Thoughts on an idea for a books website?

[doris.ehcd]

Hi everyone, I’m thinking about developing a new website to help with something I as a book lover personally find frustrating. I’d really welcome your comments!

I feel that it takes too long to discover great books that fit my tastes (fantasy, etc.) There’s so many books and lists of books out there, but not enough guidance for choosing among the options when I’m deciding what to read next. I have to start a lot of books that I don’t finish because I don’t like the writing style or pacing. My favorite books are ones I discovered after a *lot* of looking around online.

So I’m thinking about developing something like a “Rotten Tomatoes for books,” where each book gets a number score based on how critics and blogs have reviewed it. The site could also have Netflix-style categories (like “young adult novels set in the US with male protagonists”) to give recommendations if you tend to like books with specific elements.

Would you find a site like this useful? Or if no, why not? Both answers are very welcome!

 

[Montero]

So, are you saying you'd aggregate other critics ratings?

Other than that, Goodreads already gives recommendations based on what you like, LibraryThing does so too - presumably different algorithms..... What would you be bringing that is new?

There are diagrams out there grouping books/authors and showing links of a "if you liked Bujold, you might like Duane" sort or "if you liked Weber, you might like Campbell". I am sure someone on here could point you to one - forgotten what they are called. I like diagrams because you can see a top level picture and get lots of hits at once. You could then zero in on your area of interest, get more details on why the links are drawn. Maybe do different ones - a diagram on fast paced, a diagram on detailed descriptions - rather than just sf or hard sf or categories like that.

 

[Extollager]

Welcome!

Speaking for myself, I would probably not be attracted to a site such as you describe because I would assume (!) that it would largely reinforce "what's new and popular now."

I tend to be wary of new sf and fantasy because of factors I perceive (!) such as these: the influence on authors of recent television, movies, and games; conversely, authors' lack of deep roots in literary tradition; the evident (to me!) practices of current book editors, who seem to me (!) concerned with acquisition of money-makers but not in literary quality; the banality of the artwork on book covers; the endless pages of dialogue (dialogue is easy to write, although good dialogue might not be easy to write); the tedium of "world-building"; the proliferation of bloated books with sequels..... and so on.

Along with these prejudices, I am interested in reading and rereading older books (often non-genre ones).

So that's my answer to your question about "you," the individual reader.

One possible way to draw in oddballs like me would be to have a part of the site in which readers could post quoted remarks from recognized older authors and authorities, on things they liked. For example, under TOLKIEN one might list E. R. EDDISON's Worm Ouroboros, a book Tolkien appreciated, with a quotation(s) from Tolkien's letters about the book. Readers who like Tolkien might then feel moved to try The Worm and to provide ratings thereof. Under LE GUIN there could be a quotation from "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" to KENNETH MORRIS's Book of the Three Dragons, etc. Readers could, of course, add their own comments as well as ratings. But there would need to be some way to make the comments on old books stand out from the (I expect!) masses of comments on recent ones.

 

[vanye]

I might use such a website - but only as one more place to go to collect ideas. In the end, though, I do not trust reviews or (worse!) ratings by critics. I am much more interested in the opinion of fellow readers, especially when they are given in depth and I can ask questions or even discuss with people whose tastes I am already acquainted with.

In a nutshell: no such site could ever replace or even come near our beloved Chrons for getting an informed opinion on books I might like to read.

Also, building such a site would require lots of technical savvy. (Apart from prodigious amounts of time and sweat)

 

[J-Sun]

I think such a site would be interesting at the least and potentially extremely useful. Unlike Goodreads or such things, it could presumably be used without registering to provide them with user data such as my "likes" but would instead be an aggregate of general reviews and lists of categorical links anyone could click on. I could definitely do with a site that let me find, for example, a list of "hard SF space-based optimistic adventurous SF written in a clear style recommended by these reviewers who also recommended these similar works: Work A, Work B..." That would be very cool. But I agree with vanye that it would only be one source - even if you aggregated every known reviewer in the universe, that wouldn't cover general reader response and people you know and so on. But I don't think anyone expects there to be one Alpha-Omega site, so that shouldn't be a discouragement.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The trouble with any kind of rating system is that there's no accounting for differences in personal taste. In epic fantasy the big names include George R R Martin, Brandon Sanderson, and Peter V Brett, but all are very different writers handling very different themes, character outlooks, stories, and few people universally like all no matter the high ratings each author generally gets.

