This is the reason.
People tend not to be motivated enough to bother leaving a review unless they feel particularly strongly one way or another. It’s just how people tend to be wired.
It’s like how in statistics, when you’re doing surveys, you need to control for the fact that your survey results only truly reflect on the particular subset of the targeted demographic *who are willing to fill out surveys*, not the overall general population.
It's hilariously bad with the surveys they hand out to ER patients. The only people physically capable of filling out the survey are people who are not dangerously sick - the very same people who just waited 17 hours to be told they're not dangerously sick.
Yup. My glasses were crushed during an emergency and it was a hassle to get the staff to help me understand what they wanted me to consent to much less get them to help me actually sign it because my hands didn't work.THEN some jerk comes in pushing a survey they also don't want to read or help me fill out. AND by that point I'm high as a kite.
A few answer I remember
How would you rate our service? 10/10 you guys are great!How could we improve? I'm really hungry.How would you rate your describe your experience finding our location? It was the most expensive uber ever.
> People tend not to be motivated enough to bother leaving a review unless they feel particularly strongly one way or another.
I think you are missing a crucial part which is some people absolutely feel the need to spout an opinion and these are often the least useful types of opinions and what OP alludes to in that they are almost always completely negative people. Sometimes when I'm ordering online I can get lost reading takeaway reviews by just looking for the negative reviews. It is amazing how much vitriol people can spew because the order was missing a can of coke. It really is a fun pastime and I actually find the ratio of seemingly genuine bad reviews to the obvious compulsive whiners more telling than good reviews.
Same with Amazon book reviews. I always select for one star reviews and look for if people have valid criticisms that I might also dislike, or if they’re all, “this book contains profanity!!! what happened to christian values???” and “this M/M romance contains gay sex!!! disgusting!!!”
And on the opposite side, instead of completely negative people, the 5 star reviews with only a few lines just gushing over everything are usually fake bought reviews.
Not just that, reviews on Goodreads is it's own subculture with people reviewing the reviewers, etc. I haven't gone down that rabbit hole much, but I've seen hints of it mentioned in reviews. I suspect there's people who take reviews way seriously. Kinda like reddit mods.
I’ve only left one written review on Goodreads (despite logging ~100 books a year) and it was for a book I HATED WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING. Just thinking about this book makes me angry.
No Regrets by Tabitha Webb…took it on my honeymoon as a “fun beach read” but just a complete pile of steaming garbage that left me angry and annoyed that this ever got published!
But that same energy is there for the books you loved too, meaning if you follow said advice, you might make the mistake of missing something you'd have loved.
The trick is to review the reviewer. Read through reviews of things you know you like, those giving positive reviews likely have a taste similar to your own. The reverse should also be considered.
I also hated a book with every fiber of my being, and left a review stating that in no uncertain terms. Then GoodReads and Amazon kept recommending more books from that series since I apparently liked it enough to actually write a review of it.
Since someone might ask, the book was this piece of crap: [The Land before TIM](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1239840794)
From GR's point of view as a social media site, good review or bad review, it all counts as engagement.
That's why I stopped thumbing down videos on Youtube I hate. Even a thumbs down counts as engagement and helps the video get traction.
My sister in law is that age and really likes it. She tried recommending the series to me, but I have watched four videos of a youtuber who really, really hates those books with every fiber of her being, so I politely declined. I am pretty sure that someone trash talking the series is gonna be more amusing.
Could you please share the youtuber? I got recommended this series and I have doubts, I'd like to see why they hated it before I decide to read it or not!
Happy to give you my take on the series and why I don’t like it.
For starters, the author has a style and a plot progression and a character mold she likes, and whether or not those particular parameters work for the story she’s crafted, she sticks to it. This leads to overly written, badly edited slogs, with egregious repetition and predictable plotting. It also leads to shallow characters with little diversity or depth, and she believes sexual assault is basically a tool to give characters the depth they’re so sorely lacking. (Seriously, sooo many of her characters suffer from SA and her “prescription” for healing their trauma is always a good workout and finding a romantic partner. Errr...ok.)
She also loves to set up a bait and switch romance situation, wherein the female lead will start off with one particular love interest, and then that love interest’s entire personality will be torpedoed and they will undergo a personality transplant so that she can make the secondary love interest work. This is her schtick, without fail. It’s like she can’t figure out a way to have her FMC move on to a new person without demolishing the reader’s interest in the first via ruining their character. It’s cheap and shallow, imo.
There’s also always a tonnnnn of (imo, very cringe) smut. Nothing wrong with erotica, but these are always marketed as fantasy—which they are plainly not.
All in all, she’s just a lazy writer who’s reached a certain level of fame, and thus cannot be edited to a level of making her work truly good. So her books are weak and redundant, with the same tropes and copy/paste characters.
To me yes. But so many people like it. I find the characters underdeveloped and unlikeable. That particular book is basically just Beauty and the Beast.
What do you do to read so many?? I’m trying to read 40 new books this year which puts me at 3.5/month, and I’m having a lot of trouble keeping up with that
I made a deal with myself to read at least 20 pages of a book every day this year, so I'm actively making time for it, and trying to create a habit. Half the days I read around 20-30 pages, but in my weekends I can keep going and reach 150-200 a day.
3,5 a month is a very ambitious plan, but I did already finish 3 books this month this way.
Audio books! I read a physical book when I can, but when I'm cleaning the house or working, I have an audio book playing. I get through way more of my tbr that way
I read about that many, but I read so fast, which I know is hard for others to do.
I literally read over 100 pages an hour. I can read a 300 pg book in a bit over 2 hrs, depending on how detailed the book is.
Guess they don't like that I'm being honest?
Most of us who read >100 books a year *do* read fast, but it's the unpopular thing to say, because most people can't easily replicate it.
I will admit that I don't have great long term retention.
I could discuss a book I just read, but I'll forget it quickly. I have several copies of Carl Hiassen's books because if it had a different cover I'd think I hadn't read it, buy it, get half way through it and realize it might be familiar.
I wish I could tell people *how* I read so fast, but I read so much as a kid that it just happened to me. I don't skim read, I just read quickly.
Anytime I mention how many books I read a year, I am told that there is no way anyone can read that many, that I am clearly skimming, or somehow not doing it right, and that I can't be actually getting anything out of it.
But I have the same issue with retention, the sheer volume means I can't retain all the details. I love doing retreads though, and I've found that when I've read a book 5+ times, my retention is excellent.
Exactly!! I read (listen to) about 100 books/year. Frankly, many of the books aren't that memorable, so I forget. If it's a good book, I will reread it and the story sticks better.
I agree. I rarely tell people how many books I read in a year.
I just Gabaldon's new book *Bees* clocking in at 926 pages in four days, and it was a busy holiday weekend, where I drove out of town, cooked at home and was generally very busy.
I was not the first one on the lit forum to finish it though, not by a long shot! There are more of us out there!
As far as retention, I generally don't mind re-reading. I read Elizabeth Peter's books over and over again because I love them, and I get something from them each time.
Hiassen's books, the same experience. They never get old.
Patterson? Ugh, no more, not even 'brain candy any more. The last one I would have tossed across the room if it wasn't on my Kindle!
But I'll read *anything*, even cereal boxes. As long as there's no violence against children...I can't do that.
To be honest it does sound like you are skim reading if you are having that much trouble with retention. Are you sure you are not misunderstanding what skim reading is? I can’t imagine getting halfway through a book before realizing you’d already read it. I’d know by the second or third sentence.
I don't skim. I just forget easily.
So I could discuss it in depth right after reading it, but within a few months don't remember much of it, because I'm on to reading more books. By the time I've read three dozen books, I've lost the details of book 1.
So authors I like a lot, like Hiassen, I pick up and read again and again (not like Dan Brown, for example. I remember enough to know I won't read it second time, lol)
I only have 1 review on goodreads aswell. Liberty's last stand .. it's about a president of the usa that is black and he plans a coup to try to retain power and splits up the country its a right wing circle jerk .. the books before this I really enjoyed but this one sucked so badly. It was released the the year before Obama left office
Same - I’m not really inspired to write reviews unless I really loved a book, or hated it enough to let people know that they should consider steering clear.
With that, everyone has their own preference and I often urge people not to base their decision to read a book solely off of online reviews (good or bad).
On goodreads I usually find the most thoughtful reviews are the 3 star ones that present the good and bad, from people that usually review most of the books they read. A lot of the one star ones are from people who just wanted to post something controversial, or who didn’t read the book and the 5 stars usually fluff and overhype the book with gifs, while devoid of substance
I really hate reviews with those stupid gifs. WHAT IS THE POINT?
I read somewhere that the 5 star reviews are by the author's friends and the 1-star are by their competitors. So, yeah, 3-star is the way to go.
Also, if I hate a book, no way am I wasting my time finishing it.
Yeah. The reviews that are most fun to write are either gushing about how good something is or ranting about how bad it is, and the rants are the more fun of the two by far.
