Goodreads Feedback discussion

29232 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 2,551-2,600 of 6,406) (6406 new)    post a comment »

message 2551: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

Can you link to or post a screen shot of these attacks?


message 2552: by Pisceschick (new)

Pisceschick | 51 comments Kara wrote: "...21 members who were impacted..."

Except it's not just 21 members who were impacted. You took that content away from EVERY member of this site.

This is just disgraceful.


message 2553: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 2062 comments Kara wrote: "Gundula wrote: "I have posted reviews about autobiographical books and classics of literature where the biography, the philosophies, even the sexuality of the authors was and is of prime importance..."

Thank you for answering my question.


message 2554: by Thalia (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:14PM) (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) | 420 comments Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

Please forgive me if I don't put much stock or faith in your "support", considering you've joined this month and all you've done is comment here about "the bullies".

*cough*

And with that, I'm going to bed.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments Joshua/Sock, it's called disagreement. You just happen to be in the minority on this issue. There have been plenty of issues where I have been in the minority. It's part of life.

It's the juvenile inability of a few to handle dissent and opposition (like making up lies of "threats") that has put us in this position to begin with.


message 2556: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Joshua says: "blahblahblah...bully...jellushaters.."

I say: whatthefuckevertroll


message 2557: by Stefani (new)

Stefani (steffiebaby140) | 453 comments Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

You continue to believe....for the whole 5 seconds you've been on the site lol.

And prove it. Post one screen shot of a "hostile attacks" and "veiled threats".


message 2558: by Angelica (new)

Angelica | 4 comments OKay, so I haven't read all 57 pages completely so sorry if some of these questions have already come up.
First off, what the heck?! I personally flip-flop between amazon for reqs and this website for reviews since a lot of reviews on amazon are complete BS and are like, "oh its good." and then I'll buy it and wonder if this author graduated middle school.
Goodreads has been where I could go for honest reviews and not friends of the author kissing their hiney and attacking any rating under 3 stars (which I've personally seen on at least 4 occasions)
Which leads me to this question. If they're acting like little angels on goodreads and attacking reviewers on amazon (which seriously just gets their comment deleted and that's pretty much it) why can we not point that out in the review of the book?
The author is a big part of why people choose the books they do. We all have favorite authors that we choose and in the reviews we may put something like "its an okay book overall but its not up to par with this author's other books"
If an author is a complete jerk it completely makes me not ever want to contribute to their cause. I don't care if they wrote the best book ever written. If they feel the need to attack someone they will not have my respect or my money (which I'm a student and don't have a lot so I have to choose books carefully)
So, from what I'm gathering I won't get a reply but I must say once I get done following this thread for a bit I'm done with goodreads and will look for alternatives where I know I'm seeing honest reviews.


D.A.—just a reader | 3136 comments So Spa is again posting that the poor bullied authors responsible for this now also have the FTC on their side -- on the Washington Post article, however, the realer name is used since they have yet to ban him.

Of course he must know better than us that there are many, many pending FTC actions and injunctions that are secret and in no way made public by the FTC. No court docket is ever public. No government agency ever has to comply with any freedom of information legislation.

He sure does love the word troll.


message 2560: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Kara wrote: "Since our inception, Goodreads has lived by a few simple principles with our reviews. You can see our full policy in our review guidelines, but at a high level, we believe..."

Look, Kara, I get it. Monitoring the online activity of a large number of people is incredibly difficult. I used to be a manager in the customer and tech support department of a major entertainment company’s online communities. We had content for toddlers and content of 50-year-old men, and it was incredibly difficult to manage everything in a way that made the experience [Company]-brand appropriate and still appealing to everyone. I left six months into the job because it was terrible, and now, three years later, those online communities are being shut down because this sort of thing just does not work.

So here’s the deal. There are A LOT of reasons for your content providers (and we ARE the suppliers of content here, Kara; you sell ad space and were acquired by Amazon because of a service we provide you free of charge, and at expense to ourselves. More on that later.) are legitimately upset. One is that you guys are being uneven in how you police this, and you yourselves seem not to understand the criteria for removal. I get that it is IMPOSSIBLE to moderate online content in a way that is fair, and that it’s really confusing for everyone, including those doing the moderating. I’ll use as an example your own comments in this thread. You went from saying:

Some people are concerned about their "not-interested" shelf or variants of that. We are not deleting those; you are free to keep cataloging books that way. We are deleting shelves like "author-is-a-jerk", as they don't fit our guiding principle that the book page be about the book.

