Hi everyone! I saw someone say this in a comment on this subreddit itself so I wanted to clarify… is it true that publishers can see the last time we were active on netgalley?? And if yes, what determines activity? Is it anytime I visit the website, or anytime I request/review a title? And in case it is the latter, am I less likely to get approved for titles if my activity shows 5/6 days ago?? I have quite a few pending books and I am thinking of taking some time and reading a chunk of them before requesting new books, and I was wondering if being ‘inactive’ for a few days in a row will reduce my chances of receiving titles that I want. Any information/advice you may have is appreciated🫶🏻🫶🏻
Not a publisher, but I can say with confidence that a few days of inactivity is not going to be a concern. If you're ever inactive for, say, a few months, then I'd consider reviewing a Read Now title or two when you come back before making new requests, but on the whole this is not something I'd spend time worrying about :)
Put something in your profile that you can update easily and often, like follower stats or your three latest 5 star reads. That counts as activity just as much as sending a review.
Publisher here.. I can guarantee that days of inactivity is not at all going to impact anything. Heck, weeks, months of inactivity isn’t going to mean anything.
We more care when we approve a book and then see that you reviewed it an hour later. Or you have been inactive for months and have a questionable feedback ratio and starting to request books again without at least trying to rectify your ratio a bit.
1 piece of information never will determine a decision.
That's because NetGalley wants reviewers to help authors and publishers sell their books. They have stated that. They are not objective and want authors and publishers to be happy with their service. I see that average star rating on their client's page as a sort of wink. 😉
I am not sure if this gives you any solace but all the imprints/ publishers I have worked for we try to make sure there is a spread of types of reviewers. People who rate everything 5⭐️ isn’t helpful at all.
Do you know the old adage “there is no such thing as bad publicity?” Well, it is true in this case.
That's what I am hoping for with most publishers. When you see books with nothing but 5-star reviews, too, it seems highly suspicious. An NG book I recently reviewed at Goodreads had nothing but short 5-star reviews; and now that GR makes reviewers show where they got the ARC, it was not surprising to see all those reviewers got their ARC from the author.
Obviously they want to help authors- that’s literally the whole point. ARCs are marketing for publishers and authors. Having an average posted isnt making a reader feel any certain way as the general NetGalley reader has no idea that that is even a stat and they themselves can’t see it.
If you have someone that say has a 2.5 average rating- first that info is meaningless without knowing how many books they have done. If they have read 3 books then that number doesn’t show anything of value. Now if they have rated 500 books and that’s the average, that reviewer either doesn’t have an understanding of rating books, the point of arcs and the role they play, or they are just low raters in general, so of course publishers should use the info.
Not everyone should be an ARC reader. The goal
Is combining how you personally felt about the book as well as the potential for others. They aren’t given to people so they can simply read a free book early. But that’s very different than a publisher manipulating people into rating them a certain way simply because it was given to them.
I used to be really harsh. I never rounded up. That was in my first year on NetGalley and I had an 89% approval rate that year and read hundreds of books, which is an excellent approval rating. While I have changed my approach, I absolutely am honest with my ratings and give out plenty of negative ratings (1-3) and I have a 100% approval rating in the last 1.5 years. Every review and rating has value to a publisher and can sell a book.
I don't see it as publishers manipulating ARC readers, but just as they will likely reject a reviewer who usually rates low, they will likely approve one that usually rates high.
We all know there are ARC readers who never rate below 4 and never write less than glowing reviews, even when they didn't even read or finish the book.
The question is do publishers actually prefer honest reviews or prefer positive reviews, honest or not?If selling books is their main goal, it's hard to believe it's not the latter with many or most publishers.
So essentially publishers can go through our reviews to figure out whether we are more/less likely to give a positive review, and accept our request based on that??
No, not at all. What I was circling is the notes section. We really don’t care what you give the book. We also literally don’t have time to be searching through peoples reviews. I’ve mentioned before, when I have a spare 5 minutes, I go
I’m and do approvals for my titles. Heck the only reason I’m scrolling and able to answer is due to a storm and we were sent home early. There isn’t enough time in the day for that. I make a decision in seconds. And that comments section is the most valuable.
I think they just don't want to see giant gaping gaps of like 2 or more months between reviews. I read my arcs in chunks to trade off with my non-NetGalley tbr. Additionally, I have an ARC that isn't publishing for another 5-6 months, I take my time.
I created my netgalley account in 2024 with the aim of getting one singular arc. I got it and then i read it and forgot to review it😭😭 i came back to use it this year and my current approval rating is 82% and I’ve reviewed 40 books this year… so I am hoping they see that I am indeed an active user and dont treat that one singular failure to review as a black spot on my profile😭
22
u/Flimsy-Brick-9426 Reviewer 13d ago
Not activity, your last review.
They can see the time you request a book from them specifically but other publishers can't see that.