Goodreads Feedback discussion

25464 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 2,551-2,600 of 6,464) (6464 new)    post a comment »

message 2551: by [deleted user] (new)

Kara, I feel for you being in the middle. That said, Goodreads can oopsie delete reviews irretrievably? I can do it on purpose. Because if I can't vote with my words, I'll vote with my feet. I don't want to give a company that behaves this way my content. I'll miss Goodreads a lot. Bye, everyone.

3069 ratings
1145 reviews
Goodreads librarian
#168 top reviewers
Joined in September 2007


message 2552: by In2books (new)

In2books (In2book) Althea wrote: "Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Glad to see a Legitimate News source covering this. maybe some entrepreneur will see the demand and give readers the type of site they want since this is no longer it.


message 2553: by Gillian (last edited Sep 23, 2013 07:31PM) (new)

Gillian | 2 comments I find it totally shocking that nearly 3,000 user comments on this thread, and doubtless thousands more Tweets and Goodreads statuses, are being largely ignored.

It's appalling that the opinions of your users, who you are alienating an infuriating over and over again, are apparently of zero import to you

It's shocking that you fail to understand that a vast number of readers like to take author behavior into account before they purchase a book.

It's disturbing that you refuse to see that warning other reviewers that they might be attacked by an author if they also negatively review their book by putting that author on a shelf is what cuts down on the reader-author drama. The SHELVES are not the cause of drama-- they are a PREVENTATIVE MEASURE.

It's revolting that you would ever consider deleting the content of reviewers who have been contributing to your site for years without any warning of the deletion OR THE POLICY CHANGE and with no discretion.

It's hilarious that you think it is somehow impossible to recover deleted reviews. Let me find the nearest eighth grade computer science class. I'm sure one of the kids can figure it out.

It's positively horrifying that you are choosing to delete shelves that don't explicitly reference author behavior, but which you are "confident" is actually being used for that purpose, because you have somehow found a way to read our thoughts and intents.

It's alarming that you have acquired such an advanced piece of technology, and I urge you to return it to the secret government lab from which you stole it posthaste.

It's distressing that you are choosing to punish readers for author behavior.

It's straight up wrong that you are more concerned with the feelings of living authors (who are, after all, the only ones whose behavior we're not allowed to discuss. As Leah Raeder pointed out, Sockpuppet Walt Whitman, racist Conrad, AND FREAKING HITLER are all total fair game) than with the readers who make up your site.

In my eyes, the readers whose shelves and reviews were deleted acted one hundred percent in the spirit of Goodreads. They and their "spirit" were not the ones who changed, Goodreads.


Jennifer (President, Chronic Complainers Not-so-Anonymous) | 1914 comments OK, new Twitter account is up. I will be posting the name on my original Twitter account.


message 2555: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Gillian wrote: "I find it totally shocking that nearly 3,000 user comments on this thread, and doubtless thousands more Tweets and Goodreads statuses, are being largely ignored.

It's appalling that the opinions ..."


+ trillionzillions


message 2556: by [deleted user] (last edited Sep 23, 2013 07:41PM) (new)

Kara wrote: "We are just asking that they be about the book - positive or negative. "

I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. I am positive that the writer of the book will attack me and find out my personal information to use against me.

I hope that is clear now.


message 2557: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 89 comments Gillian wrote: "I find it totally shocking that nearly 3,000 user comments on this thread, and doubtless thousands more Tweets and Goodreads statuses, are being largely ignored.

It's appalling that the opinions ..."


This is just one of the many things I love about you!

This times 3482759784597834.


message 2558: by OldRocker (new)

OldRocker  (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments I wonder if anyone from GR said during a staff meeting, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission?"


message 2559: by Thalia (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) | 420 comments OldRocker wrote: "I wonder if anyone from GR said during a staff meeting, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission?""

Well, it's nice that we proved that saying wrong.


message 2560: by Gillian (new)

Gillian | 2 comments Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "Kara wrote: "We are just asking that they be about the book - positive or negative. "

I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. The writer of the book will attack me and find out my personal informat..."


THIS +765432345676


message 2561: by Mahala (new)

Mahala | 95 comments Are we still posting quotations? Since it seems so many long time dedicated members are leaving and GRs has chosen profit over people I thought this would do:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?-Mark 8:36 KJV


message 2562: by MandyM (new)

MandyM | 42 comments Gillian wrote: "I find it totally shocking that nearly 3,000 user comments on this thread, and doubtless thousands more Tweets and Goodreads statuses, are being largely ignored.

