shelves". Not everyone even uses genre shelves. I don't use genre shelves. It refers to "member shelves" but doesn't indicate how they will be used. You are, again, making an assumption based on how you think it should work, not how it actually does work.
Will you at least concede that your perception that GR would take into consideration author/publisher shelves was obviously an error on your part, since the reference to member shelves was in the information provided to entrants, not sponsors. There is no reason to conclude that YOUR shelves are relevant to the outcome of the giveaway.
And I do not think that you're wrong not to supply books to people who shouldn't get them. I think you are wrong not to fulfill your part of the contest that you voluntarily entered.
And if you think this is snarky, I would suggest that your definition of snarky needs work.
The winners may not read your books themselves, but they might pass the books on to relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc. The ultimate recipients of your books might provide reviews in several places or recommend your books to people they know.Even if the winners sell your books, you may ultimately benefit.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never realized that was a criter..."
I didn't say "genre shelves". Those are your words. I clipped the text "genre of books on shelves" directly from this site, so not sure why it's a mystery to you.
The only assumption I've made is a perfectly rational one that I think anyone who did the amount of research I did before posting a giveaway would agree with. If the "genre of books on shelves" is a factor in the selection of winners, then it is a factor which should correlate with who wins. The opposite doesn't make any sense -- i.e. we're going to look at the genres of books you keep on your shelves, and then when you enter a contest, we will match you with the categories that you don't read. Since that assumption is absurd, one would reasonably expect it to positively influence who wins. I don't understand why you are even arguing this. It doesn't equate to "only pick people who are exact matches" -- there is no element of randomness in that. But, if it is a factor, one would expect it to show up in the results. The evidence in my case is pretty clear that it doesn't, and when Goodreads support is pressed on it, they say that it isn't true. "Genres of books on shelves" has no impact, which is to say it isn't a factor at all, which is a clear contradiction of what the site says. Seriously, I don't understand why you are hammering on this. Goodreads is lying. Period.
As I've noted earlier, whether it relates to what is on my shelves or the reader's shelves is irrelevant. My action of loading my shelves with relevant business and innovation books speaks clearly to my expectation and to trying to make sure that the book went to the right kinds of people, but if the intent was to examine instead whether entrants have those sorts of books (i.e. business books) on their shelves then it should positively influence whether they are drawn as winners or not. Several hundred of the people who entered had business books on their shelves. None -- zippo, zero, nada, 0% -- of the winners had a business book on their shelves. In other words, the genre of books was not a consideration in the imaginary "algorithm". There is no algorithm -- they simply drew winners names from a hat.
You are correct in one thing -- I made an assumption that Goodreads was telling the truth. If I walk onto a car lot and the sales guy tells me they are offering discounts if I buy today, technically it is true that 0% discount is a discount. But the valid and legal assumption that a buyer would make is that the discount is greater than zero. So, would I be right in accusing the sales guy of deceptive selling when he tells me that my price is full list after taking off the discount?
The mistake I made, if you want to call it a mistake, was believing anything Goodreads said about running a giveaway.
So, we can agree to disagree about whether I should give away several hundred dollars worth of books based on a misrepresentation. You believe I'm harming those poor readers. The truth is that Goodreads is harming me, for their benefit, and the "winners" are a casualty too, although it's pretty clear that these people will not be reading the book, but selling it forward on Amazon at my expense, so I lose twice. As I've noted, I'm perfectly willing to give the same number of books away, at my expense, to people who will get value from it and use it, and hope that one or two feel generous enough to offer a review (and I don't even care if it's positive). If I got no reviews, well that's the luck of the draw. But a drawing that results in no possible benefit to me by its design, and because I was lied to, I can't fulfill at my expense.
