Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 161 posts

Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'

#151

Post by therealdrag0 »

bhpm wrote: post #58

I’m interested to hear what value HN folks have in book reviews from strangers. I thought the value in something like Goodreads would be to create a community of people you know IRL to share what you read. I don’t see myself having much in common with a bunch of people I don’t know.

For me the main value of reviews, kinda like ChatGPT, is a vague summarization. I read a few high rated ones and a few low rated ones and you can kinda tell based on what the reviews focus on is this the kinda book I’m likely to like?

Do the negative reviews focus on SJW topic I don’t care about? Do the negative reviews focus on opinions or do they focus on evaluating expertise/facts? do the positive reviews focus on world-building, writing, quality, or characters; what do they like about it? What do they compare it to?

Sometimes I do this when I’m 10 or 20% into a book and I’m trying to evaluate if I care enough to continue. I’ll see if other reviewers say the book picks up or slows down etc.

Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'

#154

Post by sacado2 »

solardev wrote: post #36
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult for books where there's a strong culture of lending, both directly to individuals and from public libraries.

This won't stop people from lending things. It just means borrowers can't leave reviews. I'd rather have a much smaller set of verified reviews than a bunch of fake ones. Decreasing the quantity in this case often means improving the quality and signal to noise ratio.

But then that means goodreads wouldn't be a platform for readers anymore. It would be a platform for Amazon customers only. We already have amazon.com for that. What would be goodread's added value?

Re: Goodreads asks users to help combat 'review bombing'

#155

Post by sacado2 »

solardev wrote: post #125
ianburrell wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of people who will be receiving books on Christmas. With your scheme, they won’t be able to review them. Or people who buy from other bookstores. Or other countries. There is a difference between reviews on Amazon, where limiting to purchaser makes sense, and Goodreads that is open to everyone.

Yes, this will absolutely decrease the number of eligible reviewers. That's a given. But the argument is that it would also help combat spam and fake reviews, so while the number of reviews goes down, the signal to noise ratio goes up. People who read the book without buying it wouldn't be able to review it, yes, and that is an unfortunate side effect. However, it still leads to more useful reviews than if those borr…

If you do that, malicious writers will have bots buy their books, get the precious "verified review" badge (and bumping the book's ranking at the same time), and give the book raving reviews. At that point, it just becomes an expense, probably more efficient than buying an ad. In the meantime, legitimate readers whos didn't buy the book by themselves won't be able to comment on it.

Not sure it would really improve the signal to noise ratio.

Post reply on HN