Watch out, Amazon: The Kobo eReader now has a Goodreads rival 11%

By Sarah Perez37%

6/29/2026, 7:06:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Optimism Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 291 faulty-reasoning hits from 507 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28% and a BS Rank of 11% (19,507 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

Another challenger to the Amazon Kindle-Goodreads book-tracking empire has emerged. 
On Monday, the reading tracker StoryGraph teamed up with Rakuten's Kobo, the maker of a more open e-reader (and Kindle alternative), allowing book lovers to automatically track their reading habits. 
The integration was first announced in May and is now live for all Kobo account-based content. 
This makes the Kobo the first e-reader to integrate with StoryGraph's book community platform and serves as another way to chip away at Amazon's dominance in the digital books market. 
Traditionally, Amazon has managed to retain its readers by offering low prices on books and e-books and combining that with a robust online reading community and social network, Goodreads. 
While many Goodreads competitors emerged over the years, few have been able to establish a solid footprint because they lacked the ability to integrate with customers' e-reading devices, as Goodreads does with Kindle devices. 
The StoryGraph-Kobo integration changes that, as it will now automatically sync a user's reading progress with their StoryGraph account. 
That means when you finish a book on your Kobo eReader, it will automatically be marked as "Read" on StoryGraph, keeping your reading stats up-to-date. 
The feature will work with both e-books and audiobooks, the companies said, and it works with any Kobo device and Kobo's apps. 
Book trackers like StoryGraph are popular because they offer an easy way for people to keep a record of their reading history and favorite books, and offer ways to discover recommendations based on what others are reading. 
As StoryGraph's name implies, its analytics tend to go deeper, offering readers detailed charts about their reading moods, pace, and more, to improve reading habits. 
It also offers an online community where you can participate in reading challenges and join book clubs, while staying motivated to read by earning "streaks." 
(Typically, we don't like addictive gamification measures in social apps, but for encouraging reading, we'll make an exception.) 
Founded by Black British engineer Nadia Odunayo and CTO Rob Frelow in 2019, StoryGraph began as a side project and didn't take in outside funding. 
It has since evolved into a community of over 5 million readers. 
The Kobo integration will now put the app in front of the e-reader maker's 12 million users in 190 countries. 
Kobo and StoryGraph aren't alone in capitalizing on the cultural revival of reading, driven by online communities like #booktok and reading apps. 
According to Pew Research, around three in 10 U.S. adults (31%) reported reading an e-book in the past year, up from 17% in 2011. 
The startup Everand, which offers a marketplace for e-books and audiobooks, also recently bought the digital book community app maker Fable to offer a similar integration  without the hardware. 
(Perhaps Kobo could be eyeing StoryGraph for its own M&A in the future?) 
The new Kobo-StoryGraph integration doesn't require a subscription, though the StoryGraph app does offer a $5 per month Plus subscription that adds deeper stats, filters, custom charts, and comparison tools. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 5.2%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Sarah Perez: 2.8%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.7%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 4.5%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Sarah Perez: 4.7%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect16.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Sarah Perez: 2.1%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.5%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 5.6%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Sarah Perez: 1.3%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.4%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 3.6%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.8%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.3%Sarah Perez: 9.3%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization9.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 3.1%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 3.7%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.4%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.1%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Perez: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.8%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Perez: 8.9%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 1.0%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Perez: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Sarah Perez: 2.3%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

507 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.7%attributed speech483writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePew Research • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pew Research

0%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Pew Research: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Pew Research: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.