It's appalling that the opinions ..."


+ 1 billion


message 2563: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "Kara wrote: "We are just asking that they be about the book - positive or negative. "

I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. I am positive that the writer of the book will attack me and find out my personal information to use against me.

I hope that is clear now. "


Can't put too fine a point on it. Think we'll get another copy/paste response - if any?


message 2564: by [deleted user] (last edited Sep 23, 2013 07:45PM) (new)

Brandi wrote: "Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "Kara wrote: "We are just asking that they be about the book - positive or negative. "

I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. I am positive that the writer of the book wi..."


"Your call will be answered in the order it was received."


message 2565: by Ginmar (new)

Ginmar | 31 comments Kara wrote: "Cindy wrote: "So, from what I can tell, user content will be deleted if GoodAuthors thinks it might hurt authors' poor widdle feewwings.

Authors' comments might be reviewed if authors threaten rev..."


So what about harsh authorial statements about readers? How about the incessant lies about stalking and threats? And how 'bout all those fake positive reviews?


message 2566: by Iola (new)

Iola | 40 comments Kara wrote: " ... the reviews still violate our review guidelines and can't be reinstated. If we could, we'd love to retroactively export the content, but unfortunately it's already been deleted.

You're saying a site as big and influential as Goodreads doesn't have a backup system? I find that very difficult to believe.


message 2567: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "Your call will be answered in the order it was received."

Haha!!


message 2568: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan | 132 comments Kara,
I think you're saying that GR has monitored the activity of members, and has concluded that these 21 members had those shelves with the sole purpose to track author behavior.

I don't remember if anyone said GR was mistaken on *that*.
(Linda told us publicly here the purpose of her Hormel shelf, before GR deleted it. Lady D's odd case is still under investigation.)

I'm in two minds about this. It's clear GR handles any report/flag, monitors activity of members, for trolling, spamming, etc, makes checks, and we asked you to. So that's up to you.

I still don't get, if GR thought these removals were so important, why didn't you make them under the old policy... it was still your call. I think.

You didn't need to try to stigmatize any review "not relevant to the book", nor any shelf like "plagiarists".


This whole mess will provoke uncertainty and worry on their content, for other unrelated members. GR might be well intended, but don't count on that during PR disasters. This looks like one.


message 2569: by Stefani (new)

Stefani (steffiebaby140) | 453 comments OldRocker wrote: "I wonder if anyone from GR said during a staff meeting, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission?""

That brings to mind their quote of the day today...wait how did that go? *searches*

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”

Yeah that's it.


message 2570: by Becky (new)

Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 3794 comments Iola wrote: "You're saying a site as big and influential as Goodreads doesn't have a backup system? I find that very difficult to believe. "

Of course they do. They have multiple servers storing like counts. It's just a way to avoid having to reinstate reviews against the new Ministry of Tone And Intent policy.


message 2571: by OldRocker (new)

OldRocker  (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments Iola wrote: "Kara wrote: " ... the reviews still violate our review guidelines and can't be reinstated. If we could, we'd love to retroactively export the content, but unfortunately it's already been deleted.
..."


When I worked in IT, failure to make data backups would have been a career limiting move.


message 2572: by Ginmar (new)

Ginmar | 31 comments OldRocker wrote: "I wonder if anyone from GR said during a staff meeting, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission?""

Some people regard that statement as the mark of an independant spirit. But really, the speaker is saying it's better to get away with hurting somebody by chance than avoiding all possibility of pain. Perfect motto for BBAs and the people who think blowing writers is the only way to do things.


message 2573: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already.


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 923 comments Brandi wrote: "Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already."


Sorry, she and the rest of GR is too busy running around looking for shelves and reviews to delete. A copy/paste response will be forthcoming.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments Althea wrote: "Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Interesting. The problem with the last paragraph is it discounts how much work we out into this site that made it attractive to Amazon. They're riding their million dollar payday (while I'm in six-figure school loan debt, btw) and now they're ruining the site after everything we've put into it.

Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. The writer of the book will attack me and find out my personal information to use against me"

Why is this not clear?? We were going along just fine that way until people started threatening us and our safety just for POSTING REVIEWS COMPLETELY ABOUT THE BOOK ON GOODREADS. And now that can be dangerous and we should have the right to warn other users.

