The discussion on whether or not to have 'following' on GR is moot.

The feature went live this week. Love it or hate it, it's now a part of GR.

Rowena wrote: "...Since you ask... 80% of my friends are authors,..."

Impressive. I'm in the process of publishing a book. I'll have to rethink my marketing strategy in the light of your post.

Bo,

Since you ask... 80% of my friends are authors, and we're also friends on other social networking sites. It's not unusual. I have far more friends on Facebook.

Many authors use their covers as avatars (I don't), so some colleagues are easy to spot. It helps that when they invite me to be their friend, they mention a shared affiliation.

My reference was to strangers. In fact, I narrowed that further by gender.

Book sales: I don't expect my colleagues to buy my books or to spend a lot of time interacting with me, so sales numbers aren't likely to be a good guide. If being my friend here and in other places is of value to them in making friends and establishing a presence, that's fine with me.

If my Google Analytics numbers are of interest to you, Bo, this last month GoodReads has been my 5th highest referring site with 81% of the visitors being new. I'm actually surprised.

I read more books than I list, because I judge a few of contests, and that's supposed to be confidential. Moreover, I don't believe in adding books that I didn't enjoy.

I lurk a lot, participate regularly in a couple of author groups where we share tips and info and help one another. I wouldn't be as close to the top of Amazon's Search in "Futuristic Romance" if not for some of the friends I've met here.

Rowena wrote: "Some seem to collect friends like Malcolm's army in the Scottish play collected branches from Birnam Wood...."

You really do this level of vetting before you accept a friend request? You have 815 of them! With that number of friends I can't see that you could develop much level of personal interaction unless you were on GR 24/7. Still, as you say, "Some network a lot, and appear to read very little."

What I really would like to know is if having such a large friend list has really benefited your book sales, a topic which has nothing to do with this thread but which is extremely interesting and possibly useful to other authors.

(I like your hat, great profile picture).

This isn't about reviews. This is an attempt to explore why some people might be wound up.

Rightly or wrongly, we judge people by the company they keep.

Don't we?

GoodReads is a site for people who love to read. Some read a lot and network very little. Some network a lot, and appear to read very little.

Some seem to collect friends like Malcolm's army in the Scottish play collected branches from Birnam Wood.

When a stranger asks for my friendship, I look at what he reads, which groups he belongs to, what kind of messages he exchanges with his friends, whether or not he appears to have multiple identities, and I also look to see how many of my friends are also his friends.

Then, I make the best decision I can on the info available. If I find that I've made a mistake, I can unfriend and block him. However, I don't get a heads-up if one of my trusted friends changes her mind about him.

I suppose it is common knowledge that sites similar to this (note, I said... "similar") have been used in the past to bypass the monitoring of emails by the authorities. I don't know how that works, but I would imagine that might account for a certain amount of twitchiness among those who perhaps read too many political thrillers.

Sherri wrote: "I wonder -- if it had been called something like "favoriting" or "Good reviewer list" instead of "following", would people have been nearly as wound up about it?"

Interesting question!

Sherri, I have no problem with the follower feature but a lot of what you've said expresses why I don't get it: Any member can already do this; they just have to manually check rather than having it appear. I guess if you want to read reviews of a bunch of particular members with being their friend it would be helpful to see all those reviews/books/status updates all in one place.

I guess the big thing to remember is not to get wound up about the word "follow", as it allows nothing that a person cannot already do, deals only with information already in the public eye, and is limited by the same tools as anything else here. In fact, the whole "deny follow" thing is actually a step beyond all that and infringes on OTHER people -- after all, unless you block a person entirely, all they need to do is save the URL of your profile page, and they can view even more than the "following" appears ready to allow. And even the current Block does not prevent anyone who is a friend of a friend seeing posts via linking through a comment.

Is my understanding of this proposed ability really so faulty that I cannot see how it will do something more (and something more dangerous) than can already be done? From what I read in Otis's posts, it will be restricted to reviews, which are certainly available publicly in several ways (via the book page, on the new reviews tab, via a shared friend 'liking' or commenting on it). One's profile reveals a lot more, since any comments in public groups, any writing, any quotes, and all public activity is listed there.

I would think the best "opt out" for the 'following' would be a private profile, which limits most information to one's friend list. Reviews, of course, are always public. Nothing particularly special is required.

I wonder -- if it had been called something like "favoriting" or "Good reviewer list" instead of "following", would people have been nearly as wound up about it?

Thanks, Lisa.
I read Otis's post twice, but did not notice that.

Rowena, Otis has addressed all these concerns. Permission will be needed to be followed and members can choose to keep any other member or all members from following them. Also, the "information" followers will get, is already public information on this site. (see some of the previous posts in this thread - more than one have links to Otis's responses to members' concerns)

With friending, a person has an affirmative choice whether or not to accept a would-be "friend", or to block them, or to leave them in the pending box.

