An Author Review Bombed Books on Goodreads. Then Her Debut Book Was Dropped

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

https://time.com/6397305/cait-corrain-goodreads-review-bomb-authors/?

Very sad that an author would do this to fellow authors. I wonder if the review-bombed books ever recovered 

[TimothyEllis]

https://time.com/6397305/cait-corrain-goodreads-review-bomb-authors/?

Very sad that an author would do this to fellow authors. I wonder if the review-bombed books ever recovered 

There's nothing unusual about that. It's been going on for ages now.

And if not authors, it's their fans.

I've got someone who one star rates every one of my books a couple of weeks after they come out. In a way, it's actually beneficial, because it validates for those readers who won't read anything without a few negative reviews on it.

Authors off their meds, or posting drunk or high is nothing unusual either.

Trads and agents doing something about it is. I'm not sure I've heard of it happening before now.

[LilyBLily]

Her apology was pretty lame, and as people have pointed out, she targeted BIPOC authors. One commented that depression doesn't make you a racist; it comes from somewhere else.

Yes, review bombing has been done many times by many people for many reasons. Goodreads' real members often one star a book to indicate that they plan to read it. And they don't give a rat's a** that they're harming the author by doing so. 

Insecurity is probably what was at the bottom of her weird behavior. Rank improvement was the goal, but only someone who lacks belief in her story's strength and in Del Rey's ability to promote her book would think such an action would be necessary. And there's the lottery-winner mentality, whereby the winner enacts many rash behaviors that impoverish them all over again because they can't adjust to the idea of having all this unmerited money. There are many cases of these winners practically shoveling their money away into obvious follies. Combine the two ideas: "I don't deserve this" and "My book isn't really any good" and you have reasons to indulge in self-destructive acting out.

Books reveal our insides, and hers must be pretty awful.

[Crystal]

While the actions of the review-bombing author aren't cool, it's 100% bullsh*t to lay this at her feet. The problem is not one author leaving, what, six bad reviews on a book. It's a system where six bad ratings are considered an important sign of a book's quality.

In fact, I don't think it is... I think publishers are using this author as a scapegoat, rather than offering debut and BIPOC authors REAL support.

If publishers want to support authors of color, they should put their money where their mouth is. The should support their authors by marketing their books, mentoring them, championing their careers, etc.

The merit of a review should be based on its quality. A one-star "this book sucks," should not be considered useful feedback. If the author left thoughtful one-star reviews that point out issues with the books, then those may be useful for readers. (I think she is entitled to leave *a* review on a competitor's book, even if it's not a good look). The problem isn't that this author review bombed. It's that people consider "this sucks, 1-star," a worthy criticism.

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

Goodreads' real members often one star a book to indicate that they plan to read it. And they don't give a rat's a** that they're harming the author by doing so. 

I've also seen a 1 star used as a place-maker for future reading. 
I also think that some readers who are unfamiliar with the star system can rate 1 as good and 5 as poor. 

[Matthew]

She's just hateful. She even 1-starred the person who wrote her blurb. How do you even get to that point? There's some mental gymnastics of putting others down in the hopes that it makes you look better.

My philosophy has always been "I don't care about goodreads", though Amazon buying them and integrating it into the store page makes that a harder pill to swallow. My Goodreads rankings are always lower. I think it's hard to get away from any sort of ranking system. Readers (and customers in general) want to know what others think. 1-stars hurt a lot if you have few ratings for that reason, but I don't think it's something that can be fixed.

There's more Goodreads drama that's been happening lately with someone using ChatGPT to leave fake 1-star reviews. He made 13 of these bots to tank indies he didn't like. Imagine getting 13 1-stars in a day... ouch.

[skeletor]

See, this right here is why I aim to be a kinder, more progressive sort of troll, and only review-bomb books written by white people.

 (jk)

[Jeff Tanyard]

See, this right here is why I aim to be a kinder, more progressive sort of troll, and only review-bomb books written by white people.

 (jk)

Found a video compilation of your reviews:

 

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

It's good to know that there are repercussions for her actions, and that it should be a warning to others.

I wonder if the targeted authors could get a class-action going? Can you sue for possible loss of sales, or would that be too difficult to prove? The number of 1 stars could influence the chances of getting an ad on various marketing sites. 