To:

A "Maybe will read someday" shelf is well within our guidelines. We did not delete it on this end.

To:

We don’t comment publicly on individual cases, but in general, what we do is look at a shelf and see how it is used in context. In any case where we have decided to remove that shelf, we are confident that the shelf was being used in a way to review author behavior.

Kara. Kara, Kara, Kara. You need to check in with the people who are actually doing the work you’re reporting to us about. Seriously. Sit down and talk to them. Because there is a VERY CLEAR disconnect between what you started out telling us was happening and what is really going on. When I worked in online moderation, I met with my employees SEVERAL TIMES A DAY, and if they had concerns about a particular issue, there was a system in place for them to flag the iffy violation for review by a manager. Kara. Come on. This is TERRIBLE support. You have to see that. Goodreads is interacting with its content providers right now in a way that is EMBARRASSINGLY unprofessional. I hope that you all ARE embarrassed, and that you are just putting on a good public face here. Because this is ROUGH.

And, look, it’s Amazon’s site. You can handle the content we have given you for free however you like. But PLEASE do not forget that Goodreads is only as powerful as it is in the industry right now because of the unpaid work of thousands of people—especially the Goodreads librarians. When the high-level reviewers and librarians walk, you no longer have anything to attract new users. If your top (UNPAID) content providers walk, your site will fail. It. WILL. Fail. I can absolutely guarantee it.

Another thing I learned in my time at [Company] is that you MUST prioritize tech issues. It is IMPERITAVE that you respond to technical errors on your site in a timely matter, and you need to have separate, highly-trained, well-paid people doing this work. It shouldn’t be the same people who are doing a brilliant job with the deletion of five-star Harry Potter reviews (and maybe it isn’t, in which case, stop using things like this as an excuse for why the “Likes” and stuff are messed up).

And speaking of your technical capabilities, are you SERIOUSLY telling us that if you have the info for a reviewer (Lady Danielle, currently ranked #77) and she tells you that her reviews have been deleted, YOU CANNOT LOOK UP THAT INFORMATION? SERIOUSLY? Kara, this cannot POSSIBLY be the case. This technology has existed for over a decade. I know that for a fact because I USED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD.

Your content providers, the Goodreads reviewers, are being hounded—both on and off Goodreads—and instead of standing behind them, the people who’ve made your site what it is today, you are making bizarre, wishy-washy, contradictory statements while gaslighting the people whose content has been lost (Oh, and by the way—you are seriously twisting the truth when you say that you are unable to retrieve the content you arbitrarily removed. What you are saying is that you cannot do it under your new terms of service, NOT that it wouldn’t be physically possible. Because you absolutely back everything up. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and, again, embarrassing.). We have a right to know if an author has a history of doxxing reviewers! We have a right to know if our personal information—and that of our loved ones—is going to be posted on an “anti-bullying” website for people to use to torment us. We have a right to know if an author has a history of taking to his blog with rude commentary on our reviews, a large quantity of which commentary tends to be incredibly misogynistic. We have a right to this information not because it is the only way we can make informed decisions as reviewers. Do you not see this?

Further, we have a right to know whether an author has made repeated misogynistic, racist, or homophobic statements, because it is our responsibility as consumers to make informed decisions about where we put our money. It is. Another job I do off-and-on is working on political campaigns. I will not give money to or publicly review an author if he has beliefs I find abhorrent, regardless of whether or not those beliefs are contained in his writing. Why shouldn’t I be able to shelve these authors as “due-to-author,” or “homophobic,” or even “Author-is-a-jerk?” I cannot fathom why you would find these classifications to be inappropriate. I CANNOT have positive ratings of books written by terrible people on my shelves because it reflects on my personal beliefs as a human. If I choose to have a “Hormel” shelf full of writers who are terrible people and/or stalkers, why would that ever be a problem? I'm not libeling anyone; I'm marking certain books I would prefer not to read for my own reasons.