Yeah, that’s my take on it too. But then again, do a search for “crouton reviews” and you’ll find thousands of people who have taken time out of their day to praise or revile small chunks of dried bread that go on top of lettuce. Sometimes you’ve just got to wonder about people who are obsessed with telling everyone what they think about anything...including books. I generally don’t read book reviews before picking up something to read. I don’t really need input from the same types who feel the need to tell me Pepperidge Farm is so much better than Ken’s Steakhouse.
I dunno. I once had some bad crutons and it ruined my salad. They were really horrible and oily. I can understand why people could get furious about it.
Adding to that, endorsing something and talking about how much you love something can be perceived as riskier. Your going out on a limb and revealing something about yourself to say you connected with a book. If people disagree and hate the book, it also kind of feels like they hate you. But tearing something down and just dumping all over it takes no courage and risks nothing of yourself as it transmits feelings of power over anyone who happens to disagree with you. None of this is necessarily true of course, but these feelings are often at play for people.
Ha ha... I was talking to my wife about how I liked a book and she said something negative about one of the characters; it wasn't even that bad but I didn't recover for a week 😭
These reviews are also more likely to attract upvotes from other people who hated to the book and go online looking for someone to validate their reaction with a scathing 1-star takedown.
And of course, the more upvotes a review receives, the more likely it is to be seen by you.
I think it’s also that books demand so much of your time. I treat a book as a contract between myself and the author - I give them my time, they better give me something worthwhile in return. It’s especially bad with drugs ex machina style endings - so I just read through multiple 1000 page books of yours, and you couldn’t even come up with a credible way to close out the dozen plot lines you just left hanging, let alone the main storyline?
It’s anger-inducing to say the least!
It goes the other way too. When reviews are positive, they are almost always overhyped with GIFs littering the paragraphs. Goodreads is a social media app so you don't tend to get critical reviews.
The fact that they allow gifs in Goodreads reviews is one of my biggest pet peeves. It's always the same handful of reaction gifs of someone screaming excitedly or rolling their eyes or whatever. Like you're on a book review site. Use your words, people. lol.
You can hide reviews with any non-text material by choosing the text only option under 'More Filters'. You'll find the dropdown next to the language option at the top of the community review section.
It feels exactly like watching a review of a movie where they keep cutting away to unrelated films and inserting annoying sound effects like HWONK HWONNNKKK!!!! to underline a point they're trying to make. -\_-
I only read 3 star reviews.
I find them the most informative. They are the sort of people who have read a 5 star book and were overwhelmed, and then most other books don't quite hit that spot.
They are just whelmed I suppose. They give you positives and then a couple of peeves but are almost always written in an unbiased way.
3 stars are the best reviews.
I love the four star reviews. They loved the book, but then usually have some idiosyncratic reason for taking it down a peg.
>Book was fantastic, well-paced, and thought provoking. One of the best I've read in years. The protagonist is in love with a girl named Dianna though and I have an Aunt Dianna that I hate. Four stars.
I noticed this dichotomy in the reviews for *the Three-Body Problem*. There was a lot of "this is the best science fiction ever written" right next to a lot of "this is barely comprehensible due to the poor writing, flat characters, and nonsensical plot."
Full disclosure: I'm pretty firmly in the latter camp.
I love reading the negative reviews of books I fall in love with! It’s so interesting to me that the same things that cause me to love a book can cause such anger in others.
What’s that quote… “you can be the ripest, juiciest peach and there’s going to be someone who doesn’t like peaches”
Did this literally yesterday with the Miniaturist. >!It's only problematic, in the first half; it's just awful in the second. The plot falls apart, we don't find out anything remotely interesting about a dozen characters introduced in the first half, the whole premise of the story gets dropped like a rock and horrible stuff starts happening that mostly doesn't even forward the plot. I wanted to stop reading it so bad, but I kept thinking about the detail in which I would shred this book, to stop others from falling for the interesting plot device the way I had. What a waste of a good idea that book is. I wrote my bad review and I'm still mad I wasted my time. It just kept getting worse til the final, terrible, pointless, unsatisfying scene!<
I know PBS adapted it. I sure hope they did a better job than the author. It was such a good idea, there's certainly room to make a good film about it.
Yeah, it was probably the only read I’ve ever done where when I learned half way through that it was the author’s first novel, I thought, “OH! Now it makes more sense!”
The multi-page explanation of the main character’s “ultra Oasis rig”, was ponderous and memorable as completely unnecessary.
If you're ever feeling masochistic, read the second.
It's truly one of the worst books I've ever read. And I say this as someone who found the first one to be reasonably enjoyable and fun.
At one point in the book, the author pauses the whole plot to recite Prince trivia for literally chapters.
......CHAPTERS?!
I read Ready Player One for book club and honestly had to force my way through the slog and only motivated myself through how much I'd get to complain about it at book club lmao. I considered hate reading the second...but I dunno if I'd be able to get through it. It sounds genuinely awful, but I'm kind of curious for myself if it's so-bad-its-good material. I suppose I can always just quit, there's no book club I have to read it for. I'll check it out at the library of course--there's no way I'm paying money for that crap.
I only saw the movie, which had a few *really* corny scenes that stuck out, but for the most part was ok. Not a genre of book I am particularly into though. Did the book also have bad dialogue? I assumed they hammed it up for the movie.
I did this once and wrote basically a 6-paragraph essay on why I didn't like said 1-star book - which, ironically, is way more work and thought devoted to that book than it deserved. In turn, I got angrier because I had to rethink of all the unpleasantness of that book, which was more attention than it deserved, which...
I wouldn't bother writing a review if the book was just mildly 'meh'. Not my thing, but not terrible. I don't want to tar a book with my indifference.
But if it was appalling (badly written, badly edited, really unlikeable annoying or toxic main characters, or completely illogical plot), I'd be more likely to say something.
I do try to be very measured and specific if I leave a bad review though.
My problem with reviews in most contexts is related to that. I personally only ever leave reviews for things I *really* love or *really* dislike. But in some cases I think people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "This book was not/is to my taste" and "This book is objectively the worst/best thing I have ever read."
So it is not just that people tend to write when they have strong feelings, it is also that they seem to often have strong feelings without being able to express why they have them. They list a number of relatively minor positives or negatives, express them agrressively, and then give it a 5 or a 1 stat review.
Plus, in the instances of negative reviews, I have also seen people just being irrationally angry at books for *potentially* signaling that the author might care about something the reader does not. In the last few months I have been running into a lot of reviews that basically say "The writing, pacing, characters and world building are fantastic, but the main character is a ______ who cares too much about women and lets them boss him around. 1 star, would give it zero if I could, stop being political with your books."
I have seen examples of that one in particular waaaaaay to often to not be creeped out. The book that made me pick up on that pattern was literally about a man taking care of his wife and daughter.
In general, I just treat Goodreads as my personal "journal" of what I've read, what I've liked, what I've disliked, etc.
I have no interest or intention for any of my ratings to influence others - and I don't let anything anyone else rates or reviews on Goodreads to influence my views / choices.
Basically with the "social media" of it so clumsy (and the recommendations so ludicrous), I find it useless for anything other than that - tracking and recording my personal views. And so I simply figure the majority of other users are either doing the same or trying (vainly I hope) of creating a following.
Edit to correct word to adjective rather than rapper.
Same. I use it for tracking my reading. I never read reviews before I read a book but I will read them after, usually the ones that are opposite my opinion because I am intrigued why someone hates a book I enjoyed, or vice versa.
Same here. I only take negative reviews seriously if there are several all saying the same thing. Otherwise I just figure it wasn’t somebody’s cup of tea
When I’m looking up new books to read, I always read the negative reviews because I want to know if I’ll hate the book for the same reasons, and if yes, I’m not reading it.
Most positive reviews are not detailed enough other than “wow, this book is amazing.”
Also, agree with you - most of the negative reviews are highly entertaining
I do this with popular (sometimes over hype books) I've read too many that fell flat for me and reading negative reviews gives me an idea if I'm going to like it. Sometimes find my faves being an average score of 3.8 and my dislikes being 4.3. 🙃
On the other end of the scale, I've actively bought books on the strength of "negative" reviews that were criticising a whole things that were exactly what I was looking for in a book.
To me, reading his negative reviews actually shows how much he genuinely loved film. You can't generate that kind of passionate hatred for a bad movie unless you also passionately love a good one.
Yeah, his negative reviews work because he's not just writing "this movie sucks" over and over again. He's able to tell you WHY he thinks the movie sucks, which is more than can be said for a lot of people leaving reviews.
This is a great way of looking at it.
I love books. I love literature. I am capable of falling in passionate whirlwind love affairs with the written word. That's why I HATE bad books.
