Goodreads Feedback discussion

27429 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 2,651-2,700 of 6,434) (6434 new)    post a comment »

message 2651: by Miranda (new)

Miranda Elli (MamboChocobo) | 14 comments 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 2652: 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 2653: by Cruth (new)

Cruth | 6 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.


Richard Reviles Censorship Always in All Ways (Oldfan) | 309 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 2655: by Bea (last edited Sep 23, 2013 09:58PM) (new)

Bea  (BeasBookNook) | 82 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 2656: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 4812 comments 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 2657: by mark (new)

mark monday (happyendoftheworid) | 59 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 2658: by Jenny (new)

Jenny (narcisse) | 81 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.


message 2659: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments Joshua wrote: "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. Bullyin..."


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


 Danielle The Book Huntress (Self-Proclaimed Book Ninja) (Gatadelafuente) | 37 comments You're so sweet, Mark and Werner to be offended on my behalf. I'm actually offended for the other Lady Danielle. To avoid confusion, I dropped the Lady off my name.

Anyway, I am very disappointed in Goodreads administration over all this. You just keep making things worse instead of owning up to the bad decision and making things right in the best way you can.


message 2661: by Miranda (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:02PM) (new)

Miranda Elli (MamboChocobo) | 14 comments Richard, those are adorable, and thank you.

Oh, and just because a site has a monopoly on book social networking doesn't mean you can treat your users like this. Censorship and badly treating your members does tend to get said members to venture off in search of new shores, and they can help another site grow to be just as good as this one.

Unless you don't intend to tell anyone else about this, which does seem to be the idea so far, seeing as how people are still only finding out through other GoodReads members or twitter.

Y'all need a PR team like yesterday. I seriously cannot believe everyone involved in this thought this would be a good way to conduct business.


message 2662: by [deleted user] (new)

Bekka, I think if you read through the thread you can easily find the attacks. They are not hard to locate.


message 2663: by Summer the bummer (new)

Summer the bummer | 5 comments @Bekka It seems that he has no evidence whatsoever. He's ignoring your questions which shows how little credibility his statements possess.


Richard Reviles Censorship Always in All Ways (Oldfan) | 309 comments @Miranda...one aims to please.

I've seen so much stuff said about shelves lost and content deleted, and these are AWFUL things. But something else has happened here: GR lost a lot of trust and goodwill. A lot of top reviewers are going back to teaser reviews to comply with ToS. A lot of others are quietly going away, having lurked here or seen the media reports. And some who stay are always going to be self-censoring, or wondering if a book is worth the review it deserves because of the screaming meemees that could follow (go look at my review of Gone Girl, insulting and nasty and vulgar as it is, because THAT'S WHAT I FELT WAS DONE TO ME by that thing, for an example). I don't write one-star reviews anymore.

Stifling one, twenty-one, a million and one, people's willingness to speak honestly and from the heart about the ideas, the words, the feelings expressed in a book, by an author, is stealing from the rest of us who are unaffected the very necessary challenge of understanding, if never accepting, a different point of view.


message 2665: by Nenia (new)

Nenia Campbell | 356 comments Bea wrote: "Nenia wrote: "I hope these shelves aren't inappropriate. *cough*"

I love you.

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


That's the best kind of love!


message 2666: by Gundula (new)

Gundula | 1986 comments Richard wrote: "@Miranda...one aims to please.

I've seen so much stuff said about shelves lost and content deleted, and these are AWFUL things. But something else has happened here: GR lost a lot of trust and goo..."


Or we will write a detailed review for Library Thing (or another site) and just add (if at all) a few sentences for our GR reviews.

I am actually considering writing all of my reviews in German from now on, so that if GR really wants to censor me, that staff will at least have to work for it a bit.


message 2667: by [deleted user] (new)

Okay, I need to go. I didn't want to do a 'hit and run', so I came back for a short time.

