Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days. We know that sites like Trustpilot will take down negative reviews if you pay them, Amazon reviews are mostly bots and some sites have weird incentives for users to write reviews.
E.g. take reviews of business on Google, there's no link to actual purchases, but you get a star and a "Local guide level 4" or something if you do enough reviews. A family member runs a consulting business, he has a 2-star review, the only review. It's not made by a customer, just some random dude. What it looks like is that this dude just walked around reviewing business after business, based on look of their office perhaps. He's not customer of ANY of them. So now multiple business are trying to have these negative reviews removed, Google doesn't give a shit, so what are these reviews actually worth?
Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs.
> Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days.
It depends on the contents and the number of them. If multiple/many negative reviews for something all mention a similar defect, you can be pretty sure it is an actual issue with the thing. It is then up to you to determine if the thing is still worth your time/money.
I will say that for some things the motivations of the reviewers are something to take into account especially. For book reviews on Goodreads I've found that animosity towards the author causes heavy overstating of the 'defects' of a book.
>Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs.
Baseless, callous accusation. And the conclusion is wrong too. Without getting something in return, people write genuine reviews with multiple different intents: out of feeling of obligation, support, appreciation. Out of discontent. As a substitute or alternative for customer support. To help other people find the thing, or to dissuade them from an unworthy purchase.
Or as a personal note. I use Goodreads to track what I read and if I liked it or not, what was it about, so I don't accidentally buy the same book again after half a year :V
That's a good one too. AnimeNewsNetwork works the same, you can attach a note to a media, that shows up on your profile. Some use it for reviews, some for personal notes.
My parents live in what is still a relatively rural area, it's unlikely you'd ever send something to their address on accident. They perpetually get kids toys shipped to their house. Address and name is correct each time. The package is clearly from Amazon. I'm relatively certain it is some part of weird review scam process. It's become a common enough thing that they just hand out the toys to who ever has young kids in the family.
tldr - the seller initiates the sale themselves for w/e it is they sell to a second account that they own registered to a random address. They then ship a near-worthless item to that address and use that secondary account to write a glowing review for their original account. You get something for free that would be a bargain at twice the price and they get a 5 star review on their account. The only victim is anyone who trusts the review system.
Let's say the item is literally a single seed worth practically nothing and it costs $3 wholesale to ship. As a new shop, are a hundred 5 star reviews worth $300 to you or do you think you can more effectively spent that $300 on a different marketing plan? It's counterintuitive but it's actually perfectly rational.
Yeah, I haven't seen any negative impact of it. The only way I could see is if Amazon decides their address is somehow criminal adjacent & just blocks all shipments to it.
"Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs."
Strongly disagree.
IF there were a generally decent and functional and efficient review forum and IF it were painless and friction-free to leave a review, then I think reviewing a product insightfully is something that adds real value and makes the world a (slightly) better place.
Unfortunately, the fora for this kind of activity are either nonexistent or laden with pathological baggage. Reviews at Amazon are unusable at best, fraudulent at worst, and I hear nothing but bad things about "goodreads".
In my experience working as various fast food places as a youngen, nobody writes reviews for good service. Because reviews are all about state of mind and emotions. If you're happy, you go home happy and never think about it. If you're angry, you need to vent somewhere.
Unless it was unexpectedly good. Sometimes I rush to write a 5 star review if a random restaurant in middle of nowhere exceeds my expectations - so more people would know of the place.
In my scale 3/5 is good (got what expected), 4/5 is very good (nice bargain), 5/5 is uniquely amazing. But I do understand that for some anything below 5/5 is bad.
I'd argue that most people don't review anything, unless they are somehow encouraged to do so. Sometimes they are motivated by anger, but those reviews are quickly taken down on many platforms, or they are based on completely unrealistic expectations, but then we're frequently back at being slightly unstable.
As an owner of airbnb listing, there is some truth there (although as a blanket statement its obviously not true). Its mostly Karens of this world, or simply people pissed off enough to bother getting an app and creating an account, and putting time to write down the review.
Normal folks in normal situations simply couldn't be bothered, not in 2025. The only exception is when platform forces you to do so, and then the sea of dishonest shallow blah to reach certain word count ensues. That's now you get 4.8-4.9* average review out of 5, while judging an OK but not perfect place (and no place is ever perfect since many subjective aspects enter the game).
If you want to find a lawyer there are various slander/libel laws on the books. However each country has different laws and in most cases only lawyers win if you bother.
The default mind set for a normal person should be there is no reason for them to waste their time to improve a closed source data set for a for profit company.
You can break this mind set if you truly care about the product and they are small enough to matter, like a local restaurant or single dev software, but we should not be contributing our time to helping Amazon weed out the complete crap USB cords from the only kinda crap USB cords. Professional organizations like consumer report and America's Test Kitchen can do it at scale and smaller reviewers (who refuse free products) can handle more niche things in the interim.
But I believe open data sets will become as important as open source for the future. Filtering out the spam, fakes and slop will be similar work to what AdBlock filter people do today.
Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days. We know that sites like Trustpilot will take down negative reviews if you pay them
I've had multiple Amazon negative reviews vanish over the years. Often, it happens a few weeks after posting. I've heard it's people bribing Amazon reps to do so, under the auspices of "bad review". I've even occasionally noticed others on Amazon, in reviews, complaining that their last review went missing.
Funny enough this is the perfect use case for the old web, where people just review things on their blog and you either know them or trust them from previous content.
Because you'd have to pay to leave a review. And maybe get paid to leave a review by people that pay to upvote that review.
I see absolutely no way this incentive structure could be misused, after all, people wouldn't use bots to spam reviews out to hopefully farm upvotes, would they? Nope <:o)
One way to look at what you've done is authenticated the source of your reviews. They're not anonymous people behind a fake username.
Yet another reason that the legitimate press still wins over the internet rabble.
I follow a couple of professional movie reviewers who have been doing it since before the internet took off, and their reviews are almost always better than the dross online.
