Goodreads Feedback discussion

42101 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 2,551-2,600 of 6,366) (6366 new)    post a comment »

message 2551: 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 2552: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl 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 2553: 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) | 358 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 2555: 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 2556: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl 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.


message 2557: by ❂ Jennifer (new)

❂ Jennifer  (jennevans) | 978 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 2558: by Oldham Rocker (new)

Oldham Rocker (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 2559: by Bekka (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:44PM) (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 93 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 2560: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 23, 2013 08:52PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) 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


message 2561: by MissJessie (new)

MissJessie | 1712 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "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. Wh..."


+1


message 2562: by Oldham Rocker (new)

Oldham Rocker (Old_Rocker) | 89 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..."


I'm willing to bet this was an executive decision made above the manager level.


message 2563: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Lobstergirl wrote: "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. Wh..."

I really do think that the acquisition was the beginning of the end for Goodreads when it comes to hosting free content. A lot of the more popular reviewers are switching to a policy of posting a short review here with a link to the full one off-site, and people hate that crap.


message 2564: by [deleted user] (new)

Okay, I'll post one more and then I have to leave for awhile.

Here's a good article about the impact of bullying on the bully:

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/2...

Excerpt:

"Cyberbullies also reported emotional difficulties, concentration, and behavior issues and difficulty getting along with others. They were also more likely to be hyperactive, have conduct problems, abuse alcohol, and smoke cigarettes.

In addition, cyberbullies also reported frequent headaches and feeling unsafe at school. Those teens who were both cyberbullies and victims reported all of these physical and mental health issues, the study found."

I'm not an expert, but I think there are two types of bullies. There's the outright psychopath, who just wants to hurt people and feel powerful. They have no empathy and feel no regret.

But then there are the people, who may be feeling powerless in their own life, who fall into bullying because it makes them feel powerful. These people do have empathy and they will eventually regret their bullying actions to such a degree it will be difficult for them to live with themselves.

You can hate what I'm doing and my posts. But, in my own weird way, I'm trying to be helpful. I sincerely hope you will think about what is happening right now as a reprieve. A moment when you can step back and think about whether you really want to continue on this path.

I did not link to it, but many think bullying is an actual addiction and when people stop they will feel withdrawal. This is one of the reasons people are having trouble letting go of this thread; they do not want to face the emptiness that will happen if the bullying disappears.

Face it. Get some help for that emptiness in other ways. Stop the bullying. You will be deeply thankful later that you took that step, and respect yourself for it. Stop hurting other people to avoid the pain inside you. Be strong. Have courage. Face your life, with support if needed. Bullying is a world of hatred and terror. There is so much more in life waiting for you than that. There is so much healing available for you - find it. Let yourself have your life back.


Nenia *The Flagrant Liberal* Campbell (neniacampbell) | 343 comments Belle wrote: "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 cr..."


I wouldn't be surprised if they stuck Kara with this BECAUSE she was the newbie.


message 2566: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 93 comments Joshua wrote: "Okay, I'll post one more and then I have to leave for awhile.

Here's a good article about the impact of bullying on the bully:

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/2......"


Can you link to or post screen shots of bullying or attacks on this thread?


message 2567: by Amber (new)

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

Maybe you could guess that the "taa" shelf is about the author and not the book. But you know what other shelves are also about authors? Favorite-author. Or shelves labelled by author name, like Shakespeare. Or male-author. That's definitely about the author, not the book, and yet thousands of shelves like those remain.

If the shelf "dominatrix" is used for a book where the author is a dominatrix, does that count? Or should we poll the other authors for their sex practices, just to be sure? This is going to be harder than we thought...

What if I name my shelf "will-read-love-them-xoxo" and add all of the authors with notoriously bad behavior, then what? Tough spot, I guess, because you're only deleting so-called author-related shelves that are negative.

By leaving the ones that are neutral and positive, the reasoning for this is made paper-thin. We can all see what Goodreads is doing and it has nothing to do with making the site better. The fact that you're not admitting it only makes it worse.

Reminds me of that time...



Awkward, right?

Unfortunately it's going to stay that way as long as this policy is in place. It's a dirty business trying to police what people think, and I'm appalled a site supposedly dedicated to books would even try.


message 2568: by John (new)

John (johnrinmi) | 3 comments Donna wrote: "This is making me reluctant to review because the new policy seems broad and arbitrary.

Are we allowed to talk about an author's overall literary tendencies? Can we mention their demeanor at a sig..."


