I'm very excited about having chatrooms one day for use around specific events like author readings and interviews. It's not top of the list though - but I love seeing that there is demand for it. Didn't Oprah do some really cool stuff around this with interviewing Eckhardt Tolle?

Ben wrote: "Goodreads could conceivably set up an IRC network. There could be a main channel for general chat or discussion about the site, and then users could create their own channels for specific pet topi..."

Thanks for the link to Google Wave. I've just checked it out and I am so impressed. It will make my work much more productive. I work from my office and have to stay in touch with my bookshop/cafe all day. The daily accounts are on Google docs and chat/video the shop and cafe through Skype, with Gmail open on a separate page. It will consolidate all of that. Wonderful. I am excited!

It will be very interesting to see what Goodreads (and all other interactive websites) make of it.

Goodreads could conceivably set up an IRC network. There could be a main channel for general chat or discussion about the site, and then users could create their own channels for specific pet topics or for their group members to use.

The beauty of such a model is that it encourages both flexibility and control. It's analogous to the way Goodreads has treated groups: a few core groups, like this one, are directly run by Goodreads, but the rest are user-directed and have varying levels of activity.

That being said, setting up and maintaining an IRC network is a good deal of work. It's an option to consider with regards to this subject, but in my opinion there are more important improvements on which Goodreads should focus before thinking about chat rooms. As the Web's ability to handle rich media improves, the line between real-time and asynchronous discussion will just blur even more. We're in the midst of a real paradigm shift, as opposed to the empty buzzwords called Web 2.0, where ordinary chatrooms will lose ground to more comprehensive communications protocols like Google Wave. Hence, while chatrooms could be nice, I think Goodreads will have several more options in the next year or two, some of which may fit in with the site even better than the classic chatroom experience.

Rebecca,

That's what the comments section is for! (Actually, 2 of the vote choices were for those people who didn't have iphones).

Petra,

No problem! I'm sorry for what you're going through. Yes, it is hard sometimes to know the "tone of voice" of online posts. Usually, we all work it out when posts (for whatever reasons) get misinterpreted.

Lisa wrote: "They recently had a poll re whether or not to build an iphone app and there were 4 answers: 2 pro and 2 con. "

LOL. I would have participated, but I don't own a web enabled phone. So I opted out of that vote.

Polls are great as long as they get most, if not all, of the dominant viewpoints. Too many times I find myself wanting a "none of the above" choice.

Not a problem, Petra. :) We all have those days, and weeks, sometimes. No offense taken. I hope that you aren't having those problems any longer.

It's hard to communicate tone and intent in text, so I really wanted to be sure that my own post wasn't communicating something that I hadn't intended. I always worry about that, so I am quick to clarify if I think that might be the case. :)

An apology to Lisa and Becky (and everyone else). I'm sorry if my tone was off tonight, I really am. I have had a problem (and I'm not the only one) with a couple of contentious characters and one of them, don't know which took it to my blog so I've had to change my profile here to reflect that, and I'm sorry that I brought that mood here. Really.

These threads are used to gauge need and community support, so cons are just as important as pros.

Rebecca, You're absolutely right about that. Goodreads uses both pros and cons to make their decisions.

They recently had a poll re whether or not to build an iphone app and there were 4 answers: 2 pro and 2 con.

I certainly hope that my posts did not come across that way, Petra. If they did, I apologize.

You're absolutely right that a chat room would be a great way for people to chat live with others, but I just feel that it would be limited only to the people who are able to participate at that exact moment in time. We would not be able to "catch up" in a chat room as we can with threads, which is something that I rely on quite a bit.

Although, that is just my personal preference. I shouldn't say that I am "against" chat rooms, because I am not, really. And it's silly to think that I can catch up on EVERY conversation, too. But I like having the option of being able to catch up on discussions at my leisure, and with chat rooms I doubt I would be able to do that.