[Bill Hiatt]

While the actions of the review-bombing author aren't cool, it's 100% bullsh*t to lay this at her feet. The problem is not one author leaving, what, six bad reviews on a book. It's a system where six bad ratings are considered an important sign of a book's quality.

In fact, I don't think it is... I think publishers are using this author as a scapegoat, rather than offering debut and BIPOC authors REAL support.

If publishers want to support authors of color, they should put their money where their mouth is. The should support their authors by marketing their books, mentoring them, championing their careers, etc.

The merit of a review should be based on its quality. A one-star "this book sucks," should not be considered useful feedback. If the author left thoughtful one-star reviews that point out issues with the books, then those may be useful for readers. (I think she is entitled to leave *a* review on a competitor's book, even if it's not a good look). The problem isn't that this author review bombed. It's that people consider "this sucks, 1-star," a worthy criticism.

I certainly agree that the system places too much stock in negative reviews without real substance. The author shouldn't have review-bombed, but the elevation of customer comments (sometimes even by people who clearly haven't read the book and/or are using the review platform as a soapbox for their own agenda) is a serious problem

[Bill Hiatt]

It's good to know that there are repercussions for her actions, and that it should be a warning to others.

I wonder if the targeted authors could get a class-action going? Can you sue for possible loss of sales, or would that be too difficult to prove? The number of 1 stars could influence the chances of getting an ad on various marketing sites. 

Currently, product reviews are considered protected speech (covered by the first amendment). Maybe if you could prove conspiracy or malice of some kind? I think that's not something that's been litigated before.

[Jan Hurst-Nicholson]

It's good to know that there are repercussions for her actions, and that it should be a warning to others.

I wonder if the targeted authors could get a class-action going? Can you sue for possible loss of sales, or would that be too difficult to prove? The number of 1 stars could influence the chances of getting an ad on various marketing sites. 

Currently, product reviews are considered protected speech (covered by the first amendment). Maybe if you could prove conspiracy or malice of some kind? I think that's not something that's been litigated before.

I think her apology reveals her motivation. 

It has been said many times: "Do not respond to reviews - it never ends well."
Or follow the example of the royal family - don't explain, don't complain.

Why can't people simply be kind 

[Hopscotch]

I agree that what she did stinks BUT I'm unsure that stars/reviews have much impact on book sales. Yes, the world is full of idiots (except for me and thee and those who buy our books) w/absurd opinions, but why would any book-seeker refuse to "Read Sample" based on a 1-star review? Or is the problem genre-specific? Or am I (hardly believably) wrong?

[Bill Hiatt]

I don't let book reviews influence me that much because I know how subjective evaluation of creative products really is. But not everyone does that.

I've known my share of star counters (people who just look at the star average and move on if it isn't high enough without even glancing at the Look Inside). Amazon facilitates that behavior by allowing a customer to filter using star count.

The problem is even worse now that ratings are mixed in. At least when only reviews were included in the count, there was some chance that people might see that a reviewer was way off by reading the review. But with ratings, there's no way to do that. It's also exacerbated by Amazon posting its weighted average rather than the actual average, and then distorting the percentage of reviews in each score point to make that match the weighted average. 

I forget where I saw this, but there is apparently evidence that a customer is three times more likely to click buy for a book with 50 reviews than for one with zero reviews.

[TimothyEllis]

I forget where I saw this, but there is apparently evidence that a customer is three times more likely to click buy for a book with 50 reviews than for one with zero reviews.

That's part of the myth that reviews matter.

If that was true, no pre-order would ever sell, and there would be no sales on day one until the reviews started posting from arc groups.

That isn't the case.

The 50 reviews myth is perpetuated by those selling services, not by reality.

[Bill Hiatt]

I think there was an actual study, and I'm pretty sure my immediate source was a non-service-selling author on a forum.

Though as I've said, I don't use book reviews myself, I do use reviews for some kinds of products, and I often pass over ones with no reviews.

Remember that the point was that purchase was more likely with a certain number of reviews, not that no sales ever happened without reviews. My last new book sold well during its debut month even though it had no reviews. And I'm sure you do well with preorders because you have a following. Readers who know your writing don't need to wait for reviews.

[TimothyEllis]

I'm pretty sure my immediate source was a non-service-selling author on a forum.

Normally it's non-selling authors who perpetuate this. Or new ones. Particularly back at the old place.