In writing a review of a book why would you be tempted to talk about an authors mood at a book signing? To me it is exactly this kind of thinking that GR is now forced to crack the whip. If there is so many things wrong with the book world wouldn't you be more satisfied to start a blog where you are totally in control of the content and answer to no one?


message 2569: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl OldRocker wrote: "I'm willing to bet this was an executive decision made above the manager level. "

Oh, you can bet on that. Otis plus Amazon execs.


message 2570: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Seen on Twitter:

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

@SimplyAfterDark tweeted this. It's still true, even a hundred years after Gandhi said it. (He's really Erik Christian, who's an annoying SPA, but he's picked a good'un to tweet today!)


message 2571: by Becky (new)

Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 4979 comments Amber wrote: "What if I name my shelf "will-read-love-them-xoxo" and add all of the authors with notoriously bad behavior, then what? Tough spot, I guess, because you're only deleting so-called author-related shelves that are negative."

Not so tough when you have the Intent-O-Matic 2000™ which can identify the thoughts that went into naming the shelf, thus making it easy to identify the shelves that really REALLY mean that the authors on the shelves are douchebags, despite the attempted trickery of the positive name.


message 2572: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Kate wrote: "I really do think that the acquisition was the beginning of the end for Goodreads when it comes to hosting free content. A lot of the more popular reviewers are switching to a policy of posting a short review here with a link to the full one off-site, and people hate that crap. "

I hate it too, but in light of the new TOS I fully support it.

Since people can no longer indicate author displeasure with shelf names, they should absolutely rate every one of these authors' books 1-star AND write a scathing review.

The next step after that will be the elimination of 1-star reviews, but at that point the site will be so far in the crapper even I won't care.


message 2573: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Joshua wrote: "Okay, I'll post one more and then I have to leave for awhile."

No. Don't go.


message 2574: by Carol. (new)

Carol.  | 63 comments Kate wrote: "beginning of the end for Goodreads when it comes to hosting free content. A lot of the more popular reviewers are switching to a policy of posting a short review here with a link to the full one off-site, and people hate that crap. "

I hear you. I hate it too, and yet I'm considering doing it. I have about four Amazon book reviews, and I never base my decision to buy on the reviews there because there's no validity. Here I know people, who is similar in reads, who isn't, who thinks of books differently than I do--all the factors that make me value their reviews. But once those people have a muzzle put on them--and mentioning (bad) author behavior is only the first step, if life shows us anything--their reviews lose their impact. I don't want happy-clappy. I want thoughtful. I want to know if the author supports the Tea Party or is against gay people, or harasses women at conventions. I think that's important to know. I also want to know if the author donates proceeds to orphan puppies or whatever, because that's important to know too.

We live in a time where people are trying to draw the connection between what we consume and it's source. I want organic, free-range eggs. I want to buy local. I don't want to support a company exploiting kids making my athletic shoes, and I don't want coffee that comes from slash-and-burn plantations. I believe my choices have consequences.

And that is why author public behavior matters.


message 2575: by Kelley (new)

Kelley (keltx) | 3 comments Kate wrote: "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, K..."


Very well said, Kate!


message 2576: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Nenia wrote: "I wouldn't be surprised if they stuck Kara with this BECAUSE she was the newbie. "

She's been around for awhile.


message 2577: by Jenna (new)

Jenna (bellesbookshelf) | 72 comments I would like to know the criteria for which authors are a red flag for shelves to be deleted.

From what I can tell, it's the ones who have been BANNED from this site for their own bad behaviour. Like harassing users.

But they're the ones who need protecting now?


message 2578: by Oldham Rocker (new)

Oldham Rocker (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments I just saw a list. There are tens of thousands shelves remaining that have the same sort of author behavior comments as those shelves which were deleted.

Why weren't those shelves deleted?

It looks like there was member targeting going on in addition to the divination of member intent.


message 2579: by Stefani (new)

Stefani (steffiebaby140) | 453 comments Belle wrote: "I would like to know the criteria for which authors are a red flag for shelves to be deleted.

From what I can tell, it's the ones who have been BANNED from this site for their own bad behaviour. L..."


Criteria number one, posting in this thread. Criteria number two, being on THAT site's list.

I have yet to figure out any others.


message 2580: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl John wrote: "Donna wrote: "This is making me reluctant to review because the new policy seems broad and arbitrary.

Are we allowed to talk about an author's overall literary tendencies? Can we mention their demeanor at a sig..."
---------
In writing a review of a book why would you be tempted to talk about an authors mood at a book signing? To me it is exactly this kind of thinking that GR is now forced to crack the whip. If there is so many things wrong with the book world wouldn't you be more satisfied to start a blog where you are totally in control of the content and answer to no one? "


Why the hell NOT talk about an author's demeanor at a signing???

