Rachael's recent posts

Recent public posts (showing 1-20 of 117).

Kay wrote: "The issue the thread starter complained about is the lack of personal touch: not the way you (or anyone else) choose(s) to write a review but the fact that sometimes there is no review whatsoever other than the plot summary."

The thoughts before and after the colon are not the same idea at all. A summary has a great deal of personal touch to it. The mere act of selecting which events, themes, characters, etc. were the most memorable or important to the story gives a summary personal touch and often contains an inherent review.

I've really been enjoying the Fables stories. I've been reading the TPBs during breaks while studying at the local Barnes and Noble. Unfortunately someone bought the next volume I need so I'll have to wait to continue until either Barnes and Noble restocks or the person who has it checked out from the local library returns it.

The way I usually get to it is (1) search for my book (2) once I determine that what I want isn't listed, on the right top of the search results page there is a section that says "other options" and the first option is "manually add books." There might be a more immediate way to get there, but I always use that way to ensure that the book isn't already in the database.

PetraX, The apps page is the page with the checkboxes, if you have facebook and goodread linked. I followed his link and it asked me to enter my password then took me directly to the aps page with the check boxes. I think your problem is that you didn't have facebook and goodreads linked. You linked them and then said you unistalled and then went back to the page. If you linked them and then went back to the page without uninstalling, you would have seen the checkboxes.

Ken-ichi wrote: "Rachael wrote: "Please let me sort my covers."

Rachael, you can sort in covers view using the drop down at the bottom of the page.

"

Good to know! I'm going to guess I never noticed it since on other views I sort using options at the top of the screen so I just never looked at the bottom for sorting. Thanks for pointing it out. You just made my life easier!

EDIT: typo fix because I'm anal like that

Marco wrote: "How did you do the html without it actually coming up as the link?"

You have to escape the special characters so the browser knows to post them rather than use them. You can memorize the most frequently used characters if you do it often enough. For example, "&lt;" will get you "<" and "&gt;" will get you ">". However, I generally find it easier to use a converter rather than type it all myself. If you search escape html code you'll get a bunch of results for converters where you type the html code and it will give you what to post to make it display rather than be read and used by the browser.

Joanna wrote:"Yes, but you have to open each book to see them."

No, you don't. As Cait said, they are in the "reviews" view.

I mostly use My Books for exploring my own collection, to remind myself when I last reread a favorite, to see if I reviewed a book and what I said about it, to remind myself of the book order of some long series that I've previously shelved and ordered, etc. I sometimes use it for exploring other people's books, looking for ideas, but this is much less frequent of a use.

Things I'd love to see:
1) Add another vote for better searching, especially with AND, OR, NOT operators to find intersections of shelves. I am anal about organizing and could make my whole shelving scheme so much better if I had this functionality and that would make me ridiculously happy. Of course, if this is offered, I will create many more shelves and will then want a better way of displaying shelves since currently if you have a book on many shelves it causes the displays to get a bit wonky.

2) Also add another vote for multi sort and sorting to be shelf specific. I'd like all books to be sorted first by author and then by title (or perhaps author then order but I'm not sure you can do order on all books), but I want read to be sorted by date read and series shelves to be sorted by order. Having to change all that (and not being able to do multi sort at all) is mildly frustrating. I'd also really like view type (main, reviews, covers, etc.) to be shelf specific.

3) I would love a better ordering system. I used to start with the last book and then work my way up, always hitting "Move to Top." This is rather tedious, but I can't find a better way to do it with the current system and last time I went to order a shelf, I couldn't figure out how to do even that and haven't decided if I've forgotten how to get to it and couldn't figure it out again (a problem) or if that function has been disabled. Drag-and-drop might work, but I don't know how much a resource drain that would be on y'all's end as well as for any users with slow or sketchy internet connections. I have a livejournal and for their link list, they allow users to order by typing numbers similar to what you have now, but with one important difference. Your current system causes problems for me because If I want to slide two books between the current numbers 150 and 151, I have to do it in two moves because if I just try to make those new books 151 and 152, one goes before the current 151 and one after. I have to move them one at a time or I have to retype every number that comes after them. Livejournal's difference is that they number the links as 10, 20, 30, etc. and you can put in numbers of 11, 12, 13, etc. to get up to 9 items inserted at a time between any two existing numbers. Something like that or allowing the use of decimal points to accomplish the same thing would work better than the current system.

4) This is a very small thing but one that bugs me to no end. I love the covers view but hate that there is no way to sort while on that view. If I'm looking at my pretty book covers by author and suddenly decide I want to look at them by date read for whatever reason, I have to change to a different view, then sort them, then change back to covers. Please let me sort my covers.

EDIT 5) Sorry, forgot this small one but then went to my shelves and tried sorting and it reminded me. I'd like to be able to change a sort and select up or down at them same time rather than doing it in two moves. Right now, if I have my books sorted by author and want to switch to date, I hit date and it sorts it most recently read last. I want it most recently read first. So Ii have to click the arrow to switch direction. Could the arrows appear when you hover over a sort field so I can pick the one I want then rather than clicking, letting it all load, and clicking something else?

This question is fine for now, but you might want to consider that things are the internet can be around for some time. To someone taking this quiz two, three, four years from now, "recently" will be a problematic word.

I like having the ability to get to both and I don't know how else to do it, but I don't actually like having the name link to the discussion posts. I always think of names as linking to profiles so whenever I want to get to the profile, I click the name and then have to click the avatar when the page of posts loads. Of course, whenever I want the page of posts, I click the name and get what I want. Like I said, I want both and don't know how else to get both but I don't like the current system. I need a magic button that knows what I'm thinking and takes me where I want to go!