And just so you understand, I did a random selection of 10 profiles from the several hundred entrants who have my book on their shelf to read. Of those, 9 of 10 were clearly well-qualified -- exactly the kinds of people I was expecting to give the book to -- and the 10th though uncertain, was probably good too, and I'd have been happy to send it out either way. So, how does a selection that was supposed to factor in genres of books on shelves result in zero of 10 being good candidates? It is nearly statistically impossible.
Snarky was clearly a reference to the unwarranted "what part of ... don't you understand", not to your opinion that I'm wrong to refuse to send books. Although I disagree strongly, I can see that reasonable people might not agree who should bear the brunt on that point, and whether a contest operated under false premises truly falls under the definition of voluntary. If a thief points a gun at you and demands your wallet, is it voluntary if you give it to him rather than make him take it from you?
night music -- bring on the clowns ♫ wrote: "The winners may not read your books themselves, but they might pass the books on to relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc. The ultimate recipients of your books might provide reviews in several p..."If the winners sell my books, they are competing with me for a sale by using something that cost them nothing to undercut the price Amazon charges. That directly costs me and doesn't provide benefit.
You are correct that they might pass it on to a relative or friend. Doesn't matter. Those weren't the terms that I agreed to participate on.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly me. I never ..."
Let me be clear. I don't believe you are harming anyone other than, possibly, yourself. If I entered a giveaway, and then found out that the author was refusing to send me the book I won because he didn't think I was a "qualified reader," I would be, possibly, annoyed but I would clearly not have been harmed. I have invested nothing, and lost nothing that I previously possessed or had a right to possess. In the alternative, I might be grateful, and feel that I had dodged a bullet, because if he had sent me the book, I read it and didn't enjoy, and posted a negative review, who knows what kind of a reaction that might cause.
We can certainly agree that a Goodreads giveaway is not a good fit for you. My point is merely that this is something that you should have figured out before listing the giveaway, not afterwards when you were unhappy with the people who won.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "D.A. wrote: "Paul wrote: "...If any of the winners had matched even a single book on my shelf ..."Silly ..."
I may inflict harm on myself. The jury is out on that. However, this is a matter of conflicting principles, and for me the larger principle is a large company acting in a deliberately deceptive manner and trapping authors into acting against their interest. Why? Because it isn't possible to find out before you list the giveaway that Goodreads is lying, unless you find this forum (which I only found because I was searching to see whether others had had problems with giveaways). By the time you find out you've been misled, you're already "committed" to giving away the books. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition for the author. You lose your books. You don't get useful winners. And, if you fight the system, you risk your reputation.
Goodreads needs to change how this operates, and do it quickly. Multi-sided markets cannot prosper and continue to grow when one of the participants is being exploited by the others. Especially on a site where the source of value is books, you can't abuse the goodwill and pocketbooks of authors.
The solution to this is simple. Tell the truth about how giveaways work. 100% of the truth, and in simple, clear terms. No "phases of the moon" nonsense.
Second, clean out the fraud. You can't depend on authors to figure out who the bad actors are that are participating in draws to get product to sell. Fraud needs to be stamped out, or it diminishes trust in the whole platform and process and will cause authors to stay away.
Third, how targeted the audience should be for any drawing should be the author's choice. Some books are only suitable for narrow audiences; others are written to appeal to and be useful to anyone. But in either case, recognize that most authors are not yet on the NYT bestseller list, and have limited resources available for promotions of any kind. Publishers do not support marketing for any but the best known authors, which means everything falls to the author, from organizing the tours, to licking the postage, and all costs in between.
No author should ever be put in the position that I'm in because of the deceptive practices, unclear language and dishonest promotions of the host site.
Goodreads is not a good fit for any author to conduct a book giveaway. It's just less bad for some than for others.
Paul wrote: "...for me the larger principle is a large company acting in a deliberately deceptive manner and trapping authors into acting against their interest."*head desk* seriously? You seem to have a basic comprehension problem. NOWHERE does Goodreads guarantee reviews (whether from readers you think are qualified to review or not, which is a whole 'nother issue).