Bekka, I don't know if I'll be able to come back tomorrow, but if I do, I'd be happy to let you know if any attacks occurred from this moment forward.

I hope that some of you will think about the articles I posted and what I said. Not for anyone else, but for you.


message 2668: by Pamela Su (new)

Pamela Su (thebluebaroness) Wow. Real kneejerk reactions to the word "constructive". Noted. :)

For the record, my remarks about constructive isn't about the review itself but people's intent and reaction to negative reviews.

To clarify, the concept I am trying to convey is that people are entitled to their opinions about a book and the author's writing talent.

However, there is a very thin line between expressing your opinions and being an internet bully (this applies to authors as well as readers). If you can't see it, then I think that is truly unfortunate.

That both opposing camps refuse to see or even acknowledge that there is foul play on both sides is unfortunate indeed and I don't envy goodreads trying to find a happy medium.

p.s. bye to all of those who have been posting that they are taking their ball and playing elsewhere. I think it is too bad that you aren't willing to stick around to see how it actually plays out.

But like game forums, social media forums and other community forums, this isn't an uncommon reaction to change.

Is this the first step to the downfall of Goodreads? Who knows. Sites come and go. There will always be something shinier around the corner.


message 2669: by Miranda (new)

Miranda Elli (MamboChocobo) | 14 comments p.s. bye to all of those who have been posting that they are taking their ball and playing elsewhere. I think it is too bad that you aren't willing to stick around to see how it actually plays out.

Why should they stick around? Goodreads has engaged in censorship, has talked down to the people who spoke up about it, deleted shelves based on what they believe the members were thinking when they made them and added certain books to them, and has handled every single aspect of this thing badly. It's been playing out this way for days already.

I wouldn't want to stick around after all that, either. GoodReads no longer has the privilege of getting the benefit of the doubt from people, or their good will.


message 2670: by Viv (new)

Viv Ross (thirstyforagoodread) | 4 comments Sarah wrote: "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. Considerin..."


I got a real kick out of that last line: "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. "

So if Goodreads does not endorse OUR content then why are they even bothering to "moderate" our content just so some people don't get their feelings hurt?

I said it in an earlier post and I will say it again. I am a CONSUMER. As a consumer, many things factor into my decisions when I am making a purchase or conducting business. I don''t choose where to eat solely for the quality/style of the food. I also take service, cleanliness, what other clientele there is besides myself, and many other factors into account. This goes with wherever/whatever I spend my time/money at/on. INCLUDING BOOKS. If an author is violent towards readers who did not like their work, I will certainly not want to read it. If that author were a restaurant, that would translate to bad customer service. If Goodreads cannot allow CONSUMERS their CONSUMER RIGHTS, then you are no better than censor-happy dictators.


message 2671: by Angelica (new)

Angelica | 4 comments Pamela Su wrote: "Wow. Real kneejerk reactions to the word "constructive". Noted. :)

For the record, my remarks about constructive isn't about the review itself but people's intent and reaction to negative reviews..."


If goodreads had said you know this particular case is bullying we'll delete it that wouldn't be an issue. It's that they are not allowing any of the author's behavior to be mentioned in a book review. Like I've previously stated, I do not want to waste my tiny book budget on authors who abuse reviewers. Honestly, their behavior does affect how I view their book. If they were nasty to me it affects the way I see the book and takes away the enjoyment.
If you can't see why we should not be censored for simply mentioning in our review if an author was horrible to reviewers, copied another author's work, or spammed their book repeatedly then that is unfortunate.


message 2672: by mich (new)

mich | 1 comments --I saw this announcement by chance – why is that? I get emails all the time from Goodreads, announcing new book releases, etc….how come GR hasn’t sent out an email to announce this drastic change in its review policy?