I'm with Rivka on love the new design but please make the filter choice stick!

Down is definitely more intuitive to me.

I would really like this to be implemented. There are several people I've seen post interesting reviews or who seem to have tastes in book similar enough to mine that I think I can get some good future reading recs from their reading lists. I'd like to keep an eye on their reviews and added books as they come in. I don't want to be their friend. I don't want to talk with them. I don't want to make them feel like they have to pretend to be interested in what I have to say and be my friend. I just want an easy way to keep an eye on their reviews and books in the future. What's the big deal about that?

Petra X wrote: "I realise that anyone can read anyone else's public remarks simply by bookmarking them, but that lacks intention as compared to 'following'."

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could you please explain what you mean? To me they seem almost the exact same. The follower/bookmarker is getting the exact same information whether they follow officially through GR or bookmark through their web browser. The only place I see any difference is if GR let the person with the public profile know that the person with the private profile is following. I'm sort of assuming GR would tell you that you have a follower, in which case it would seem to me that having "followers" officially actually empowers the followee more (by giving them knowledge) than if someone just bookmarked.

Isaiah wrote: "But on the other hand it wasn't clear what you meant by these "communal standards" that "there have to be." Whose commune is this, exactly? And whose standards? They certainly aren't mine, since I disagree emphatically, and on principle."

Those are good points. Let me pose four hypotheticals to perhaps elaborate on my position…

(1) Someone posts a review that consists of nothing but an excerpt from a local telephone directory.

(2) Someone posts a review that consists of an excerpt from a local telephone directory followed or preceded by "This text is a more entertaining read than was this book."

(3) Someone posts a review that consists of nothing but the lyrics to the Addams' Family TV show on a completely unrelated book (meaning not a book of Charles Addams' artwork, not a novelization of an Addams' Family movie, not a biography of Jane Addams, etc.).

(4) Someone posts the lyrics to the Addams' Family TV show as a review of every book they read.

Which of these is completely unrelated and when she Goodreads step in? In my opinion, I'd have said the first was completely unrelated, until I began to consider the second. Perhaps the first is making the same point as the second but didn't feel the need to elaborate? I'd say the second is most definitely a review, though I personally might be a bit annoyed if it is an extended excerpt rather than a brief one. I can't see how the third is a review, but perhaps there is something I'm missing similarly to missing something in the first before considering the second? I really can't see how the fourth is a review.

Now, when should Goodreads step in? As far as I have seen, Goodreads policy whenever something is in a grey area is that it is better to err on the side of freedom of expression as much as possible. I like that policy and the way the Powers That Be keep the dictatorship that is Goodreads an exceptionally benevolent and responsive dictatorship. ;-) Even keeping that in mind, I think Goodreads should intervene in the fourth instance. The fourth isn't technically spamming, it isn't advertising anything and it isn't someone posting the lyrics on hundreds of random books at a time, but I still think it is completely irrelevant and a problem. Perhaps it is a very minor problem if only one person is doing it, but as long as it is policy to allow it, there is nothing to stop multiple people from doing it.

I've never seen reviews overly similar to any of my four hypotheticals. I've also never seen any reviews that I felt Goodreads should remove, except for those that were clearly marketing spam. I've seen several that have annoyed me and caused me to roll my eyes and grumble about that's not a review and I don't think it belongs here, but there is a difference between me having an opinion and privately wishing that the entire world would conform to my way of thinking and actually wanting anyone to act to force even a part of the rest of the world to conform to my way of thinking.

Since there seems to be a trend of taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth, I'd like to repost something I said earlier.

Rachael wrote: "I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post, but there have to be communal standards to prevent completely unrelated things from being posted as reviews. I'm not sure if this is in enough of a grey area that it should slide but since the image was removed and the text of the review wasn't touched I'm going to assume for now that someone with a degree of authority decided it was acceptable."

I believe Goodreads has intervened in the past when "reviews" were merely advertisements for unrelated products or services. I think the vast majority of Goodreads' users would agree that those were not reviews. I think there is a huge grey area of what is or is not a review and people will disagree over specific examples. I have my personal opinions on what is or is not a review as does everyone else. But, operating on the principle of third times the charm let me say once more, "I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post."

Considering the original comment asked if there was a way to delete the entire feature, I was thinking deleting the update would be acceptable.

On this page, look to the right. There should be a link that says "delete this update." See if that does what you want.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "However, I want book reviews to be book reviews (for better or worse); they can be humorous or serious, but I want them to be about the book. I don't want them to be random writings that are (at best) loosely inspired by the book and (at worse) completely uninspired by the book but placed there simply to get attention."

I agree with Michael. I think the "review" under discussion is entertaining, though not humorous, and I'm not personally offended by it or the image. I just don't think it is a review of Winnie the Pooh. It honestly seems to me to be fan fiction more than anything. I also don't think my personal opinion should be used to determine what other people are allowed to post, but there have to be communal standards to prevent completely unrelated things from being posted as reviews. I'm not sure if this is in enough of a grey area that it should slide but since the image was removed and the text of the review wasn't touched I'm going to assume for now that someone with a degree of authority decided it was acceptable.

About the picture itself, I'm pretty sure GR has taken action when people have had userpics that showed approximately the same level of nudity and I understand the removal of those images and agree with it. Find a book in the database with that type of nudity on the cover and I might have to rethink my stance, but I'm highly skeptical that any such item exists (with the possible exception of vanity press items). I don't know what the policy is on informing people that action has been taken and wouldn't mind official word on that.

OK. I was very confused but now it all makes sense. Thanks.