With "following" it's likely to be passive, isn't it? So a potential identity thief or terrorist could follow public figures here, and it would be up to members to monitor constantly.

Would it be possible for Goodreads reviewers, readers, libarians, authors etc to elect whether or not they wish to be "followed"?

Petra X wrote: "Sherri wrote: "If the 'follow' goes beyond just reviews to all public activity, I could see that getting cumbersome -- I don't know if I 'd need to see their latest quotes, their writing, their tri..."

I'm mainly interested in reviews and books added/books reading. I would appreciate and not be be bothered by everything else being followable, so long as there were access controls and blocking for each aspect. But that's not important to me, and probably unnecessary complication.

Sherri wrote: "The blocking thing does seem like it would have evidence, since that person would be able to -- if they really wanted -- detect being blocked."

Perhaps. But mostly it would just seem like the person in question had changed to a private profile.

And Tricia, those of us with private profiles cannot be bookmarked (not effectively, anyway) and do not have public RSS feeds. Our reviews ARE public, and I for one am perfectly fine with that.

However, I know that there have been some requests for private reviews, and there are people who use the secret group option as a work-around.

Great post, Sherri (msg 179).

I still don't understand why some people think friending a complete stranger is less "scary" than following a complete stranger, especially in the case where their profile is already public.

It sounds as though this is going to happen, and soon. (see Otis's message # 143)

Otis,

Will members get separate emails for their friends and for those members they're following?

Will followers see just reviews and books added?

Thanks.

Edit: Ah, Thanks Cait. That's an even better Otis comment link! I'd thought he'd said more but couldn't remember where.

Guys, a lot of your questions about what followers will see and how much control you'll have over them have already been answered by Otis: see this comment.

I think reviews and books added - because I might for example want to follow a bookseller because she/he would likely be more aware of new releases than I would.

Sherri wrote: "If the 'follow' goes beyond just reviews to all public activity, I could see that getting cumbersome -- I don't know if I 'd need to see their latest quotes, their writing, their trivia activity, or their conversations in groups. That, to me, would be friend activity."

I agree with this. I would be more comfortable with followers reading just reviews and from the discussion it seems that is what people in favour of following want. It does feel a bit creepy to have someone not want to friend you but want to read not just your reviews but your posts, writing, quotes - all Goodreads activity in fact.

Bun, Yes, that's still my true feeling. I didn't post any reviews for the first months I was here; it is an optional activity.

I do think it makes sense to say that if you don't want to share reviews then its best just not to post them on a website.

Ack. You know, Sherri and Everybody, My preference, no matter what is done re this followers feature, is to have all reviews visible at the book's site. My feeling is that if someone wants their review to be hidden, they shouldn't write a review and post it on this social networking site. If a member with a private profile writes a review and they're not my friend and I come upon it and read it, when I click on their avatar I get the this profile is private message. I'd think that would be enough privacy.

Just my opinion.

I do understand though and can see why more flexibility about what's private would be wanted. (I guess I just enjoy reading all those reviews too much to think some are not available to be read by me.)

Ok, I guess I do understand wanting this Sherri.

(a free association post from Lisa Vegan ;-) )

The blocking thing does seem like it would have evidence, since that person would be able to -- if they really wanted -- detect being blocked.

Will this block prevent the blocked person from seeing a review on, say, the book's page (where all reviews show at the bottom) or in the tab of latest reviews in Explore? Will a review be blocked if the reviewer is a friend of a friend and a comment shows up on the blocked person's home page? Will the review be blocked if someone sends a URL link to a blocked person?

While I understand someone being uncomfortable with the idea, and I am very much for being able to control one's own experience, the idea of a block for anything other than harassment or abuse (which would be reported, documented, and done via GR) seems more like trying to control someone else's experience. In short, it's saying that Person A can post in public but prevent Person B from seeing it, although all the rest of the world can.

That, I find ridiculous.

I've long wanted the ability to keep up with the reviews of people who, in my opinion, review well or in some way are interesting to me, but with whom I do not otherwise interact, and who may not feel the same about me (and thus not want my reviews showing up on their home page. The home pages, even (or especially) with all the tabs is a busy place and I, like many others, like my friends list to reflect the activity of those folks I think of as 'friends' -- and there may be many folks who write a good review who are not my friends.

If the 'follow' goes beyond just reviews to all public activity, I could see that getting cumbersome -- I don't know if I 'd need to see their latest quotes, their writing, their trivia activity, or their conversations in groups. That, to me, would be friend activity.