Author behavior IS important to me, and it can affect my decision to read or not read any given book. I’ve stumbled onto an author’s blog post where I thought her personality really showed through and chose to read one of her books simply because I thought she seemed cool (said blog post had absolutely nothing to do with any of her books). On the flip side, I’ve also read a blog post from an author who oozed condescension towards readers who loved a book that she believed she lowered herself to write, and I decided that I would not purchase any further books from her because I just plain didn’t like her attitude and didn’t want to give my money to someone like that (my money, my choice right?)

In both those cases above, I found out about said authors from reviews on GR -- reviews that specifically talked about the author as a person, not just her book. And GR will no longer allow such things. So now I lose out on both potential cool new authors and readily available information on questionable author behavior.

And I say “questionable” because just cuz I see a review about a BBA and the explanation for why the author has been labeled as such, I’m not a fricken brainless robot who will not read a book just because of another reviewer – I can take a look at each entire particular situation and make a decision for myself (yeah, shocker, I know). In certain situations I’ve come across, I’d think that what the author did wasn’t that bad and not let a BBA label deter me; in other cases, I’d be offended/pissed and avoid that author. But in both types of situations, I always thought it was awesome that GR allowed me the access to the information that let me make that decision on my own.

I only started using GR this year but this was one of the things that I thought was so cool about it -- that I could readily get information here, all in one place, about books and authors that I couldn’t get elsewhere. The new GR policy is taking that away and it blows.

Whatever, I’m not some power user here or anything so I’m sure GR doesn’t give two shits about what I think. They couldn’t even bother to let me know about this change to begin with.


message 2673: by Stacia (the 2010 club) (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:52PM) (new)

Stacia (the 2010 club) (Stacia_R) | 320 comments Let's not ignore the fact either that people don't go around putting books on these "shelves in question" for no apparent reason.

How many times and ways can it be said that if an author doesn't behave in poor taste, they aren't likely to be shelved? If an author goes after a reviewer for leaving a 1 star review and makes nasty comments on their review, the reviewer might want to put that author on a "to avoid" shelf. Why is this falling back on the person shelving when an author had to ENGAGE in this unprofessional behavior in the first place in order to even be considered a place on these "evil" shelves (many with neutral names only being used for personal cataloging)?


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 950 comments Aaaannndd now Kara is just closing threads with the erroneous explanation that they are duplicative... We were discussing people who've left GoodReads - not the policy farce.


message 2675: by D.A. (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:57PM) (new)

D.A. (Mourning-book-catalog) | 2870 comments I'm still confused about what shelves are safe. I know I've made some snarky comments, but I am serious when I say I'm confused. I have read (or attempted to read or downloaded and shelved as to read) SPA books that may include some of the authors shelved on deleted shelves.

I pulled my reviews when amazon bought goodreads (just in case review policies changed and some auto-script went deleting by a secret sauce algorithm that thought the oddly punctuated F beginning names in Pern books or some quote from a book ran afoul of -- my paranoia because of that really odd review checker Barnes and Noble uses that usually would not let reviews copy over). None of my reviews were mostly about the author and never about author behavior (sometimes in addition to rest of review, I noted things like "doesn't read like from an indie author" "needs some serious copyediting but no more than most indie authors" or even "sentence structure and grammar too convoluted to begin to make out what author was trying to say"). I don't think I cuss a lot, but amazon review policies prohibit profanity and I am positive mine did contain some, particularly if a book really excited me and I wrote a review right away that sounded like a squee girl fanpoodle wrote it ("f*cking awesome!" phrases may have been used and way too many exclamation marks). For good measure, I backed out of a lot of group discussions, stopped helping indie and newbie authors with librarian edits and the cries for help in various groups, etc. Dropped or lost a lot of friends that were from various threads versus actually had reading tastes in common. Stopped moderating my craft bookclub.

Just in case, I backed up the few thousand I had here, put a few gems in a private group, stopped reviewing and then felt safe keeping a catalog of books here. After all, all I now was doing was organizing my books. No other presence on goodreads and certainly never got into the bullying author/reviewer mess other than noting what was going on to make sure I could steer clear of it. Run across it anyway, well, that's what the block and flag options are for.