As an author, when you go to list a giveaway, this is what they say:
Create buzz for an upcoming book or build interest and awareness for a previously published book!
You keep using very emotive language for a very simple issue. You misread the terms & conditions for a giveaway. Giveways are not a vehicle for reviews and nowhere does Goodreads say they will guarantee you reviews. They are used to create buzz and give you something fun to promote on social media. I've run numerous giveaways, given away probably about 20 books. Costing $20 postage each from New Zealand and you don't hear me whining about that - it's just a cost of doing business. I haven't had a single review as a result. That doesn't worry me. I never thought/intended/expected a giveaway to result in reviews. If my books are out there in the world, then I'm happy. If someone won, doesn't like it, and passes/sells it on, then great. Maybe it will find a new reader elsewhere.
You seem to obfuscate intentionally now. I'm struggling to believe someone could still cry "fraud" when so many people have gone to such great lengths (with screenshots!) to try and point out the GR policy & statements to you.
You misunderstood, it happens, move on.
As a reader, I always thought there was some type of selection process, not randomness. I thought that they took what you did/read on the site into consideration like how active you are on goodreads, how many books you read, and if you rate/review your books. I'm diappointed now. No wonder why I have never won a giveaway since 2012. I used to win two books a year. Now, I'm lucky to even win any at all.
Paul wrote: "Goodreads needs to change how this operates, and do it quickly. Multi-sided markets cannot prosper and continue to grow when one of the participants is being exploited by the others. Especially on a site where the source of value is books, you can't abuse the goodwill and pocketbooks of authors."The problem here is that you are just misunderstanding things. The source of GR value is absolutely not "books". The source of GR value is reader provided content and access to readers. There are tons of places where I can get books - from libraries, to bookstores, to UBS, to netgalley, to freebies on amazon.
There are significantly fewer places where authors can potentially get access to the eyeballs of 20 million readers for the purpose of raising awareness/buzz about their books.
We know that readers are the value because readers use the site for free, and authors pay for it.
And, Hannah, there are more members now on GR than there were in 2012, which will commensurately decrease your odds of winning a book because you are competing with a larger pool of potential winners. I have heard that it is easier to win a book when you are a new member as opposed to a long term member. In addition, I would just add that if the goal was to help authors find "qualified reviewers" then it would always be the same top reviewers who would win the giveaways because they are the most active, the most prolific, and the ones with the most eyes on their reviews.
Since a lot of those top reviewers already have relationships with publishers, run successful review blogs, and participate in netgalley and eidelweiss, they already have access to free books. Spreading the opportunity to win to less prolific users makes sense from GR perspective.
Crystal Clary wrote: Or we could exchange our books with other authors and ask for a review. I have friends that are also Authors. Let me know what you think. Crystal Crystal, you have pretty much the same idea as we do at Indie Book Boosters Club: “If we always helped one another, no one would need luck.” – Sophocles.
We're a small but growing group, so come join us! www.IndieBookBoosters.CLUB
Paul wrote: "I did a random selection of 10 profiles from the several hundred entrants who have my book on their shelf to read. Of those, 9 of 10 were clearly well-qualified -- exactly the kinds of people I was expecting to give the book to -- and the 10th though uncertain, was probably good too, and I'd have been happy to send it out either way. So, how does a selection that was supposed to factor in genres of books on shelves result in zero of 10 being good candidates? It is nearly statistically impossible."I've just come upon this discussion, so apologies in advance if I repeat the substance of comments already posted (I've read quickly through the string but not carefully).
I believe Paul is going a bit far when he characterizes GR giveaways as fraud, a kind of cynical con game practiced on self-promoting authors (I'm one of those) for the benefit of opportunistic book-buzzards. It seems to me that the argument is revolving around intent; and I don't believe GR has any intention to defraud authors by persuading them to give away copies of their books, mostly to alleged "readers" who are not, in fact, going to read them.
