The editorial grapevine is remarkably silent on the subject of Bookner and its mind-bogglingly stupendous wonderfulness ect ect ect.
Four reasons Bookner is doomed:
1. An author whose work is good enough to rise through a system like Bookner's is good enough to get noticed by an agent.
2. If there's one thing agents and editors are good at spotting, it's saleable books. There may be a few professionals who only think they're good at it (and those tend to get weeded out fast), but the fact remains that even the small number of bad ones think they're good at judging manuscripts. Obviously, neither sort is going to think it's a good idea to cede their judgement to a random bunch of wanna-be authors who are playing "HOT or NOT" with other people's manuscripts.
3. Bookner is only as good as their ratings. If they start out with a ragtag bunch of wanna-be authors who are justly unpublishable, and a bunch of manuscripts to match, nobody's going to be interested in the site's opinions or inventory. If agents and editors don't think the ore at Bookner is worth mining, there won't be a lot of sales originating at the site, more substantial authors won't be attracted to it, and Bookner's clientele will continue to be ragtag wanna-be authors with no insight and less talent.
4. Mr. Gonzalez, the proprietor of Bookner, is an idiot. According to his business plan, his projected paying customers are agents and editors; yet he complacently admits that he's a complete ignoramus about the publishing industry. That'll impress 'em. On top of that, many of the statements in his screeds on the Bookner website are not only false, but are grossly offensive to agents and editors.
Why should we go anywhere near this loser?