I got two books signed by Martin Amis and he was utterly polite and lovely. The next time I review one of his books, I will mention it because I FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT. If he had been a total asshole I would write about that too. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT.


message 2581: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Carol wrote: "We live in a time where people are trying to draw the connection between what we consume and it's source. I want organic, free-range eggs. I want to buy local. I don't want to support a company exploiting kids making my athletic shoes, and I don't want coffee that comes from slash-and-burn plantations. I believe my choices have consequences.

And that is why author public behavior matters."


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS SO MUCH THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just have to brag...Carol is mah friend!! And lookee how smart she is!


message 2582: by Summer (new)

Summer Belle wrote: "I would like to know the criteria for which authors are a red flag for shelves to be deleted.

From what I can tell, it's the ones who have been BANNED from this site for their own bad behaviour. L..."


It doesn't make sense. It's like they're afraid of STGRB. Which is pretty pathetic.


Miranda the Gayvenger (miraelli) 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..."

Are you for real?


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Iola wrote: "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 pr..."


No, you are misunderstanding Kara. She is asking for the members claiming to have had shelves and reviews deleted (other than the announcement time frame and the stated 21 members ) to provide goodreads the information. You know, do things like give goodreads screenshots of the deleted/missing shelves and reviews, their backups of the deleted items and any timeline and log data they have as proof.

Us members are supposed to have that information kept up to date; it's not goodreads responsibility to hand disaster/recovery data backup type of issues.

Just in case one day trusted goodreads unimaginably deletes our content with no notice, we should have been psychic enough to make sure we had screenshots of bloody everything ...


message 2585: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Xox wrote: "I'm equating this to book-burning activity.

It is the content of books/reviews being censored and burned/deleted."


It's Banned Books Week, and I blogged about Censorship as an issue here today: http://tinyurl.com/kpmuf8w

I worry a lot about literacy's survival anyway...and then someone comes along taking actions that stifle the ability even to discuss books! How long before they succeed in making it too risky to read anything not Officially Approved?


message 2586: by Richard (last edited Sep 23, 2013 09:32PM) (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Miranda wrote: "Are you for real?"

Double post so I'm editing this one to be my Miranda response.

No, he's not for real. He's a sock-puppet who joined today. No books, no reviews, no community involvement, except here.


message 2587: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (SarahJF1984) | 130 comments Just in case no one noticed Kara's link to the NEW AND IMPROVED REVIEW GUIDELINES here they are, fully spelt out to avoid any further confusion.

I especially like the opening sentence. Considering the people I've seen leaving in droves they'll have to re-write that statement. And possibly the second statement too, as I'm not sure how many of the remaining members will actually be "passionate, knowledgeable readers". Have fun picking it apart, as I already have.

Review Guidelines

Goodreads has some of the best book reviews anywhere. Our members are passionate, knowledgeable readers, and their contributions to the site are what make it such a vibrant and fun place. These guidelines are presented to help make sure Goodreads’ reviews remain the best and most authentic in the world.

Our Review Philosophy

Goodreads is for expressing your honest opinions about books. Don't be afraid to say what you think about the book! We welcome your passion, as it helps the millions of other readers on Goodreads learn what a book is really about, and decide whether or not they want to read it.

We believe that Goodreads members should see the best, most relevant, thought provoking reviews (positive and negative) when they visit a book page. Our job is to show members those reviews, and not show reviews that we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality.