However, Paul makes a valid and important point about what he calls "qualified" readers. While I would not advocate a giveaway process that allows an author to "hand-pick" reader/reviewers, I do believe that winners of GR giveaways should be selected from that subset of GR members who have a demonstrated interest in and acquaintance with the species of book on offer. I would have thought that GR readers would self-police on this point and enter giveaways only for the sorts of books they enjoyed reading and really wanted to own. It never crossed my mind that GR members would enter a giveaway merely in hope of scoring a free copy that they would turn around to sell (for pennies, most likely; what is real advantage here, I wonder?). Naive me!
The experience I had with my first giveaway (for a novel) is difficult to judge, as it's impossible for me to know what eventually happened to those 12 free copies. I can report that 3 of the 12 winners posted reviews, and I believe one other gave the book a rating without providing a review. The remaining 8, of which 4 or 5 are outside the U.S., have remained silent. It's disappointing, but I did not expect all 12 to write a review; people begin with good intentions, I believe, then find (in some cases) that they just can't get their thoughts together to write something smart and useful. That's OK; better no review than something half-baked based on confusion and misunderstanding.
The part that bothered me (and still bothers me; in this sense I'm with Paul) is that most of the 12 winners were pretty clearly not among the novel's intended audience. To their credit, two winners who posted reviews included statements to the effect that they didn't generally read this sort of novel and didn't generally like them--and didn't like mine, either. Fair enough; but why enter the giveaway in the first place? Why spend time reading a novel in a genre you don't like, then spend more time posting a negative review about it? It doesn't help you; it only hurts the author and the book. It would be like me going out of my way to get a copy of "chick-lit" fiction and then, from a perspective of readerly prejudice, ridiculing it for being silly and implausible and as boring (to me!) as shopping for lipstick.
GR is never going to be able to guarantee that giveaway winners write reviews; the winners are volunteers, not paid professionals. However, GR should most definitely arrange the selection process to get those free copies into the hands of readers who are genuinely interested in reading the book--and who will be more likely to write that smart & useful review every author hopes for.
That said, I've posted a new giveaway, this one for the hardcover edition of that novel. I know I'm taking a chance on the final selection and that it's possible that the four winners (yes, just 4 free copies this time, ladies & gents) will fall outside the book's intended audience. I guess I must be willing to risk it, as I have--because if I don't risk it, no one will see the book, or get it, or have it, or (I hope) read it.
It might be helpful to think of a giveaway not as a means of eliciting reviews, but as a way of possibly attracting the interest of readers.
So, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, or against GR rules, or not, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact with 5 other members who have entered the giveaway but didn't win, but who shelved your book as to read, and offer them an ARC?I can only speak for myself, but if I had entered a giveaway which I had not won, and shelved the book as a "to read", if an author contacted me to offer me a review copy, I would not consider it unsolicited spam. In fact, I'd probably be pretty excited.
That way you get the benefit of members who have already demonstrated interest, a bit of control over who gets at least some of your review copies, as well as the profile-raising benefit of the giveaway.
This still doesn't mean that you will necessarily get a review. But it would allow the author a bit of control over some of the pre-publication copies.
Just a thought.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact with 5 other members who have entered the giveaway but didn't win, but who shelved your book as to read, and offer them an ARC?I'd say that's a very good thought, even if it is like an author "hand-picking" reader/reviewers, albeit only potentially. It's an improvement on what seems to be GR's method. The worst thing that might happen, I'd say, is that one/several of the giveaway contestants to whom the author wrote with an offer of a review copy might feel pressured or "solicited" for a review. Whether or not GR has a policy against doing this, I don't know.
John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact with 5 other mem..."Authors contact me all the time to offer me ARCs (not on GR, though, for clarity). I have a review blog with several hundred followers, and have almost 1,000 followers on booklikes. I also use netgalley, and occasionally post reviews on amazon. There is no problem with unsolicited requests (to my private email) unless the person has indicated that they don't want them. The worst that can happen is that they won't respond, which is what I do with nearly 100% of the requests that I receive. Every once in a while, something catches my fancy, and I will say yes.