Silly me. Feeling my book catalog was safe here. I even started to rejoin some groups I missed, participate in some challenges, add books as a member even if no longer librarian (at my request, not revoked), etc. Now this.

Admittedly, I have had nothing of my content deleted. It's the sudden death notice of action on the book catalog That I felt was safe here. I know I don't have shelves or other content threatening or bullying authors; I don't know if goodreads new policy agrees. I do know I have shelved and taken chances on authors other members have considered bba; I am willing to delete their books out of my catalog if that keeps my remaining shelves straight.

Maybe it's a very good time to implement features to sort, search or filter by publishers. That way it's easier to remove questionable SPA books and Save Our Shelves.

I swear in hindsight I am not sure the few indie gems I found were worth the time I spent wading thru dreck now that the SPAs can vandalize my book catalog.

I stopped using my read shelf a long time ago (other issues with batch edits and not understanding how the must be on exclusive shelf rule worked, not any goodreads problem), so actually if mine shelves are deleted I assume books will just go to. Then I can just delete them by batch edit of read shelf out of my book catalog -- which should mean shelves are safe until next staff member reviews next list from authors confusing negative or mean content with rape threats and bullying at least.

I'm certainly not spending time re-cataloging the books from the deleted shelves. And my enjoyment of goodreads is drastically reduced by not seeing shelf and genre names on book pages, the more interesting friends shelves, etc.

My luck the shelf they'll delete will be the one with ya books I marked as being "wrong age group for me" -- so that's what compare books will bring up when someone looks at my profile .-- dozens of books this AARP member who still has her "Frodo Lives" fan club badge and materials is way too old to be interested in will now be what goodreads members judge her by.

I already took enough flak for some of the authors I read back in the 1980s that are now making public statements I don't agree with. Nothing that made me feel bullied or threatened (just stuff to ignore and walk away from or at worst block someone).

Actually, I'm not so sure the latest sock's odd schoolchildren bully posts about bullies and bedwetting issues weren't hate speech against senior citizens or women members who might have incontinence issues. I do feel threatened. By a bully offering up clearcut hate speech. It must be against disabled seniors with all the talk of bullies with bedwetting and in home parents (many seniors are now caregivers for elderly parents) because all goodreads members must be 13+ and unlikely to still be bedwetters. Quick, everyone grab some screenshots! (I'm sure he's already been flagged and going to disappear soon).


message 2676: by Ellie [The Empress] (new)

Ellie [The Empress] (The_Empress) | 1756 comments I told you they gonna close it.

So what if it is a duplicate? We are just discussing? I actually don't see any rule against duplicates and there are numerous OTHER duplicates. WHY always the ones that question GR behavior are closed?

THE RULES:

Please keep all discussion civil. Focus on the ideas and suggestions being discussed and not the user suggesting them. Comments like "I like this idea" or "I don't like this idea" are fine, but comments that attack the user are not.

If you are providing feedback on a feature or reporting a bug, please be as specific as possible. Include the steps you took that produced the problem, the browser you are using, and, whenever possible, a URL and a screenshot to show what is confusing you or what you think is broken.


Nope .... nothing there


❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) (jennevans) | 950 comments Ellie [The Empress] wrote: "I told you they gonna close it.

So what if it is a duplicate? We are just discussing? I actually don't see any rule against duplicates and there are numerous OTHER duplicates. WHY always the ones..."


Because she can - and because she'd like to close this one and can't without everything completely exploding.

Mustn't have too much negativity in the group!


message 2678: by Ruby (new)

Ruby  Tombstone [With A Vengeance] (rubytombstone) | 147 comments Apologies if this was covered elsewhere in the monster thread - but how are we supposed to know if our content's getting deleted? I don't memorise how many reviews I've written at any point in time. Are they at least notifying people?


message 2679: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 4812 comments Ugh. A little heavy handed with the thread closing, weren't you Kara?