You guys cannot police the things that are being done to us off of this website. You cannot remove the tweets angry authors and their fans send us in response to our honest reviews. You cannot prevent STGRB from posting our personal information on their site. You cannot intervene when authors say they are going to hire a hitman to take us out. Why would you take away our means of avoiding these people—and, more importantly, why on Earth would you do so without giving any real notice (posting in Feedback does NOT constitute valid notice. Very few people actually interact here. And anyway, you started removing content without warning people of your policy change, which YOU YOURSELF did not even understand until today (and maybe you still don't get it).)?

I have so much more to say, but this response has gone on far too long already.

I am enormously disappointed in your behavior (including your personal interaction with us, Kara), and I’m terribly embarrassed on your behalf. You guys really screwed this up.


message 2561: by ♡Karlyn P♡ (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:21PM) (new)

♡Karlyn P♡ (KarLynP) | 371 comments To address the content backup questions, and keep in mind I have no direct knowledge of how goodreads configures their own systems, Web back ups to the level you guys are suggesting doesn't happen that easily. Sites this size commonly use rollback versions, which means for disaster recovery they could pick a date and time in recent history and roll the entire site back to that date and time. (HINT: Friday morning before that announcement was made??!) But that means they lose everything that was posted after that, obviously not a good idea for a site like this one. Still, it is also possible to have a recycle bin somewhere, depending on their CMS build.


message 2562: by Rose (new)

Rose (Rosepetals1984) | 124 comments Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

It's not attacking, it's disagreement, sometimes very passionate disagreement. There's a difference. You're entitled to your opinion, just as much as any other person, but many of us are speaking up against this policy because it's incredibly one-sided and despite efforts of trying to eludicate our perspectives, no one's listening or even explaining the nature of why this is in place.

I'm actually very disappointed in the responses that have been given so far, to be honest, and given this is such a contentious issue, I would've thought it'd be given more definition and transparency. It hasn't been so far.

There's a reason why this is called a "feedback" thread. If one's unhappy with a certain policy or expansions on a policy, then of course it's going to be up for debate, and people are going to provide counters as to why.


message 2563: by Chrysoula (new)

Chrysoula Tzavelas | 20 comments So, it's clear that what happened is that the Goodreads staff had a meeting and decided that what they had to do was keep the 'war' between the BBA and the Unintimidated Reviewers offsite. And they decided to do that by attacking the symptoms: No Talking About BBA Where They Can See It In Any Fashion Here, No BBA Allowed Here, WE WILL BE SWITZERLAND OF BOOKS!

Which... might have worked? Maybe? If they'd talked about it openly? Made a request of their dedicated users? But instead.... they made a unilateral policy decision to overmanage both sides. I was flabbergasted by the explanation that they were profiling shelf contents, not limiting shelf names; it's a TERRIBLE IDEA but it made everything click into place. "Get this shit flinging out of our yard."

Except the toxic shit is only being flung from one direction. The other side flings _fertilizer_. The future grows there.

:-)


message 2564: by Skittles (Skyla) (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:34PM) (new)

Skittles (Skyla) | 46 comments Does anyone else find it weird that there are a ton of brand spanking new accounts with no books, no friends, no content what-so-ever agreeing whole heartedly with this new policy? I don't know about anyone else but when I joined GR my first order of business was to write a small bio, add a ton of books and then go searching for more books. I did not create an account and start posting in groups. In fact I didn't even go into a group and post anything for almost two years.

I for one would really like to just put the drama of everything behind me and go back to reading and reviewing. I am tired of all the negativity and the attacks just because I didn't 5 star a book. I'm done with it.

Delete my shelves if you must but there isn't anything that is about authors except my nationality shelves and that is mostly so I know where the book hails from (aussie-author, brit-lit, canadian-author, etc). Everything else is about the book, the characters or the content. I honestly don't care anymore. This isn't the first time you guys have delted shelves I had 4 shelves deleted in 2012 for no reason. I got told it had been a mistake and that unfortunately there was no way to restore them. So go ahead delete away.

This was my safe haven. A place I went to talk about books and to make friends with like minded people. I have met a lot of awesome people and I like being able to help catalogue books on this site. I enjoy recommending books, whether they be ones I loathed or ones I loved, to people because reading is subjective and everyone has different tastes.

