I’m sure this author is unhappy someone rated her low, but I don’t think it affects sales. Although it’s hard to know. I expect Amazon ratings are more important.
Not sure why you think that, since that's literally the entire purpose of the site.
And it's the 175th most popular site in the US [1], so clearly lots of people use it for that.
So it's definitely going to affect sales. How much, or whether Goodreads or Amazon reviews affect sales more, is hard to say. But the idea that it has no effect isn't plausible.
[1] https://www.similarweb.com/website/goodreads.com/#ranking
It’s not the entire purpose of the site. The site also serves to simply keep track of the books that one has read – you can export your activity as a CSV file, so (at least for the time being) you still own your own data. Quite a few of the users listed under books that I read, simply catalogued the book as "Read" without giving it a star rating or writing a review.
I also like reading reviews after I've finished reading a book. I rarely read reviews beforehand anymore.
But also, once, I almost didn't read what is now my favorite book ever - Battle of the Linguist Mages (definitely not for everyone, but I loved it) - based on a lot of negative Goodreads reviews.
By contrast, The Eye of the World is published by "Tor Books".
Tor Books' web site, tor.com, definitely endorses the idea that they are responsible for Battle of the Linguist Mages, but they also note that that book is coming out of "Tordotcom Publishing", not Tor Books.
These all seem to be a part of the umbrella "Tor Publishing Group", but... what's the difference? I stopped reading self-published books because the quality was so, so low. Is that a risk with Tordotcom books?
(If you are interested in linguistics yourself, Katharine Kerr's Deverry series makes the author's interest in linguistics plain, though it's not plot-relevant or anything.)
I hate to say this but the assertion on quality is, from my experience, 98-99% true. And yet at the same time 1-2% false.
Finding the quality among the chaff is what sites like Goodreads are supposed to help readers do. My personal view is that the site stopped being that place a long time ago. The gamification required to get a book noticed, reviewed and discussed was, the last time I looked, intense and - frankly - not worth the effort for me. Life is too short!
afaik, tordotcom is basically an imprint of Tor. They publish mostly novellas, and I'm not entirely sure why Battle of the Linguist Mages is tordotcom and not Tor.
> Is that a risk with Tordotcom books?
No, tordotcom is an actual publisher with actual editors. Some books of course turn out better than others, but you can trust it was properly copyedited etc.
It's definitely changed my buying behavior on more than 1 occasion. I have to imagine it's a big driver of sales, otherwise, as the article mentioned, Amazon would have made much larger UX changes post acquisition.
I’ve been using Goodreads for a long time, I think since just after they launched. And I’ve read a bunch of books logged there and I’ve never made a reading decision based on reviews.
I don’t think I’ve ever used it to “discover” a book other than notice a friend is reading something and to check out the book.
I usually stay far away from current political or social war titles which might explain why it's more useful for me than some others.
That said, if it has a low number of recommendations, like in many of the examples, then I won't give it much mind.
It quickly became apparent relying on this was useless, and Goodreads is vulnerable to all the polarization and all-or-nothing thinking that plagues social media (and society in general).