I'm starting to get the feeling Goodreads doesn't want our Feedback.


message 2680: by Donna (new)

Donna (deety) | 955 comments John wrote: "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?"

We went to a book festival over the weekend, and one of the authors gave a fantastic talk about some of his thoughts on writing and literature. When he read a passage from his new novel, he did the voices and sound effects. It was an energetic, engaging speech that sparked my interest for a book that, until then, I had no plans to read. It's the kind of thing I'd have liked to put in my eventual review of it.

I've seen authors smile their way through massive signing lines with a friendly word for everyone. I've seen them take on critical questions at Q&A sessions with grace. Of course there's also one popular steampunk writer that I haven't been able to stomach for years after seeing her roll her eyes at an enthusiastic young fan.

Interactions with authors have absolutely colored my impressions of their books, but under the new policy, I'm not supposed to talk about that. Maybe GR would have no problem with my fangirl praise of the kind or interesting authors (even if it is technically a violation of the new policy). But if they're only planning to enforce these rules when a user's comments are critical, that's going to make it even harder for me to continue to see this place as a source for trustworthy reviews.

I have zero interest in starting a blog. My friends are here.


message 2681: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl | 4812 comments ❂ Jennifer wrote: "Aaaannndd now Kara is just closing threads with the erroneous explanation that they are duplicative... We were discussing people who've left GoodReads - not the policy farce."

Threads are duplicative, genres-boxes were duplicative....what else is going to disappear because it's duplicative?


message 2682: by Ellie [The Empress] (new)

Ellie [The Empress] (The_Empress) | 1756 comments Ruby wrote: "Apologies if this was covered elsewhere in the monster thread - but how are we supposed to know if our content's getting deleted? I don't memorise how many reviews I've written at any point in time..."

Since Monday I get it they are. Post number 2 in this topic has some updates.


message 2683: by Rebecca (new)

Rebecca Espinoza | 3 comments Stacia ~ Admittedly Apathetic wrote: "Let's not ignore the fact either that people don't go around putting books on these "shelves in question" for no apparent reason.

How many times and ways can it be said that if an author doesn't ..."


Word.


message 2684: by Carly (new)

Carly (dawnsio_ar_y_dibyn) | 33 comments Kara wrote: "We have done our best to uphold these tenets, and they aren’t changing. But we recently recognized that we can do a better job enforcing them, particularly in the small number of situations where tensions start to run high. We took a long, hard look at our guidelines and how we moderate Goodreads and identified some areas where we can be clearer and where we can improve."

... so, to restate...

"Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."


message 2685: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Ruby wrote: "Apologies if this was covered elsewhere in the monster thread - but how are we supposed to know if our content's getting deleted? I don't memorise how many reviews I've written at any point in time..."

FYI, if you go to Kara's first post opening this thread, you can hover over her name and click on the link to open up all her comments, and you'll see everything she has said to us.

Any new content starting, I think, Friday can be deleted automatically without notice. And content created earlier will not be deleted without your being given notice to change it first.

If your stuff was already deleted, you should have received an email about it. Any content that has already been deleted is gone permanently.


message 2686: by Lizzy (new)

Lizzy Lessard Thank you Goodreads for this policy change. This makes me extremely happy.

Book reviews should be about books, not authors.

(Although I do agree that there should have been a grace period to allow people to comply with the new policy before deleting stuff.)


Nicole the Reading Ninja I still don't understand how deleting reviews isn't a violation of copyright, especially when all the members were never made aware to the changes in ToS nor did we have to agree to the updated version of ToS. Author's have to ask to quote reviews if they use snippets, why should Goodreads just have the right to delete them on a whim. I get that it's their site BUT reviews can be posted in other public forums which would make it copyrighted material (or at least it should. It's late, I might understand what I'm reading in terms of copyright law in the morning. Right now, it just looks like gibberish.) Either way people should be able to say whatever they want within the law, otherwise it's censorship plain and simple.