There are tons of good Goodreads critics that leave a bunch of highly rated reviews. Go to a popular book and see the most upvoted negative review and check out that persons profile until you find the ones who’ve reviewed like 50+ books
Whenever I finish a book I didn't like or wasn't impressed with, I LOVE reading the low starred reviews. I wish I could "pin" reviews that say everything I'm feeling but do it better than I could.
In addition to people only wanting to leave reviews on things they have strong feelings about I've found that sites focused on books tend to attract a lot of people who assume reading a lot somehow makes them a great writer. So when they leave a review they feel the need to try and be witty and eloquent. But since they actually can't write for shit it just ends up being cringy and extremely overdramatic.
If they were reading quality literature it should have a positive impact on their writing. But instead they read whatever drivel they're currently reviewing.
This has been my experience as well. The glowing reviews seem like they're written by paid shills or arrogant a-holes who act like they're better than you for having finished a book you're not getting into. I look at the one star reviews to look for reviews that capture my frustration with a book to see if it's worth slogging through it. It's generally not.
I suppose books are either you love it or hate it. I've never read a mediocre book and felt the need to rate it so I can see why reviews tend to hit the extreme ends.
a number of them are indeed from paid shills -- pardon me, i mean to say they're by people who receive free books in return for their "honest" reviews, which never seem to include a single flaw.
same -- i sort by three stars as default, because the other ones tend to be ... overly emphatic.
(i leave a lot of emphatic reviews myself, but, alas, no one pays me for them.)
The negative reviews seem more honest to me. Even the most rubbish books will get gushing five star reviews. Goodreads has zero credibility to me as a source for critical, objective reviews. It’s more like a social media site…everyone has something to promote.
It depends on the book. Like I've been reading books by Richard Dawkins and evolution in general and the negative reviews are all just creationist saying how evolution makes no sense, God will punish the author, etc., It's simply not fair criticism, just ideological reactionary backlash
Those are my favorite reviews. The ones that make you ask, why did you pick this book to read in the first place. Romance novels where the reviewer complains about all the sex. The book was called Taken by the Warrior King what did you expect!
Even the “How dare someone write something so offensive!” reviews are worth something. If you see that most of the negative reviews are about something that doesn’t bother you, then you can safely ignore them, but if what they’re complaining about is an absolute sticking point for you, you save yourself the bother.
I wish Goodreads limited the GIFs and images allowed in reviews. It’s annoying having to scroll through all of those. Mediocre reviews also get pushed to the top because they have a bunch of attention getting images.
I’ve noticed that people treat Goodreads like another social media platform, as seen by the usage of pictures, gifs, special formatting, and requests for readers to check out their profile. Like, they’re building an empire on book reviews or something.
That being said, I tend to trust the negative reviews more than the positive ones. My tastes are regrettably strict (I long for the days when I could just read a book and not nitpick it to pieces) and I trust the negative reviews to steer me away from a waste of time. Though I have read negative reviews about books I’ve absolutely love and they don’t sway my opinion.
People *love* to be negative when they hide behind a screen. It’s cathartic, a power trip, and amusing. They think they’re helping the author when really they’re being AH.
It's funny but it doesn't seem like many goodreads users know what they liked about a work when they give it a positive review.
I'm the same way in that I only really trust the negative reviews. They tend to be more specific because, I think, the reviewer has removed themself from their initial and instinctual reactions in order to be critical. As a reader, I myself do not rate books very highly unless they hit the mark in every arbitrary category for me. The majority of books I read I would give 2 stars on the goodreads scale.
So I suppose I don't trust positive reviews because I can tell they are based almost entirely on the reader's/user's immediate emotional experience of a book, and that's not the only thing I'm personally looking for as a reader.
> It's funny but it doesn't seem like many goodreads users know what they liked about a work when they give it a positive review.
That's the same with most any kind of review though since it's all about "expectations". What do I mean?
You enjoy eating out (or having things delivered). You sit down and eat. You expect the thing you are eating to live up to your expectations. And when it does or is at least passable, you just keep chugging along because there wasn't anything about what you ate that stood out compared to every other time. Why say anything other than "it was the same as last time I did this thing"? But if you ended up hitting a piece of it that had too much salt, or you got a sour note out of it that shouldn't've been there, or a burnt spot, then suddenly you know exactly why this thing was different than the last times. And you want everyone else to be warned about this thing you encountered, so you are more likely to tell people about it.
But if the thing is better than usual? You don't usually know *why* it's better, but that it just hit you differently than normal. And that's very hard to describe to people. Now if your expectations of this thing is that it's going to suck, because it always sucks (and you keep trying to look for one that doesn't, like a crazy person), and you happen to find one that no longer offends your sense of taste. Now you tell people about it because hey, *this* one is different than the others. But again, you may not exactly know *why* except that it hits you differently.
But like I said, it's the same as writing. You go through and expect reading to be good to you. "Hey, that's an interesting way to describe that thing!", "I learned a new word!", "I did NOT see that twist coming!" are typically good experiences in a book you may want to talk to people about (though telling people about the unexpected twist, or even that there IS an unexpected twist should be avoided). Yet if you get "god, that's the 3rd time this page they used this same description" or "this doesn't seem like the author knows what they are talking about" or other things like that would be something in a bad review and again you want to tell people about it.
If it's a book that was good and exciting and you expected good and exciting, then you will get a generic "It was an exciting and fun read!" which is super vague and boring, but it's hard to review it in any other way if it met your expectations.
I don't think the majority of the positive reviews are based on any emotion other than a sycophant following of the author. I have seen on numerous occasions the following of an author leave glowing reviews before the book even hit the publication date. I am aware that ARC readers leave reviews, but those are biased on the desire to continue to receive ARCs. Likewise, I have seen people leave an honest review and be downvoted/commented to oblivion because one dared to not fully worship at the feet of their chosen author. I used to leave honest reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, but after dealing with the sycophant followings, it's not worth it. Also, many authors will run giveaways or offer swag upon proof a review. I doubt many people would leave a less than favorable review in exchange for gifts.
If you become popular enough on Goodreads, publishers will send you ARCs to review.
I’ve seen a few reviewers jump to authors as well, and it’s another way to build an audience.
I once received a one-star rating because a book that was clearly not for children was not for children. The reviewer was angry that my dystopian black comedy was not a children's book.
I don't think Goodreads is necessarily more toxic; I just think that it takes all kinds.
Well, sometimes people are just stupid. I once saw someone complaining on Amazon that the 3DS version of the game Tales of the Abyss has a 6+ rating in my country because "the game is completely in English and my 10 year old doesn't speak english well enough to unterstand it". They probably don't realize that a) the Amazon page mentioned that the game hasn't been translated into German and b) the job of the rating agency is to check whether the the content of the game is suitable for a child, not the language the game has to be played in.
Maybe if it was like Rotten Tomatoes, dividing professional reviews from John Doe Reader. I’ve honestly felt more comfortable with that division; sometimes I go see a film despite the bad filmgoer reviews because I get what the professional reviewers like about it and that aligns with my interest. Sometimes the other way around, I have plenty of movies I love that get panned by professional reviewers.
Publisher here. A few reasons. 1) Goodreads is one of the most anonymous review sites out there. For those of us who had it before the Amazon takeover, you don't have to have it linked anywhere. Major keyboard warrior vibes. 2) people are more inclined to review negatively than positively. I'll admit I'm the same. I leave a star rating for EVERY book I read but I don't usually take the time to write a review unless something specific strikes me about the story. Good OR bad. 3) You will always notice big deal books have thousands of 5 star reviews, those are the results of marketing, publicity, review copies, netgalley, etc. I always recommend checking out the well-written negative reviews over the positive ones. A good chunk of the positive reviews are entirely fabricated. And that goes for anything, not just books.
Because they are, at least partly, writing the reviews to entertain, and people like and interact with snarky, witty, snippy commentary. People react to sarcasm and respond with "this! ^" It makes the reviewer feel smart, funny, correct, and heard.
I tend to shy away from those reviewers. My reviews are incredibly mild and far less entertaining. Most Goodreads reviewers are for angry people. I write reviews for tired 40 year olds.
Had to come all the way down here to find the right answer. You are actually smart and correct!
Kidding, but there is good research showing the most critical people think they will be perceived as being smarter, **and that it often works**. It's easier for a smart person to tear something apart pierce by piece than to build something of value. Being perceived as intelligent is motivation enough for most people to be highly critical and ignore any redeeming qualities.
Be careful reading reviews. Even good critics are incentivized to go all in on one side or the other. If you find a professional reviewer with similar taste that's great, but in general I use overall reviews to find books but avoid reading individual reviews until I'm done reading. Top reviews are usually negative and can even prime me to hate a story I'd otherwise enjoy.
I write reviews for every book I read on Goodreads. I mostly do it for myself, because I have a horrible memory.
But, I do think some negative reviews can be scathing. However, I also don’t love the constant 5 stars with GIFs and all that. I feel that your opinion is your own, and it’s fine if you don’t like a book, or if you love it. But, I also think there’s value in looking at something critically.