As to the comment made above about 'feeling pressured' because of being followed or the status thing -- well, again, if you chose to react in that way, that is your choice, and not posting a status or review is a perfectly acceptable method of avoiding doing something in public that may garner public attention. For myself, I ignore any such comments or I address them directly and inform the commentor of my feelings. If someone can't handle that and gets upset -- that's what the report abuse function of GR is for. Or putting a complete block on the person so their comments are not visible, which I find works very well.

Here's a thought -- is it possible for GR to add an option to make a review Private? that is, it will only appear to those on one's Friend list? That would remove the need to individually block/approve followers and offer protection to the more delicate flowers so that no one but their chosen few can see their activity.

I'm looking forward to seeing this ability made available.

If one can block a follower, that would solve the issue for me as long as people don't know they are blocked. Wouldn't they be able to figure it out, though?

The suggestions for security Otis mentioned seem to cover every privacy situation. I'm not sure why some of you guys feel so concerned about people reading book reviews that you've chosen to publish (as opposed to keeping notes on your own computer, for example), but as long as you can block anyone who does hassle you (something I've luckily yet to encounter here) then I just don't see the problem. I'd hate this to become a place where we can only see reviews from approved friends. I keep my friend list very small, but depend on reviews from a wide variety of people to help inform my reading decisions. Which is kind of the point of reviews on this site, right? We can participate in groups without posting reviews, so if you do post one, don't you expect people to read it and possibly get something from it? But someone who is following and not a friend couldn't see private info or clutter up my email, and could be easily blocked if it was abused. I'm sorry, as long privacy controls are allowed I just don't get the furror.

rivka wrote: "I agree entirely with Not-the-Michael.

Carolyn, this would allow people to stalk follow people they don't wish to friend, or who perhaps do not wish to friend them."

I agree. I don't care for this, Otis. If it does get implemented, I'd like the ability to NOT ALLOW a stalker follower, please. Just seems wrong, for me.

In a perfect world where good, honest people are 100%, it would be really cool, but we have too many imperfect people and the Internet is so dangerous.

Sorry.

Like another person has pointed out, you can either bookmark the person anyway to follow them (and their reviews) or use the rss feed.

It's really not that big of a deal that people seem to be making it.

The whole idea is a good one, and not creepy at all.
Now if people were posting creepy things and started harassing the people they follow that is another thing entirely.

Yup. Individually. So if you're looking for reviews on a book that I've reviewed, you may find mine. Not the same as being able to (figuratively) follow me around Goodreads.

It's still no different then choosing to write a review you know will be published in a public domain.
You may not be an author but you are publishing your works, in this case your review, in public.

♥Tricia♥ wrote: "I see people saying its creepy to follow someone, but its generally about the same thing as the *fan* option we have for authors. So apparently all of us who *fan* any author are creepy."

By virtue of being an author (or actor, or ball player, etc.) one becomes a public person. Authors have the option of keeping their private profiles separate from their author profiles (and I know at least one who has chosen to have both a public author profile and a private personal profile). But that's opt-in, not opt-out.

I see people saying its creepy to follow someone, but its generally about the same thing as the *fan* option we have for authors. So apparently all of us who *fan* any author are creepy. /rolls eyes.

And no this is no different, none whatsoever. Someone might like the reviews of another person and they might not be a published author but they can still have *fans* in various forms.
And yes reviews *are* public. So if people have issues with others following their reviews perhaps you shouldn't post them for the public to see in the first place? If it bothers you that much.

I like this idea and believe that it would be very useful (as long as the privacy and blocking concerns were looked into)

Me too :-(

I had two this week :-) !!!

Clearly, you (and I) are insufficiently special.

Hee hee. Oh I would be soo surprised if I got "thousands of requests."

If it were opt-in, then it wouldn't take care of one of the main issues the proponents of following are unhappy about -- having to approve "thousands of requests".

Oh. Okay. That was't what I had thought, thanks for the info Rivka. But I would be able to see who is following me, so if I had a problem with somebody I could block them. I guess that would still address the issue for me.

No, he said (#64, forward date sort):

Otis wrote: "- People (with) private profiles could not be followed
- People could turn off the ability for people to follow them, yet remain with a public profile
- If someone with a private profile follows you then you will be able to see their profile
- Members can remove anyone from following them
- People would not be able to follow people who have blocked them, as per our already existing block feature"

So it would be opt-out rather than opt-in, both on a global level and an individual one.

I think -if I understand what Otis said correctly- you would approve follower requests individually just as you now do with friend requests.

Will we be able to block certain followers, while not blocking everyone?

There is a group of persons who can be prevented from being "friends" by the dint of just ignoring their friendship requests. If one rejects them, they ask again but as long as their request is pending, they don't seem able to ask.