Goodreads, a word of advice you need to think before you act and plan before you speak. Someone up there needs a coarse in *successfully* running a business because whomever made this decision DID NOT fully process the ramifications and is clearly acting on impulse. Trust me, I know what it is like to make a complete ass of yourself and I gotta tell ya Goodreads/Amazon, you're doing it now.


Sandi - Protester of Goofreads (sfussner) | 27 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."


Ooooo, so you won't be signing autographs or doing speaking engagements? Just kidding, I know it's a serious issue, it's just that sometimes it gets to me.


message 2689: by [deleted user] (new)

This whole thing is like a bizarre dream that just keeps getting more and more absurd.

From 1910-1945 there was a "Special Higher Police" force in the Empire of Japan, called "Tokko". It consisted of six Departments, one of which was called "Censorship". It also had a subdivision called "Thought Section". Yes, they were the original Thought Police (George Orwell didn't coin the term, though he made it famous in the West).

That's what you've become: TokkoReads.
The Thought Police of a social network dedicated to the ultimate expression of free thought: Books.

The immense irony of this is far beyond what my usually fairly well-developed sense of humor can handle.

This is not funny. I'm done here. Goodbye everyone, it was fun while it lasted. I'll be deleting all my data here first thing tomorrow morning.


message 2690: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Nicole the Reading Ninja wrote: "I still don't understand how deleting reviews isn't a violation of copyright, especially when all the members were never made aware to the changes in ToS nor did we have to agree to the updated ver..."

Goodreads is in no way violating US copyright law here. They're creating a PR nightmare for themselves, and they made a huge mistake, but they are not stealing anyone's content--you are totally free to post it elsewhere yourself.


message 2691: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 92 comments After flying under their radar this whole time, I've finally landed on That Site's List of Horribly Mean Meanies. Because of this fucking thread. Awesome.


message 2692: by Paula (new)

Paula (Paulaan) | 432 comments "Christine wrote: "...
I remain far more concerned about your stated policy of reading my mind and deleting shelves based on your perception of what I was thinking when I created it. That is so far over the line of appropriate or reasonable that the line has ceased to exist. "


This !!


message 2693: by Nenia (new)

Nenia Campbell | 356 comments Bekka wrote: "After flying under their radar this whole time, I've finally landed on That Site's List of Horribly Mean Meanies. Because of this fucking thread. Awesome."

And /I/ finally made it to one of their featured posts. Also because of this thread.

Thanks for the free publicity, Site! And also for the friend requests from awesome people who hate you!


message 2694: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Oh give me a break! Why in the hell are you afraid of a few authors? I'm not. I'll continue to write reviews the way I want to. If an author doesn't like it, tough shit! Bring it! As for deleting posts, they (Goodreads) do have that right, no matter how much you want to bitch about it. No, it's not nice, it's not a great thing, and I don't agree with it, but there it is.

As far as attacking me on facebook, etc. so what?! I could give a shit!! If an author is stupid enough to do that, the only person they're hurting is themselves for christ sakes! So again, bring it!!

Personally, I'm getting more sick of all the people here that are bitching about shit without having all the facts. Do you all work at Goodreads?! Do you actually KNOW what's going on in their heads right now?! Doubt it. THEY probably don't even know!! And as far as leaving this site, well, don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out! This is the same shit that goes on when ANY changes are made on a social media site and it sure is funny that the ones that say, "I'm leaving!", are still here! Either put up or shut up!!

And as far as naming shelves, get real! How stupid are you to name your shelf about rape, or crime or whatever derogatory name you give it. Do you NOT have a brain cell in your head?? Ya couldn't just call it "Mean Authors" or something?! Really??? What do you expect? Just because it's your "private" shelf, you're still in a PUBLIC domain and other people are going to see it. Yeah, you should be able to name it what you want, but life's not fair and sometimes you can't have everything the way you want it.