The same is true for books. The New York Times book review, for example, is so good and trusted that you can actually subscribe to it separately, without getting the rest of the newspaper.
Sivers' list has introduced me to many great books. I can recommend "Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives - by David Eagleman" which is the fourth book on the page you linked.
Goodreads is a case study in the natural monopoly of social networks. The product has been terrible for years now, with Amazon investing the bare minimum to keep it online and one slight design change every few years. But competitors like TheStoryGraph can't get traction because all the people are still on Goodreads.
Off the top of my head there's two things that rub me the wrong way about Goodreads.
One is there isn't a separate section for professional reviews (Polish movie/TV site Filmweb has that), so that right off the bat the first comment might be that someone doesn't like what the book is even about, it's a 1-star, liked by 15 people.
Two is they closed their API completely, so there's no way you can get any book info from their DB, not with limits and/or authorization, not if you pay, just not at all.
Yes, the network effect is huge with social network - if not the biggest thing about them. People tolerate a lot just to participate where the people they want to be closer with participate.
Frequent experience with movies also. letterboxd is rife with ratings on movies, which didn't pre-screen at all yet. Most of them by paid shills. A24 being the worst, but Warner also amongst them. And lb fails to hit them.
Same on IMDB, and even Rotten Tomatoes. There's a lot of money in movies. But books?
The same exact thing happens on BoardGameGeek for board games. A game is announced and people rate it 1 out of 10 because they hate the theme or the it has a digital app to help you play or ..... The game isn't released and no one has a copy besides the publisher.
I was shocked to read the new rules for the Academy Awards jury members: newly they must watch the movies before giving their verdict. As in, before they didn't have to...
Perhaps in the past people had ethics and so it didn't need to be stated. I'm surprised they need it in the rules, as I would expect since they pick the jury they pick people with ethics. But then I'll admit complete ignorance to how they do anything (and no care either since I'm not a movie person)
Online reviews don't have enough control over their reviewers and so it only takes a small number of unethical people to cause a big problem.
They've discontinued mailing out screeners and members have to watch them through the private Academy Screening Room streaming service. The academy now knows who watched what and can use that data for fair voting.
Guess you could say it happens everywhere by default - absent any checks and balances. Steam had terrible review bombing issues, but they finally decided to do something about it far too many years too late.
... But when you're an incumbent that's likely to be around for at least a quarter of a decade with a sizeable monopoly, later really is better than never.
Spy Magazine in its time (mid 80s to mid 90s) had an amusing section titled "Logrolling in our time". Usually featuring mutually favorable blurbs by pairs of writers.
This kind of exposes how valuable reviews actually are -- likely not very. People like reviews, but some person you don't know using some unknown set of criteria to evaluate a product turns out to not actually offer any value. Taking the mean of this data ("4.5 stars on Goodreads!") also doesn't improve the quality of the data.
I'd disagree. Real, honest reviews are genuinely useful to me as a consumer particularly if the review outlines what type of person the reviewer is, too.
That is the whole point of the review scams - often I'm not an expert and I know it. I need some widget, and there are 10 choices. I want someone independent to review all 10 choices and tell me which is best so I don't waste my money buying a bad one. Lacking someone with the money and time to buy all 10, at least seeing the reviews of someone who has one is a suggestion on if that one is really as good as they say. Though if someone only has one they tend to review it well because nobody wants to admit they bought something that wasn't the best.
If the reviewer is consumer reports they for years were this independent reviews. (I've heard accusations they are no longer as independent - make your own decisions) They often don't know enough about the product to understand why long term the more expensive one might be better as opposed to just overpriced, so not perfect, but still better than buying everything yourself.
they have been doing this for decades. they fund themselves by selling a print magazine and paid online access. their reputation is so good that products that get good test results often use the result in their ads or print it on their packaging.
In some ways, it's just a peak into existing corruption, perpetrated by those who couldn't even be bothered to make it believable.
Likely a script that looks for the first x reviews and then starts generating fake ones, and some party that is just lazy. There's probably a market somewhere to short.
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. How things are makes the problem obvious. If they put a countdown everyone leaving bad reviews just waits until reviews open and then it becomes much harder to know it isn't an honest review as it is possible that they really read it.
Maybe Goodreads is just what it should be, a place to quarantine all the nonsense concerning books. Amazon polices reviews heavily, such that a reviewer found to be in some way paid can cause their reviews to be removed from earlier, and sometimes authors see many reviews removed from their books. This is with books, not other Amazon products
One thing that also happens with reviews on Amazon, though, is that you get one star reviews from people who do nothing but leave one star reviews. Amazon won’t touch them
> Long-time romance author Milly Johnson said: “I had a one-star rating for a book that hadn’t even been seen by my copy editor. When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not. I’m afraid at that point I washed my hands of them as a serious review site that should have some code of conduct. We all get bad reviews but at least we should expect any review to be fair."
Is Goodreads not a review site but just a soapbox for readers? What kind of serious review site would allow reviews where the reviewer simply speculates whether they would like something or not? Seems strange Goodreads would allow these kinds of reviews, it completely undermines any credibility their ratings might have.
For a long time, Amazon reviews could be somewhat useful if you ignored all the 5 and 1 star reviews and only looked at verified buyers.
But Amazon allows sellers to swap different products in under an existing listing so you don’t even know anymore if the review is for what you are buying. This allows sellers to cheat. It’s insanity.
It reminds me of the phone network. It’s so riddled with bad actors that entire generations now have been trained to never pick up the phone.
Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed? For abusive callers to operate unrestricted? Even the audio quality of the calls seems to have gotten so bad in my parents rural backwater.
I don’t get it. Is engagement the only metric that matters?
it also changes your purchase history when they do this, which is certainly interesting. There have been a number of times when I want to purchase something again, then go to my order history. The 'product' is now something like a hair accessory targeted at teen girls.
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?
Call centers want the ability to call "on behalf of" and are willing to pay for that. Unless strict id verification is mandated by a regulatory body, even in the presence of a network-wide agreement the first to defect eats the whole pie.
