Goodreads Feedback discussion

36471 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 2,651-2,700 of 6,403) (6403 new)    post a comment »

message 2651: 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 2652: by mich (new)

mich --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 2653: by Stacia (the 2010 club) (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:52PM) (new)

Stacia (the 2010 club) (Stacia_R) | 327 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)?


message 2654: by ❂ Jennifer (new)

❂ Jennifer  (jennevans) | 977 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 2655: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 23, 2013 10:57PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) 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 2656: by Ellie [The Empress] (new)

Ellie [The Empress] (The_Empress) | 2050 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


message 2657: by ❂ Jennifer (new)

❂ Jennifer  (jennevans) | 977 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 2658: 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 2659: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl 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 2660: by Donna (new)

Donna (deety) | 959 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 2661: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl ❂ 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 2662: by Ellie [The Empress] (new)

Ellie [The Empress] (The_Empress) | 2050 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 2663: 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 2664: by Carly (new)

Carly (dawnsio_ar_y_dibyn) | 34 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 2665: 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 2666: 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 2669: 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 2670: 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 2671: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 93 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 2672: by Paula (new)

Paula (Paulaan) | 500 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 2673: by Nenia (new)

Nenia Campbell (neniacampbell) | 374 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 2674: 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 2675: by Jim (new)

Jim | 494 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 2676: by Carly (new)

Carly (dawnsio_ar_y_dibyn) | 34 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.


Miranda the Gayvenger (miraelli) 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 2679: by Stacia (the 2010 club) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:04AM) (new)

Stacia (the 2010 club) (Stacia_R) | 327 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 2680: 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.


message 2681: by Carly (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:11AM) (new)

Carly (dawnsio_ar_y_dibyn) | 34 comments Nicole the Reading Ninja wrote: "So how isn't the new ToS a violation of that?..."

Nicole, by joining GR, you agreed to the GR TOS, which stipulates that you have only a limited license to your work. GR owns the exclusive license; you have the right to post your content elsewhere. They have the right to modify, delete, post elsewhere, etc.

Key section: "By posting any User Content on the Service, you expressly grant, and you represent and warrant that you have a right to grant, to Goodreads a royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, list information regarding, edit, translate, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, and make derivative works of all such User Content and your name, voice, and/or likeness as contained in your User Content, in whole or in part, and in any form, media or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing for any purpose at the sole discretion of Goodreads....Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you are hereby granted a non-exclusive, limited, personal license to use the Service. Goodreads reserves all rights not expressly granted herein in the Service and the Goodreads Content (as defined below). Goodreads may terminate this license at any time for any reason or no reason. ."

http://www.goodreads.com/about/terms

They didn't violate their TOS, they just actually enforced a part that the users find unacceptable, rather like the furor when Instagram used humiliating personal photos in their advertisements.

**edit: I completely mangled Instagram's name.


message 2682: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Nicole the Reading Ninja wrote: "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 ar..."

Right. This isn't a public space. It's owned by Amazon. By being on this site, you have agreed to their terms of service. They're not saying you can't post your content ANYWHERE; they're saying you can't use space they privately own to display your work if it isn't the kind of thing they'd like to be associated with.


message 2683: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Miranda wrote: "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 h..."


Yeah, you do have the right to voice your displeasure, and like I said, I don't like it anymore than anyone else does. What you failed to point out, is people here are making alot of assumptions about what Goodreads is doing or going to do. That's not right either!! That's my point.

And yeah, people do have the right to be upset about it, but you don't have to be an asshole about it! You get more flies with honey......


message 2684: by Miranda the Gayvenger (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:24AM) (new)

Miranda the Gayvenger (miraelli) Carmen wrote: "Miranda wrote: "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 w..."


Who exactly is being an asshole? So far everyone I've seen has been reasonably upset and civil, at the least, but they're also unwilling to let lies and unreasonable treatment go without a comment.

