You may or may not know, but I currently have a giveaway running through Goodreads where I’m offering two signed ARCs of Tears of a Clown. One of the great things about doing these contests through the site is that people will enter (huzzah!) but also they read the synopsis and many will add your book to their “to-read” list, which is pretty cool. I’m not sure how many consult their lists to see if books come out but it’s still nice to see it interests some folks.
The other day I was checking to see how many people have entered so far when I noticed I suddenly went from a 5 star rating to a 4.43 rating. Now a 4.43 isn’t a bad rating by any means, but I know who has copies of the book and I started to see that people were rating the book three and four stars when I *KNOW* they haven’t read it.
What’s up with that junk?!
I asked around a little and found out that people are starting to use the star rating system to rate the books they want to read, rather than what they thought of the book. So a five star book is one they really want to read while a three star is lower on the list. While I love the idea of rating the “to-read” list, it should be a separate entity than the regular rating system because now it’s messing up my scoring!
I do think it’s quite a bright idea to rank your “to-read” list, especially when you’re like me and have well over a hundred books on it, but there needs to be another system put in place so it’s not bringing down your rating when they haven’t even read the book. I don’t think that’s fair to the authors and it may confuse other potential readers. Before asking around I had no idea people were doing this. If I wasn’t in the know, I’m going to guess there are many others who don’t know this practice is going on either.
Perhaps we can ban together and contact Goodreads and see if they have anything in the works to rank the “to-read” lists without harming an author’s star rating. We need something that will benefit the reader, but not harm the author in the process.