> But Amazon allows sellers <...> This allows sellers to cheat.
Things like this allow for a secondary market of "amazon experts" to be formed, which brings sellers to amazon in particular. Again, revenue.
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?
Our protocols are descended from the postal system - the sender is a bit of text written on the wrapper.
Certifying that is out of the scope of delivering to the addressee. It would involve back and forth with an authority - e.g. showing someone your id before being allowed to post a letter.
Goodreads was a useful tool to track the books I’d read to my kids every night. Nice to have a log book of what I’d already read backed by a real database of ISBNs
Feels similar to calorie tracking apps now. Having a database of food UPCs with nutritional data is actually useful. Then capitalism comes along and juices it for social media engagement until the site is riddled with junk features and paywalls
I guess there will always be market for a hobbies to make their own trackers.
Goodreads used to be a good site. Then big tech came in and with it enshittification. I use StoryGraph lately to record my books, but I wouldn't recommend their reviews either, or in general any reviews - everything will be between 3 and 4 stars in the end, regardless of genre or quality.
> When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not.
Ah yes, the illustrious omniprescient reviewer.
I've published a novelette a few months ago on a large website with user ratings (ahem, as a novice writer of smut whose nom-de-plume shall remain a carefully guarded secret). What is interesting is that in the first fortnight there were some people giving a bad rating because, ostensibly (and judging from some comments), they just don't like that specific type of story, whereas in the long tail the average rating climbs upwards as people find your story using tags and keywords, etc, and then judge only the writing and story itself, rather than its subgenre, setting, or premise.
I wonder if real books reviewed on Goodreads follow that pattern too. Those early reviews can have an outsized influence.
You've highlighted an additional problem, roving bands of morality police (various colours) who go on campaigns against books they've never read and authors they don't like.
In my scale 3/5 is good (got what expected), 4/5 is very good (nice bargain), 5/5 is uniquely amazing. But I do understand that for some anything below 5/5 is bad.
The combination of a terribly run social platform together with a crippled API that can't be used to audit it through third parties is an all too familiar story by now.
When it comes to books I mostly ignore the reviews on sites like Goodreads. I'm much more likely to pick books based on recommendations from friends, or because they've been nominated for one or more awards. At a pinch I'm even more likely to pick a book based on it's publisher than I am to base the choice on Goodreads reviews.
Goodreads is the worst. At this point, Amazon should just shut it down.
Amazon reviews are unironically better, because you can see if somebody actually bought the book or not, and Amazon has very sophisticated anti-Astroturfing measures. (Good luck getting your friends and family to leave good reviews of your book -- they'll catch it and delete them.)
Goodreads is infested with marketing and publishing cliques and a lot of their reviews are fake or paid for. It has never been more over.
They just catch some of the easily detectable ones that some authors use (everyone following the same link or links from the same site rating books universally high, for instance).
They don't detect commercial review buying services which involve actual product purchases nearly as well or some of the other scams like ASIN laundering.
All one needs to do is look at 100% identical white labeled products that get vastly different reviews to see Amazon's measures are wholly insufficient.
Worse, people buy 4-5 star good reviews for their own products and 1-3 star bad reviews for competing products, so there's no easy way for a user to tell what is real and what is fake.
I wholeheartedly agree that Amazon needs to fix how they handle product reviews in general. For a lot of non-book products, their system is totally broken. But for book reviews in particular, as bad as it is, it's better than whatever Goodreads is doing.
Amazon, like all review sites, can be gamed. But it takes quite a lot of effort, and credible fake reviews need to actually purchase the book in question -- and so, for the average book, fake reviews are practically a non-factor.
>Amazon has very sophisticated anti-Astroturfing measures.
And yet they won't do anything about sellers who change their listing to a completely different product once it gets to the 4-5 star range. Can't tell you how many times I've been looking at some tool or gadget only to glance at the reviews and see people mentioning socks.
I buy lots of books and write lots of reviews on Amazon, and mine always say "verified purchase." I also see other reviews which were solicited by giving readers free copies (ARCs) a la Goodreads, and they never say "verified purchase." (And some reviews that were written by people who never read the book at all...) So yeah. Unless you have evidence to the contrary -- which would be evidence of a crime -- I think they can be trusted on this point.
I remember this happening on Amazon more than 20 years ago. People reviewing books from authors they like (or hate) long before they were available to buy.
Trolls from the Russian federation is interesting. Maybe high bang for buck in destroying livelihoods and cultural capital, re: adversarial statescraft
This is a significant factor, imo. Many great modern Russian artists are banned by the state. Meanwhile, the current imperialist Russian state is a group of professionally trained sandcastle kickers running wild.
I look forward to a day when the Russian people, and the world, have a Russian government that works for things other than destruction.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but most if the Internet should not be anonymous. Anonymity has led to bots, awful cases of trolling and abuse. There should definitely be ways to communicated peer-to-peer anonymously, but posting on Social Media should not be one of them.
People will post terrible lies in national newspapers under their own photograph and byline. Accountability is .. not evenly distributed.
Environments where reprisals are possible simply have different dysfunctionality from ones where they generally aren't. And you can see how catastrophic suddenly turning on reprisals is, known as "doxxing".
I'm all for anonymity, but anonymous identities should be taken with extreme skepticism.
I'd really like to see a hierarchy of trust. Get some certs signed by a reputable bank who has seen you in person, high trust. Self-signed certs, much less trust. Completely anonymous, you get basically shadowbanned; people who want it can go looking for it.
The Internet is an information flood (and so much worse now that we have LLMs). Filtering it has always been the key challenge. We should be able to filter on source, while still allowing people to say whatever it is they want. We just don't have to read it.
To me it seems like there is only one key to a well working social site: fair moderation.
Fair moderation encompasses a well defined vision on what to moderate, and good definitions of that - what is tolerated and what not. Enforcement needs to be swift and fair. There needs to be a barrier of entry, to combat cheating the moderation by quickly re-joining.
