New checks have been introduced to Goodreads for those reviewing pre-publication books, but will they work to stop the ongoing spate of ‘review bombing’? Goodreads is a website and app where readers can log, review and share their reads. It came under fire last year after it was accused of failing to protect authors from targeted ‘review bombing’ campaigns. Readers using Goodreads, who rate and review a title with a publication date in the future, will now need to confirm that they have read the book and confirm where they received the book from, in an attempt to ensure that ratings and reviews are from genuine readers.
Reviews within Goodreads can also be reported by other readers; a feature that was already available. However, the list of reasons does not currently offer the feature to flag a review as potentially disingenuous. Options are provided for reviews that are blatantly harassment or hate speech but we imagine, much like reporting comments on social media, these instances would need to be clearly hate rather than the subtler ‘review bombing’.
Review bombing is the practice of leaving a flood of negative reviews, usually before a title’s publication, in an attempt to ruin its ratings, reduce its reputation and potentially even tank pre-orders and sales of a book. While the tactic has been around for years, authors were reporting that it was becoming increasingly more targeted, harmful and bigoted. LGBTQ+ authors, in particular, raised their concerns of countless homophobic trolls leaving 1-star ratings on Goodreads, with no indication that those reviewers had read the book or even sourced an advanced reader copy from which to review the title.
To solve the problem, some authors and readers suggested that the ability to rate books that hadn’t yet been published should just be removed altogether. However, this poses its own problems. Many authors, particularly those with début publications, rely on advanced reader reviews to help boost their sales, and with the abundance of bloggers, BookTokers, journalists and other reviewers sharing genuine views on their reads, spaces where these reviews can be shared, including retailer/bookseller websites, and review sites such as Goodreads, Fable, and Storygraph, remain useful.
In this latest change from the site, books that have not yet been published will now be marked as such within Goodreads, and rated reviews (with stars from 1 to 5) shared before the book’s publication date will be labelled with their source, for example: Netgalley, direct from publisher/author etc. There is currently no need to prove where you received the advanced copy from though, so there is still a possibility that reviewers will simply lie.
In an update released at the end of 2025, Goodreads explains: “Publishers and authors often distribute advance book copies to readers in order to generate buzz before a book’s publication date. You can rate and review advance book copies by confirming you read the book and where you received it.
“This approach supports authentic ratings from members who have actually read advance book copies.”
While the update from Goodreads does not directly mention the review bombing issue, it is likely that this new move from them is an attempt to reduce the slew of unfairly submitted negative reviews. Whether this change will have a lasting impact is yet to be seen but hopefully the move marks a step forward from Goodreads in protecting authors, and we welcome further steps in the future to continue to protect writers.
If, like some readers, though, you want to break up with Goodreads and try a different app for tracking your reads, then For Reading Addicts has got you covered. We tried out two alternatives – Storygraph and Fable – and you can read more about our findings in a previous blog to help you decide which app might be for you.