I hope that Patrick or the higher ups sends out an email to every member of Goodreads letting them know of the new rules so that EVERYONE can know what they are and make sure they don't do something against the rules.

If you lay down clear cut rules then users will know what is and isn't allowed and I am sure people who would be a hell of a lot happier on here.

I would like to stay on this site and I would like to continue being an active member but when the rules make no sense it is hard to figure out if you are breaking them.


message 2565: by Miranda (new)

Miranda (MamboChocobo) | 14 comments I'm just severely disappointed in GoodReads this week. With this latest development of deleting shelves based on what you perceive to be their initial uses, I'm very disillusioned with this site and if there were a better option for a book cataloging site, I'd be dropping this place like a hot potato.

How is this a good business move? You're alienating readers (or at least the ones who know about this, since no e-mail has gone out about this. I found out about it on twitter, for crying out loud.) and the people who helped make GoodReads what it is. The awful handling of the fall out in this thread has just made everything worse.

As it is, I refuse to generate free content for this site anymore. I'm not going to waste my valuable time and money on reading books and writing reviews and posting them if you're going to just have fun with the delete button.


message 2566: by Kemper (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:24PM) (new)

Kemper Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

Goodreads, you have found a group that likes this new policy: People who have been on the site for two days and have no books rated. Why, it's almost like they aren't who they claim to be!

Don't do anything about them though. Just keep on abusing your most loyal users. That seems to be working out for you.


message 2567: by MissJessie (new)

MissJessie | 1684 comments Kara wrote: "JennyJen wrote: "Kara, when can we expect our deleted reviews to be reinstated or some such equivalent action? ..."

While we misstepped by deleting them without advance warning of the policy chang..."



And I suppose no backups of your database exist ANYWHERE? right.


message 2568: by [deleted user] (new)

I thought some of you might be interested in this. It's a webpage about the psychology of bullying. It talks about the damage that bullying does to the bully themselves. Here's the relevant section:

"Though it may sound strange, there are actually negative effects from bullying on the bullies themselves. “Bullies can suffer long-term effects of bullying if their behavior is not addressed. Compelling research confirms that bullies are twice as likely as their peers to have criminal convictions and four times more likely to be multiple offenders.” (Abel, 2010). Sometimes a bully can actually hate the way they treat their victims but somehow feel justified in doing so since they are abused by others as well. This feeling tends to override the feeling of empathy which makes for a psychological mess for the bully. Feeling conflicted about their behavior is also a source of stress that makes them want to bully more. If a bully is not stopped and treated then the chance of them stopping and becoming a different and healthier person is very slim and their behavior will continue into adulthood, affecting the type of life they lead."

Website here: http://www.theravive.com/research/The...

You may not believe this right now, but Goodreads is not only helping the community by stopping the bullying, it is helping the bullies as well.


message 2569: by Elspeth (new)

Elspeth (minealready) | 17 comments Lookie, this made CNN!


message 2570: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Go away troll.


message 2571: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) ♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "To address the content backup questions, and keep in mind I have no direct knowledge of how goodreads configures their own systems, We back ups to the level you guys are suggesting doesn't happen t..."

When I worked in this industry--and again, I left the field over three years ago--any action could be reversed if we had the appropriate information (like whose account this happened to). I really don't think Kara is saying that they PHYSICALLY CANNOT restore this information, but that they ETHICALLY CANNOT do so. She specifically states that they cannot restore things removed BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF TOS.


message 2572: by [deleted user] (new)

Elspeth wrote: "Lookie, this made CNN!"

Once again, authors are bullied, and no one says anything about the readers' side or how the author in question was just confused. Half the story, we're the villains, and this is just getting sad.


message 2573: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Mahala wrote: "Elspeth wrote: "Lookie, this made CNN!"

And still talking about poor, widdle Lauren."


God, they are killing me!


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments Skyla (Skoyklha) Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books wrote: "Does anyone else find it weird that there are a ton of brand spanking new accounts with no books, no friends, no content what-so-ever agreeing whole heartedly with this new policy? I don't know abo..."

Right? I so appreciate that they had the time to email me about deleting my reviews and bookshelves and did not have the time to take care of these obvious socks. Or, hell, respond to our emails from a few weeks ago. A+ site management.


message 2575: by Stefani (new)

Stefani (steffiebaby140) | 453 comments Elspeth wrote: "Lookie, this made CNN!"