If these are successfully upheld, bots, trolling, and abuse has little chance. Not being anonymous can raise the barrier of entry, but it's very far from a working solution; see how horrible people act of facebook, with their name and photo attached. And this site, for example, has very little publicly visible badness going on, because of how effective the moderation is.
I don’t know if it’s the whole internet but what about a company or service that did this? The benchmark to a review on Amazon and Goodreads is really low. It seems like we want/need the Costco model where you pay a fee to take part and then maybe the product inventory is more curated and reviews are attached to real authentic buyers.
Counterfeit goods on Amazon is a meme, everyone knows. There are YouTube channels that make a sport of it. Once the market just accepts that, it seems impossible to elevate something like reviews
Well, you're posting anonymously on a social media site to claim that people shouldn't be allowed to post anonymously on a social media sites. If you're not even willing to do it, why should anyone else?
Also, there are social media sites with real name policies; in what way are they better?
You ask a very fair question. I don't show my real name on HN because nobody else does. Just like taxation, it only works if everyone follows the rules. If only some users provide their real names, there is still the opportunity for trolling, etc.
Secondly, I don't try to use my account to spew FUD. I'm not claiming to be anyone I am not. I don't say "I'm an expert on privacy with 20+ years experience" or falsely claim to be a well know industry leader in this field.
Lastly, I really try (especially on HN) to be nice. I'll state ideas and some facts I know, but I really try to stay clear of being mean. I do this because the rage/hate I see spewed on the interwebs is just sad and I really believe its a product of people being able to hide behind anonymity.
I dont know any social media sites with real name policies, but I do know from personal experience that people are much more civil when they cant hide behind a mask.
I would like to live in a world where everyone thinks about the repercussions of their actions, on and off line. IMHO, if everyone was their true self, it would be better - case and point, the fake book reviewer would probably not have posted their fake review.
You've just introduced some new problems of scaling up identity theft and getting people otherwise uninterested in social media sell their account to spammers.
There is a zone of shade between full anonymity and exact identification. There could be a service that provide time limited anonymous tokens that still provide guarantee that you're not a bot. So you can claim you're a real person without having to reveal _who_ you are.
I think the thing I have the most difficulty with in this discussion is that it seems virtually unthinkable to stop taking semi-anonymous ratings seriously? I know there will be intense loss aversion to such a crazy idea.
But sometimes the comment section is just a bunch of people with axes to grind.
I think at this point, any sort of online review aggregators have been ruined for good - from Amazon to Imdb to Google. All of them. Find a professional reviewer you trust, whose taste aligns with your own. For me, I like The Critical Drinker. Most of what he recommends, I like. Except Arcane, that was horrible.
Okay I shouldn't have said horrible, that was too harsh. But it just didn't click with me at all, and I abandoned it after 1 or 2 episodes. It's been a few months, so I can't remember specifically why. It's not that I don't like animation - I really enjoyed Blue Eyed Samurai for example.
Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days. We know that sites like Trustpilot will take down negative reviews if you pay them, Amazon reviews are mostly bots and some sites have weird incentives for users to write reviews.
E.g. take reviews of business on Google, there's no link to actual purchases, but you get a star and a "Local guide level 4" or something if you do enough reviews. A family member runs a consulting business, he has a 2-star review, the only review. It's not made by a customer, just some random dude. What it looks like is that this dude just walked around reviewing business after business, based on look of their office perhaps. He's not customer of ANY of them. So now multiple business are trying to have these negative reviews removed, Google doesn't give a shit, so what are these reviews actually worth?
Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs.
> Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days.
It depends on the contents and the number of them. If multiple/many negative reviews for something all mention a similar defect, you can be pretty sure it is an actual issue with the thing. It is then up to you to determine if the thing is still worth your time/money.
I will say that for some things the motivations of the reviewers are something to take into account especially. For book reviews on Goodreads I've found that animosity towards the author causes heavy overstating of the 'defects' of a book.
>Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs.
Baseless, callous accusation. And the conclusion is wrong too. Without getting something in return, people write genuine reviews with multiple different intents: out of feeling of obligation, support, appreciation. Out of discontent. As a substitute or alternative for customer support. To help other people find the thing, or to dissuade them from an unworthy purchase.
Or as a personal note. I use Goodreads to track what I read and if I liked it or not, what was it about, so I don't accidentally buy the same book again after half a year :V
That's a good one too. AnimeNewsNetwork works the same, you can attach a note to a media, that shows up on your profile. Some use it for reviews, some for personal notes.
My parents live in what is still a relatively rural area, it's unlikely you'd ever send something to their address on accident. They perpetually get kids toys shipped to their house. Address and name is correct each time. The package is clearly from Amazon. I'm relatively certain it is some part of weird review scam process. It's become a common enough thing that they just hand out the toys to who ever has young kids in the family.
>I'm relatively certain it is some part of weird review scam process
https://www.uspis.gov/news/scam-article/brushing-scam
tldr - the seller initiates the sale themselves for w/e it is they sell to a second account that they own registered to a random address. They then ship a near-worthless item to that address and use that secondary account to write a glowing review for their original account. You get something for free that would be a bargain at twice the price and they get a 5 star review on their account. The only victim is anyone who trusts the review system.
That's somewhat insane. The review would have to be worth more than the items, plus shipping.
Let's say the item is literally a single seed worth practically nothing and it costs $3 wholesale to ship. As a new shop, are a hundred 5 star reviews worth $300 to you or do you think you can more effectively spent that $300 on a different marketing plan? It's counterintuitive but it's actually perfectly rational.
Amazon runs the vine review program. There are frequently multi-hundred dollar items available to vine reviewers in exchange for writing a review.
It seems a lot of companies value early reviews highly, or their prices are rather inflated.
> You get something for free that would be a bargain at twice the price
Free x2?
yes, that was the joke. 0 x 2
Yeah, I haven't seen any negative impact of it. The only way I could see is if Amazon decides their address is somehow criminal adjacent & just blocks all shipments to it.
"Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either. If you're not getting something in return, most people won't write a review, that just leave the nut jobs."
Strongly disagree.
IF there were a generally decent and functional and efficient review forum and IF it were painless and friction-free to leave a review, then I think reviewing a product insightfully is something that adds real value and makes the world a (slightly) better place.
Unfortunately, the fora for this kind of activity are either nonexistent or laden with pathological baggage. Reviews at Amazon are unusable at best, fraudulent at worst, and I hear nothing but bad things about "goodreads".
> Most people who write reviews aren't exactly the most mentally stable people either.
That's a wild claim!
In my experience working as various fast food places as a youngen, nobody writes reviews for good service. Because reviews are all about state of mind and emotions. If you're happy, you go home happy and never think about it. If you're angry, you need to vent somewhere.
Unless it was unexpectedly good. Sometimes I rush to write a 5 star review if a random restaurant in middle of nowhere exceeds my expectations - so more people would know of the place.
In my scale 3/5 is good (got what expected), 4/5 is very good (nice bargain), 5/5 is uniquely amazing. But I do understand that for some anything below 5/5 is bad.
You’re saying all 5 stars reviews are fake?
Clarification: Write unmotivated reviews.
I'd argue that most people don't review anything, unless they are somehow encouraged to do so. Sometimes they are motivated by anger, but those reviews are quickly taken down on many platforms, or they are based on completely unrealistic expectations, but then we're frequently back at being slightly unstable.
As an owner of airbnb listing, there is some truth there (although as a blanket statement its obviously not true). Its mostly Karens of this world, or simply people pissed off enough to bother getting an app and creating an account, and putting time to write down the review.
Normal folks in normal situations simply couldn't be bothered, not in 2025. The only exception is when platform forces you to do so, and then the sea of dishonest shallow blah to reach certain word count ensues. That's now you get 4.8-4.9* average review out of 5, while judging an OK but not perfect place (and no place is ever perfect since many subjective aspects enter the game).
If you want to find a lawyer there are various slander/libel laws on the books. However each country has different laws and in most cases only lawyers win if you bother.
The default mind set for a normal person should be there is no reason for them to waste their time to improve a closed source data set for a for profit company. You can break this mind set if you truly care about the product and they are small enough to matter, like a local restaurant or single dev software, but we should not be contributing our time to helping Amazon weed out the complete crap USB cords from the only kinda crap USB cords. Professional organizations like consumer report and America's Test Kitchen can do it at scale and smaller reviewers (who refuse free products) can handle more niche things in the interim.
But I believe open data sets will become as important as open source for the future. Filtering out the spam, fakes and slop will be similar work to what AdBlock filter people do today.
Online reviews in general are pretty useless these days. We know that sites like Trustpilot will take down negative reviews if you pay them
I've had multiple Amazon negative reviews vanish over the years. Often, it happens a few weeks after posting. I've heard it's people bribing Amazon reps to do so, under the auspices of "bad review". I've even occasionally noticed others on Amazon, in reviews, complaining that their last review went missing.
Really sad.
Funnily enough this is the perfect usecase for a blockchain. We could get rid off both the issue of removed reviews and the illegitimate reviews.
Funny enough this is the perfect use case for the old web, where people just review things on their blog and you either know them or trust them from previous content.
Right, because it will be impossible to remove lying reviews, and they will all be illegitimate?
Because you'd have to pay to leave a review. And maybe get paid to leave a review by people that pay to upvote that review.
I see absolutely no way this incentive structure could be misused, after all, people wouldn't use bots to spam reviews out to hopefully farm upvotes, would they? Nope <:o)
A few years back, inspired by Derek Sivers [0], I decided to just make my own filterable book review list [1].
It was both a fun challenge (using vanilla JS to render) and has been fun to share with friends, Twitter mutuals etc.
Plus, people know it's MY reviews so if they like my suggestions/tweeting/poasting/etc, they know the review is from me and not some bot.
0 - https://sive.rs/book
1 - https://alexpotato.com/books/?xl=hn
>> Plus, people know it's MY reviews
One way to look at what you've done is authenticated the source of your reviews. They're not anonymous people behind a fake username.
One way to look at what you've done is authenticated the source of your reviews. They're not anonymous people behind a fake username.
Yet another reason that the legitimate press still wins over the internet rabble.
I follow a couple of professional movie reviewers who have been doing it since before the internet took off, and their reviews are almost always better than the dross online.
The same is true for books. The New York Times book review, for example, is so good and trusted that you can actually subscribe to it separately, without getting the rest of the newspaper.
> Yet another reason that the legitimate press still wins over the internet rabble.
When they asked Yuval Noah Harari his opinion on AI deepfakes, I liked his answer (paraphrased):
"Fake information has always been a problem and my answer is the way we have always dealt with it: having trusted institutions."
I took this to mean things like newspapers (e.g. the New York Times as the 'paper of record').
Sivers' list has introduced me to many great books. I can recommend "Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives - by David Eagleman" which is the fourth book on the page you linked.
Goodreads is a case study in the natural monopoly of social networks. The product has been terrible for years now, with Amazon investing the bare minimum to keep it online and one slight design change every few years. But competitors like TheStoryGraph can't get traction because all the people are still on Goodreads.
Off the top of my head there's two things that rub me the wrong way about Goodreads.
One is there isn't a separate section for professional reviews (Polish movie/TV site Filmweb has that), so that right off the bat the first comment might be that someone doesn't like what the book is even about, it's a 1-star, liked by 15 people.
Two is they closed their API completely, so there's no way you can get any book info from their DB, not with limits and/or authorization, not if you pay, just not at all.
Yes, the network effect is huge with social network - if not the biggest thing about them. People tolerate a lot just to participate where the people they want to be closer with participate.
I keep reading complaints about how bad it is and I just don’t see it. The last redesign is tremendously slow though.
