Goodreads is Broken

They earn one star from me.

Is Goodreads Still Worth It for Authors? A Closer Look at the Platform’s Impact

Over the years, I’ve maintained a reluctant presence on Goodreads. When I wrote my first book, more seasoned authors told me it was essential—after all, readers go there to check reviews and discover new books. What they didn’t mention was that it would start to feel less like a helpful platform and more like a personal minefield. I had to tiptoe through reviews, every time I published something new.

Sure, there are some lovely, thoughtful reviews. But it only takes a couple of random low star ratings—possibly from someone who didn’t even read the book—to cast a long shadow. And it sticks with you.

At least on Amazon, a reviewer has to buy the book. That little “Verified Purchase” badge offers a thin, comforting layer of legitimacy. On Goodreads, all bets are off.

When Amazon acquired the platform, I hoped for meaningful improvements that might make it more author-friendly. Instead, I’ve watched it stagnate—or perhaps even decline. While it remains a hub for many readers, I’ve come to believe that Goodreads often does more harm than good for authors. Here’s why:

1. Unfiltered Reviews and Reader Anonymity

Goodreads allows anyone to rate or review a book—whether they’ve read it or not. On the surface, this might seem like democratic freedom. In practice, it opens the door to review bombing, personal attacks, and low-effort ratings that impact a book’s average long before it even hits the shelves.

Personal Attacks: Some users write reviews that attack the author personally rather than critiquing the book.

“Let me explain why Goodreads is bad. It’s supposed to be a place where readers can find out information about authors and books, with good consumer reviews. Instead, it’s filled with vitriol and malice. Never have I experienced such negativity and just plain bad manners as on Goodreads. The place appears to be filled with “Goodreads trolls” who seemingly have nothing better to do than pounce on authors.” —Writing King.

As Tajja Isen notes in The Walrus, review bombing has become a real concern: “The point isn’t for people to talk smack about a book they didn’t like but to hurt the fate of one they probably haven’t read and that probably isn’t out yet.”

Misleading Ratings: Ratings often reflect personal grudges or opinions unrelated to the book's quality. The Guardian reported a debut author Cait Corrine who used fake accounts to leave negative reviews on the books of her rivals on Goodreads. The scheme was uncovered and she lost her contract and dropped by her agent, but how many authors are doing this kind of thing with no punishment because they haven’t been discovered yet?

This writer, Mckayla Coyle made a point in her article Your definitive guide to Goodreads Ratings, that the books that she likes to read are in the 3.0-3.4 range and are the coolest books you’ll ever want to read. So what do these stars really mean if the books she likes are in the three star range?

2. Minimal Moderation and Protection

Despite community guidelines, Goodreads rarely intervenes in cases of targeted harassment or false reviews. The moderation is minimal at best, and authors are left vulnerable in a space that often lacks nuance or accountability.

Bethanne Patrick, a critic, author and podcaster said, “Publications such as the Guardian, the New York Times and the Washington Post hold journalists and reviewers to professional standards, Patrick argues, whereas Goodreads lacks such oversight. “The interesting thing about this current problem – tied in to some of the ongoing long-running problems – is that it shows why Goodreads has a terrible reputation with critics and why people like me shy away from it. I don’t know anyone who spends a lot of time on Goodreads and I know that my other writer friends all actively try to stay away because no one wants to see some of the ugly stuff that people are putting up there. It seems very careless and mean spirited. There are also mean things on Amazon but there’s something about Goodreads over the past five to seven years that has burst out of its cage.” — The Guardian, David Smith, “It’s totally unhinged’:is the book world turning against Goodreads?

3. Tense Author-Reader Dynamics

Engaging with readers is vital, but Goodreads makes that complicated. Authors who respond to negative reviews—even politely—can face backlash. This dynamic can create a chilling effect, discouraging dialogue and encouraging silence.

In fact everyone advises you not to engage. The platform is for them—readers, authors are told over and over.

