4 ms·
That Goodreads accepts reviews for books that have not yet been published tells me almost everything I need to know about them.
by dmckeon 3y ago
That Goodreads accepts reviews for books that have not yet been published tells me almost everything I need to know about them.
- munchler 3y ago“Publishers frequently send advance copies to readers in exchange for online reviews that they hope will generate buzz.” That seems reasonable to me. I’m sure newspapers would do the same.
- JohnFen 3y agoSounds like a great reason to ignore the reviews in both GoodReads and newspapers. Not to single those things out. User-created reviews have been thoroughly poisoned by marketers and other scammers for many years now. They all deserve to be ignored.
- Kejistan 3y agoReviews of advance copies lose their value when the book is swamped with fake reviews that were written years before publication. How many of Goodreads’ reviews of The Winds of Winter do you think are “reasonable”?
- dmckeon 3y agoNewspapers and reviewers published in them have exposure to their reputations. Readers who get advance copies may have no reputation to care for or defend. Book publishers could send a few one-time codes with each advance copy if they wanted attributable reviews instead of astro-turfed buzz. Knowing the various incentives, I won't hold my breath.
- jjulius 3y agoHow do you propose one generates buzz for something before it's released? Is this not the norm for music, film, television, etc. as well?
- BlackjackCF 3y agoI really don’t understand GR’s popularity. The community is toxic, and the app is almost unusable.