A Lack of Winners

I'm wondering if I'm the only author who is being disappointed at how few copies offered are actually assigned to winners. This month 20 copies offered, 30 requested, 4 assigned. I think I did better in Member Giveaway in the past. I understand the workings of the assignment process which produces this result, but it doesn't help from my end. Perhaps there should be a limit on how many books members can request?

I believe the limit on the number of titles a reader can 'win' has (is/ will be/ in two weeks time etc) been raised to 4, providing a sufficient previous reviewing score is achieved. This might help alleviate such issues.

That sounds frustrating. Presumably the 26 non-assigned requests were from people who had already been allocated their limit of other books. So... there is a (relatively?) small number of people requesting a large number of books? (Though interestingly, this is the first time I've missed out on one of the books I requested). If members could request, say, up to twice their "allowed to win" books (ie up to 8), would that help with redistribution? Or would it mean that authors/publishers offering less popular books might end up with fewer requests in the first place?

No solutions to suggest, I'm afraid, just brainstorming a little.

>3 MHThaung: that's odd, however. I don't think that the magic algorithm may be so skewed. (I did not request the book by >1 gwernin:, so I cannot say anything more. If I had and I did not receive it, there would have been a problem, since last month I only entered for one book)

I thought you could request as many books as you want, you just won't win more than the limit.

>5 al.vick: You can. The people up-thread are proposing that to be changed.

>3 MHThaung: Fewer requests with a larger proportion of actual winners would be less frustrating from my end. My aim, after all, is for people to read (and hopefully review) the books.

>7 gwernin:.

I totally understand that! It's one thing not to be picked for the sports team. Quite another when they don't pick you, even when there are empty spaces.

>7 gwernin: Maybe AbigailAdams26 can shed some light on what happened.

>9 .mau.: I know what happened - it happened to a lesser extent last month (20 offered, 31 requested, 7 assigned). Discouraging, tho.

>1 gwernin: I'm sorry that this past month's giveaway results were a disappointment. We are aware that sometimes there are fewer winners than could be wished, especially when many people have requested a book. Unfortunately, as you know, sometimes entrants get knocked out of the running, either because they won other books, or because they have a poor reviewing record.

As reading_fox mentioned, one action we have recently taken, to try to address this, is to up the limit on the number of books participants can win, depending upon their reviewing score. We hope to reward conscientious review writers in this way, and also to provide more solid reviewers for authors and publishers.

I know that this is not helpful to you, in the immediate case, but hopefully the situation will improve over time.

>11 AbigailAdams26: Thanks for your response. What do you think about the suggestion in >3 MHThaung: about a limit on the number of books people can request? I think (looking back to past conversations) that there are some reviewers who request many, many books.

>12 gwernin: Wouldn't that just exacerbate your problem? It would get you fewer requests for your book which would result in fewer winners

>13 norabelle414: Well, as I said above in >7 gwernin:, fewer requests w/ a larger proportion of them winners would at least be less discouraging. :)

ER gives you a few advantages over MG:

The winners are likely to read your type of book - the ones who just sign up for anything aren't likely to win.

The winners are more likely to actually review your book.

They are likely to do it sooner.

-----

Requesters have to consider whether they limit their requests in order to have a better chance at their preferred win, or request more books to raise their chances of winning anything at all.

>12 gwernin: I think we would be very reluctant to adopt such an approach, given the different ways that members use ER. As AnnieMod noted, some enter for many different giveaways, because they want to increase their chances of winning, overall, and because they are interested in a wide variety of books. Some are more selective, and only enter for certain genres, and so on.

We certainly hope no one enters for a book they have no interest in reading, but overall we have no plans to limit the number of giveaways a member can enter. The real way to solve this problem is to improve the review scores, so that more entrants are qualified to win. We have been working on a variety of measures to try to do this, but it does mean having to be stricter in the enforcement of our standards, which may lead to some short-term setbacks, in terms of winner numbers.

>16 AbigailAdams26:, Well, thanks for the discussion.

I hardly win a book but I do request and only for those I have an interest. I had no idea all the books were not assigned.

Are there any adjustments from the authors' side they should make to their profiles to increase the ratio of assigned winners to the number of requests? This is maybe a little bit of a vague question. Any suggestions are fine. (This thread seems to indicate that with seven books offered, I can't count on seven assigned winners... especially given the fact that I'm in last place--lol (36th out of 36 paper USA Only April).)

I gave up last year - used to do better on author's give aways.

>19 mmarty164: While it is fairly unusual for giveaways offering paper copies not to get their full complement of winners, it can happen. That said, the problem is usually more pronounced with digital giveaways, which often set a high number of available copies, but have fewer entrants (on average) than paper giveaways. We have a subset of members who will only enter for paper copies.

The advice I always give, regardless of the type of giveaway, is that it is better to have many more entrants than copies available. This is because there will inevitably be people who are knocked out of the running, either because they already have won the maximum number of books they desire and/or qualify for, or because they have a poor track record, when it comes to reviewing the books they have already won.

I encourage all authors and publishers to promote their giveaways through their various social media accounts, if they have them. You'll find buttons we've provided, for that purpose, on the giveaway detail page.

>21 AbigailAdams26: Great; thanks.

How does the algorithm determine which books you win?

Say I would enter for 10 and can get 4, what criteria does it apply to decide which ones I get?

Not likely to happen in my case, but I'm just curious how it works.