Authors interacting with negative reviews can spark backlash, further damaging their reputation. This from Mateja Klaric in her post on Medium, a Breeding Ground for Book Trolls: “In the worst cases, they will gang up and execute an online lynch of a book and its author, which is what happened to me after I stood up against one such troll on Goodreads and warned other author(s) about Booksprout where this person operates. But I’m just one of many who have been hit and had their ratings and reputation badly damaged by such attacks. What hurts the most is these are not even the real readers of our books. These are not the people who’d ever care to buy our books and take the time to read them! And it’s not like writing books is a lucrative business — at least it is not for most writers and the situation just keeps getting worse. The last thing writers need in this already bad situation is making it even worse by leaving us vulnerable to trolling and malicious book rating tanking!”

Overwhelming Negativity: The platform prioritizes "reader freedom," often to the detriment of fair discourse. This is from Robyn N. Hill, Why I Hate GoodReads, “But most of it comes down to the PEOPLE on the site – the reviewers. People who are so pathetic that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to bring others down. Goodreads’ own policies encourage this behavior. In their Review Guidelines, they come right out and say “Goodreads has some of the best book reviews anywhere. Our members are passionate, knowledgeable readers, and their contributions to the site are what make it such a vibrant and fun place.” Fun for who? Not for me or the thousands of other authors that have to deal with some of these passionate people who don’t read the book but want to give one star reviews on unreleased books.

Another quote from their Review:

Guidelines: “Don’t be afraid to say what you think about the book! We welcome your passion, as it helps the millions of other readers on Goodreads learn what a book is really about, and decide whether or not they want to read it. We believe that Goodreads members should see the best, most relevant, thought provoking reviews (positive and negative) when they visit a book page. Our job is to show members those reviews, and not show reviews that we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality.” Ha-ha, they do know some of their users obviously.

4. The Problem with Pre-Publication Ratings

On Goodreads, even unpublished books can receive star ratings. This can skew perception and damage momentum before a novel has a chance. In my own experience, The Devil We Fear received a 1-star rating before anyone had access to it—not even an ARC had gone out.

How can that possibly reflect the book itself? Perhaps someone did not like the cover or the book description. However, after looking at the person’s library of other books “read or not read,” she had pages of other one star reviews.

The guidelines support readers not reading a book at all and tossing out one star reviews on a book. This is acceptable behavior on Goodreads according to their community guidelines.

One author, Gretchen Filker-Martin, sold her novel, Manhunt, about a transgender woman and when the details of it it were released, she was blindsided on Goodreads when she was bombarded with hundreds of negative reviews before it was even released. “I don’t think Goodreads has an economic incentive to be any better,” she said. “It would be just a gargantuan job to significantly monitor the kinds of abuse that’s being heaped onto people every single day, but there’s certainly some middle ground between breaking your back trying to deal with all of it, and dealing with none of it.” —Alexa Alter, Elizabeth Harris, How Review-Bombing Can Tank a Book Before It’s Published

5. Clunky User Experience

The interface hasn’t evolved much in years. Tasks like changing a book cover or managing an author profile can be unnecessarily difficult and require a “librarian” to intervene. The system is antiquated—and authors have few tools to make the most of their presence there.

Lack of Features for Authors: Goodreads does not provide robust tools for authors to manage their profiles, promote their work, or address issues like troll reviews. Almost everything has to be done by a “librarian.” Although, most authors agree the librarians are helpful and pleasant. Thank goodness for that! But why can’t you handle simple matters yourself instead of involving a librarian?

6. Mental Health Impacts

The cumulative effect of harsh reviews and the pressure to “not respond” can take a toll.

Stress from Negative Reviews: Constant exposure to harsh criticism can take a toll on an author’s mental health.

Pressure to Monitor: Many authors feel the need to monitor their profiles, which can lead to unhealthy cycles of self-doubt and obsession. But monitoring it, doesn’t do anything for you; so the whole thing is a waste of time and energy that weighs you down and holds you back from doing something more productive.

7. Limited Marketing Return

For many authors, engaging on Goodreads yields limited promotional value. In fact, visibility can attract more trolling than genuine reader interaction. Other platforms—social media, newsletters, even TikTok—often deliver far better ROI.

