With millions of users, Goodreads has become a go-to platform for book lovers looking to track what they’ve read, find new books, follow authors, and leave ratings and reviews. But while the site offers many benefits, there are underlying issues that both readers and authors ought to be aware of particularly when it comes to how easily ratings and reviews can be skewed, and how external factors (such as an author’s personal views) can influence them.

What Goodreads is (and how it works)

Goodreads is a social cataloguing site for books: users can register and add books they’ve read (or want to read), assign star-ratings, write reviews, join groups, and follow authors. It was founded in 2006 (launched in January 2007) by Otis Chandler and Elizabeth Khuri Chandler.  In March 2013 the company was acquired by Amazon (for an undisclosed sum, though often reported around US$150 million). 

On the site, any registered user can give a rating (typically 1-5 stars) and submit a written review of any book listed in Goodreads’ catalog, regardless of whether they purchased the book or even read the full text. While Goodreads publishes review guidelines (e.g., that reviews should be “about the book” rather than personal attacks) the practical reality is that enforcement is imperfect.

Why this matters especially for authors

Because reviews and star-ratings affect how books are perceived and discovered (via Goodreads algorithms and, indirectly via Amazon integrations), they carry real consequences. A book with many positive ratings and reviews will appear more credible to other readers; conversely, low ratings or heavily negative reviews can discourage readers and reduce interest.

Because Goodreads is owned by Amazon, the implications are even broader: Amazon is the largest online book retail platform, and Goodreads reviews can influence ranking, discoverability, and consumer trust.  Therefore, any manipulation of rating/review ecosystems has potential knock-on effects for authors’ success.

The problem: Anyone can review good or bad (and sometimes for reasons unrelated to the book)

Here’s where a key risk lies since virtually anyone can leave a review, irrespective of purchase verification or proof of having read the book, the system is open to:

• • • “Review-bombing”: coordinated efforts to flood a book with many one-star reviews to drag down its average rating. For example, a 2021 article in Time documented authors who faced extortion or trolling campaigns on Goodreads designed to damage their book’s rating.
    • Bias connected to authors’ other actions or beliefs: If an author posts politically on their own social media, or takes a controversial stand, people who disagree may target their book ratings not based on the book itself but on the author’s views or identity.
    • Fake or sock-puppet accounts: Because Goodreads’ barrier to review is relatively low, there is vulnerability to multiple account creation and manipulation, which authors and commentators have flagged as problematic.
    • Reviews before or without reading: Some reviewers may rate a book even before it is widely released, or without finishing the book, which raises questions around authenticity and fairness.

Why this is especially bad for authors who engage publicly (politically, socially)

When an author uses their personal social media account to express political views or engage in activism, they may be exposing themselves (in effect) to backlash beyond the content of their books. Here’s how the chain of impact can work:

1. 1. 1. The author posts something political or socially visible.
      2. Individuals who disagree may target the author’s book(s), not because of the writing but because of the author’s stance.
      3. They leave one-star reviews (or encourage others to do so) on Goodreads, lowering average ratings and possibly influencing reader perception, algorithms, or retailer placements.
      4. Because Goodreads is integrated (as part of the Amazon ecosystem) readers in Amazon may see Goodreads ratings or be influenced by the star average when considering purchasing.
      5. The author’s discoverability, credibility, and ultimately sales may suffer — despite the book’s content being separate from the controversy.

From an author’s standpoint this is unfair: the work is judged not purely on literary merit but on external factors, some of which may be unrelated (or tangential) to the book itself. That shifts the playing field, particularly disadvantaging authors who take visible public stances.

What Goodreads says they are doing and the gaps

Goodreads does have official policies: it states that “artificially inflating or deflating a book’s ratings or reputation” is prohibited.  The Help/Announcements page also says Goodreads is “committed to ensuring the reviews … are trustworthy, relevant and authentic for readers and authors.” 

However, in practice many authors say that enforcement is slow or insufficient. The very nature of open participation means it is difficult to police everything. The Time piece noted that Goodreads does not require reviewers to have purchased the book or verified access, meaning that bad actors can create multiple accounts and leave fake ratings.  The result: authors may feel vulnerable, especially those without large marketing budgets or institutional support.

What readers and authors can do

• • • For readers: Be aware that a 1–5-star rating on Goodreads may reflect factors beyond the book’s content — including author identity or external controversies. If you value a book’s content over other considerations, skim through a range of reviews (both positive and negative) and see what readers cite (e.g., “I didn’t like X because of Y”).
    • For authors: Monitor reviews on Goodreads, be cautious about how your public persona may influence perceptions of your work, consider diversifying your review sources, and communicate transparently with readers. You may also report obviously malicious ratings or reviews (Goodreads encourages this)
    • For both: Recognize that ratings are a proxy, not an absolute. High star-ratings don’t guarantee you’ll love a book; lower ratings don’t always mean the book is poor. Context matters.