And they have their facts wrong again, using Lauren Howard as their prime example of author being bullied. *rolls eyes* God people, google is your friend.


message 2576: by [deleted user] (new)

Why would you call me a troll?

Am I not a member? Do I not have a right to post an opinion? Just because my opinion does not agree with yours does not make me a troll.

Here's a very relevant post about the impact of bullying on both the victim and the bully. I'll excerpt it here:

Term Effects of Bullying – The Victim

Here are some of the short term effects that a victim of bullying or cyber bullying may experience:

◾Acute depression. Parents may find their child being constantly sad and withdrawn
◾Having nightmares and waking up screaming or in cold sweat
◾Bed wetting. This is commonly seen in younger children
◾Loss of self-esteem
◾Physical symptoms, such as stomach ache, headache and upset stomach
◾Afraid to go to school or take the school bus as the victim may have to face the bully
◾Perform badly in school causing grades to drop
◾Truancy due to being bullied at school
◾Getting stressed and anxious about attending gatherings with peers
◾Feeling that they let down their parents somehow
◾Feeling embarrassed, as they may think that complaining could be construed as a sign of weakness

Short Term Effects of Bullying – The Bully

Here are some short term effects that the bully may experience:

◾Unable to maintain friendship
◾Does not perform well at school
◾Truancy
◾Bullies are often at a higher risk of getting addicted to illegal drugs and/or alcohol
◾Higher chances of dropping out from school

Long Term Effects of Bullying – The Victim

Victims often end up scarred for life and may suffer from problems even in adulthood. Some of the long term effects are as follows:

◾Chronic depression, which could result in suicidal tendencies
◾Post-trauma psychological disorders
◾Could cause the victim to turn to alcohol or substance abuse
◾Self-destructive behavior

Victims require psychological help to cope with situation and if this help is given, it could help the child overcome the effects of bullying and being victimized.

Long Term Effects of Bullying – The Bully

Even bullies are not spared and can suffer from long term effects which could have a profound impact on their lives. Some of the effects are as follows:

◾Higher chances of getting convicted for a crime as the bully grows older
◾Being more dependent on illegal drugs and/or alcohol
◾Constant problems in maintaining long-term relationships
◾Higher chances of abusing spouse and/or children as an adult


message 2577: by [deleted user] (new)


message 2578: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (SarahJF1984) | 122 comments Kara wrote: "Christina wrote: "The thing is, if these authors who have abused and insulted reviewers were all banned, there wouldn't be such an uproar. However, I can see at least a few of these authors are sti..."

Kara wrote: If you see abuse happening on the site, please flag it so we can look into it. We do take this very seriously.

I'm three pages behind on reading the most recent posts but I just had to say that I love how the only response Kara seems to have is to keep regurgitating the same "If you see/experience abuse, please report it as we take this seriously.". No matter what people are saying she picks a comment that mentions some kind of bullying and responds to that solely. No response to any of the other valid concerns? Possibly because she (or whoever is dictating her responses) can't come up with a positive spin to put on any topic other than the "we're serious about fixing the bullying problem".


message 2579: by [deleted user] (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:36PM) (new)

Joshua wrote: "Why would you call me a troll?

Am I not a member? Do I not have a right to post an opinion? Just because my opinion does not agree with yours does not make me a troll.

Here's a very relevant po..."


Our opinion does not agree with yours, and you labeled all of us bullies.

Just sayin'.

We're not taking the bait, darling. No one is going to threaten you. Sorry that you can't be a martyr here.


message 2580: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Joshua wrote: "I thought some of you might be interested in this. It's a webpage about the psychology of bullying. It talks about the damage that bullying does to the bully themselves. Here's the relevant sect..."

You overestimate your usefulness. Now, go add a book to a shelf. I hear there's a good one written by a dead dictator with mommy issues. Reviews are awesome.


message 2581: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments Joshua wrote: "I thought some of you might be interested in this. It's a webpage about the psychology of bullying. It talks about the damage that bullying does to the bully themselves. Here's the relevant sect..."

Can you post some links to or screen shots of attacks made in this thread?


message 2582: by Belle (new)

Belle (bellesbookshelf) | 72 comments Joshua wrote: "I thought some of you might be interested in this. It's a webpage about the psychology of bullying. It talks about the damage that bullying does to the bully themselves. Here's the relevant sect..."