However we value that members trust us with your thoughts and words and take our stewardship of storing your reviews seriously. We promise to always store your reviews on your profile and in your bookshelves and will never delete or modify them – except for certain extreme situations, which are described below. Your thoughts and your words are yours, and we promise you we will always respect that.
Here are some examples of what we allow in reviews:• Creativity! Some of the best reviews on Goodreads use the book as inspiration for a personal essay or other piece of creative writing. As long as they don't go against our guidelines in other ways, these reviews are welcome and encouraged!
• Images in reviews are fine (and sometimes hilarious) but please, no nudity or graphic violence.
• Pre-publication reviews. Many of our members receive advance copies of books to review, either through Goodreads giveaways or another source. We have no way of knowing the exact date that review copies are available. As such, each book is eligible to be reviewed as soon as it appears on the site.
• Harsh critical statements that apply to the book or the writing in it, such as "This guy can't write a lick," or "This book is absolute trash." Again, honest opinions about books are always going to be welcome and encouraged on Goodreads.
And here are some of the things that might cause your review to receive a lower priority in our internal ranking system, which may affect whether or not your review appears on the book page: • Reviews of the author. Mentioning the author in the context of a review is always acceptable, but reviews that are predominantly about an author’s behavior and not about the book may receive a lower priority.
• Reviews with off-topic, irrelevant comments about the author's personal life will be deleted. For example, if the author owes you money, that is not appropriate information for a book review, and it will be deleted entirely.
• We will not tolerate abuse of our ratings system, such as rating the same work more than once for the purpose of inflating or deflating the book's average rating. Multiple ratings we determine to be abusive will be removed.
• Reviews that attack other reviewers will be deleted. Statements like "Other reviews have said this book is terrible, but I disagree" are fine, but if the primary purpose of your review is to mock or harass another Goodreads member, we may give it a lower priority or delete it entirely.
• Reviews must be your own original content. Reviews that plagiarize from another source or use copyrighted material without permission will be deleted.
• Self-promotional reviews will be deleted. (i.e., "I'm an author writing about Rome. This book is terrible. For a real history of Rome, check out my new book.").
• Full reviews that link to a blog are acceptable, as long as the blog is not selling a competing book and using the review to denigrate the book being reviewed in favor of its own.
• Reviews that are harassing or threatening, or that contain hate speech or bigotry. These will be deleted outright and anyone posting them risks being removed from the site.
•Spam reviews. These will be deleted immediately.
• Commercial reviews are not allowed and will be deleted. If you received a free copy of the book, you are required to disclose that in your review in compliance with federal law.
And here are a couple of disclaimers:• Goodreads reserves the right to remove a review at any time for any reason. It is at our sole discretion and no one else's, that we decide when a review is against our guidelines.
• The reviews posted on Goodreads are individual and subjective opinions. The opinions expressed in reviews are those of Goodreads members and not of Goodreads, Inc. We do not endorse any of the opinions expressed by reviewers.



message 2588: by Pamela Su (new)

Pamela Su (thebluebaroness) Internet bullying is a hot topic. Of course, Goodreads' management is going to take a stance on it since a large number of people can't play nice.

I haven't seen the removed reviews, so I can't comment if those reviews deserved removal.

However, this author vs reader fight has gone on long enough.

So the readers are getting pulled in line first. It's not unexpected because the readers greatly outnumber the authors.

Frankly, I've seen some of the reader groups overreact to a small human comment an author makes and they all pile on the author making them feel bad for even asking a question about ratings.

Sometimes the readers don't mean to sound cruel but just the sheer number of comments chastising the author makes it feel like s/he is being ganged up upon.

Goodreads should never be a hostile place for both readers and authors. It saddens me that there are communities that actively promote hostilities.

There is no perfect solution. Telling authors to suck it up when they're being attacked is NOT a solution. Because, yes, sometimes they are being attacked.

So maybe GR jumped the gun on the removal of reviews. It happens in a lot of organisations where they have to do damage control. A little overzealousness.

Let things settle down and then see how it goes.

If you're an author actively participating in the community and you're constantly getting flack because you derided negative reviews of your book...

If your reviews are STILL constantly being removed and your content tends to berate an author...

If your comments to reviewers are also being removed because you're attacking another reader for having an opinion...

...and you just CAN'T accept the fact that maybe what you're writing isn't constructive at all, maybe it's a good idea for you to leave.

The anonymity of the internet makes it very easy for us to forget that there's another person on the other side of the computer. It makes it easier for us to say cruel things to each other.


message 2589: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell (the_red_shoes) | 390 comments Kara wrote: "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. "

'TAA'? Are you kidding me?

How on earth is that reviewing author behaviour? How could you possibly know what it meant?


message 2590: by ❂ Jennifer (new)

❂ Jennifer  (jennevans) | 978 comments Kate wrote: "I really do think that the acquisition was the beginning of the end for Goodreads when it comes to hosting free content. A lot of the more popular reviewers are switching to a policy of posting a short review here with a link to the full one off-site, and people hate that crap. "

It drives me personally crazy too - but now I'm thinking I might take up the practice instead of just starring books and not reviewing at all like I was originally planning. I love the book reviews of fellow readers here - I've found so many books here to read and more than a few NOT to read (for various reasons; most content, some author behaviour). My BookLikes import is humming along and I'm thinking I'll post my full reviews there and reference them here. (I just realised I can name bookshelves at BookLikes with spaces and capital letters - woot!)


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Kemper wrote: "...People who have been on the site for two days and have no books rated..."

