Goodreads users have long complained about those annoying 1-star or 5-star reviews for books that don’t even exist. As in… OMG, I love this author so much that as soon as a new book is announced, I’m going to go give it 5 stars! And of course, the opposite as well: This author sucks, and I know this new book will suck too, no matter what it is, so I’m sticking it with a 1-star rating!

Those of us who are long-term, regular Goodreads users have expressed frustration over this for years — and I can only imagine how disheartening it is for authors to see their upcoming new releases getting rated before their content has even been shared. These pre-release ratings — especially when ARCs aren’t even available yet — skew numbers and overall make the general rating scores less meaningful.

As of this month, Goodreads is taking action to address this issue. They’ve introduced new guidelines and controls for pre-release ratings, requiring reviewers to identify the source of the copy they’ve read before being able to save a rating. The specifics can be found here, but I’m sharing a screenshot for convenience as well:

I decided to test this out for myself! I went to the page for a not-yet-published book on my to-read shelf, and clicked on the stars underneath the book image to add a rating. Here’s what pops up next:

After clicking the Netgalley option, this is what I see:

And that’s it! Looks like I can go ahead and submit the rating at this point. (I didn’t — I didn’t actually read the book I picked, and I’m not sure it’s even available for review yet.)

Will this help fix the problem?

Well, maybe a little bit. It still relies on users’ honesty and integrity. There’s nothing to stop me from submitting this, and I’m not under the impression that the source choice is actually verified in any way. (That seems like it would be an impossible task, given the millions of people who review on Goodreads.)

I do think one little detail may help rein in those who want to rate without reading (#2 in the guidelines above):

Tell us where you received the book (ex. directly from an author, publisher or other source). Once submitted, you cannot edit or delete your book source. Your book source will be displayed on the book page when you write a review alongside your rating. 

Here’s a screenshot of what this looks like, appearing at the top of a posted review:

The source entry can’t be changed or removed — so it’s kind of like it’s going on your permanent record. Will that make people think twice about submitting invalid reviews? Will that lead to more policing by Goodreads or publishers, or possible reports from other Goodreads users to note if someone seems to be abusing the pre-release ratings function?

Final note: While the source is required before sharing a rating, users can still post review content without the extra step. So, for those dying to say… OMG this is my favorite author and everything they write is amazing and this book will be too — they still can! They just can’t tack 5 stars onto the gushing comments any longer… unless they want to.

Hmmm. Call me skeptical, but after writing all of this, I don’t see this new approach actually making a difference.

What do you think? Will this new approach improve the Goodreads rating accuracy? Or is this just a band-aid for a problem that can’t be solved, other than by blocking any ratings until a book actually comes out?