Otis wrote: "I love the fact that so many people are starting and participating in challenges. I'd love to be able to improve them by making them structured, with charts, etc. Do people like that idea? Do you..."

Personally I love the idea of charts, graphs, maps, etc. Long before Goodreads came along I had organized all my books into a big spreadsheet (sortable by 9 fields), accompanied by bar charts of books read per year (stats for fiction and nonfiction) and books bought per year.

I agree that there is no way to tell how fast others can read. I used to regularly have 10+ book weekends.
Ah youth.

I can't do challenges, I am too easily distracted. Don't make things too complicated that people who really enjoy the challenges won't do them anymore.

As far as cheating goes, there is no way to stop it.
People will always find a way.

I know, right? They were a pain in school! :)

Yeah bar charts would be awesome! Not just for group challenges - but for individual challenges too though?

Why are bar charts suddenly exciting? Hehe.

I agree with the bar charts, that would be awesome!

I also think charts and tracking devices are a great idea. I love the challenges on the different sites, and am a visual person, so I would love charts, etc.

Otis, I love this idea!

Great ideas Sara :D

Otis wrote: "I love the fact that so many people are starting and participating in challenges. I'd love to be able to improve them by making them structured, with charts, etc. Do people like that idea? Do you know of good examples of other sites that have done that kind of thing?"

That would be AWESOME! I don't know of any other sites that do that, but it would be nice if goodreads could produce a bar chart showing progress for each player (player names on y-axis, points/books read/tasks completed/etc. on x-axis) or a similar bar chart indicating how many players have finished each task (tasks on y-axis, # players on x-axis). Maybe a box-and-whisker plot showing percent completion? (I'm only half serious about that last one...) Just a couple of ideas.

I LOVE that challenge idea Angie. This year I tried to do 1 classic a month, but I got caught up in reading other stuff with other people that I just couldn't resist, so I kind of slipped a little. Oh well, there's always next year.

But I do have this huge tome of Shakespeare just eyeing me from my bookshelf. I would love to give that a try! :D

Otis wrote: "I love the fact that so many people are starting and participating in challenges. I'd love to be able to improve them by making them structured, with charts, etc. Do people like that idea? Do you..."

I can't think of any other sites, but in regard to the challenges, I'd like for the ability to have personal challenges, completely unrelated to groups. For example, next year I'm going to be reading (at least) one Shakespeare play a month, and it'd be nice to be able to show that off somewhere on my profile, or have a widget that shows the books I plan on reading and my progress. I'm foggy on the details of this, though, because I'd like it to be more than just a widget of a particular "Shakespeare-a-Month" shelf, although that's probably what I'll end up doing, as well as writing a note on my profile illustrating my goals.

My 40 rupees.

That is an interesting idea Otis. I do not know of another site that does such a thing.. but it would definately be interesting to have more options for the challenges.

I know of many groups who incorporate reading challenges into their monthly happenings, and other groups focus on the challenges outright.

So there is definately interest :)

I love the fact that so many people are starting and participating in challenges. I'd love to be able to improve them by making them structured, with charts, etc. Do people like that idea? Do you know of good examples of other sites that have done that kind of thing?

Cindy wrote: "From the point of view of the one who's organizing the challenge, the big deal is that (as Angela said above) the perception of cheating is discouraging the other people from playing and having fun. It must be hard to receive those messages - after all, the point is to participate and push yourself!"

This happened to me IRL. Our local library had a summer reading contest, and the winner was the kid who read the most books and every year I won, even when I was reading non-childrens/YA books. Once I wrote my name down on the list, kids wouldn't sign up and would cry if their parents tried to get them to do it, so the library then changed the rules: for every x of books, you get one raffle ticket. So whoever read the most books would probably get a prize, but so would the kids who read 10 books in a summer.

That's what I would suggest for the challenges that are prize-based. As for non-prize based, I wouldn't go the route of *requiring* a review, but maybe put those readers who do review on a different "scale" so to speak.

I'm personally in awe of anyone who can even do challenges. I've been really tempted to do them because they sound fun and some of the themes are amazingly creative, but at any given point in time, I'm "tasting" around 5 books, and it's really hard for me to make a list and go, "Okay, and then after this one, I have to read this one... or I can read this other one..."

Interesting thread here. I moderate a challenge group, too and also spearhead a challenge portion in another group, and I have to be honest, it never occurred to me that people will cheat.

I never asked for anything more as them saying that they've read what they say they read. I don't ask for reviews, coz I'm not a good reviewer myself and can be lazy. Since there is no actual reward, except for the joy of completing the task and another excuse to read (as if we need any), I feel that everybody were enjoying and happily completing their challenges.

On the other hand, if it is an actual contest or certain prices are involved, then I'm sure the mod/organizer can come up with measures that can help verify participants' results.

