Fake Review Bombing Has Consequences? Huh .. Who Knew?

How pathetic. Lots of people have mental health and substance abuse issues, but they don't go around trying to sabotage the lives of others.
Yeah, obviously she got drunk and went nuts on goodreads. Which, fine, the booze (or whatever she was on) might make you less able to moderate that impulse. But someone who isn't petty and interested in torpedoing other people's works wouldn't have that impulse in the first place.
 
There are well-defined, trusted statistical methods that can be used on existing data to determine the likelihood that it is fake.

That aside, the average number of 5* and 1* votes can be calculated in sliding time windows to give you a mean and confidence interval. Given a story that's been live long enough (a week or more), provided you have more than a baseline threshold of votes, you can say with relative (and increasing) confidence that the story will receive 2 5-star votes for every one-star vote it receives. If your window function shows a significant deviation from that average, flag the five and one star votes in that window and run some more extensive and costly analsyis on them.
Talk math to me...
 
It is great to see someone suffering some consequences for their shitty behavior.
1 and 5 bombing happens all the time on Lit, and as @TheRedChamber said in general, not many of the review bombers get caught, but the sad part is that even those that do get caught receive zero penalties here. Way to set an example.
 
How pathetic. Lots of people have mental health and substance abuse issues, but they don't go around trying to sabotage the lives of others.

Oh yes they do. I had one ex who went out of her way to pull consequential crap including putting my job at risk. You ever see the movie Fatal Attraction? I lived it for a while. Had to move far away.
 
Yeah, obviously she got drunk and went nuts on goodreads. Which, fine, the booze (or whatever she was on) might make you less able to moderate that impulse. But someone who isn't petty and interested in torpedoing other people's works wouldn't have that impulse in the first place.
This.

Too many people escape social accountability by fake boo hooing in front of a podium and financing a quick trip to rehab.
 
Yeah, obviously she got drunk and went nuts on goodreads. Which, fine, the booze (or whatever she was on) might make you less able to moderate that impulse. But someone who isn't petty and interested in torpedoing other people's works wouldn't have that impulse in the first place.
That author 1-bombing competitors and dissing their works with bad reviews wasn't "drunk text".

Hers was a calculated and malicious attempt to destroy others and improve the reception of her own pending book release.
 
Goodreads invites this kind of crap with their shitty policies. I've seen several authors on Twitter point out their unpublished book is already getting bad reviews on the site.
They contact the site and point this out and the stock response is "people get review copies before it's published blah blah blah" which is true enough. But then the author responds with, "there are no review copies because I'm not done writing the damn thing" and get no response, and the reviews stay up.
 
Goodreads invites this kind of crap with their shitty policies. I've seen several authors on Twitter point out their unpublished book is already getting bad reviews on the site.
They contact the site and point this out and the stock response is "people get review copies before it's published blah blah blah" which is true enough. But then the author responds with, "there are no review copies because I'm not done writing the damn thing" and get no response, and the reviews stay up.
Let us find something positive - at least, in this case, the Goodreads author didn't stalk down a critic and attempt to bludgeon her with a bottle of wine:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/23208863
 
Back
Top