Why would you care about a community you're clearly not a part of? And before you say I'm bullying you by trying to exclude you: You have no friends, no reviews, no ratings and no comments bar this thread. You haven't taken part in the community. As opposed to the many of us who have been here for years and have contributed DAILY.


message 2583: by Belle (new)

Belle (bellesbookshelf) | 72 comments Xox wrote: "Kara Erickson, you are at your present position for only 3 months.

So, a bit of advice that you won't hear from a reader that you have censored. This is a PR disaster that you have created, the l..."


To be fair, it was probably not Kara's decision. She is getting the flak because she is the public face right now.


message 2584: by Summer the bummer (new)

Summer the bummer | 5 comments Joshua wrote: "Why would you call me a troll?

Am I not a member? Do I not have a right to post an opinion? Just because my opinion does not agree with yours does not make me a troll.

Here's a very relevant po..."


That's some interesting information you got there, but the more pressing issue is

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? I'd love some evidence to show its relevance. You're basically just accusing all of us who disagree with this policy as being bullies.


message 2585: by OldRocker (new)

OldRocker  (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments Joshua wrote: "It appears to me that every time anyone comes onto this thread and posts in favor of the policy, the posters form a united front and attack with hostility and even veiled threats. This serves the ..."

Dude, you just joined GR today. What do you know about it?


message 2586: by Becky (new)

Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 4184 comments I've been quoted in a CNN article. O_O That's a first.

If only it wasn't for something as ridiculous as this new policy.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments Of course that's how CNN would report it. They lost all journalistic ethics and really the ability to actually report news a long time ago. Who need research and puddly things like the truth when we can do a half-ass job and be as salacious as possible?

If you want to be like Fox News now, go balls out and just do it.


message 2588: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Joshua wrote: "Why would you call me a troll?

Am I not a member? Do I not have a right to post an opinion? Just because my opinion does not agree with yours does not make me a troll.

Here's a very relevant po..."


Please do not blame my negative review for causing your incontinence issues.


message 2589: by Elspeth (new)

Elspeth (minealready) | 17 comments Becky wrote: "I've been quoted in a CNN article. O_O That's a first.

If only it wasn't for something as ridiculous as this new policy."


lol


message 2590: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments Elspeth wrote: "Lookie, this made CNN!"

Wow, that's pretty disgusting. Another "journalist" not doing enough research.


message 2591: by Angelica (new)

Angelica | 4 comments So, Joshua, is it okay for the author to be a bully and have no negative reviews for it? Like I state before, I'm a student and do not have a lot of extra money for books. Why would I want to give my money to a bully who attacks low ratings? Don't even try to go with the goodreads "oh, we're cracking down it and giving them training stance." Let me tell you I'm studying child psychology and know a little more than you with your little internet searches about bullying. Deletions of comments are NOT going to stop authors from bullying. It's just going to make them get more creative.
All in all, don't support a cause without fully considering both sides. Authors can be bullies too (and in this case are causing the ripple affect of frustrated reviewers or as you call them bullies)


message 2592: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 5034 comments Kate wrote: "But PLEASE do not forget that Goodreads is only as powerful as it is in the industry right now because of the unpaid work of thousands of people—especially the Goodreads librarians. When the high-level reviewers and librarians walk, you no longer have anything to attract new users. If your top (UNPAID) content providers walk, your site will fail. It. WILL. Fail. I can absolutely guarantee it."

Excellent post, Kate.

But: GR knew they would piss off a certain number of people with this change in policy, and that the pissed off people would be very vocal. They also knew that this number of people is still a minority on the site. Many Goodreads members are blissfully unaware of what has happened. Many more don't care - they have no interaction with authors, have never heard of STGRB, don't read any living authors, or whatever. GR is counting on the fact that even if a chunk of members leave, the vast majority will stay. And new members will constantly join to replace the embittered members who left. New librarians will constantly sign up to replace the pissed off librarians who left or stopped doing librarian work.