And people with no profile image to flag. After all, we're all such jealous hating trolls blaming the bullied victims for our bullying that we can't possibly figure out how to send a link to the profiles to goodreads support.


message 2592: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) ❂ Jennifer wrote: "Kate wrote: "I really do think that the acquisition was the beginning of the end for Goodreads when it comes to hosting free content. A lot of the more popular reviewers are switching to a policy o..."

I'm gonna do it, too. I just didn't specify that because I'm not a top reviewer.


Miranda the Gayvenger (miraelli) Richard wrote: "Miranda wrote: "Are you for real?"

Double post so I'm editing this one to be my Miranda response.

No, he's not for real. He's a sock-puppet who joined today. No books, no reviews, no community in..."


Yes, I was aware of that. My comment was sarcasm, mostly, and my one time prod at the sock before I ignored him.

On that note, I'm going to reiterate some questions others have asked in the vain hope that they'll be answered: When will the entire member base of GR be made aware of these changes? Will you also do something about "favorite authors" shelves or shelves of that nature? Or is it just bending to the will of the BBAs?


message 2594: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm back for a moment.

Mahala, you said I was bullying you. I can imagine it seemed that way because I was forceful and direct in public. But my motives were to be helpful, not hurtful. Bullying is very harmful for both people.

Miranda, yes I am for real.

I'm around for about 15 minutes if people want to talk to me. If not, that's okay too.

Pamela Su, I thought your post was well-said.


message 2595: by Cruth (new)

Cruth | 8 comments Three wrote: "Authors also want readers to consider them before they have any reaction at all. Readers are supposed to stop and think: Ok, this book caused an emotional reaction in me, but if I say so, the author might feel bad. Their feelings are more important than my own. I should keep quiet."

That can't be right. Reviews aren't supposed to be about the author AT ALL. How can consideration of the author's feelings be part of a not-about-the-author review?

Now I'm really confused.


message 2596: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Miranda wrote: "Yes, I was aware of that. My comment was sarcasm, mostly, and my one time prod at the sock before I ignored him."

OIC



Here's a couple darning eggs so you can poke his socky self more comfortably.


message 2597: by Bea (last edited Sep 23, 2013 09:58PM) (new)

Bea  (BeasBookNook) | 98 comments Nenia wrote: "I hope these shelves aren't inappropriate. *cough*"

I love you.

In a non-stalker, non-sexual, slightly groupie way. :D


message 2598: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Heh - Mary Shelly has commented on that NYT article:

"Why is it there is never any mention of the countless 1-star ratings and no-read book reviews generated by the trolls on Amazon and goodread? These are direct attempts by the posters to destroy the reputation, career and livelihood of authors. Neither goodreads nor Amazon, although aware of this problem, will do a thing. Amazon will remove a 4 or 5 star review in a flash but never a 1-star review."


message 2599: by mark (new)

mark monday (happyendoftheworid) | 68 comments Werner wrote: "Kara, thank you for responding to my post. It turns out there was a confusion of identity: there are at least two Lady Danielles on Goodreads, and the one whose Harry Potter books were deleted isn't the same one who's in my friend circle...."

oh! well okay. I was thinking of the same person as Werner.

not that I am condoning anything that may have happened to this second LD, of course. but I don't know her and my past comments regarding my confusion and LD's "benevolence", which I'm sure have been long forgotten since they occurred a million pages ago... are all sorta moot. which is rather sad and funny because I threw a shit-fit on my update feed last night over what I thought happened to my beloved LD the Book Huntress.

anyway, regarding that particular point and that particular indiviudal, I'm relieved. still agitated in other ways of course, but that's a lifestyle choice.


message 2600: by Jenny (new)

Jenny (narcisse) | 84 comments lol Every time I open this thread, it's worse. Deleting shelves, not just for names, but for content? Are you fucking kidding me? Are we to accept now that any shelf that contains any combination of authors that are proven dickbags will be deleted?

And you tell us that basically shelf NAME isn't actually the determining factor, but rather who's on that shelf and any perceived and/or imaginary intentions judged to exist by some random Goodreads employee, and then you expect us to believe you didn't delete the maybe someday shelf? Do you even KNOW what shelves you people are deleting anymore, or are you just jumping straight to the authors on the shelves? I mean really.


back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

The Declaration of Independence (other topics)
Baptist Churches in Kansas: Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, the Most Hated Family in America, Red State, Snyder V. Phelps (other topics)
Purple Hibiscus (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
The Secret of Castle Cant: Being an Account of the Remarkable Adventures of Lucy Wickwright, Maidservant and Spy (other topics)
More...

Authors mentioned in this topic

A.C. Crispin (other topics)
Stacia Kane (other topics)
Martin Amis (other topics)
Orson Scott Card (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
More...