However, I would be seriously creeped out if they were able to follow me.

Charity, thank you for taking the time to explain. I don't feel that way myself, but now I understand your reasoning.

You're welcome. :-)

Charity wrote: "I do think that having followers would affect me negatively. Frankly, I feel that it would put me under some kind of pressure to perform...knowing that people are following me simply for my reviews. Maybe it wouldn't affect others that way, but it would me. "

Thanks for explaining that, Charity! I don't feel that way but now I do understand why you would, and I'm glad that you'll be able to opt out if it makes you more comfortable (even though I hope for my own sake that most people are comfortable with followers).

Charity wrote: "Several people would comment on why I hadn't made more progress on a book, why I hadn't updated my status bar, etc. I felt under pressure to constantly maintain my progress or explain why I wasn't reading such-and-such book very quickly, so I chucked using it all together."

I have one answer for those people: Life. ;)

Thanks, Rivka.

Frankly, this is also the reason that I no longer use the status bar. I know some people love it, but it got to be too much for me. Several people would comment on why I hadn't made more progress on a book, why I hadn't updated my status bar, etc. I felt under pressure to constantly maintain my progress or explain why I wasn't reading such-and-such book very quickly, so I chucked using it all together. I feel much more relaxed about having it just sitting on my 'Currently Reading' shelf and now people ask more casually how the book is going, if I'm enjoying it, etc. I do understand why people love that feature (most of my friends say it actually motivates them more), but for me, it was more of an aggravation.

Well said, Charity. I'm with you.

Kiwiria,

Since you asked...To me, it seems like following is the complete negation of the need to add friends. Why would people want to add friends if they could simply follow them instead?

I do think that having followers would affect me negatively. Frankly, I feel that it would put me under some kind of pressure to perform...knowing that people are following me simply for my reviews. Maybe it wouldn't affect others that way, but it would me.

As it is now, the vast majority of my GR friends are people I interact with in various groups (others are people I know in 'real life'), so there is a lot more discussion going on about the books behind the scenes than what gets put in the reviews. Therefore, I end up using the review box more or less for myself (feelings and reflections), rather than a grand summary or a dissection of the book. Very rarely do I have someone who is not a friend comment and/or vote on my reviews, so I can more or less pretend that the reviews are getting lost in the shuffle and few, if any, people are actually reading them.

With followers, I can't pretend they aren't there. They are there, and they are there for my review. There won't be any fleshing out in discussion groups (or face-to-face, as it is with some of my friends). They are looking for my review and nothing more. That would definitely make me feel under pressure to perform. See, this is why I don't blog. Some people feel that it's cathartic, I feel that it would be a chore.

I don't expect everyone to feel like me about having followers. Most probably won't. As I've stated many times, I don't really care if it gets implemented, I would just like a choice to not participate if I feel uncomfortable with it (for whatever reason).

Why not just extend the "become a fan" feature also to GR members instead of creating a separate new feature like following. Aren't the "become a fan" and "follow" features sort of the same thing? Just curious.

I guess I am looking at this a little differently. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of reviews. I thought all reviews are public. If that is the case I think having the ability to follow an individual's reviews would be a great feature. If I find a person that is reading the same type books that I read the ability to follow that person's reviews could lead to new authors and books.

If a person is posting a review I believe they are doing it to share the information with others. I would think that they would feel honored to know that someone likes their reviews enough to follow their other reviews.

I do not believe that anyone that posts reviews should be able to block another member from SEEING/FOLLOWING their reviews. I do believe that a reviewer should be able to block people from making comments on their reviews though. This would prevent someone from debating the reviewer's point of view or spaming them.

As far as profiles go I am all in favor of people being able to block their personal information such as location, what they have on their book shelves and what groups they belong to.

I just see following reviews, friends, groups and profiles as individual features of GR. Individual features would give the potential to the members to "custom design" the way that they want to use GR. Members should have the option to decide how much information and interaction they want to have with other members.

Charity, I'm confused. Why will you be opting out, just because it doesn't benefit you personally? I guess I just doesn't understand what harm it will do you to have people following you?

But of course, if you generally accept all friend requests sent to you, then there's no real reason to follow you rather than friend you. I just don't understand the mindset behind saying "I will not allow people to do A, even though it doesn't affect me negatively at all, because it doesn't not affect me positively either." - so I'm curious.

Otis wrote: "Think of every indie book store clerk - they should have huge followings because they know books better than anyone!"

I wish! (And wish that they would buy books from me before my indie store goes bust).

I still don't see the advantage of following as opposed to the non-top-friends and rss options but its nothing to get yer knickers in a twist about either, so it will be interesting to see how adding another level of interaction works out.

Thanks for the update, Otis.