Well, start here with the article being discussed. They made a product decision to allow fake reviewers to trash books before they are even released.
Frequent experience with movies also. letterboxd is rife with ratings on movies, which didn't pre-screen at all yet. Most of them by paid shills. A24 being the worst, but Warner also amongst them. And lb fails to hit them.
Same on IMDB, and even Rotten Tomatoes. There's a lot of money in movies. But books?
The same exact thing happens on BoardGameGeek for board games. A game is announced and people rate it 1 out of 10 because they hate the theme or the it has a digital app to help you play or ..... The game isn't released and no one has a copy besides the publisher.
I was shocked to read the new rules for the Academy Awards jury members: newly they must watch the movies before giving their verdict. As in, before they didn't have to...
Perhaps in the past people had ethics and so it didn't need to be stated. I'm surprised they need it in the rules, as I would expect since they pick the jury they pick people with ethics. But then I'll admit complete ignorance to how they do anything (and no care either since I'm not a movie person)
Online reviews don't have enough control over their reviewers and so it only takes a small number of unethical people to cause a big problem.
They've discontinued mailing out screeners and members have to watch them through the private Academy Screening Room streaming service. The academy now knows who watched what and can use that data for fair voting.
Guess you could say it happens everywhere by default - absent any checks and balances. Steam had terrible review bombing issues, but they finally decided to do something about it far too many years too late.
... But when you're an incumbent that's likely to be around for at least a quarter of a decade with a sizeable monopoly, later really is better than never.
There's a lot of money in movies. But books?
Books were $28,100,000,000 last year in the United States alone.
Audiobooks: $1,800,000,000
e-Books: $191,000,000
https://www.statista.com/topics/1177/book-market/#topicOverv...
Right, but those are positive reviews.
No, sometimes they are also brigading competitors. Lot's of 0 star ratings also en masse.
> There's a lot of money in movies. But books?
Generally less money, yes. But not all motives are financial. And there are loads of conflict, drama, and emotions in many parts of the writing world.
Spy Magazine in its time (mid 80s to mid 90s) had an amusing section titled "Logrolling in our time". Usually featuring mutually favorable blurbs by pairs of writers.
Well, now there are two people who remember Spy.
I wish there was a modern equivalent.
This kind of exposes how valuable reviews actually are -- likely not very. People like reviews, but some person you don't know using some unknown set of criteria to evaluate a product turns out to not actually offer any value. Taking the mean of this data ("4.5 stars on Goodreads!") also doesn't improve the quality of the data.
I'd disagree. Real, honest reviews are genuinely useful to me as a consumer particularly if the review outlines what type of person the reviewer is, too.
That is the whole point of the review scams - often I'm not an expert and I know it. I need some widget, and there are 10 choices. I want someone independent to review all 10 choices and tell me which is best so I don't waste my money buying a bad one. Lacking someone with the money and time to buy all 10, at least seeing the reviews of someone who has one is a suggestion on if that one is really as good as they say. Though if someone only has one they tend to review it well because nobody wants to admit they bought something that wasn't the best.
If the reviewer is consumer reports they for years were this independent reviews. (I've heard accusations they are no longer as independent - make your own decisions) They often don't know enough about the product to understand why long term the more expensive one might be better as opposed to just overpriced, so not perfect, but still better than buying everything yourself.
in germany there is stiftung warentest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest
they have been doing this for decades. they fund themselves by selling a print magazine and paid online access. their reputation is so good that products that get good test results often use the result in their ads or print it on their packaging.
The United States has that, it's called Consumer Reports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports
Why is the book available for review on the site if review copies haven't yet been sent out? Isn't that just asking for trolling?
In some ways, it's just a peak into existing corruption, perpetrated by those who couldn't even be bothered to make it believable.
Likely a script that looks for the first x reviews and then starts generating fake ones, and some party that is just lazy. There's probably a market somewhere to short.
That appears to be the unspoken thrust of the piece once you've waded through all of the mock surprise and intrigue.
I guess authors and publishers do like being able to show that a certain title is forthcoming.
And it lets people add it to reading list plans early etc. But you could probably have a read only entry with a countdown without enormous efforts?
Can they do that without allowing third party reviews before the publication date?
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. How things are makes the problem obvious. If they put a countdown everyone leaving bad reviews just waits until reviews open and then it becomes much harder to know it isn't an honest review as it is possible that they really read it.
The general term used to describe this business practice is 'shakedown'.
Because it's being run by Amazon employees who hate their jobs rather than hobbyists who love books?
How is that rellevant, this just show how broken reviews are. How much of a scamm it is
That is exactly why it's relevant! Positive sign of scammy behavior.
Maybe Goodreads is just what it should be, a place to quarantine all the nonsense concerning books. Amazon polices reviews heavily, such that a reviewer found to be in some way paid can cause their reviews to be removed from earlier, and sometimes authors see many reviews removed from their books. This is with books, not other Amazon products
One thing that also happens with reviews on Amazon, though, is that you get one star reviews from people who do nothing but leave one star reviews. Amazon won’t touch them
There are so many text books in tech that you just have to dive into blind. There is nothing available to evaluate the quality at all.
> Long-time romance author Milly Johnson said: “I had a one-star rating for a book that hadn’t even been seen by my copy editor. When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not. I’m afraid at that point I washed my hands of them as a serious review site that should have some code of conduct. We all get bad reviews but at least we should expect any review to be fair."
Is Goodreads not a review site but just a soapbox for readers? What kind of serious review site would allow reviews where the reviewer simply speculates whether they would like something or not? Seems strange Goodreads would allow these kinds of reviews, it completely undermines any credibility their ratings might have.
Does anyone take Amazon review scores seriously?
For a long time, Amazon reviews could be somewhat useful if you ignored all the 5 and 1 star reviews and only looked at verified buyers.
But Amazon allows sellers to swap different products in under an existing listing so you don’t even know anymore if the review is for what you are buying. This allows sellers to cheat. It’s insanity.
