Goodreads has too much power for its moderation to be this bad

During the past week, a major scandal unfolded on Goodreads involving debut author Cait Corrain. She confessed to creating multiple fake accounts on Goodreads and using them to leave negative reviews and one-star ratings on books by other debut authors, many of whom were authors of color. As a result of this revelation, her book Crown of Starlight was dropped by her publisher, and Corrain posted an apology on X (formerly Twitter).

The revelation of Corrain’s actions was thanks to the efforts of fans and authors who exposed her review bombing. Author Iron Widow author Xiran Jay Zhao tweeted about a series of one-star reviews on debut science fiction and fantasy authors’ Goodreads accounts without specifically naming Corrain. Zhao also shared a document containing evidence of the review bombing of books by various authors.

The incident has once again brought into question the effectiveness of Goodreads’ moderation. Goodreads issued a statement emphasizing their commitment to maintaining the authenticity and integrity of their ratings and reviews and removing content that violates their guidelines. However, the incident has shed light on the need for more robust moderation and enforcement of guidelines to prevent similar incidents in the future. Additionally, Goodreads’ community guidelines lack clarity on how these rules are enforced.

Goodreads also referred to measures they had implemented to address authenticity of ratings and reviews, including strengthening account verification, expanding the customer service team, and providing more options for reporting problematic content. However, these measures did not prevent Corrain from carrying out the review bombing. The platform’s guidelines also rely heavily on user reports, indicating the need for more comprehensive in-house moderation tools.

Goodreads’ influence cannot be underestimated, with over 150 million members and millions participating in the annual Reading Challenge. However, the platform’s lack of barriers against review bombing and pre-publish reviews has raised concerns. The lack of verification for advance copies and pre-publish reviews has made it difficult to ascertain the authenticity of ratings and reviews on the platform.

The issue of verifying reviews is not unique to Goodreads, but other platforms have implemented systems for verification before allowing users to leave reviews. The lack of such verification measures on Goodreads has made it challenging for both authors and readers to trust the platform’s reviews and ratings.

In light of recent events, it is evident that Goodreads needs to reassess its moderation and verification processes to prevent similar incidents in the future. The negative impact of review bombing on authors, especially debut authors and authors of color, underscores the urgency of implementing more effective moderation tools on the platform.

The actions of Cait Corrain have highlighted the vulnerability of authors, especially those from marginalized communities, to review bombing on Goodreads. The potential impact on book sales and the authors’ future opportunities is a reminder of the importance of maintaining the integrity of ratings and reviews on platforms like Goodreads.