I'm definitely not trying to shoot down anyone's ideas, just participating in the discussion and explaining why I like things as they are. :)

the idea of 'prioritising' means asking for the features that each individual wants to see most put up the top of the list

No, prioritizing is the GR staff ranking potential changes by need, community support, and programming effort required. These threads are used to gauge need and community support, so cons are just as important as pros.

Petra, I don't think anyone is putting down anyone. We're just either agreeing or disagreeing. I agree with you that nothing extra is needed. I said many improvements ago that I'd be happy enough if Goodreads stayed just the way it was with no additional features.

It seems to me that since Goodreads is a fully-functional site with lots of enjoyable features that the idea of 'prioritising' means asking for the features that each individual wants to see most put up the top of the list. Fair enough. But it is only personal taste, there really isn't a desperate 'need' for any of the ideas suggested. It isn't necessary though to put down other people's ideas just to try and make a case for one's own.

Also, several people who don't like the idea of a chat room say there are other places on the net to chat. Sure there are, and there are other places to list books, other bookclubs, but what is so nice about Goodreads is that so many things to do with books are here in one place. And I think it would be nice to be able to have real-time chats about bookclub books as part of a thread reading that book. Why would I want to go and find somewhere else on the net to do that?

Brooke, well said!

I agree with you Lisa, I didn't mean to imply that the the Librarian Group threads don't work. I was just giving an example of something that could be a beneficial use of a chat room here. An additional kind of help chat -- not even necessarily for Librarian's only, perhaps. We don't NEED it, but a chat room could work in that situation. I don't think it would work so well for book discussions. :)

Brooke, Yes, exactly. I'd rather Goodreads tackle the challenging AKA feature and so many other things that could improve the site.

Brooke wrote: "things that are unique and useful to GR's core purpose should come first"

Well said.

It seems to me that when we're prioritizing improvements that could be made to the site, things that are unique and useful to GR's core purpose should come first. This includes things like better series information and the "my books" overhaul that seem to be in the works. I really don't care whether or not GR implements chat rooms, BUT I'd really rather have these new GR features and other similar things completed first.

Eh, there are loads of places on the internet to chat.

I will say that I think a chat room added on to the GR Librarian's Group would be a fantastic addition. People unsure of something or needing a quick fix could pop in, let a librarian know, obtain advice or how-to's or an instant fix. In that kind of situation, I think it would be perfect. :)

I think the message threads responses often come pretty fast as it is. Also, if librarians were to "staff" the group, you might not get someone who can help. Even the most experienced librarians ask for help too. So, I think the threads (that are seen by many librarians when they're there) work really well. I'm not sure that a chat room would be a huge improvement - and think of the people wanting help in less Goodreads populated time zones that need help when most Goodreads librarians are asleep.

Just an opposing viewpoint. I wouldn't have a huge argument with this; I just don't see why it would be better than what we have now.

I'm not so much concerned with the few trouble-makers who seem to find chat rooms and then monopolize them. I have no problem with chat rooms on the whole, even considering those immature issues, and for random, off-topic discussions I think they would be a wonderful real-time addition to the site. And scheduled author interviews would be a great way to utilize chat rooms, as long as there were transcripts. :)

But, I am still not in favor of them for book discussions on a site like GR.

Let's say that someone starts a discussion about a favorite book that I've been dying to discuss with someone, but I'm not online, and won't be online until hours later. I'd miss that discussion, even with a transcript.

There's no way that I would be able to go back and catch up on the discussion the way that I can with thread posts...
How would I know where the discussion started?
Would there be "new" comments shown?
How would the "new comments" count be updated, considering there could be dozens of new posts per minute? It would be constantly changing.
How would it even know what the last comment I saw was, if there are "new comment" counts?
How would I be able to respond to a particular person and how would they know that I even had if they aren't online and chatting at the exact time I am?

I just don't see how it would work. For that kind of scenario, I'd rather stick with threads.