There's also the danger that any aggregate list would simply highlight the most popular books that everyone is already very aware of.

No matter the programming power used to create aggregate lists, I really can't see it being particularly useful. And manually created lists would be even more restrictive and even less useful.

In the meantime, personal recommendations remains the most proven and tested way for readers to connect with new books. We do that here.

 

[The Big Peat]

I've considered doing this before. I think it would be useful in some ways - aggregating 'professional' reviewers' scores is, as yet, undone; you can aggregate the various reviews sites; you can do something you don't need to log on to.

But, oddly enough, I probably wouldn't use it all that much myself, because I find relying on people I know far more reliable than any weight of numbers. And I'd rather find the reviewers whose taste coincides with mine than look through them all. But is there potentially a gap in the market? Yes.

 

[HareBrain]

I have to start a lot of books that I don’t finish because I don’t like the writing style or pacing.

This is a very specific thing to ask of a book review site. How would a Rotten Tomatoes site narrow down which books have a particular writing style, any more than Goodreads (for example) does now?

I used to think an RT-type site would be great, but I'm not sure it's workable. The number of books published each year dwarfs the number of films, and unlike films, many are not reviewed at all, except by readers and perhaps a handful of blogs. Actually, collating blog reviews would be interesting, if you could find some way of doing it. But would you know if the blogger was a friend of the author, or was biased for some other reason?

 

[Brian G Turner]

would you know if the blogger was a friend of the author, or was biased for some other reason?

This is a good point to raise because a lot of bloggers will not put up a bad review. There is also a pressure to put a positive spin on any critical comments - otherwise the publisher will stop sending books over. I've been in those situations representing chrons in the past.

Goodreads effectively already does the job of collating reviews.

 

[The Big Peat]

This is a good point to raise because a lot of bloggers will not put up a bad review. There is also a pressure to put a positive spin on any critical comments - otherwise the publisher will stop sending books over. I've been in those situations representing chrons in the past.

If the fear of movie review critics being biased hasn't stopped Rotten Tomatoes being successful, why would fear of bias stop a Fantasy Literature Rotten Tomatoes being successful?

Its a fair criticism of the reviewing industry in general, but given that it hasn't sunk it yet, I don't see why it would impact the success or otherwise of a Fantasy Rotten Tomatoes.

Goodreads effectively already does the job of collating reviews.

It doesn't collate critics' reviews. To me that is a big point of difference.

 

[Vertigo]

If the fear of movie review critics being biased hasn't stopped Rotten Tomatoes being successful, why would fear of bias stop a Fantasy Literature Rotten Tomatoes being successful?

Its a fair criticism of the reviewing industry in general, but given that it hasn't sunk it yet, I don't see why it would impact the success or otherwise of a Fantasy Rotten Tomatoes.



It doesn't collate critics' reviews. To me that is a big point of difference.

Many of the book review bloggers rely upon freebie books in exchange for a review and don't want to kill the goose. I don't think the same is true of film reviews except possibly the 'trade pros' who will always be given free previews no matter what.

But I do agree that I'm not sure what another book review site would seriously offer over and above Goodreads and the reviews on the vendor sites (Amazon, Kobo etc.). And I'm not sure all those independent reviewers would be thrilled about having their reviews pulled off and copied elsewhere - some serious copyright issues there.

 

[The Big Peat]

Many of the book review bloggers rely upon freebie books in exchange for a review and don't want to kill the goose. I don't think the same is true of film reviews except possibly the 'trade pros' who will always be given free previews no matter what.

But I do agree that I'm not sure what another book review site would seriously offer over and above Goodreads and the reviews on the vendor sites (Amazon, Kobo etc.). And I'm not sure all those independent reviewers would be thrilled about having their reviews pulled off and copied elsewhere - some serious copyright issues there.

I have a friend who was a pro film reviewer pretty recently. He wasn't big fry but he wasn't guaranteed to get every preview or interview - especially interviews. I'm not sure it was ever expressed to him as pressure - tbh, I've never talked to him about that part - but I'm pretty sure bad reviews would have closed doors for him.

And given that Rotten Tomatoes' critics are pretty much all pros, I think the comparison stands. All pro reviewers are potentially compromised; but given that they're generally intelligent, informed, entertaining writers, a lot of people don't care. Not to mention most of them have a reputation to maintain and a genuine passion.

