> But Goodreads allows any user, not just those who’ve received advance copies, to leave ratings months before books are released. Authors who’ve become targets of review-bombing campaigns say there’s little moderation or recourse to report the harassment. Writers dealing with stalkers have pointed to the same problem.
"Problem": chicken-and-egg problem. Until it's actually published, there's little or no way for a review site to verify that you actually got it, let alone read it.
Once it's published, people look at the reviews to decide whether to buy it. So where are those reviews going to come from, for a self-published book?
Solution: the publisher gives advance review copies to readers. Yes, the system IS ripe for abuse. But if you're reading a review, it ought to be apparent whether the reviewer actually read the book, or whether they have anything interesting to say.
The thing is that it is a pretty easy to solve problem. Print advance copies with a QR code that contains a link to the publisher's site with a GUID in the params. The publisher would have a page, authenticated with the GUID, with authenticated links to private review pages. This allows for knowing the person had the advance copy. Just that line will kill 95% of review bombing. You can also use the publisher side to collect analytics on books before retail.
Why am I telling you this? It's a not-half-bad B2B startup one could MVP over a week or so and your first publisher could get you in the door with the review sites who would love to have verified reviews.
Why stop at that? Why not have every book contain a QR code (crypographically secure GUID) and you have to be an "authenticated buyer" in order to participate. The ones that go to libraries could either be tagged specially or have the reviews scrutinized / shadowbanned until vouched for.
This started out as /s but now I just feel like all of my information and every daily habit is going to end up (sold) online anyway.
We're still hoping the owner of the New Goodreads doens't sell the ability to remove bad reviews. But what's the incentive not to? Hoping I see something better in the comments here.
It's half-solved. I used a service to send out review copies, so I have a record of who downloaded from the email and who didn't. Which means the service does, and Amazon / Goodreads could easily use that.
That implies people will read the reviews rather than just seeing something with a star rating lower than a 4 and automatically discount it (or that it won't be dramatically deprioritized in Amazon's recommendations because of it).
There is also a problem with quotes; you have these nobody self-help book writers adding hundreds (?) of quotes that are very poor, and gamed with upvotes. So you some see some nobody authors quote next to Plato.
"Problem": chicken-and-egg problem. Until it's actually published, there's little or no way for a review site to verify that you actually got it, let alone read it.
Once it's published, people look at the reviews to decide whether to buy it. So where are those reviews going to come from, for a self-published book?
Solution: the publisher gives advance review copies to readers. Yes, the system IS ripe for abuse. But if you're reading a review, it ought to be apparent whether the reviewer actually read the book, or whether they have anything interesting to say.
And Goodreads should remove the bad ones.