A Goodreads user got a phone call at home. HER HOME. 'We can find you, bitch.' For posting negative reviews ABOUT THE DAMN BOOK ON GOODREADS.

And now she is silenced on this fact? On who did it?

Goodreads users home locations, names, THEIR CHILDREN, pictures, and hang out locations were posted on an external website by these lunatics. AFTER THEY WERE BANNED FROM GOODREADS. Because of reviews ABOUT THE MFING BOOK ON GOODREADS.

WE FOLLOWED THE RULES (that weren't even rules at the time). And some of us got severely burned for doing so. And now our only real recourse is being taken away for what reason? To coddle the ones who are causing this danger and strife?Are you kidding me? Because if we go back to the way it was it will be all sunshine and rainbows? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

I may actually have a stroke if this keeps up.


message 2576: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 4536 comments Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: ""Your call will be answered in the order it was received."
"


::shudder::


message 2577: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Jennifer, I was literally about to edit my post to say spare me the copy/paste, haha!


message 2578: by Steph (last edited Sep 23, 2013 07:55PM) (new)

Steph Sinclair (Stephaniesinclair) | 267 comments Brandi wrote: "Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already."


Hey, remember that time when GR was all, "Hey, guys, we'll totally hide the gushing gif reviews from the book page as well as the ones that discuss the author because technically it's not a review"?

It's kinda just like that last lie.


message 2579: by Thalia (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) | 420 comments Alicia wrote: "Why is this not clear?? We were going along just fine that way until people started threatening us and our safety just for POSTING REVIEWS COMPLETELY ABOUT THE BOOK ON GOODREADS. And now that can be dangerous and we should have the right to warn other users.

A Goodreads user got a phone call at home. HER HOME. 'We can find you, bitch.' For posting negative reviews ABOUT THE DAMN BOOK ON GOODREADS.

And now she is silenced on this fact? On who did it?

Goodreads users home locations, names, THEIR CHILDREN, pictures, and hang out locations were posted on an external website by these lunatics. AFTER THEY WERE BANNED FROM GOODREADS. Because of reviews ABOUT THE MFING BOOK ON GOODREADS.

WE FOLLOWED THE RULES (that weren't even rules at the time). And some of us got severely burned for doing so. And now our only real recourse is being taken away for what reason? To coddle the ones who are causing this danger and strife?Are you kidding me? Because if we go back to the way it was it will be all sunshine and rainbows? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?"


HOW CAN I POSSIBLY EMPHASIZE THIS MORE?


message 2580: by Moonlight Reader (new)

Moonlight Reader  (Moonlight_Reader) | 297 comments Brandi wrote: "Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already."


I am so beyond disgusted that I have run out of words.

No, wait, I haven't. I hope that they enjoy their new author-positive tone. Because this place has become worthless,


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 923 comments Brandi wrote: "Jennifer, I was literally about to edit my post to say spare me the copy/paste, haha!"

:D


message 2582: by Gary (new)

Gary Foss | 9 comments I'm sure my opinion will get its due 1/3000th of attention... but I figured I'd chime in to say I think this policy is an over-reach, and likely one that will have a chilling effect on the user community.

I can see the merit of deleting reviews that violated the existing policy on threatening behavior, but ones that "focus on author behavior" is at least three steps beyond that. Books are written by authors. Authors behave and misbehave. Though many people will suggest that books should be read without any reference to their authors, that is an intensely shallow way to read, and in order to do that one needn't have a site like goodreads at all.... Authors' actions are relevant to their writing. Their behavior is a valid topic of conversation and review. Deleting reviews that "focus" on them undermines the reason for this site's existence.

The example given "author-is-a-jerk" is an incredibly mild and often very accurate shelf name. I can see deleting "author-eats-babies" or "author-should-die" but if "jerk" is a problem then the bar is pretty low. The problems of threatening behavior or even libel is always an issue for any public group... but, in short, don't be jerks about it.


message 2583: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Alicia wrote: "Althea wrote: "Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."


Interesting. The problem with the last paragraph is it discounts how much work we out into this site that made it attractive to Amazon. They're riding their million dollar payday (while I'm in six-figure school loan debt, btw) and now they're ruining the site after everything we've put into it.