8. A Platform Built for Readers—Not Authors

Goodreads prioritizes the reader experience. That’s not inherently bad, but the absence of meaningful author protections creates a power imbalance.

9. Industry Overreliance

Despite these flaws, Goodreads remains influential. Publishers and agents still consult it for early buzz and reader response, even though the data is vulnerable to manipulation.

However, change could be coming. According to author, Courtney Maum, in the article in The Guardian, “In the last couple of years, because there’s been so many dumpster fires on Goodreads, it’s pretty evident now to publishers that this isn’t a platform that they can trust 100%. A lot of people that I know were suffering some serious abuse through Goodreads. Whether it was stalkers hellbent on ‘review bombing’ them at every turn or their nemeses – jilted ex-lovers, whatever – it was very easy for trolls to pan people on Goodreads. The agents and publishers up until maybe this year have put tremendous stock in it but authors for a very long time have been trying to get the word out that hey, this is not a safe place for us. We have no protection. It’s totally unhinged.”

• Publishers should come together and create their own website for readers to look at books or support another existing one (StoryGraph, Shepherd.com.) This would create early buzz for new releases and give back some control to authors.

• Encouraging Indie authors to participate.

10. Better Alternatives Exist

• Engaging with readers is better done through your website, your newsletter and your social media sites. If you want to review books BookTok and StoryGraph are options. Unfortunately, 90 million users have come to depend on Goodreads for their reading pleasure, perhaps reading book reviews and never the book. However, StoryGraph is a solid alternative. Read this article from Reedsy that compared the two platforms (GoodReads and StoryGraph.) StoryGraph also provides details on how to import your GoodReads account into StoryGraph so you can save all your comments about your books if this is important to you.

• If you are reader, looking for advice from other readers and information from authors about their books, then a good alternative is Shepherd.com. Full disclosure, I do support this site through donation.

11. Some Authors Love the Goodreads platform.

Not all authors feel like me or the one’s I quoted in my article. Romance author Alessandra Torre, said, “I love Goodreads. Love, love, love it with a capital L. After all, a place where 125 million readers converge to discuss books? Sign me up all day long and twice on Sunday.”

Alessandra believes that a lot of authors avoid using the platform or don’t know how to use it properly to promote their novels. If you believe confusion is what makes you hate the platform, check her blog out and jump on the GoodReads bandwagon.

If you think unfamiliarity, not toxicity, is the root of your frustration, her blog may be a helpful resource.

And I genuinely agree with Alessandra on one thing: when readers gather to celebrate books, it’s magic. That’s why book clubs thrive. But I wish I saw more of that magic on Goodreads. Instead of patterns of toxicity that I mentioned, that makes me question what kind of reader the site is empowering—and at what cost to authors.

Other authors who have positive things to say about Goodreads:

Colleen Hoover (bestselling author of It Ends with Us):

“I’ve always been a big fan of Goodreads because it’s where I first saw readers talking about my books. It helped me grow an audience when I was self-publishing.”
(Numerous interviews and Goodreads Q&As)

John Green (author of The Fault in Our Stars):

“Goodreads is the place where I feel like the most enthusiastic and devoted readers are.”
(From a Goodreads video Q&A and Reddit AMA)

Neil Gaiman (author of American Gods):

“I think Goodreads is a useful tool for people to find books. Anything that helps people find books is, on the whole, a good thing.”
(Often paraphrased from interviews)

Victoria Aveyard (author of Red Queen):

“Goodreads can be a scary place for authors, but it’s also a goldmine of honest feedback and passionate readers.”
(In various interviews and tweets)

Brandon Sanderson (author of Mistborn):

“I really like how Goodreads helps readers track their reading and share it with others. That enthusiasm is infectious.”
(Public talks, including YouTube Q&As)

This concludes my rant on Goodreads. Maybe, like the authors above, what I really need is a good publicist or a more positive attitude, in which case my article would have been more upbeat about the Goodreads experience.

I’d love to hear your thoughts—whether you’ve had positive or not-so-positive experiences with Goodreads. Drop them in the comments!