Also, again with the Rotten Tomatoes comparison, but they don't post full reviews and neither has to any site following their path. Score, first sentence or two, link to full review if people want to read it. I doubt too many reviewers would object to that and even if they did, I doubt they've got a leg to stand on.

 

[doris.ehcd]

So, are you saying you'd aggregate other critics ratings?

Other than that, Goodreads already gives recommendations based on what you like, LibraryThing does so too - presumably different algorithms..... What would you be bringing that is new?

There are diagrams out there grouping books/authors and showing links of a "if you liked Bujold, you might like Duane" sort or "if you liked Weber, you might like Campbell". I am sure someone on here could point you to one - forgotten what they are called. I like diagrams because you can see a top level picture and get lots of hits at once. You could then zero in on your area of interest, get more details on why the links are drawn. Maybe do different ones - a diagram on fast paced, a diagram on detailed descriptions - rather than just sf or hard sf or categories like that.

Thanks, Montero. The aggregated critic reviews would indeed be the primary distinction to Goodreads and LibraryThing. I also enjoy visualizations: the only book diagram I currently know of is Literature Map, which visualizes connections between authors. From what I can tell there's not much additional information given in this diagram, so it would be great to see other diagrams that give more of an idea of why authors have been connected to each other. I'll have a look around.

 

[doris.ehcd]

Welcome!

Speaking for myself, I would probably not be attracted to a site such as you describe because I would assume (!) that it would largely reinforce "what's new and popular now."

I tend to be wary of new sf and fantasy because of factors I perceive (!) such as these: the influence on authors of recent television, movies, and games; conversely, authors' lack of deep roots in literary tradition; the evident (to me!) practices of current book editors, who seem to me (!) concerned with acquisition of money-makers but not in literary quality; the banality of the artwork on book covers; the endless pages of dialogue (dialogue is easy to write, although good dialogue might not be easy to write); the tedium of "world-building"; the proliferation of bloated books with sequels..... and so on.

Along with these prejudices, I am interested in reading and rereading older books (often non-genre ones).

So that's my answer to your question about "you," the individual reader.

One possible way to draw in oddballs like me would be to have a part of the site in which readers could post quoted remarks from recognized older authors and authorities, on things they liked. For example, under TOLKIEN one might list E. R. EDDISON's Worm Ouroboros, a book Tolkien appreciated, with a quotation(s) from Tolkien's letters about the book. Readers who like Tolkien might then feel moved to try The Worm and to provide ratings thereof. Under LE GUIN there could be a quotation from "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" to KENNETH MORRIS's Book of the Three Dragons, etc. Readers could, of course, add their own comments as well as ratings. But there would need to be some way to make the comments on old books stand out from the (I expect!) masses of comments on recent ones.

Thanks for your honesty and ideas, Extollager! Ideally, I'd like a site like this to help readers discover niche and lesser known works, but this does rely on being able to find/collect credible reviews from independent magazines and the like. As a former history student, I love your idea of connecting and mapping older works via quotations in the classics. I'm often curious about those quotations.

 

[doris.ehcd]

I might use such a website - but only as one more place to go to collect ideas. In the end, though, I do not trust reviews or (worse!) ratings by critics. I am much more interested in the opinion of fellow readers, especially when they are given in depth and I can ask questions or even discuss with people whose tastes I am already acquainted with.

In a nutshell: no such site could ever replace or even come near our beloved Chrons for getting an informed opinion on books I might like to read.

Also, building such a site would require lots of technical savvy. (Apart from prodigious amounts of time and sweat)

All good and helpful points, thanks vanye!

 

[doris.ehcd]

The trouble with any kind of rating system is that there's no accounting for differences in personal taste. In epic fantasy the big names include George R R Martin, Brandon Sanderson, and Peter V Brett, but all are very different writers handling very different themes, character outlooks, stories, and few people universally like all no matter the high ratings each author generally gets.

There's also the danger that any aggregate list would simply highlight the most popular books that everyone is already very aware of.

No matter the programming power used to create aggregate lists, I really can't see it being particularly useful. And manually created lists would be even more restrictive and even less useful.

In the meantime, personal recommendations remains the most proven and tested way for readers to connect with new books. We do that here.

Thanks, Brian, a lot to consider in what you wrote. Completely agree that nothing beats recommendations directly from other people who have similar tastes.