Lyn (The Heartless) wrote: "I am writing/shelving about the BOOK. The writer of the book will attack me and find out my personal information to use against me"

Why is this not clear?? We were going along just fine that way until people started threatening us and our safety just for POSTING REVIEWS COMPLETELY ABOUT THE BOOK ON GOODREADS. And now that can be dangerous and we should have the right to warn other users.

A Goodreads user got a phone call at home. HER HOME. 'We can find you, bitch.' For posting negative reviews ABOUT THE DAMN BOOK ON GOODREADS.

And now she is silenced on this fact? On who did it?

Goodreads users home locations, names, THEIR CHILDREN, pictures, and hang out locations were posted on an external website by these lunatics. AFTER THEY WERE BANNED FROM GOODREADS. Because of reviews ABOUT THE MFING BOOK ON GOODREADS.

WE FOLLOWED THE RULES (that weren't even rules at the time). And some of us got severely burned for doing so. And now our only real recourse is being taken away for what reason? To coddle the ones who are causing this danger and strife?Are you kidding me? Because if we go back to the way it was it will be all sunshine and rainbows? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?"


Not to put too fine a point on it, but...


message 2584: by Stefani (new)

Stefani (steffiebaby140) | 453 comments Brandi wrote: "Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already."


Because that doesn't offend the poor little dears who might be offended.

Hey GoodCensorship go check my reviews again. You said no author behavior right? What about your behavior? Is that cool? Should be cool right? Cause that's what they are.


message 2585: by Caroline (new)

Caroline  (Caro7) | 1239 comments Alfaniel wrote: "...don't count on that during PR disasters. This looks like one."

NO. SHIT.

There are no words to describe how horribly things have unraveled here. You're in trouble, GR.


message 2586: by [deleted user] (new)

Alicia wrote: "Althea wrote: "Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Interesting. The problem with the last paragraph is it d..."


Alicia wrote: "Althea wrote: "Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Interesting. The problem with the last paragraph is it d..."


How come people who made a hate website about this site is now calling the shots?
My brain hurts trying to rationalize this.


message 2587: by Iola (new)

Iola | 40 comments OldRocker wrote: "When I worked in IT, failure to make data backups would have been a career limiting move..."

Exactly. I really can't see Amazon wanting to employ people who can't follow basic procedures, like backing up files. It's just an excuse.


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 923 comments Any one got a fax machine?

GoodReads Fax:
424-744-4102

*evil grin*


message 2589: by Nenia (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:02PM) (new)

Nenia Campbell | 351 comments ❂ Jennifer wrote: "Brandi wrote: "Kara,

Why are shelves focusing on positive author behavior acceptable?

For the love of all that is holy just address that already."

Sorry, she and the rest of GR is too busy runn..."


Don't forget brainstorming new passive-aggressive literary quotes on Twitter.


message 2590: by Laima (new)

Laima | 122 comments + trillonzillions to the nth degree

I have lost faith in GR.


message 2591: by Mlleelizabeth (new)

Mlleelizabeth | 19 comments I think that depends on whether or not you are one of the people they've chosen to monitor. If you are, all of any conversation you have with anyone anywhere on this site comes into play, even if you are just joking around.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 357 comments @Lyn: I don't know. It is so damn wrong that you do wrong. You're a god damn lunatic threatening the safety of people who did nothing more than not like your piece of shit book. You make up lie after lie after lie after lie after lie AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AD NAUSEUM. Or you're a whiny- ass little cry baby who has absolutely no real concept of what has been going on here and why things are the way they are but you run off at the mouth anyway. And somehow they're the ones that are getting protected by this site now.


message 2593: by [deleted user] (new)

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 purpose of keeping this thread "against the policy".

What I have also noticed is the bullies are so confident in their power that they are completely transparent. They appear to have no self-preservation instinct whatsoever. In a moment, it is likely, they will gather and attack me, even if it illustrates the very words I am saying. Of course, it is possible that they simply know no other way to communicate.

I am posting to offer a different view. I continue to believe Goodreads is making an extremely healthy business move here. Kara, even though it may seem, with this seemingly tireless small group of posters constantly attacking you, there are numerous people who support the new policy.


message 2595: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 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 ..."

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


message 2596: 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 2597: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 1953 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 2598: 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.


Shelley (Goodreads is All About the $$$) | 130 comments Joshua says: "blahblahblah...bully...jellushaters.."

I say: whatthefuckevertroll


back to top