Please don't use the tone argument. People are free to react to this as they like, and you reprimanding them for it as if they're children throwing a temper tantrum will do nothing except make everyone angrier.


message 2685: by Nenia (new)

Nenia Campbell (neniacampbell) | 374 comments Everything Miranda said. What did you think was going to happen when you came into a thread full of people who were clearly unhappy and started saying, "You're wrong! GR is right! Stop being assholes!"

Obviously you have a right to your opinion, but you couldn't have possibly foreseen anything super positive coming out of such an announcement, right?


message 2686: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:28AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Kate wrote: "...They're not saying you can't post your content ANYWHERE; they're saying you can't use space they privately own to display your work if it isn't the kind of thing they'd like to be associated with ..."

No, they are saying any content mentioning authors, while permitted prior last Friday (including but not limited to reviews and shelves) will now be deleted.

Saying.

What's actually being done is that any shelf containing a book by a specific group of authors (presumably ones who were complaining to support via email as most had been banned from gr for their own behaviors) is likely going to be deleted. Even if a shelf were called "genre dystopian" or "genre YA" and had 500 books with an average star rating of 4.56 and mostly glowing reviews. One of those authors on shelf could mean *poof* goodbye 499 other books carefully cataloged and now just dumped on your read shelf.

Edit: cause quote clipped read oddly


message 2687: by Rita (last edited Sep 24, 2013 02:34AM) (new)

Rita (RitaLB) | 407 comments Alfaniel wrote: "Interesting. Thank you for the update. It must not be easy to deal with problems in such a big community.

If you notice that a review of yours has been removed and you have questions about why, se..."


+1!!! That's the least they should do. That way at least people can store their stuff elsewhere if it's data that's important to them. It's common courtesy really that you give people a heads up first - think about it: not everybody is a member of this group and has therefore not seen the notification!

I really don't get why now all of a sudden GR is forcing users to start catering for primadonna authors. I thought that this was a place where READERS get together! I'm very, very disappointed by this turn of events.


message 2688: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Carmen wrote: "But it's also not right for you all to be ganging up on Goodreads. "

You mean on Amazon? Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo.


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments I think the most frustrating thing about this is that not all Goodreaders will know. Like the only reason i saw this is because someone sent me a link to the new Goodreads policy. It feels like there'll be innocent people who won't even know because they just aren't members of this group... I mean seriously. What's being done so that Goodreaders not part of this group will know of this policy change?


message 2690: by Pamela Su (new)

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

I am at loss to determine whether or not you intend to come across as smug, self-righteous, and condescending as yo..."


My sincerest apologies if I come across as condescending. I do try not to put anyone down, but I was carried away by my amusement of this thread.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions and I should respect yours even if I disagree.

:)


message 2691: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Miranda wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Miranda wrote: "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..."

I was not intending to treat anyone as if they were children, although there are quite a few people on here that act like it. And yeah, I should've said it a better way. But, just like you have the right to voice YOUR opinion, I have the right to voice MINE. And obviously we don't agree. So let's just agree to disagree.


message 2692: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:35AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) I sporadically put it on my general status update. Not all the debates or anything -- just a note "A new policy on reviews and shelf names has been announced at http://blah-blah-blah in case you missed the update."

I figure they can read and make up their own minds without my 2¢ (or read as far thru thread as they can stay awake for or stomach).

I know some of my friends login less than once a week. And aren't in this group.


message 2693: by Standback (new)

Standback | 5 comments Kate wrote: "Your content providers, the Goodreads reviewers, are being hounded—both on and off Goodreads—and instead of standing behind them, the people who’ve made your site what it is today, you are making bizarre, wishy-washy, contradictory statements while gaslighting the people whose content has been lost."

Kate, many good points have been made in the past 3000 posts, but yours was particularly eloquent and thorough. :kudos:


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Linda wrote:Nothing.

You see, part of the fine print of just abou..."


See, there lies the problem. I'm not a psychic, but I just know that if Goodreads start deleting reviews and whatever, they will get a lot of frustrated and outraged members. I just find it a little upsetting. Personally, I'd suggest that they offer Goodreaders a chance to fix things up and to speak their case. Like if they have a problem with a certain member/something said member has done, they could send a message to said Goodreader, asking them to do something - thus giving them a chance to change something instead of 'jumping the gun' and just deleting stuff because it doesn't comply with GR's new policy that the majority of Goodreaders don't even know about.


message 2695: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Three wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Oh give me a break! Why in the hell are you afraid of a few authors?"

