Thanks to book review websites like Goodreads and Amazon, a reader can decide if they want to read a book or if they should skip it because of the reviews and ratings.
Last month, I posted about a poorly edited book* I had read that ended up with some surprisingly high ratings on both Goodreads and Amazon. Since that post, I’ve noticed an unexpected finding. The way people rate self-published books is different to how they rate traditionally published ones. I’m consistently finding that the overall ratings for self-published books are higher than the ones for books that are traditionally published.
One reason for this is because we may be tougher on traditionally published books due to their cost. When a self-published novel costs only $1.99, we tend to be more forgiving. We’re less forgiving when we shell out $10 for a book. And watch up if we pay significantly higher than that, which is the case for hardcover books. It doesn’t mean the self-published books are better. It just means we’re dealing with a whole new level of subjectivity.
Do you find you are tougher when you rate traditionally published books verses self-published ones? Do you think this inequality in how books are reviewed is fair to authors and readers alike?
* I'm currently reading Hopeless. It's not the book I was referring to.
* * *
And the winner of the book Social Media Just For Writers is:
Michael Di Gesu
Congrats, Michael!