MissJessie MissJessie's Comments (member since Apr 13, 2010)

MissJessie's comments from the Goodreads Feedback group.

(showing 1,081-1,100 of 1,712)

Jan 07, 2011 09:24AM

1 A LITTLE higher? 5000? LOL.
Jan 07, 2011 09:22AM

1 1. Questions benefit who?
2. Questions irritate.
3. Questions have a high potential to be irrelevant as mentioned above, adding to irritant factor.
4. If the answers are going to be edited by Supers or whoever, they are going to be real busy.
5. If answers are edited, of what value are they?

Finally, as I said in the original discussion, if I want to analyze every book I read I'll go back and get my Ph.D.

When I'm writing, I'm not reading. Already I do too much of that.
1 Nope, as I said, the company closed in 1999. Our "official" site was discontinued about 6 mos after the closing, when it was hacked or whatever and became a porn site - very embarrassing. That's gone (at least, I hope so), but the company still shows in hits on a search. 10+ years.

It's not our official site, it's all the indexes, etc. that still have us. Among other things.
Jan 06, 2011 11:20AM

1 It seems a good idea--being able to eliminate (not delete) from searches groups inactive over 6 mos or a year.
1 I could be wrong, but I don't think GR has any control over this.

I owned a small company in the 90's, we closed in Dec 99. It still shows up on the search results and that's over 10 years.

It depends a lot on who has the info stored where I guess.
Jan 06, 2011 05:26AM

1 It's a personal challenge to onself, isn't it? What anyone does is dependent upon their personal situation, time available, etc. Or if they are a new Mom, or working two jobs trying to survive, their time is severely limited. Doesn't mean their readings are of any lesser "value".

Once again, the question of quality vs. quantity. If one person chooses to read 12 books a year and they are all Russian doorstops, that's a very significant read (to them).

Everything does not have to be a "me against the world and I want to win or at least be above average" situation.

Additionally, and obviously, Everyone can't be above average! (or median, or whatever you wish to use.).
Jan 06, 2011 05:19AM

1 "Some of us are USING our seemingly-dead private groups."

Activity doesn't mean just mail, or whatever. Any sort of activity is activity; adding to a bookshelf in a private personal group, changing a rating, etc. Anything. Not just postings.

But truly dead ones (definition to be decided) are a hindrance. The search is difficult enough without coming up "empty" so often.

And it would rid us of the "local groups" on the home page that have had no activity in years or are for school/classroom groups from years gone by, for example.
Jan 04, 2011 06:33PM

1 Well Petra, I agree about the kids books being a pleasure to read. I just bought a couple last week at Goodwill. Your situation as a bookstore owner puts you in a different position than the people I referred to who might just read 100 kids books for the numbers, not the pleasure.

There should be a separate category for bookstore owners, they have an unfair advantage!
Jan 04, 2011 06:29PM

1 Never trust a transient, they are always dubious characters.
Author Cloud (17 new)
Jan 04, 2011 06:27PM

1 Tomorrow would be nice........ :)
Jan 04, 2011 11:46AM

1 And it's not necessarily competition among GR readers; more of a completion with yourself to reach a wished-for goal. Being the absolute top numerical reader at the end of the year would probably mean nothing to the individual who did it if all that were read were comic books, little kids books (without any little kids to enjoy them), etc. And probably would not impress anyone who chose to look at what you read.

Or, maybe not.
Jan 04, 2011 08:37AM

1 Another good reason to delete empty etc. groups. Wasted time for someone interested.
Jan 03, 2011 05:03PM

1 Good idea Otis. Will be fun to watch my friends complete their goals.
Jan 03, 2011 09:39AM

1 Yes I got that Rivka. The problem is it also is a pain in the rear and annoys people. Otis asks what people want, here's one.
Jan 03, 2011 09:15AM

1 It was noted a year ago, maybe it'll get fixed this year. We live in hope.
Privacy concern (101 new)
Jan 02, 2011 06:28PM

1 Lobstergirl, you are absolutely right in all particulars. Including my own thin skin.

It's just annoying to have someone question one's reason for doing something, and form conclusions based in ignorance, and then have them ignore people's explanations. But to want GR to close the thread is juvenile, as you say, just ignore it if you don't like it.

Having GR discipline this group by closing the thread is insulting to everyone who has commented. We don't need a "nanny state" here and other than obvious vile language, etc., we don't need protected.

Have a good New Year Lobstergirl. I always enjoy your remarks even when I disagree. That's part of the good thing about discussion.
Privacy concern (101 new)
Jan 02, 2011 01:36PM

1 To recap Elizabeth: I am not ashamed of myself. I am not named Jessie. I do not live in Cincinnati, although near enough.

I did not however say my actual name or my actual city of residence. Or my address or the nearest Safeway store.

Read my comments above and you'll see why I need privacy. It's called survival from a true nutter.

Does this make me ashamed? Nope. It makes me sensible and alive.

Sorry, but that's the extent of my deviousness.

Can't see why it matters, but if makes you feel superior in some way, God Bless You. I chose privacy and survival.

That's it for my comments on this circular subject, which is actually very interesting (for many reasons, some not obvious).
Privacy concern (101 new)
Jan 02, 2011 01:22PM

1 She DID apologize Elizabeth.
Privacy concern (101 new)
Jan 02, 2011 11:50AM

1 Thanks Amani for apologizing to Eliza. It was not a nice remark, and it was mature of you to realize it and apologize.
Privacy concern (101 new)
Jan 01, 2011 10:37PM

1 It also depends upon how much any individual values their sense of privacy.

If Eliz. isn't afraid of random wackos, that's OK though rather her than me.

If Eliz. likes to have her name and life right up front for all to see, that's her privilege.

Others prefer as great a degree of privacy as is possible in this internet world.

But it's still an insult to assume those who value privacy are hiding something nasty best not revealed. Discretion is not necessarily being ashamed as Eliz. seems to think. It's just keeping something of oneself to oneself.

topics created by MissJessie