I will say that I think a chat room added on to the GR Librarian's Group would be a fantastic addition. People unsure of something or needing a quick fix could pop in, let a librarian know, obtain advice or how-to's or an instant fix. In that kind of situation, I think it would be perfect. :)

For those of us who are isolated by location, health, occupation or for any other reason, (not everyone lives in the US, UK or is able to get out on a regular basis) and cannot belong to a real-life bookclub where people meet and chat about books and anything else they want and thereby make friendships, a chatroom would be very nice indeed and an extra way of chatting about our mutual passion, books.

I love the groups but you cannot have conversations in the same way and wonder why there is so much negativity towards the idea of chatrooms. Why are there likely to be more problems with the same group of people in a group chatroom rather than a group thread? Its the same people.

I must admit I've had the dubious pleasure of tangling with some contentious characters on the groups who do get personally nasty and yes when they cause trouble they have a little gang of friends to support them and yes I can see that this could be rather nasty in a chat room, but it isn't pleasant now and we live with it. There aren't many of them and you would find them in each and every aspect of real or virtual life anyway and I don't think they are a valid reason for not wanting to see chatrooms here.

I think a chatroom associated to a Group would be a very nice idea. I don't expect it will happen because of the negativity, but still, I register my yay vote for the idea.

I love playing trivia games on PalTalk. I'm there nearly every weekend. The basic services are free. There's costs involved if you want to upgrade to unlimited video. I've tried starting a book discussion group, but it's too much work for me. :) I would love participating in a book chat room, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltalk

I'd rather not see chat rooms here. I've moderated them before. I've seen far too many flame wars hit the topics due to chats.

If people can't cope with the simple idea that they need to keep a good relationship going with their group moderators, then they're not ready for a chat room.

Sherri wrote: "I think open chat rooms would cause much too much trouble here and distract from the main purpose of Goodreads. They'd be a lot of work without much return for the general membership."

I agree. I think if people want to arrange a chat elsewhere, there are plenty of places they can do so. I don't think it would add value to the site, and I expect it would add lots of drama.

Adobe Acrobat Connect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Acrob...

It's a good platform - especially for book clubs - but we'll have to pay; it's too expensive =/

Sherri wrote: "Cait, you've been extremely fortunate in your chat room experiences, or perhaps the rooms existed on sites with a tight focus. With the diversity of age and interest on GR (judging by the many groups we have) I don't hold out hope for the same on GR."

I certainly don't think it would work to have one chatroom for all of GR! Egads, no!

I would envision something more group-based -- preferably multiple rooms per group -- but with chatting limited to group members. (That way, group membership moderation would apply to the chat as well. Perhaps group mods could be chat mods as well.) So the chat could have as tight or wide a focus as the group it belongs to or as the group thread announcing the new chatroom dictates it should be.

(Actually, you know what could be really nice? A chatroom off the GR Librarians' group -- if you have a question about a book record that doesn't seem worth a post, or if you're a new and somewhat shy librarian....)

I don't think luck really plays that big a role. I used to be a regular in a chatroom open to a couple of mailing lists with several thousand people total; it turned out that not very many of them ever wanted to chat at the same time, so the regular evening/EST crowd was only about a dozen people, with a couple dozen more regular drop-ins and usually one or two new people a month. But believe me, I don't think the general tenor of the group could have been described as "mature". ;) We got along because we all wanted to talk about the same thing and we could easily open up side rooms for side discussions. Often something that had been chatted about the night before would be summarized to a mailing list later, to spin off a slower and wordier discussion.

Also, one can readily go off-topic in comments as well. :) Witness:

"Online discussion is already fraught with difficulty where at least half (if not more, depending on the study referenced) of our communication medium is not present -- no voices, no facial expression, no body language -- to modulate text."

Actually, Kids These Days* are extremely comfortable with online media; a lot of the sillier-seeming netspeak mannerisms are related to providing this extra information along with the text in casual settings.

* Where, of course, by "Kids These Days" I mean people of any age who have spent a lot of socialization time online; however, it is true that younger people are often faster to pick up new language cues and more kids are regularly exposed to casual online settings.