It reminds me of the phone network. It’s so riddled with bad actors that entire generations now have been trained to never pick up the phone.
Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed? For abusive callers to operate unrestricted? Even the audio quality of the calls seems to have gotten so bad in my parents rural backwater.
I don’t get it. Is engagement the only metric that matters?
it also changes your purchase history when they do this, which is certainly interesting. There have been a number of times when I want to purchase something again, then go to my order history. The 'product' is now something like a hair accessory targeted at teen girls.
"Is engagement the only metric that matters?" Yes.
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?
Call centers want the ability to call "on behalf of" and are willing to pay for that. Unless strict id verification is mandated by a regulatory body, even in the presence of a network-wide agreement the first to defect eats the whole pie.
> But Amazon allows sellers <...> This allows sellers to cheat.
Things like this allow for a secondary market of "amazon experts" to be formed, which brings sellers to amazon in particular. Again, revenue.
> Is engagement the only metric that matters?
Yes. Welcome to the world of enshittification.
> Why would a network operator allow caller ID to be so easily spoofed?
Our protocols are descended from the postal system - the sender is a bit of text written on the wrapper.
Certifying that is out of the scope of delivering to the addressee. It would involve back and forth with an authority - e.g. showing someone your id before being allowed to post a letter.
I think technically good reads is a social platform micro blog site now, so soapbox is about right.
Goodreads was a useful tool to track the books I’d read to my kids every night. Nice to have a log book of what I’d already read backed by a real database of ISBNs
Feels similar to calorie tracking apps now. Having a database of food UPCs with nutritional data is actually useful. Then capitalism comes along and juices it for social media engagement until the site is riddled with junk features and paywalls
I guess there will always be market for a hobbies to make their own trackers.
Then labeling those as "reviews" on the site is pretty disingenuous and misleading, but that's life.
>they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not
Unintentionally a hilarious statement, straight outta sci-fi.
Goodreads used to be a good site. Then big tech came in and with it enshittification. I use StoryGraph lately to record my books, but I wouldn't recommend their reviews either, or in general any reviews - everything will be between 3 and 4 stars in the end, regardless of genre or quality.
> When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not.
Ah yes, the illustrious omniprescient reviewer.
I've published a novelette a few months ago on a large website with user ratings (ahem, as a novice writer of smut whose nom-de-plume shall remain a carefully guarded secret). What is interesting is that in the first fortnight there were some people giving a bad rating because, ostensibly (and judging from some comments), they just don't like that specific type of story, whereas in the long tail the average rating climbs upwards as people find your story using tags and keywords, etc, and then judge only the writing and story itself, rather than its subgenre, setting, or premise.
I wonder if real books reviewed on Goodreads follow that pattern too. Those early reviews can have an outsized influence.
You've highlighted an additional problem, roving bands of morality police (various colours) who go on campaigns against books they've never read and authors they don't like.
If the book was about clairvoyants, I could see them allowing the review to be added before the books publication date.
In my scale 3/5 is good (got what expected), 4/5 is very good (nice bargain), 5/5 is uniquely amazing. But I do understand that for some anything below 5/5 is bad.
You’d get so many Uber drivers de-platformed. I’d say majority of people only go below 5/5 if they had problems.
The combination of a terribly run social platform together with a crippled API that can't be used to audit it through third parties is an all too familiar story by now.
When it comes to books I mostly ignore the reviews on sites like Goodreads. I'm much more likely to pick books based on recommendations from friends, or because they've been nominated for one or more awards. At a pinch I'm even more likely to pick a book based on it's publisher than I am to base the choice on Goodreads reviews.
Well, those sites are also filled with 5 star reviews for books that won't be on sale for 6 months+, so it kinda balances out, doesn't it.
Same with Reddit and other places - seeing bunch of suspiciously positive "reviews" months before the book is even on sale.
Goodreads is the worst. At this point, Amazon should just shut it down.
Amazon reviews are unironically better, because you can see if somebody actually bought the book or not, and Amazon has very sophisticated anti-Astroturfing measures. (Good luck getting your friends and family to leave good reviews of your book -- they'll catch it and delete them.)
Goodreads is infested with marketing and publishing cliques and a lot of their reviews are fake or paid for. It has never been more over.
Amazon is packed full of fake reviews.
They just catch some of the easily detectable ones that some authors use (everyone following the same link or links from the same site rating books universally high, for instance).
They don't detect commercial review buying services which involve actual product purchases nearly as well or some of the other scams like ASIN laundering.
All one needs to do is look at 100% identical white labeled products that get vastly different reviews to see Amazon's measures are wholly insufficient.
Worse, people buy 4-5 star good reviews for their own products and 1-3 star bad reviews for competing products, so there's no easy way for a user to tell what is real and what is fake.
I wholeheartedly agree that Amazon needs to fix how they handle product reviews in general. For a lot of non-book products, their system is totally broken. But for book reviews in particular, as bad as it is, it's better than whatever Goodreads is doing.
Amazon, like all review sites, can be gamed. But it takes quite a lot of effort, and credible fake reviews need to actually purchase the book in question -- and so, for the average book, fake reviews are practically a non-factor.
Goodreads is trivially easy to manipulate, and it's manipulated as a matter of course. Anybody with $45 can simply buy 10 Goodreads reviews. https://alphabetazone.com/buy-goodreads-reviews/
Goodreads is the only real (popular) review site for non-american books too. If Amazon doesn't sell lithuanian books, how can I review those there? :)
>Amazon has very sophisticated anti-Astroturfing measures.
And yet they won't do anything about sellers who change their listing to a completely different product once it gets to the 4-5 star range. Can't tell you how many times I've been looking at some tool or gadget only to glance at the reviews and see people mentioning socks.
Do you trust Amazon to be honest and accurate about who bought the product?
I buy lots of books and write lots of reviews on Amazon, and mine always say "verified purchase." I also see other reviews which were solicited by giving readers free copies (ARCs) a la Goodreads, and they never say "verified purchase." (And some reviews that were written by people who never read the book at all...) So yeah. Unless you have evidence to the contrary -- which would be evidence of a crime -- I think they can be trusted on this point.