Maybe because the authors in question have been posting photos -- photos, mind you, that they only suspect are ..."


And this has happened to you personally?! Where's the proof? The police reports? ANYTHING??!! If people are doing what you say, they can and SHOULD be arrested. But all you have is someone SAYING it's happened and you just take it as fact. Well, I'm sorry but I don't blindly believe everything I read.


message 2696: by [deleted user] (last edited Sep 24, 2013 12:44AM) (new)

Sadly I know exactly what Goodreads are doing. My work did the same thing not so long ago. They made a decision, gave us no warning that they were going to do it, but opened up a feedback thread (which btw was pretty much used for venting), and then went and did what they wanted anyway.

Much like what is happening here.

Which is why, when my books have finished importing to Booklikes, I plan to remove my reviews and say goodbye. I already post reviews to Amazon, I don't need to do it for an Amazon clone.

I know I'm only a very small fish in an ocean-sized pond, but I did receive an email saying I was in the top 1% of reviewers on Goodreads and I was one who was not affected by this Goodreads change at all, but the way you dealt with this and are still dealing with it goes against my principles.

As I said on page 19 - This is a PR disaster, but we all know you don't really care. That's okay. Because the truth is, unlike a job which you need to earn money, we don't need to post on this site when there are so many much more welcoming sites who would just love to gain some Goodread's reviewers to give themselves more credibility.

I feel sorry for the authors as much as I do for the readers. Because it's only a handful of authors that have ruined some of the faith between authors and readers. The very thing you were trying to build up. I hope you're really pleased with yourselves. :)

Added to the decision to leave is my decision not to read and review indie authors books anymore and if you bothered to look at my blog, you'll see I promote indie authors quite a bit. But you see I can't take the chance that I'll read and review a book where the author's a little unstable and lashes out at me when I might have been able to avoid the book if I had been warned beforehand - which is where the BBA shelves comes into it. By the time we flag an author or fan attack it's no good because by that time the damage is already done.

Oh, and food for thought, something else I know through being in the customer service industry. Goodreads - all you're seeing are the readers who are brave enough to be vocal, but less vocal people - ones who don't approve of these changes or how these changes were dealt with either - will leave, but they'll leave quietly.


Miranda the Gayvenger (miraelli) Carmen wrote: "Three wrote: "Carmen wrote: "Oh give me a break! Why in the hell are you afraid of a few authors?"

Maybe because the authors in question have been posting photos -- photos, mind you, that they onl..."


If you spend a few minutes Googling, you can find the proof you need. There is screencapped evidence of them doing this.


message 2698: by Lu (Sugar & Snark) (new)

Lu (Sugar & Snark) | 2 comments This is my first comment on this thread. Goodreads - I am very disappointed in the way readers have been treated in this thread. Did nobody expect comments here? Can someone just take some time and sit and read these comments and actually respond? To all of the concerns and not just those that you guys want to?

Any understanding I had for the policy change is now gone. Do yourselves a favor and treat this situation as serious and not just oh look at those reviewers complaining, boo hooo. Not your intention? Well that is how it comes across. We have been here for years and deserve better.


Nicole the Reading Ninja "Carly wrote:"Nicole, by joining GR, you agreed to the GR TOS, which stipulates that you have only a limited license to your work. GR owns the exclusive license; you have the right to post your content elsewhere. They have the right to modify, delete, post elsewhere, etc."

"Kate wrote:"Right. This isn't a public space. It's owned by Amazon. By being on this site, you have agreed to their terms of service. They're not saying you can't post your content ANYWHERE; they're saying you can't use space they privately own to display your work if it isn't the kind of thing they'd like to be associated with."

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I searched in help under copyright and review, I didn't check the main terms of service.


message 2700: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?


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...