Sorry, Rivka, it's the brain wave shortage :)

Cait, you've been extremely fortunate in your chat room experiences, or perhaps the rooms existed on sites with a tight focus. With the diversity of age and interest on GR (judging by the many groups we have) I don't hold out hope for the same on GR.

Lisa, the "ignore" function in chat rooms has been around since the late 80s, and it can help -- IF people use it. Many people prefer to engage those who bother them in, shall we say, debate. Even on GR, where the "block" function is available to everyone so they can ignore those who bother them, many people would rather answer back to what they don't like -- many a comment thread has dissolved into a virtual pie fight, and that's at a relatively slow pace.

Cait, I'll also concede that the depth of discussion between chat and forum is a matter of opinion, but I'll add further that the instant nature of a chat room can result in much more embarrassing or heated situations where things can be said too quickly and can't be deleted. Online discussion is already fraught with difficulty where at least half (if not more, depending on the study referenced) of our communication medium is not present -- no voices, no facial expression, no body language -- to modulate text.

As another poster mentioned, there are many MANY available venues for live chat -- one that pops to mind right now is Yahoo Chat. Anyone could post the name of a room for chat in a group and invite others to come, keeping the GR site open in a window for reference if necessary. It doesn't cost anything. In fact, it might be a good place for those interested in book related chat to experiment with the medium, so that if GR did decide to put in the function, they could offer precise, detailed information about what they liked and didn't like about it.

being able to hide content from specific users (much like the "block" feature already works in GR groups) so that people going off-topic can be ignored by the rest of the chatters

We had this ability at AOL years ago, and it did help, but it didn't do all the work needed.

Sherri's message #8 is almost precisely how I feel about this. (Sherri, please get out of my head now. Thanks! ;) )

There are so many things we ask the GR PTB for; prioritizing is critical. So I hope this one stays low on the list.

I've participated in plenty of chats with little or no moderation that didn't spin out of control -- the trick, as I understand it, is to have tightly focused themes for discussion and the ability to open new chatrooms to contain new topics that may arise outside of those themes.

Two technical advances make chatrooms a lot cleaner: one, what's called "flood control" to keep spammers or trolls from blocking conversation by flooding the chat with so many messages that nothing else can get through, and two, being able to hide content from specific users (much like the "block" feature already works in GR groups) so that people going off-topic can be ignored by the rest of the chatters. With those two features in place, it's very easy to carry on open themed conversation without distractions.

As for whether comments or chats are a more thoughtful medium -- well, that's a personal preference, isn't it?

I think moderated author interviews would also be an interesting thing to offer, but they are different from fan-to-fan interaction.

Lisa -- I was an AOL remote host for chat rooms many years ago, too :) I agree with you. As I said above, I can only see a chat room working here if it was tightly controlled and used for specific purposes. I can see some value in that (live chat with an author is fun -- I've attended those before) but in general, it's an ugly thing.

We've had this discussion before. I've never liked the idea of chat rooms. I have enjoyed going into an author's group for a specific period of time, usually a number of days, and having a "chat" with the author. For me, it works fine. Also, the way the message boards in the groups work fine for me too. Sometimes the back and forth messages appear so rapidly it almost feels like being in a chat room.

I hosted and co-hosted chats at AOL years ago and it took a couple of moderators working hard to keep a chat flowing smoothly and to make it a pleasant experience for the participants. I don't think Goodreads needs this, but I know I'm one of the members who likes Goodreads just as it is. Of course, Goodreads has made many improvements and added many features in the over 2 years I've been here, and I've enjoyed most of those changes.

I agree that open chat rooms are not a great idea - I doubt that GR has the resources to provide the oversight that would be necessary. As frustrating as it may be, I think the slower pace of GR discussion encourages more thoughtful conversations.

The chat room idea is interesting, but I have a lot of reservations based on fairly extensive experience with chat rooms.