Time for a trustpilot review bomb campaign against goodreads. Never used the site, but I have a perfect right to predict if I'd enjoy it or not.
I remember this happening on Amazon more than 20 years ago. People reviewing books from authors they like (or hate) long before they were available to buy.
Trolls from the Russian federation is interesting. Maybe high bang for buck in destroying livelihoods and cultural capital, re: adversarial statescraft
> cultural capital
This is a significant factor, imo. Many great modern Russian artists are banned by the state. Meanwhile, the current imperialist Russian state is a group of professionally trained sandcastle kickers running wild.
I look forward to a day when the Russian people, and the world, have a Russian government that works for things other than destruction.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but most if the Internet should not be anonymous. Anonymity has led to bots, awful cases of trolling and abuse. There should definitely be ways to communicated peer-to-peer anonymously, but posting on Social Media should not be one of them.
People will post terrible lies in national newspapers under their own photograph and byline. Accountability is .. not evenly distributed.
Environments where reprisals are possible simply have different dysfunctionality from ones where they generally aren't. And you can see how catastrophic suddenly turning on reprisals is, known as "doxxing".
> People will post terrible lies in national newspapers under their own photograph and byline.
As an extreme example, (multiple) POTUS have gone on national TV and flat out lied to the US without consequence.
I'm all for anonymity, but anonymous identities should be taken with extreme skepticism.
I'd really like to see a hierarchy of trust. Get some certs signed by a reputable bank who has seen you in person, high trust. Self-signed certs, much less trust. Completely anonymous, you get basically shadowbanned; people who want it can go looking for it.
The Internet is an information flood (and so much worse now that we have LLMs). Filtering it has always been the key challenge. We should be able to filter on source, while still allowing people to say whatever it is they want. We just don't have to read it.
To me it seems like there is only one key to a well working social site: fair moderation.
Fair moderation encompasses a well defined vision on what to moderate, and good definitions of that - what is tolerated and what not. Enforcement needs to be swift and fair. There needs to be a barrier of entry, to combat cheating the moderation by quickly re-joining.
If these are successfully upheld, bots, trolling, and abuse has little chance. Not being anonymous can raise the barrier of entry, but it's very far from a working solution; see how horrible people act of facebook, with their name and photo attached. And this site, for example, has very little publicly visible badness going on, because of how effective the moderation is.
I don’t know if it’s the whole internet but what about a company or service that did this? The benchmark to a review on Amazon and Goodreads is really low. It seems like we want/need the Costco model where you pay a fee to take part and then maybe the product inventory is more curated and reviews are attached to real authentic buyers.
Counterfeit goods on Amazon is a meme, everyone knows. There are YouTube channels that make a sport of it. Once the market just accepts that, it seems impossible to elevate something like reviews
Well, you're posting anonymously on a social media site to claim that people shouldn't be allowed to post anonymously on a social media sites. If you're not even willing to do it, why should anyone else?
Also, there are social media sites with real name policies; in what way are they better?
You ask a very fair question. I don't show my real name on HN because nobody else does. Just like taxation, it only works if everyone follows the rules. If only some users provide their real names, there is still the opportunity for trolling, etc.
Secondly, I don't try to use my account to spew FUD. I'm not claiming to be anyone I am not. I don't say "I'm an expert on privacy with 20+ years experience" or falsely claim to be a well know industry leader in this field.
Lastly, I really try (especially on HN) to be nice. I'll state ideas and some facts I know, but I really try to stay clear of being mean. I do this because the rage/hate I see spewed on the interwebs is just sad and I really believe its a product of people being able to hide behind anonymity.
I dont know any social media sites with real name policies, but I do know from personal experience that people are much more civil when they cant hide behind a mask.
I would like to live in a world where everyone thinks about the repercussions of their actions, on and off line. IMHO, if everyone was their true self, it would be better - case and point, the fake book reviewer would probably not have posted their fake review.
> it only works if everyone follows the rules.
That means it will not work!
You've just introduced some new problems of scaling up identity theft and getting people otherwise uninterested in social media sell their account to spammers.
Here, have an upvote from this anonymous coward.
There is a zone of shade between full anonymity and exact identification. There could be a service that provide time limited anonymous tokens that still provide guarantee that you're not a bot. So you can claim you're a real person without having to reveal _who_ you are.
I agree.
What's more, governance processes for the forum shouldn't be anonymous at all. I mean flagging, voting, moderator action etc.
That's arguably the most important conversation here. Most in need of illumination by public discussion.
But so often (in these social media forums) it is taken one step beyond pseudonymity to full anonymity. Hidden from all eyes.
Why? I never heard a good argument.
Should people's votes be public in general?
There's a good and well known argument against that already. Don't distract from my point.
I think the thing I have the most difficulty with in this discussion is that it seems virtually unthinkable to stop taking semi-anonymous ratings seriously? I know there will be intense loss aversion to such a crazy idea.
But sometimes the comment section is just a bunch of people with axes to grind.
Reminder to use LibraryThing.
I think at this point, any sort of online review aggregators have been ruined for good - from Amazon to Imdb to Google. All of them. Find a professional reviewer you trust, whose taste aligns with your own. For me, I like The Critical Drinker. Most of what he recommends, I like. Except Arcane, that was horrible.
Arcane wasn't bad, but I really liked how the villains were fleshed out as complete humans with vices, virtues, and relatable motivations.
Out of interest, what did you dislike about Arcane?
Okay I shouldn't have said horrible, that was too harsh. But it just didn't click with me at all, and I abandoned it after 1 or 2 episodes. It's been a few months, so I can't remember specifically why. It's not that I don't like animation - I really enjoyed Blue Eyed Samurai for example.
>email from Goodreads explaining that it advises authors to "refrain from confronting users who give their books a low rating"
Okay that's bullshit. Let them duke it out!
[dead]