GR is different, of course. Authors are strongly discouraged from spamming readers, and many readers do in fact respond badly to authors sending them unsolicted recommendations and/or PMs offering review copies. So, I certainly wouldn't start PM'ing top reviewers/reviewers with a lot of friends and "cold calling" them with offers of review copies. This will end badly. It is really important for authors to remember that reviewers receive a lot of review requests and a lot of offers of free books, and it can become harassing to constantly be bothered by authors who want to market to us.
But if someone has shelved your book through entering a giveaway, I don't think it is the GR equivalent of a telemarketer. They've already indicated an interest in winning your book.
Maybe some of the other readers of the thread can weigh in. I don't want to give bad advice.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "...then to make contact with 5 other members who have entered the giveaway but didn't win, but who shelved your book as to read, and offer them an ARC?..."With a big caution that entering a giveaway puts the book on your "to read" shelf (unless you remember to unselect that box).
If hand picking from readers showing your book on "to read"—probably still a good idea to get an idea of their reading interests and if they even review.
Might be better for an author seeking reviews to see what groups presumably interested readers belong to—in case they belong to one of the free-for-review groups you could use as an opening versus a cold contact. Maybe they might belong to one of the support-indie-author or reader-author-connections groups so would be more receptive to author contact.
I vehemently disagree that entering a giveaway, shelving a book, following/fanning an author means I won't consider contact by an author as spam, even with a free book offer. I'm sure every reader has their own idea of what they do/don't consider spam or offensive. For myself, I don't bother reporting or doing anything about a single polite message from an author I had somehow had contact with. I only flag as spam or inappropriate the nastiness and a couple of pet peeve spams (like an author I had no prior contact friend requesting me, my friend list and my fellow group members in case someone had inbox set to friends only then immediately proceeding to send spam even if clearly not likely something interested in, answering my inbox question [ set just to keep out massive automated messages] with the automated spam ...most automated spam isn't from authors but rather same crap you see in regular email like drugs, sex, Nigerian princes, etc.).
Having your book on someone's to read shelf doesn't mean they won't flag your message as spam nor does it mean they have signed up to receive messages from you.
Not really on topic for this thread but many readers deliberately shelving a book as to-read (versus forgetting to unselect during giveaway entry process or mis-clicking something) may be using that shelf name to mean books they already have but have yet to read. "To read" shelf is not always a "wishlist" shelf.
goodreads does discourage authors from contacting giveaway entrants (even to just say "thank you"). I hesitated to post that because my old lady memory isn't remembering the exact links to where they said that.
D.A. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, or against GR rules, or not, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it b..."Thanks for weighing in.
Yeah, I'm thinking you are right. Maybe do the giveaway to get the benefit from the "giveaway buzz" and also join some Read-To-Review groups in your genre to offer R2R copies.
I don't honestly understand how multiple copies of a book in a giveway creates more "buzz." It does increase the chance of a review, but since giveaways don't guarantee reviews, maybe a combination of both R2R participation & giveaways would be the ideal way to maximize engagement with readers without irritating by spamming readers who don't want to be spammed.
Unless I am wrong, R2R doesn't create an enforceable obligation for reviews, but if the person receiving the book doesn't post a review in a reasonable period of time, I think that they are removed from the list of possible reviewers.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact wit..."I've been contacted exactly once by an author offering a free review copy for a book I had shelved "to-read". I have no problem with that whatsoever. I gladly accepted in this case.
However, authors do need to be careful as there have been occurrences of authors offering a reader a review copy who had shelved their book some form of "NOT interested". That doesn't go over so well.