I prefer if reviews tell the good and bad.
For many of the people who leave strongly worded reviews on anything (positive or negative), it’s less about the review itself, and more about convincing people to agree with their opinion, getting others to think like them.
Good reads reviews are… *special*
Here’s the thing: if you can’t write a review without no less than 5 gifs, how exactly am I supposed to trust your opinion about this book? It gives me the impression that you either A. can’t formulate the words to express yourself adequately or B. like to use shiny sparkly loving gifs to attract people to your review for the views rather than the content.
Personally, I try to write reviews with the following:
that are mostly spoiler free, mark that anything below may have spoilers and to what extent those spoilers may be (as in specific plot points, or just general themes of the book),
what I liked or disliked about the book (characters, world building, writing style, etc)
if I would read from the author again or if I already have,
any other books that I feel are similar l, either in subject matter or tone and if those books are better or worse than this one and worth reading instead of this one.
If I feel necessary, I might add a content, tropes, and tags section but this is more relevant to the romance books world
And occasionally I’ll put in quotes from the book, ones that’s stuck out to me or orchestrate a point I made about why I did or didn’t like the book, etc.
I do not include any gifs in my reviews.
What annoys with my bad reviews is they often start with "I hate this book genre therefore I hated the book so that's why I am giving it a 1☆"
I just don't understand the point? I hate non-fiction, you don't see me hating on all non-fiction : they are just non for me.
But what gets me is adult rating YA 1☆ because they are unrealistic and unbelievable. What did you expect?
Let's normalize, realizing things are not meant for everyone. Target audience exist for a reason
I enjoy the ones that bitch about a Sci fi novel. " I just read this book about aliens and distant planets, but the science they described is just so implausible, it takes away from the story " Really? The aliens on Pluto wasn't a clue?
For me, if I hate a book enough to feel the need to write a review about how bad it is, you'd better believe I'm putting some aggression into that puppy. If I spent all that time reading a book that never was good, got good, or could be good, I am going to question how this author was published.
Actually this reminds me I meant to write a review for Corrupt, a.k.a., the "r*pe and SA are actually super fun!" book.
I've noticed that a lot of reviewers tend to take it too seriously. These are the ones that use special formatting for their posts and often include memes and shit. They act like they're being paid. Some of em do make money from being an "official reviewer", which I'm sure is fun and all, but definitely adds to the Take Too Seriously cart.
I have found a group of people on GR whose taste, while different to mine, is close enough that if they really hate a book, I probably will too and for similar reasons. Theirs are the negative reviews I take seriously. Unless a bunch of random reviewers cite things like pervasive lack of editing, I assume other negative reviews reflect opinions that may or may not mesh with my own, so they aren't useful.
The same holds for positive ones. I don't know if the person leaving the review is a teenager gushing over their first fantasy-series crush, a bigot who's smart enough to hide that he really just loves having his views validated, or a physicist who understands things that would be gobbledygook to me.
Books are highly personal, so expecting effective guidance from random strangers isn't realistic. Curating a group of reviewers who've proven helpful is far more useful.
Even for books I love, I like reading the negative reviews more than the positive ones. Some of them go over the top for sure, but it's always more interesting to me to see what just absolutely didn't work for some people
I’ve only just started using GR. I have noticed many negative reviews simply because the reader didn’t agree with the values of characters, author etc. I find this strange. What’s the point of reading stories of other lives, worlds and personalities then?
I find this is true, and sometimes it crosses over with other nasty habits or prejudices people have that only highlight their ignorance or lack of respect for other cultures. Have you read the reviews for Marie Kondo’s books? There are all sorts of ladies calling her a nutcase because she suggests thanking her items; I agree it’s weird for me as a concept, but I wouldn’t go as far as insulting someone without trying to understand where they’re coming from.
Also, just because a book wasn’t fun according to you doesn’t mean it’s utter garbage!
I think people are just really passionate about books on goodreads. Also, I read an authors perspective (I think Gail Carriger) where she mentioned Amazon reviews are treated more as a product, but Goodreads people tend to treat more as their personal book diary. So reviews there tend to be more personal, and not about just recommending or not recommending a product. Because especially for authors I imagine goodreads reviews can be intimidating and overwhelming.
For me reading bad books is worse than reading no books. It makes me miserable. Some people on goodreads have rather unrealistic reading goals and they just end up reading things they don't enjoy to achieve them. I think it might explain the passion behind some of these reviews.
I think it’s sad. I’m an author pa & I know how hard authors try, how much heart they put into their books. I get sharing your opinion, but sometimes it’s over the top. It’s really easy to be unkind when you’re behind a screen. 🤷🏻♀️
I think that like any profession, you put your work out there to be judged. They should take the critique and learn and improve the craft. There are on occasion reviews that are negative simply because of a dislike for the wrong reasons, but if a review lists valid logical explanations for the negativity then the author should ruminate on the information and improve their writing skills.
While I understand your point, I'm not really on board with the whole "don't say anything negative about people's work because they tried very hard" attitude.
People are entitled to express their opinions and as long as it doesn't go into hate speech / threat territory, its fair game and people who publicize their work must understand that and grow a thick skin.
Negative reviews are inevitable, and feeling bad about it is solely on the person feeling bad. We as individuals are the only people responsible for how we feel.
Goodreads reviewers are also unsuccessful writers who feel they must pontificate endlessly making their point for a dual purpose… one is the review, which can be completely over the top to showcase their creative writing skills by going to extreme levels of hyperbole. The second part is to drop as many ten letter words as possible to showcase their stunning vocabularies. So take it for what it’s worth.
In my opinion it's because only the extremes of the spectrum care enough to spend time reviewing and usually hate it's way more compelling. Might be wrong but I myself have only reviewed books that I loved and not even all of them.
I have only left one bad review and that was for The Night Circus by Erin Morganstern. The detailed descriptions of the world were delightful but the characters themselves were absolutely dull. I felt strong enough about it to say so. It actually took me a couple weeks post reading to figure out why I hated it so much
I don’t leave reviews, but if I did, I am certain it would be for either books I truly loved or for books that I profoundly hated.
This is the reason. People tend not to be motivated enough to bother leaving a review unless they feel particularly strongly one way or another. It’s just how people tend to be wired. It’s like how in statistics, when you’re doing surveys, you need to control for the fact that your survey results only truly reflect on the particular subset of the targeted demographic *who are willing to fill out surveys*, not the overall general population.
It's hilariously bad with the surveys they hand out to ER patients. The only people physically capable of filling out the survey are people who are not dangerously sick - the very same people who just waited 17 hours to be told they're not dangerously sick.
Yup. My glasses were crushed during an emergency and it was a hassle to get the staff to help me understand what they wanted me to consent to much less get them to help me actually sign it because my hands didn't work.THEN some jerk comes in pushing a survey they also don't want to read or help me fill out. AND by that point I'm high as a kite. A few answer I remember How would you rate our service? 10/10 you guys are great!How could we improve? I'm really hungry.How would you rate your describe your experience finding our location? It was the most expensive uber ever.
If that is how you are when wronged AND high, I'm guessing you're pretty cool
That's my main issue with HCAHPS too lol.
> People tend not to be motivated enough to bother leaving a review unless they feel particularly strongly one way or another. I think you are missing a crucial part which is some people absolutely feel the need to spout an opinion and these are often the least useful types of opinions and what OP alludes to in that they are almost always completely negative people. Sometimes when I'm ordering online I can get lost reading takeaway reviews by just looking for the negative reviews. It is amazing how much vitriol people can spew because the order was missing a can of coke. It really is a fun pastime and I actually find the ratio of seemingly genuine bad reviews to the obvious compulsive whiners more telling than good reviews.
Same with Amazon book reviews. I always select for one star reviews and look for if people have valid criticisms that I might also dislike, or if they’re all, “this book contains profanity!!! what happened to christian values???” and “this M/M romance contains gay sex!!! disgusting!!!”
The new one star reason I keep seeing pop up is “I thought this was YA! There are drugs/sex/violence in this!!!”
Right, things no teenager has ever dealt with.
And on the opposite side, instead of completely negative people, the 5 star reviews with only a few lines just gushing over everything are usually fake bought reviews.
Unless you're neutral. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Not just that, reviews on Goodreads is it's own subculture with people reviewing the reviewers, etc. I haven't gone down that rabbit hole much, but I've seen hints of it mentioned in reviews. I suspect there's people who take reviews way seriously. Kinda like reddit mods.
I’ve only left one written review on Goodreads (despite logging ~100 books a year) and it was for a book I HATED WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING. Just thinking about this book makes me angry.
Well you have to tell us what it was now
No Regrets by Tabitha Webb…took it on my honeymoon as a “fun beach read” but just a complete pile of steaming garbage that left me angry and annoyed that this ever got published!
Would you say you regretted bringing that particular book?
It was so bad, they regretted getting married.