In a way, the Amazon purchase was a test case of how many users would be so pissed off they left. Turns out not enough were to damage the site, really. GR is calculating that nothing they do will piss off enough people to truly damage the site.


message 2593: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Mahala wrote: "Kate wrote: "♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "To address the content backup questions, and keep in mind I have no direct knowledge of how goodreads configures their own systems, We back ups to the level you guys ..."

Right. That's what I'm saying.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments Okay, guys, we really need to start ignoring Sockua now. It's attempting to derail this post with buzzwords that don't mean what it thinks they mean, and generally being a nuisance.

Back on track because we're still being ignored about many things including safety.


message 2595: by Shelley (new)

Shelley | 130 comments Joshua wrote: "Why would you call me a troll"

I've always called you what you are: sock


message 2596: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 5034 comments Kate wrote: "You guys cannot police the things that are being done to us off of this website. You cannot remove the tweets angry authors and their fans send us in response to our honest reviews. You cannot prevent STGRB from posting our personal information on their site. You cannot intervene when authors say they are going to hire a hitman to take us out. Why would you take away our means of avoiding these people"

This is a really important point.


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 966 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "In a way, the Amazon purchase was a test case of how many users would be so pissed off they left. Turns out not enough were to damage the site, really. GR is calculating that nothing they do will piss off enough people to truly damage the site."

You're absolutely right. But continually pulling stunts like this will ensure that the site fades into oblivion. A whimper instead of a bang.


message 2598: by OldRocker (new)

OldRocker  (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments Joshua wrote: "I thought some of you might be interested in this. It's a webpage about the psychology of bullying. It talks about the damage that bullying does to the bully themselves. Here's the relevant sect..."

You are so obviously a troll...

Blocked


message 2599: by Bekka (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:44PM) (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments If every single person on this thread left GR today, shut down their profile entirely, Goodreads Would. Not. Care.

That's all there is to it. They simply do not care.

Edited for clarity.


message 2600: by D.A.—just a reader (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:52PM) (new)

D.A.—just a reader | 3136 comments I have spent time this weekend trying to make sure my shelves were inoffensive. Now you are telling me that shelves with certain authors, regardless of shelf name can be removed. Any chance goodreads could give us a list of what authors' books on a shelf would cause a shelf to be deleted? If that cannot be made public, any chance there's some script you could set up so we could run our shelves against it to see if any were problematic?

On my "p" shelf I have listed books I have pre-ordered. I know for a fact one is by an author frequently shelved as bba (I read back thru everything about the kerflunkle and found her hilarious even though arguably badly behaved--not in a making threats and doxxing reviewers kind of way and certainly not in a keeping her stories straight kinda way but still sometimes ya gotta stare at the sideshow) . Browsing thru one of her books at library, series mc hooked me, and now I have her books on various shelves as I read some at library and some in other formats. And I loved them; when my reviews were here they said I did. Another of her series I have shelved where I absolutely disliked the mc as incredibly vain and self-involved and my former reviews said so. So some shelves with the author = positive and others = negative.

Are my shelves in danger?

I have voluntarily removed more than half of them completely from goodreads because they only specified a book's genre type of information (food and wine, science fiction, children's literature, Christmas crafts, space opera ...) and I know what genre my books are in. May not remember if I already read something or where I stopped reading in a series, but I know fictjon vs. nonfiction and what genre book was in if I owned the book. I just listed genre to help the goodreads genre classifications, to let assorted friends on goodreads know (I am fairly eclectic but have friends here who love/hate uf, ya, chicklit, even unimaginably science fiction or don't share my hobbies), to use in bingo bookshelf and other reading challenges, etc. Those by a bba are likely dangerous because if in the genre both hated and loved books were on the shelf. My removed reviews at worst likely said books "needed copy editing" and never threatened any authors, but, unfortunately I have reviewed SPA. So better safe than have deleted shelves.

I removed other shelves that were various group challenges like cover hunts -- so had books with certain items on cover, certain colors of bookcovers, etc. ditto for "beings" like aliens, shaoeshifters, vampires, dragons, etc. I certainly don't know if my paranormal's group monopoly challenge shelf contained any bba's involved, much less some of the cover hunt ones so thought better afe than sorry.

And my new authors to try and freebies downloaded, freebies read and freebies to read shelves I am positive are full of SPA authors. How do I find out if any of those are in danger of removal?

Eta for late night typing on touchscreen


back to top