I don't like what's happening here anymore than anybody else. And I'm not a Goodreads cheerleader by any means. It's just that I could not sit here one more minute longer without saying what I feel about all this.

It's not right if Goodreads deletes things without notice. But it's also not right for you all to be ganging up on Goodreads. There's going to have to be compromises on all 3 sides (us, authors and Goodreads).

I don't agree with most of you and I KNOW most of you won't agree with me. But I have the same right to say what I feel as you all do. I just hope that everybody can maybe take a step back, take a breath and then work something out that we all can live with.


message 2695: by Jim (new)

Jim | 461 comments Carmen wrote: "Oh give me a break! Why in the hell are you afraid of a few authors? I'm not. I'll continue to write reviews the way I want to. If an author doesn't like it, tough shit! Bring it! As for dele..."

+1


message 2696: by Carly (new)

Carly (dawnsio_ar_y_dibyn) | 33 comments Carmen wrote: " Do you NOT have a brain cell in your head?? Ya couldn't just call it "Mean Authors" or something?! Really???..."

Carmen, I believe the major concern is that shelves called "due to author" are being deleted. "Mean authors" would most certainly be gone. I think the belief of many of us following this thread is that the sheer number of protests may sway GR's decision. In fact, if you look at the edits, it has already partially had this effect.


Nicole the Reading Ninja Kate wrote: "Goodreads is in no way violating US copyright law here. They're creating a PR nightmare for themselves, and they made a huge mistake, but they are not stealing anyone's content--you are totally free to post it elsewhere yourself. "

This is one of the things the Copyright Act allows you to do, "display thework publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, andchoreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work"

found here http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01...

So how isn't the new ToS a violation of that?

I just don't like the fact that content is being deleted without notice or option to amend it. I guess I understand the reason for it but when 5 star reviews are disappearing, NO ONE is safe. (I also don't like being policed or authority in general.) I can see if from the other perspective but when an author is free to write anything they want in a book, why aren't we free to express ourselves when reviewing said content, even if it means mentioning the author. Take for example a review I have posted that says the author plagiarized 2 well known books, Beautiful Disaster and Easy. The books was pulled from amazon but without the reviews or explanation, no one would know why it was pulled and might accidentally read plagiarized work.


message 2698: by Miranda (new)

Miranda Elli (MamboChocobo) | 14 comments But it's also not right for you all to be ganging up on Goodreads.

People are not "ganging up" on poor little GoodReads. We are voicing our displeasure with how they've proceeded with things. We have a right to do that, though unfortunately you also have the right to tell us we're apparently attacking them. Which we are not.

People have every right to be upset about this, and if that marginally effects how they word things, then oh well.


message 2699: by Stacia (the 2010 club) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:04AM) (new)

Stacia (the 2010 club) (Stacia_R) | 320 comments Carmen wrote: " How stupid are you to name your shelf about rape, or crime or whatever derogatory name you give it. Do you NOT have a brain cell in your head?? Ya couldn't just call it "Mean Authors" or something?! Really???..."

The shelves which have been mentioned in this group as being removed right before/right after the announcement had nothing to do with rape or crime. In fact, you even suggested "Mean Authors" as a less-harsh shelf name, which I find interesting, since many of the shelf names being removed are not even nearly as controversial as the one you suggested.

People are upset that the massive amount of hours that they put into this site were deleted without notice, and that the rules for what is going to be deleted in the future are not being fully defined. Many shelves and reviews have been deleted based on perception and assumption of intent, instead of being removed based on real threats or concerns.


message 2700: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Carmen wrote: "Oh give me a break! Why in the hell are you afraid of a few authors? I'm not. I'll continue to write reviews the way I want to. If an author doesn't like it, tough shit! Bring it! As for dele..."

They deleted a shelf innocuously called "Hormel" because it contained books by authors who are known to attack reviewers. They are deleting the shelves based on what is contained in them, not their titles. Here's how Kara explained it:

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.


back to top