John wrote: "Paul wrote: "I did a random selection of 10 profiles from the several hundred entrants who have my book on their shelf to read. Of those, 9 of 10 were clearly well-qualified -- exactly the kinds of..."Thanks John. I pretty much agree with everything you said. The one thing that bothers me that some of my critics are deliberately not listening to or misinterpreting/twisting what I said is that when Goodreads promotes giveaways, they are not honest in what they say about them, and if someone relies on that to make a decision, then minimally they've been deceived (we could argue about intent, but the Goodreads material is strong enough in what it says to cross that line), and in the worst case, defrauded.
This is a really simple principle of law, as I've tried to explain. You can't offer a car that has 350hp for a price, and then only provide one that has 275hp. You can't say you are selling clothes at 50% off if you've never sold them at full price. You can't claim that your algorithm works one way, but when you challenge tech support, they say it works completely differently. It's really a very simple idea.
Regarding reviews, every author would like them, and I suspect most will even take bad ones without whining about it too much. We're all grown ups. Of course that's a core objective of the program, or Goodreads wouldn't aggressively tell you that 60% of giveaway winners do reviews, and the more books you give away, the more reviews you'll get. I know they can't promise that, but they are saying it pretty directly, black on white, and that is a false inducement to give away more books than you otherwise might. And, as I've pointed out a few times, I don't care if I get a single review -- however, if the way the drawing is conducted makes getting a fair review impossible, then what Goodreads says is again, a misrepresentation. I'd like a chance at one, not zero chance. That's all.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, or against GR rules, or not, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveawa..."This suggestion is still too far in favor of people signing up for books they don't intend to read, but I could live with this as a compromise. If I made a decision based on this clear outline of how the draw would work, then it would be an honest representation, and not leave me feeling cheated.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, or against GR rules, or not, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it b..."How can goodreads control whether people enter giveaways for books they don't intend to read? Since they are unable to read minds and all.
The only thing that GR could do is monitor the winners, and if they fail to post a review in a reasonable time frame, say six months, put a flag on their account that removes them from consideration for further giveaways. Of course, they could not do this without making clear to entrants that they intended to do it, which is inconsistent with their program as it stands now. And, as well, what is the reader supposed to do when the author flakes out on the review copy and never sends it? Go buy the book that they were supposed to get for free in order to stay in GR's good graces. That's not going to work at all.
John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact with 5 other mem..."As long as it's verboten to pressure readers, then why not. It would be foolish of an author to pressure people for reviews anyway, as this is more likely to result in a bad review, as well as complaints to management.
No one has ever suggested handpicking winners. That isn't necessary for this to work in everyone's interest. But people should be selectable for eligibility based on the things they normally enjoy to read or areas they have expertise in -- that doesn't in any way compromise the intent of giveaways, and results in a system that's better for everyone
Moonlight Reader wrote: "John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, but then to make contact wit..."Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on their shelves.
Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "John wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "If an author has, say, ten copies to giveaway, would it be possible to do a giveaway for 5 copies to be selected at random by GR, bu..."When you start the process to enter the giveaway, it gives you the option of shelving the book to read. It is pre-checked. It is possible to uncheck it before hitting the enter button.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Paul wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "So, I'm not sure if this is appropriate, or against GR rules, or not, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. If an author has, say, ten copies to giveawa..."No, you can't read minds, but you can use expressed intent as a proxy. Putting a book on your "to read" shelf is a deliberate act of intent. There's no perfect way to do anything, but we can come close to good enough.
Paul wrote: "Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on their shelves."It looks like this:
You can uncheck the box if you don't want the book put onto your to-read shelf.
So, then not having that box checked is definitely a lower level of interest. What I can say absolutely is that the people who entered in my drawing and had that box checked were almost all regular readers of business books. Those who unchecked it, and in particular the "winners" who all unchecked it, never read business books. Seems like a pretty high correlation to me.
But it isn't even necessary to do that. Simply look at the genres that people read and the books they recommend, or do a compatibility match against the author, which is pretty simple since Goodreads already does it, and you'll come up with an infinitely better selection list.