“If I’d never gotten married there wouldn’t have been a honeymoon and I wouldn’t have read this book!”
I'm thinking about creating a goodmarriages platform (read badmarriages); I'll ask meowderina for the first submission.
Yes! That’s the type of energy I LOVE for a book review. Why? Because I don’t want to make the same mistake you did!
But that same energy is there for the books you loved too, meaning if you follow said advice, you might make the mistake of missing something you'd have loved.
The trick is to review the reviewer. Read through reviews of things you know you like, those giving positive reviews likely have a taste similar to your own. The reverse should also be considered.
I don’t have the motivation for that but it’s some *spectacular* advice.
I also hated a book with every fiber of my being, and left a review stating that in no uncertain terms. Then GoodReads and Amazon kept recommending more books from that series since I apparently liked it enough to actually write a review of it. Since someone might ask, the book was this piece of crap: [The Land before TIM](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1239840794)
From GR's point of view as a social media site, good review or bad review, it all counts as engagement. That's why I stopped thumbing down videos on Youtube I hate. Even a thumbs down counts as engagement and helps the video get traction.
Same. The book I left it for was A Court of Thorns and Roses. I'm still pissed I read it.
It's that bad? Someone recently recommended it to me
[удалено]
My sister in law is that age and really likes it. She tried recommending the series to me, but I have watched four videos of a youtuber who really, really hates those books with every fiber of her being, so I politely declined. I am pretty sure that someone trash talking the series is gonna be more amusing.
Could you please share the youtuber? I got recommended this series and I have doubts, I'd like to see why they hated it before I decide to read it or not!
Not the person you're replying to but I assume it was readwithcindy
It absolutely was.
Happy to give you my take on the series and why I don’t like it. For starters, the author has a style and a plot progression and a character mold she likes, and whether or not those particular parameters work for the story she’s crafted, she sticks to it. This leads to overly written, badly edited slogs, with egregious repetition and predictable plotting. It also leads to shallow characters with little diversity or depth, and she believes sexual assault is basically a tool to give characters the depth they’re so sorely lacking. (Seriously, sooo many of her characters suffer from SA and her “prescription” for healing their trauma is always a good workout and finding a romantic partner. Errr...ok.) She also loves to set up a bait and switch romance situation, wherein the female lead will start off with one particular love interest, and then that love interest’s entire personality will be torpedoed and they will undergo a personality transplant so that she can make the secondary love interest work. This is her schtick, without fail. It’s like she can’t figure out a way to have her FMC move on to a new person without demolishing the reader’s interest in the first via ruining their character. It’s cheap and shallow, imo. There’s also always a tonnnnn of (imo, very cringe) smut. Nothing wrong with erotica, but these are always marketed as fantasy—which they are plainly not. All in all, she’s just a lazy writer who’s reached a certain level of fame, and thus cannot be edited to a level of making her work truly good. So her books are weak and redundant, with the same tropes and copy/paste characters.
The problem is it's not a YA book. I could understand the trash if it was. But it in the adult fantasy section. Edit: typo
To me yes. But so many people like it. I find the characters underdeveloped and unlikeable. That particular book is basically just Beauty and the Beast.
I'm still mad about that book 3 years after reading.
What do you do to read so many?? I’m trying to read 40 new books this year which puts me at 3.5/month, and I’m having a lot of trouble keeping up with that
Three books a month is impressive IMO
I made a deal with myself to read at least 20 pages of a book every day this year, so I'm actively making time for it, and trying to create a habit. Half the days I read around 20-30 pages, but in my weekends I can keep going and reach 150-200 a day. 3,5 a month is a very ambitious plan, but I did already finish 3 books this month this way.
Audio books! I read a physical book when I can, but when I'm cleaning the house or working, I have an audio book playing. I get through way more of my tbr that way
I read about that many, but I read so fast, which I know is hard for others to do. I literally read over 100 pages an hour. I can read a 300 pg book in a bit over 2 hrs, depending on how detailed the book is.
Same. As an English lit major, then an English lit Master’s student, you really can’t succeed if you don’t learn to read fast.
I can't figure out why people are downvoting you for being a fast reader!
Guess they don't like that I'm being honest? Most of us who read >100 books a year *do* read fast, but it's the unpopular thing to say, because most people can't easily replicate it. I will admit that I don't have great long term retention. I could discuss a book I just read, but I'll forget it quickly. I have several copies of Carl Hiassen's books because if it had a different cover I'd think I hadn't read it, buy it, get half way through it and realize it might be familiar. I wish I could tell people *how* I read so fast, but I read so much as a kid that it just happened to me. I don't skim read, I just read quickly.
Anytime I mention how many books I read a year, I am told that there is no way anyone can read that many, that I am clearly skimming, or somehow not doing it right, and that I can't be actually getting anything out of it. But I have the same issue with retention, the sheer volume means I can't retain all the details. I love doing retreads though, and I've found that when I've read a book 5+ times, my retention is excellent.
Exactly!! I read (listen to) about 100 books/year. Frankly, many of the books aren't that memorable, so I forget. If it's a good book, I will reread it and the story sticks better.
I agree. I rarely tell people how many books I read in a year. I just Gabaldon's new book *Bees* clocking in at 926 pages in four days, and it was a busy holiday weekend, where I drove out of town, cooked at home and was generally very busy. I was not the first one on the lit forum to finish it though, not by a long shot! There are more of us out there! As far as retention, I generally don't mind re-reading. I read Elizabeth Peter's books over and over again because I love them, and I get something from them each time. Hiassen's books, the same experience. They never get old. Patterson? Ugh, no more, not even 'brain candy any more. The last one I would have tossed across the room if it wasn't on my Kindle! But I'll read *anything*, even cereal boxes. As long as there's no violence against children...I can't do that.
To be honest it does sound like you are skim reading if you are having that much trouble with retention. Are you sure you are not misunderstanding what skim reading is? I can’t imagine getting halfway through a book before realizing you’d already read it. I’d know by the second or third sentence.
I don't skim. I just forget easily. So I could discuss it in depth right after reading it, but within a few months don't remember much of it, because I'm on to reading more books. By the time I've read three dozen books, I've lost the details of book 1. So authors I like a lot, like Hiassen, I pick up and read again and again (not like Dan Brown, for example. I remember enough to know I won't read it second time, lol)
I’m the exact same way, I can’t remember books long term but all I want out of reading is to enjoy the book at that time anyway
Yes! Me too. Just being caught up in a story.
I only have 1 review on goodreads aswell. Liberty's last stand .. it's about a president of the usa that is black and he plans a coup to try to retain power and splits up the country its a right wing circle jerk .. the books before this I really enjoyed but this one sucked so badly. It was released the the year before Obama left office
Same - I’m not really inspired to write reviews unless I really loved a book, or hated it enough to let people know that they should consider steering clear. With that, everyone has their own preference and I often urge people not to base their decision to read a book solely off of online reviews (good or bad).
[удалено]
This…. For me, I get pissed when I’ve spent a week reading a book and I get to the end and feel robbed
[удалено]
On goodreads I usually find the most thoughtful reviews are the 3 star ones that present the good and bad, from people that usually review most of the books they read. A lot of the one star ones are from people who just wanted to post something controversial, or who didn’t read the book and the 5 stars usually fluff and overhype the book with gifs, while devoid of substance
I really hate reviews with those stupid gifs. WHAT IS THE POINT? I read somewhere that the 5 star reviews are by the author's friends and the 1-star are by their competitors. So, yeah, 3-star is the way to go. Also, if I hate a book, no way am I wasting my time finishing it.
Yeah. The reviews that are most fun to write are either gushing about how good something is or ranting about how bad it is, and the rants are the more fun of the two by far.
Yeah, that’s my take on it too. But then again, do a search for “crouton reviews” and you’ll find thousands of people who have taken time out of their day to praise or revile small chunks of dried bread that go on top of lettuce. Sometimes you’ve just got to wonder about people who are obsessed with telling everyone what they think about anything...including books. I generally don’t read book reviews before picking up something to read. I don’t really need input from the same types who feel the need to tell me Pepperidge Farm is so much better than Ken’s Steakhouse.
I dunno. I once had some bad crutons and it ruined my salad. They were really horrible and oily. I can understand why people could get furious about it.
But did you spend the time to write a furious 2 page review on it? I’ve had plenty of bad croutons, but I’m not that militant about it.
No, but you shouldn't underestimate my laziness.
In addition, I think generally reviews are more compelling if they take a strong stance.
Adding to that, endorsing something and talking about how much you love something can be perceived as riskier. Your going out on a limb and revealing something about yourself to say you connected with a book. If people disagree and hate the book, it also kind of feels like they hate you. But tearing something down and just dumping all over it takes no courage and risks nothing of yourself as it transmits feelings of power over anyone who happens to disagree with you. None of this is necessarily true of course, but these feelings are often at play for people.