If GR did chat rooms, they would likely need be moderated chat rooms, and scheduled chats would be more controllable than 24/7, despite inconvenience for some (chats, after all, could be scheduled for any time zone). Unmoderated always open chats degenerate fairly quickly. Live chat can degenerate into misunderstandings, flames and chaos with alarming rapidity. Worse, there are always a few people who treat live chat either as their personal dating service or the best place to show the world how rude and frankly asinine they can be. And can you imagine how spammers would take advantage?

Chat rooms tend to have a limit on how many people can participate in them, but even if limited to 20 or 25 people at a time, conversations can be almost impossible to follow. The text that can be typed in for any one segement is usually limited to 200 characters or less, which means in depth conversations are broken up, with everyone interrupting each other, intentionally or not. I'm not sure what value they would really add to GR for general discussion. The more static threads, while slower, also allow for more thoughtful discussions, going back to verify what was said, editing for typos, and allow anyone to join the conversation at any time.

One things I've seen that could work very nicely here for author interviews is a variation of the chat room -- I'm not sure how it worked on the programming side or what software was used, but the effect was of 'two rooms' via a split screen -- the interviewer and interviewee on one, and those who attend on the other. Attendees can type out and submit questions, which go to the interviewer. The interviewer can sort out duplicates and inappropriate questions and post the rest for the interviewee to answer.

And yes, having and posting the transcripts would be wonderful. For those unable to attend an interview, a temporary discussion board could collect questions and people could read the transcript after.

I think open chat rooms would cause much too much trouble here and distract from the main purpose of Goodreads. They'd be a lot of work without much return for the general membership. But a moderated, scheduled chat for specific purpose (roundtable discussions or interviews) could be very much to the purpose and add a lot of value.

I agree, Becky. Having the ability to save transcripts would be a necessary feature.

I would love a chat room, but I don't really see how it would work (except in the single instance that it was a scheduled conference type chat room, AND if it had a transcript).

The site is geared toward readers, and a lot of thread discussions that I participate in are updated when I'm not online. So when I get home, I log on and read the updates and reply as necessary. This wouldn't be possible with a live chat room, and so people would constantly be missing out on discussions that they would otherwise be able to keep up with at their leisure.

Because of that, I vote no for chat rooms, except, like I said, for scheduled conference types for author discussions and the like, AS LONG AS the transcripts are viewable later.

I would prefer chat rooms (if we get them) were 24/7. It is just so difficult scheduling things if you are in a completely different time zone. I am normally in the Caribbean or the UK and shortly I'm going to Indonesia. A nice after-work EST chat at 7pm is midnight in the UK and 7 am in Bali! So it would be nice to have a chat room where you could have a group book discussion with other people who are around at that time.

I like Luann's idea about scheduled chats and personally would prefer that to just having a chat room there and open all the time as such... and also be invite controlled too maybe.

I don't think GR should just have 24/7 chatrooms, there are other places for that kind of stuff but a feature that would allow people to get together at a certain time would be interesting. For instance not just for author interviews etc but it would also be good for group book discussions, real time debates etc.

Not just an IMing service or normal chart room type service that you can get elsewhere.

I think chat rooms could serve a purpose here. A group I'm in had a chat with an author a few weeks ago. It was held right here on the group's discussion board. We all just hit "refresh" a lot. It was great, but slow. A real-time chat room is much more conducive to allowing a flow of conversation to happen. Having a chat room to meet in would have made that author discussion much better.

Chat rooms don't have to be a free-for-all discussion place. They could serve more as conference rooms where groups could schedule real-time chats. Each chat could be required to have a moderator assigned from their group with only those with invitations or members of the particular group allowed into the chat.

This came up a few weeks back and the idea wasn't that popular, sadly. I'd like it too.

I was thinking, it would be awesome to talk to people about books. A nice way to do this would be through a chat room. I know that book clubs have plenty of forums to talk on but it would be nice to talk to others that are on at the same time as you.