Paul wrote: "Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on their shelves."As MR has pointed out GR does default to a reader adding the book to their "to read" shelf when they enter a giveaway. I suspect this in an attempt to provide the book more exposure on GR - which it does, to Friends and Following seeing in their feeds that person has added the book.
Since it's defaulted that way, it's a good bet many entrants simply leave it that way and and the book is added, possibly in many cases as a reminder to themselves they've entered the giveaway. No doubt many who have books added from giveaways will never read the book if they end up not winning.
Being on a "to-read" shelf after entering a giveaway due to the giveaway function really can't be seriously considered intent to read a book independent of the giveaway. No doubt some do enter giveaways for books they intent to read anyway, and did prior to the opportunity to try to win a free copy. Or even after, having learned about it due to the giveaway. But it really cannot be assumed.
It is able to be deselected at that time and not added to the "to read" shelf. No doubt there are many other entrants who take advantage of that option.
But the default is to have the book also added to the users to read shelf.
(And gee I am now additionally glad non-friends can't scope out my shelves.)
Paul wrote: "No one has ever suggested handpicking winners. That isn't necessary for this to work in everyone's interest. But people should be selectable for eligibility based on the things they normally enjoy to read or areas they have expertise in -- that doesn't in any way compromise the intent of giveaways, and results in a system that's better for everyone"
Paul's point right here (quoted above) is, I think, the essential, irreducible qualifier that ought to guide these giveaways. It's especially important in the case of non-fiction, and even crucial in the case of a non-fiction book that offers expertise and guidance in a specialized field of endeavor. If the book up for giveaway imparts practical expertise about, let's say, negotiating an M&A deal, how is it legitimate for me to enter that giveaway when I lost my J.D. down a sewer 25 years ago? For non-fiction, and particularly for what I'd call "practice-specific expertise," we are very close to what academia calls "peer review." Readers not in the practice and lacking any serious intention of entering it really should disqualify themselves from seeking free copies of such books.
It's different for fiction. Ideally, any novel ought to be at least potentially appealing to any particular reader of novels. So, if a reader not usually interested in science-fiction enters a giveaway for my novel, I can't really complain (although I did, somewhat fiercely) on the grounds of genre-indifference. As long as the reader's interest is inspired by a good faith curiosity, I would not disqualify him or her. My objection, in the case of fiction, is the instance of a reader with an established and conscious dislike of the genre. In that instance, why is that reader making a play for my book?
This practice in relation to non-fiction that offers (as I've defined it above) "practice-specific expertise" is not just bad form or bad manners but really borders on dishonesty. It's not that such a reader can't or should not read the book, but that such a reader really is not qualified to have his or her opinion about that book in public. And if that's the case (and it is throughout academia and the professions), then why is that reader entering a giveaway for that book? And why is GR allowing him/her to win?
Auntie J wrote: "Being on a "to-read" shelf after entering a giveaway due to the giveaway function really can't be seriously considered intent to read a book independent of the giveaway."Well, that neatly explains why my novel has sold exactly zero copies despite being on the "to-read" shelf of 200-some GR members as the result of a giveaway.
This is all very discouraging.
Auntie J wrote: "Paul wrote: "Books do not get put on your "to read" shelf when you enter a giveaway. If they did, then several hundred more people who entered my giveaway would have the book on their shelves."As..."
You missed the point. Unchecking it, if it's already checked, is a strong indication of lack of interest. Most people go with whatever the default is (e.g. in countries where you have to opt-out of organ donation, far more organs are available for transplant).
So, I'd be happy to go with that, but as noted, the stronger preference is to actively choose people who like to read the right catgories of books. It simply makes sense.
You forgot the bit about being invited over for cake. I always liked that bit. Although, I never got invited for cake some of my groups here have provided virtual baked goods and even hard liquor ...
(*snicker* did anyone ever expect Moonlight Reader or myself to be called ... fans ... of post-2013 goodreads?)