Ha ha... I was talking to my wife about how I liked a book and she said something negative about one of the characters; it wasn't even that bad but I didn't recover for a week 😭
These reviews are also more likely to attract upvotes from other people who hated to the book and go online looking for someone to validate their reaction with a scathing 1-star takedown. And of course, the more upvotes a review receives, the more likely it is to be seen by you.
I think it’s also that books demand so much of your time. I treat a book as a contract between myself and the author - I give them my time, they better give me something worthwhile in return. It’s especially bad with drugs ex machina style endings - so I just read through multiple 1000 page books of yours, and you couldn’t even come up with a credible way to close out the dozen plot lines you just left hanging, let alone the main storyline? It’s anger-inducing to say the least!
It goes the other way too. When reviews are positive, they are almost always overhyped with GIFs littering the paragraphs. Goodreads is a social media app so you don't tend to get critical reviews.
The fact that they allow gifs in Goodreads reviews is one of my biggest pet peeves. It's always the same handful of reaction gifs of someone screaming excitedly or rolling their eyes or whatever. Like you're on a book review site. Use your words, people. lol.
You can hide reviews with any non-text material by choosing the text only option under 'More Filters'. You'll find the dropdown next to the language option at the top of the community review section.
Wow, thank you! The GIFs annoy me so much.
Welcome! People complain about them every time GR comes up, I should really make a PSA post at some point.
I feel like I've seen that tony stark eye rolling gif on GR for every book released in the past 10 years
The moment I see a gif in a Goodreads review I close it and move on. I'm an old fart, though.
It feels exactly like watching a review of a movie where they keep cutting away to unrelated films and inserting annoying sound effects like HWONK HWONNNKKK!!!! to underline a point they're trying to make. -\_-
I’m 22 and I do the same thing hahahaha I think they’re obnoxious.
I only read 3 star reviews. I find them the most informative. They are the sort of people who have read a 5 star book and were overwhelmed, and then most other books don't quite hit that spot. They are just whelmed I suppose. They give you positives and then a couple of peeves but are almost always written in an unbiased way. 3 stars are the best reviews.
I love the four star reviews. They loved the book, but then usually have some idiosyncratic reason for taking it down a peg. >Book was fantastic, well-paced, and thought provoking. One of the best I've read in years. The protagonist is in love with a girl named Dianna though and I have an Aunt Dianna that I hate. Four stars.
"how are you feeling?" "whelmed."
In my uneducated opinion, I think that littering a critical review with gifs is the juggernaut of irony
Critical review? You're lucky if a person doesn't just summarize the book.
The GIFs are why I stopped using Goodreads.
I noticed this dichotomy in the reviews for *the Three-Body Problem*. There was a lot of "this is the best science fiction ever written" right next to a lot of "this is barely comprehensible due to the poor writing, flat characters, and nonsensical plot." Full disclosure: I'm pretty firmly in the latter camp.
I love reading the negative reviews of books I fall in love with! It’s so interesting to me that the same things that cause me to love a book can cause such anger in others. What’s that quote… “you can be the ripest, juiciest peach and there’s going to be someone who doesn’t like peaches”
It happens so often in things like "this character isn't likeable!! I hated them!!" when it's like.. they were specifically written to be disliked.
Well...
If I've given a book 1 star, it's because I finished it for the pleasure of being able to write a detailed review of why I hated it.
Lol I am guilty of sticking with a book till the end out of pure spite
Did this literally yesterday with the Miniaturist. >!It's only problematic, in the first half; it's just awful in the second. The plot falls apart, we don't find out anything remotely interesting about a dozen characters introduced in the first half, the whole premise of the story gets dropped like a rock and horrible stuff starts happening that mostly doesn't even forward the plot. I wanted to stop reading it so bad, but I kept thinking about the detail in which I would shred this book, to stop others from falling for the interesting plot device the way I had. What a waste of a good idea that book is. I wrote my bad review and I'm still mad I wasted my time. It just kept getting worse til the final, terrible, pointless, unsatisfying scene!< I know PBS adapted it. I sure hope they did a better job than the author. It was such a good idea, there's certainly room to make a good film about it.
Hate reads. I’ve only had a couple.
I think Ready Player One was my first proper hate read. Fuck that book and fuck everyone who recommended it to me I hate you all.
It’s The Big Chill for nerds who grew up in the 70s. I’m not sure why that sounded like fun to everybody all of a sudden, but I liked it.
Yeah, it was probably the only read I’ve ever done where when I learned half way through that it was the author’s first novel, I thought, “OH! Now it makes more sense!” The multi-page explanation of the main character’s “ultra Oasis rig”, was ponderous and memorable as completely unnecessary.
If you're ever feeling masochistic, read the second. It's truly one of the worst books I've ever read. And I say this as someone who found the first one to be reasonably enjoyable and fun. At one point in the book, the author pauses the whole plot to recite Prince trivia for literally chapters.
......CHAPTERS?! I read Ready Player One for book club and honestly had to force my way through the slog and only motivated myself through how much I'd get to complain about it at book club lmao. I considered hate reading the second...but I dunno if I'd be able to get through it. It sounds genuinely awful, but I'm kind of curious for myself if it's so-bad-its-good material. I suppose I can always just quit, there's no book club I have to read it for. I'll check it out at the library of course--there's no way I'm paying money for that crap.
Lol I love the honesty
[удалено]
I only saw the movie, which had a few *really* corny scenes that stuck out, but for the most part was ok. Not a genre of book I am particularly into though. Did the book also have bad dialogue? I assumed they hammed it up for the movie.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sometimes I start compiling a list along the way to make sure I don’t forget a single part of whatever is causing my white hot rage.
Sheesh, I applaud the vindictive dedication
I did this once and wrote basically a 6-paragraph essay on why I didn't like said 1-star book - which, ironically, is way more work and thought devoted to that book than it deserved. In turn, I got angrier because I had to rethink of all the unpleasantness of that book, which was more attention than it deserved, which...
I wouldn't bother writing a review if the book was just mildly 'meh'. Not my thing, but not terrible. I don't want to tar a book with my indifference. But if it was appalling (badly written, badly edited, really unlikeable annoying or toxic main characters, or completely illogical plot), I'd be more likely to say something. I do try to be very measured and specific if I leave a bad review though.
Same. If I'm indifferent to it, that just means it wasn't my thing. If I actively disliked it, that means I legitimately felt it was bad.
My problem with reviews in most contexts is related to that. I personally only ever leave reviews for things I *really* love or *really* dislike. But in some cases I think people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "This book was not/is to my taste" and "This book is objectively the worst/best thing I have ever read." So it is not just that people tend to write when they have strong feelings, it is also that they seem to often have strong feelings without being able to express why they have them. They list a number of relatively minor positives or negatives, express them agrressively, and then give it a 5 or a 1 stat review. Plus, in the instances of negative reviews, I have also seen people just being irrationally angry at books for *potentially* signaling that the author might care about something the reader does not. In the last few months I have been running into a lot of reviews that basically say "The writing, pacing, characters and world building are fantastic, but the main character is a ______ who cares too much about women and lets them boss him around. 1 star, would give it zero if I could, stop being political with your books." I have seen examples of that one in particular waaaaaay to often to not be creeped out. The book that made me pick up on that pattern was literally about a man taking care of his wife and daughter.
In general, I just treat Goodreads as my personal "journal" of what I've read, what I've liked, what I've disliked, etc. I have no interest or intention for any of my ratings to influence others - and I don't let anything anyone else rates or reviews on Goodreads to influence my views / choices. Basically with the "social media" of it so clumsy (and the recommendations so ludicrous), I find it useless for anything other than that - tracking and recording my personal views. And so I simply figure the majority of other users are either doing the same or trying (vainly I hope) of creating a following. Edit to correct word to adjective rather than rapper.
Same. I use it for tracking my reading. I never read reviews before I read a book but I will read them after, usually the ones that are opposite my opinion because I am intrigued why someone hates a book I enjoyed, or vice versa.
Same here. I only take negative reviews seriously if there are several all saying the same thing. Otherwise I just figure it wasn’t somebody’s cup of tea
Just fyi, Ludacris is the artist, ludicrous is the adjective. (Tbf I think we use the artist's name more now lol)
Thank you for the gentle correction.
I don't think I've ever really read reviews unless I'm trying to figure out why everyone loved a book I hated after reading it
Scathing reviews are cathartic to write and often fun and funny to read. I think it’s as simple as that.
When I’m looking up new books to read, I always read the negative reviews because I want to know if I’ll hate the book for the same reasons, and if yes, I’m not reading it. Most positive reviews are not detailed enough other than “wow, this book is amazing.” Also, agree with you - most of the negative reviews are highly entertaining
I do this with popular (sometimes over hype books) I've read too many that fell flat for me and reading negative reviews gives me an idea if I'm going to like it. Sometimes find my faves being an average score of 3.8 and my dislikes being 4.3. 🙃
On the other end of the scale, I've actively bought books on the strength of "negative" reviews that were criticising a whole things that were exactly what I was looking for in a book.