 

[doris.ehcd]

This is a very specific thing to ask of a book review site. How would a Rotten Tomatoes site narrow down which books have a particular writing style, any more than Goodreads (for example) does now?

I used to think an RT-type site would be great, but I'm not sure it's workable. The number of books published each year dwarfs the number of films, and unlike films, many are not reviewed at all, except by readers and perhaps a handful of blogs. Actually, collating blog reviews would be interesting, if you could find some way of doing it. But would you know if the blogger was a friend of the author, or was biased for some other reason?

The amount of books published on a monthly, if not weekly, basis is indeed staggering. This is probably one of the greatest challenges in transferring the RT approach to books. For blogs, the ones I have in mind as a potential source for "critic reviews" are the ones that are almost like an e-zine: with a team of reviewers and an editorial aspect rather than an individual blog. But the risk of a review being less credible because of a connection to the author is still there as you say.

 

[doris.ehcd]

I have a friend who was a pro film reviewer pretty recently. He wasn't big fry but he wasn't guaranteed to get every preview or interview - especially interviews. I'm not sure it was ever expressed to him as pressure - tbh, I've never talked to him about that part - but I'm pretty sure bad reviews would have closed doors for him.

And given that Rotten Tomatoes' critics are pretty much all pros, I think the comparison stands. All pro reviewers are potentially compromised; but given that they're generally intelligent, informed, entertaining writers, a lot of people don't care. Not to mention most of them have a reputation to maintain and a genuine passion.

Also, again with the Rotten Tomatoes comparison, but they don't post full reviews and neither has to any site following their path. Score, first sentence or two, link to full review if people want to read it. I doubt too many reviewers would object to that and even if they did, I doubt they've got a leg to stand on.

Thanks for your various replies, The Big Peat, they've been very interesting and helpful. Since you mentioned you previously gave some thought to this type of idea, I wonder if you've come across Lit Hub's Book Marks, and if so what you think of it? (sorry, I'm newish to Chrons and can't include a link to the site yet)

 

[Overread]

The other thing to consider is that building a code to pick out and compile results from different bloggers on different website is not as easy as it sounds. To do it manually is time consuming, but to do it with a computer automatically might be a nightmare. And that's before you even touch on the fact that not all reviewers will score the same way and some might not even "score" a book.

Also when I look at a lot of review sites today they are more about pushing advertisements than the reviews. In fact I don't read many because they can be so chock full of ads that it becomes near impossible to focus on the article because of the ad placement and saturation. So that tells me that there is more/easier/only money in the ads more than what the reviews generate. That is unless your Amazon and thus able to profit from book sales directly (Amazon currently owns Goodreads).


The thing is considering income is important because if the site does well then traffic and managing the site become a cost that is significant and thus the site will require some means to support itself (unles you can fund it totally yourself).


You have a neat idea, but the practicalities might be hard to overcome, plus you've got to consider how you market the site. What you offer that Facebook, Goodreads, Amazon reviews etc... don't offer and how you're going to reach out to the market. How you are going to get people to come to you over and above the other choices. Esp considering that Goodreads and Facebook both have big social aspects to them; that Goodreads already has authors commenting and using it as a marketing platform of their own; and that Facebook often gobbles up what's left. Heck many forums have suffered huge losses of new member recruitment and retention because Facebook now does so much socialising online for the majority of people.

 

[Toby Frost]

Speaking for myself, I would probably not be attracted to a site such as you describe because I would assume (!) that it would largely reinforce "what's new and popular now."

There's also the danger that any aggregate list would simply highlight the most popular books that everyone is already very aware of.

I think these are very good points. I've thought for a while that the problem with modern reviewing isn't that bad books are praised as good (at least not often) but that reasonable books are praised as brilliant once they become sufficiently popular. Adam Roberts once commented on a review of one of the weaker Wheel of Time books, that either the reviewer was wrong or that his standards for what made a book good were entirely different to the usual ones.

There's also the point that reviews don't slip clearly into "professional" and "amateur" these days, at least not as clearly as they once did. Between crazing ranting and paid journalism, there are a lot of amateurs writing to a professional standard. Some of these guys are really good, but some are fans before they are critics and hence might be inclined to give more favour or time to big franchises, leaving out smaller works. Other reviews might be written from a particular slant (politics, religions, "diversity" etc) and might be marking books on a different basis to normal. I wonder if producing an aggregate of such different styles of reviewing would produce a fair average mark - I really don't know for sure.