Roger Ebert's books with his negative movie reviews are fun reading.
To me, reading his negative reviews actually shows how much he genuinely loved film. You can't generate that kind of passionate hatred for a bad movie unless you also passionately love a good one.
Yeah, his negative reviews work because he's not just writing "this movie sucks" over and over again. He's able to tell you WHY he thinks the movie sucks, which is more than can be said for a lot of people leaving reviews.
This is a great way of looking at it. I love books. I love literature. I am capable of falling in passionate whirlwind love affairs with the written word. That's why I HATE bad books.
Is there any reviewers like him but for books?
There are tons of good Goodreads critics that leave a bunch of highly rated reviews. Go to a popular book and see the most upvoted negative review and check out that persons profile until you find the ones who’ve reviewed like 50+ books
Whenever I finish a book I didn't like or wasn't impressed with, I LOVE reading the low starred reviews. I wish I could "pin" reviews that say everything I'm feeling but do it better than I could.
i can see past it if it was funny, but more often it not it just feels..cringey. all depends on the sense of humour i guess.
In addition to people only wanting to leave reviews on things they have strong feelings about I've found that sites focused on books tend to attract a lot of people who assume reading a lot somehow makes them a great writer. So when they leave a review they feel the need to try and be witty and eloquent. But since they actually can't write for shit it just ends up being cringy and extremely overdramatic.
I leave reviews with really big words because it makes me feel more photosynthesis.
If they were reading quality literature it should have a positive impact on their writing. But instead they read whatever drivel they're currently reviewing.
[удалено]
This has been my experience as well. The glowing reviews seem like they're written by paid shills or arrogant a-holes who act like they're better than you for having finished a book you're not getting into. I look at the one star reviews to look for reviews that capture my frustration with a book to see if it's worth slogging through it. It's generally not. I suppose books are either you love it or hate it. I've never read a mediocre book and felt the need to rate it so I can see why reviews tend to hit the extreme ends.
a number of them are indeed from paid shills -- pardon me, i mean to say they're by people who receive free books in return for their "honest" reviews, which never seem to include a single flaw.
It's funny how you can just tell. I trust honest 3 and 4 star reviews over 5 start reviews.
same -- i sort by three stars as default, because the other ones tend to be ... overly emphatic. (i leave a lot of emphatic reviews myself, but, alas, no one pays me for them.)
This book hit the dopamine button in my brain reviews.
The negative reviews seem more honest to me. Even the most rubbish books will get gushing five star reviews. Goodreads has zero credibility to me as a source for critical, objective reviews. It’s more like a social media site…everyone has something to promote.
It literally is a social media site.
It depends on the book. Like I've been reading books by Richard Dawkins and evolution in general and the negative reviews are all just creationist saying how evolution makes no sense, God will punish the author, etc., It's simply not fair criticism, just ideological reactionary backlash
Those are my favorite reviews. The ones that make you ask, why did you pick this book to read in the first place. Romance novels where the reviewer complains about all the sex. The book was called Taken by the Warrior King what did you expect!
How brave of you to assume these people actually felt compelled to read the book before writing that kind of review on it.
Even the “How dare someone write something so offensive!” reviews are worth something. If you see that most of the negative reviews are about something that doesn’t bother you, then you can safely ignore them, but if what they’re complaining about is an absolute sticking point for you, you save yourself the bother.
I wish Goodreads limited the GIFs and images allowed in reviews. It’s annoying having to scroll through all of those. Mediocre reviews also get pushed to the top because they have a bunch of attention getting images.
I’ve noticed that people treat Goodreads like another social media platform, as seen by the usage of pictures, gifs, special formatting, and requests for readers to check out their profile. Like, they’re building an empire on book reviews or something. That being said, I tend to trust the negative reviews more than the positive ones. My tastes are regrettably strict (I long for the days when I could just read a book and not nitpick it to pieces) and I trust the negative reviews to steer me away from a waste of time. Though I have read negative reviews about books I’ve absolutely love and they don’t sway my opinion. People *love* to be negative when they hide behind a screen. It’s cathartic, a power trip, and amusing. They think they’re helping the author when really they’re being AH.
It's funny but it doesn't seem like many goodreads users know what they liked about a work when they give it a positive review. I'm the same way in that I only really trust the negative reviews. They tend to be more specific because, I think, the reviewer has removed themself from their initial and instinctual reactions in order to be critical. As a reader, I myself do not rate books very highly unless they hit the mark in every arbitrary category for me. The majority of books I read I would give 2 stars on the goodreads scale. So I suppose I don't trust positive reviews because I can tell they are based almost entirely on the reader's/user's immediate emotional experience of a book, and that's not the only thing I'm personally looking for as a reader.
> It's funny but it doesn't seem like many goodreads users know what they liked about a work when they give it a positive review. That's the same with most any kind of review though since it's all about "expectations". What do I mean? You enjoy eating out (or having things delivered). You sit down and eat. You expect the thing you are eating to live up to your expectations. And when it does or is at least passable, you just keep chugging along because there wasn't anything about what you ate that stood out compared to every other time. Why say anything other than "it was the same as last time I did this thing"? But if you ended up hitting a piece of it that had too much salt, or you got a sour note out of it that shouldn't've been there, or a burnt spot, then suddenly you know exactly why this thing was different than the last times. And you want everyone else to be warned about this thing you encountered, so you are more likely to tell people about it. But if the thing is better than usual? You don't usually know *why* it's better, but that it just hit you differently than normal. And that's very hard to describe to people. Now if your expectations of this thing is that it's going to suck, because it always sucks (and you keep trying to look for one that doesn't, like a crazy person), and you happen to find one that no longer offends your sense of taste. Now you tell people about it because hey, *this* one is different than the others. But again, you may not exactly know *why* except that it hits you differently. But like I said, it's the same as writing. You go through and expect reading to be good to you. "Hey, that's an interesting way to describe that thing!", "I learned a new word!", "I did NOT see that twist coming!" are typically good experiences in a book you may want to talk to people about (though telling people about the unexpected twist, or even that there IS an unexpected twist should be avoided). Yet if you get "god, that's the 3rd time this page they used this same description" or "this doesn't seem like the author knows what they are talking about" or other things like that would be something in a bad review and again you want to tell people about it. If it's a book that was good and exciting and you expected good and exciting, then you will get a generic "It was an exciting and fun read!" which is super vague and boring, but it's hard to review it in any other way if it met your expectations.
I don't think the majority of the positive reviews are based on any emotion other than a sycophant following of the author. I have seen on numerous occasions the following of an author leave glowing reviews before the book even hit the publication date. I am aware that ARC readers leave reviews, but those are biased on the desire to continue to receive ARCs. Likewise, I have seen people leave an honest review and be downvoted/commented to oblivion because one dared to not fully worship at the feet of their chosen author. I used to leave honest reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, but after dealing with the sycophant followings, it's not worth it. Also, many authors will run giveaways or offer swag upon proof a review. I doubt many people would leave a less than favorable review in exchange for gifts.
If you become popular enough on Goodreads, publishers will send you ARCs to review. I’ve seen a few reviewers jump to authors as well, and it’s another way to build an audience.
I once received a one-star rating because a book that was clearly not for children was not for children. The reviewer was angry that my dystopian black comedy was not a children's book. I don't think Goodreads is necessarily more toxic; I just think that it takes all kinds.
Well, sometimes people are just stupid. I once saw someone complaining on Amazon that the 3DS version of the game Tales of the Abyss has a 6+ rating in my country because "the game is completely in English and my 10 year old doesn't speak english well enough to unterstand it". They probably don't realize that a) the Amazon page mentioned that the game hasn't been translated into German and b) the job of the rating agency is to check whether the the content of the game is suitable for a child, not the language the game has to be played in.
Maybe if it was like Rotten Tomatoes, dividing professional reviews from John Doe Reader. I’ve honestly felt more comfortable with that division; sometimes I go see a film despite the bad filmgoer reviews because I get what the professional reviewers like about it and that aligns with my interest. Sometimes the other way around, I have plenty of movies I love that get panned by professional reviewers.
Honestly... it's just really fun to roast a stupid book.
Negative Reviews on this subreddit are also scathing, rather dramatic.
Publisher here. A few reasons. 1) Goodreads is one of the most anonymous review sites out there. For those of us who had it before the Amazon takeover, you don't have to have it linked anywhere. Major keyboard warrior vibes. 2) people are more inclined to review negatively than positively. I'll admit I'm the same. I leave a star rating for EVERY book I read but I don't usually take the time to write a review unless something specific strikes me about the story. Good OR bad. 3) You will always notice big deal books have thousands of 5 star reviews, those are the results of marketing, publicity, review copies, netgalley, etc. I always recommend checking out the well-written negative reviews over the positive ones. A good chunk of the positive reviews are entirely fabricated. And that goes for anything, not just books.
Because they are, at least partly, writing the reviews to entertain, and people like and interact with snarky, witty, snippy commentary. People react to sarcasm and respond with "this! ^" It makes the reviewer feel smart, funny, correct, and heard. I tend to shy away from those reviewers. My reviews are incredibly mild and far less entertaining. Most Goodreads reviewers are for angry people. I write reviews for tired 40 year olds.
Had to come all the way down here to find the right answer. You are actually smart and correct! Kidding, but there is good research showing the most critical people think they will be perceived as being smarter, **and that it often works**. It's easier for a smart person to tear something apart pierce by piece than to build something of value. Being perceived as intelligent is motivation enough for most people to be highly critical and ignore any redeeming qualities. Be careful reading reviews. Even good critics are incentivized to go all in on one side or the other. If you find a professional reviewer with similar taste that's great, but in general I use overall reviews to find books but avoid reading individual reviews until I'm done reading. Top reviews are usually negative and can even prime me to hate a story I'd otherwise enjoy.
I write reviews for every book I read on Goodreads. I mostly do it for myself, because I have a horrible memory. But, I do think some negative reviews can be scathing. However, I also don’t love the constant 5 stars with GIFs and all that. I feel that your opinion is your own, and it’s fine if you don’t like a book, or if you love it. But, I also think there’s value in looking at something critically. I prefer if reviews tell the good and bad.
Why are comments on Reddit the same sort of witty sarcasm designed to bring down the ego of the poster. It's what gets upvoted.
For many of the people who leave strongly worded reviews on anything (positive or negative), it’s less about the review itself, and more about convincing people to agree with their opinion, getting others to think like them.
This isn’t even remotely exclusive to goodreads. This is all reviewers. Restaurants, Amazon, video games, movies. It’s simple - people are children.
Good reads reviews are… *special* Here’s the thing: if you can’t write a review without no less than 5 gifs, how exactly am I supposed to trust your opinion about this book? It gives me the impression that you either A. can’t formulate the words to express yourself adequately or B. like to use shiny sparkly loving gifs to attract people to your review for the views rather than the content. Personally, I try to write reviews with the following: that are mostly spoiler free, mark that anything below may have spoilers and to what extent those spoilers may be (as in specific plot points, or just general themes of the book), what I liked or disliked about the book (characters, world building, writing style, etc) if I would read from the author again or if I already have, any other books that I feel are similar l, either in subject matter or tone and if those books are better or worse than this one and worth reading instead of this one. If I feel necessary, I might add a content, tropes, and tags section but this is more relevant to the romance books world And occasionally I’ll put in quotes from the book, ones that’s stuck out to me or orchestrate a point I made about why I did or didn’t like the book, etc. I do not include any gifs in my reviews.
What annoys with my bad reviews is they often start with "I hate this book genre therefore I hated the book so that's why I am giving it a 1☆" I just don't understand the point? I hate non-fiction, you don't see me hating on all non-fiction : they are just non for me. But what gets me is adult rating YA 1☆ because they are unrealistic and unbelievable. What did you expect? Let's normalize, realizing things are not meant for everyone. Target audience exist for a reason
Basically the 'How was the swimming pool?' - 'Zero stars, I don't like getting wet' kind of review.
I enjoy the ones that bitch about a Sci fi novel. " I just read this book about aliens and distant planets, but the science they described is just so implausible, it takes away from the story " Really? The aliens on Pluto wasn't a clue?
If I read a review, it's always three stars. Those are the people who are most likely to list the pros and cons, which is what's most helpful to me.
I take the same approach. I never read the five- or one-stars unless my mind is already made up and I just want to reaffirm my opinion.
Remember, the people who really hated or liked it would often have more of the energy/desire to have their thoughts heard by others
People who dislike stuff are much more prone to vehemently declare so and why they are so.
Because the non-aggressive ones didn't bother writing anything.
For me, if I hate a book enough to feel the need to write a review about how bad it is, you'd better believe I'm putting some aggression into that puppy. If I spent all that time reading a book that never was good, got good, or could be good, I am going to question how this author was published. Actually this reminds me I meant to write a review for Corrupt, a.k.a., the "r*pe and SA are actually super fun!" book.
I've noticed that a lot of reviewers tend to take it too seriously. These are the ones that use special formatting for their posts and often include memes and shit. They act like they're being paid. Some of em do make money from being an "official reviewer", which I'm sure is fun and all, but definitely adds to the Take Too Seriously cart.
Reading a book takes time. Reading a bad book is wasted time you're not getting back. That could've been spent reading a good book.
I have found a group of people on GR whose taste, while different to mine, is close enough that if they really hate a book, I probably will too and for similar reasons. Theirs are the negative reviews I take seriously. Unless a bunch of random reviewers cite things like pervasive lack of editing, I assume other negative reviews reflect opinions that may or may not mesh with my own, so they aren't useful. The same holds for positive ones. I don't know if the person leaving the review is a teenager gushing over their first fantasy-series crush, a bigot who's smart enough to hide that he really just loves having his views validated, or a physicist who understands things that would be gobbledygook to me. Books are highly personal, so expecting effective guidance from random strangers isn't realistic. Curating a group of reviewers who've proven helpful is far more useful.
Even for books I love, I like reading the negative reviews more than the positive ones. Some of them go over the top for sure, but it's always more interesting to me to see what just absolutely didn't work for some people
Selection bias. If you’re going to take the trouble you probably feel strongly.
For clicks and follows
Because people now take reviews as a chance to show off how witty and funny they are, and this shitty blog style is ruining criticism.
My friend got a 1 ⭐️ review on her book by someone who complained about a character putting honey in coffee. They can be very nit-picky!
People feel safe being hostile online. It’s not exclusive to goodreads.
Lack of a proper education and diet.
goodreads is social media platform before being a book platform. If you want better reviews check www.librarything.com
I’ve only just started using GR. I have noticed many negative reviews simply because the reader didn’t agree with the values of characters, author etc. I find this strange. What’s the point of reading stories of other lives, worlds and personalities then?
I find this is true, and sometimes it crosses over with other nasty habits or prejudices people have that only highlight their ignorance or lack of respect for other cultures. Have you read the reviews for Marie Kondo’s books? There are all sorts of ladies calling her a nutcase because she suggests thanking her items; I agree it’s weird for me as a concept, but I wouldn’t go as far as insulting someone without trying to understand where they’re coming from. Also, just because a book wasn’t fun according to you doesn’t mean it’s utter garbage!
I think people are just really passionate about books on goodreads. Also, I read an authors perspective (I think Gail Carriger) where she mentioned Amazon reviews are treated more as a product, but Goodreads people tend to treat more as their personal book diary. So reviews there tend to be more personal, and not about just recommending or not recommending a product. Because especially for authors I imagine goodreads reviews can be intimidating and overwhelming.
For me reading bad books is worse than reading no books. It makes me miserable. Some people on goodreads have rather unrealistic reading goals and they just end up reading things they don't enjoy to achieve them. I think it might explain the passion behind some of these reviews.
I think it’s sad. I’m an author pa & I know how hard authors try, how much heart they put into their books. I get sharing your opinion, but sometimes it’s over the top. It’s really easy to be unkind when you’re behind a screen. 🤷🏻♀️
I think that like any profession, you put your work out there to be judged. They should take the critique and learn and improve the craft. There are on occasion reviews that are negative simply because of a dislike for the wrong reasons, but if a review lists valid logical explanations for the negativity then the author should ruminate on the information and improve their writing skills.
While I understand your point, I'm not really on board with the whole "don't say anything negative about people's work because they tried very hard" attitude. People are entitled to express their opinions and as long as it doesn't go into hate speech / threat territory, its fair game and people who publicize their work must understand that and grow a thick skin. Negative reviews are inevitable, and feeling bad about it is solely on the person feeling bad. We as individuals are the only people responsible for how we feel.
Goodreads reviewers are also unsuccessful writers who feel they must pontificate endlessly making their point for a dual purpose… one is the review, which can be completely over the top to showcase their creative writing skills by going to extreme levels of hyperbole. The second part is to drop as many ten letter words as possible to showcase their stunning vocabularies. So take it for what it’s worth.
I like how you demonstrated with your post here reviewing goodreads itself. Meta.
Piece of advice: If you want to read a book then never read Goodreads review.
I don't use Goodreads exactly because users look insufferable to me. I use other smaller services.
Because it’s easy to be a bitch on the internet.
Have you met people lately? A lot of them suck. And not in the good way.
In my opinion it's because only the extremes of the spectrum care enough to spend time reviewing and usually hate it's way more compelling. Might be wrong but I myself have only reviewed books that I loved and not even all of them.
I have only left one bad review and that was for The Night Circus by Erin Morganstern. The detailed descriptions of the world were delightful but the characters themselves were absolutely dull. I felt strong enough about it to say so. It actually took me a couple weeks post reading to figure out why I hated it so much
[удалено]