Although, I've known people that can read very fast, and when I was younger, can pull a 5-7 books marathon in a day myself (oh..the good ole days..LOL), so I'm not surprised on how quick certain individuals can be in completing their books.

That was FABULOUSLY geeky!! ;) But yeah, I mostly try to compete with the 1-2 people ahead of me, and try to stay above the 3-5 people below me.... And then stare in awe at the people at the very very top... haha...

Sara: Yay to being #4 last time - that's really awesome! (BTW, you don't really have to justify your reading - you were certainly well in the bulk of the gaussian. How's that for some geekiness?)

I totally agree with your comment about outliers: Now that I know the deal, I'll only try to "compete" with the folks in the middle. Of course we're only really competing with ourselves, especially since we're not supposed to talk about the books.

Hmm well, and I do not mean to be rude in any way in saying this, if people are having issues with how fast others read.. there is nothing really you can do about that. I personally congratulate those who can read super fast and retain the information they read considering the speeds they read at.
However, some people will get jealous and let that jealousy spoil a good time.

Ultimately there is nothing you can do.

If you feel there is cheating going on you can adjust and add rules to the challenges to try and put a stop to it, but after that even if you continue to have speed readers.. its really just a matter of people being jealous I think. I mean I dont know 100% but that is what it sounds like to me.

I tried to find the challenges you were talking about but couldn't. But I do wish you guys luck, it sounds like you have a great group - don't let spoiled sports ruin that for you.'

Cindy, your comment reminded me of those box and whisker graphs from middle school. Some people are just "outliers"... Just like we don't really compare ourselves to those people who reported their points one time and then never came back and reported again, I guess we just have to acknowledge that she is a SUPER-reader and just compare ourselves with the OTHER participants.

(And just to justify my own reading...) I was near the top of the last challenge (#4, I think), but I'm currently unemployed and have been reading WAAAAAY more than I ought to be, thanks to Cynthia's Fall Challenge. And weird random books, too, which certainly helps with shelves...

From the point of view of the one who's organizing the challenge, the big deal is that (as Angela said above) the perception of cheating is discouraging the other people from playing and having fun. It must be hard to receive those messages - after all, the point is to participate and push yourself!

I happen to be participating in her challenge - it is really fun so far. She's doing a great job!

And I'm glad I wasn't the only one scratching my head over the issue. It's not a challenge you can easily complete, as it's one of the shelf-based challenges. Also, there are no prizes, but there are clearly people who come out on top. I can imagine to those playing, the players above you help push you farther, but if someone is so way, way, far ahead, it's just not so much fun anymore - rightly or wrongly.

Oh my.. yeah thats the issue.

In my opinion reading challenges should not come with any sort of monetary *reward*. These challenges should be for fun and for personal achievement.

That said, if you want to run contests based on these challenges and offer a reward for the winner that would be an option.
The way I do it is that I require a review to be written to even qualify. After I get x number of entries the winner is randomly chosen via random number generator.

But I agree with Kasia, if you indeed want to keep the rewards for your challenge reads I would seriously take her suggestions to heart and add the strict rules so that people are less likely to cheat.

Haha! There's your problem!

Taking away the prize and not naming winners (but simply congratulating upon completion) would kill the crazy competitiveness and make the challenge more pleasant. Trust me. It works perfect in our group, we have tons of challenges and very little trouble. But if you insist on prizes and winners - then set strict rules (yes: the adding books to shelves, yes: the short reviews, yes:reading books with a set page count only), make them work for their prize. And maybe pick a less attractive prize.

Well, in some challenges people are proclaimed the winners (or several) and in a couple I know of there are actual prizes.

This is what I do not get.

NO ONE is declaired *THE WINNER*.

If you complete the challenge in the given month, you win.

I am guessing your challenges are done monthly..

Either way, its not like one person is showered with gifts and declared the winner over all others..

EVERYONE wins if they participate and finishes. So whats the big deal?

Angela wrote: "I think the review idea is a good way to go, but with this challenge we do not want other members to have advantages of books that help others with the challenge, so that is why we do not post the book that is read. We could require it at the end of the challenge to check to see if the books are actually being 'read'."

I review every book I read, so the reviewing idea is fine with me, personally.... I don't know how other people feel about it. In this particular case, what about having each participant keep a list of the books they read (and shelves hit) to be turned in at the end of the challenge?

As with Rivka, I've done it a couple of times myself: read 3 or 4 books in a single day. If my in-laws have the kids at the cottage and hubby and I made absolutely no plans, I can read the day away and not even notice when I have to turn the lamp on. Then again, some months are so positively hectic that I'm lucky if I get 3 or 4 done in month! It does depend on a person's life and schedule.

Asking them to write a review, making that a requirement, can backfire. As Crystal's co-mod of NL and my own group, I've seen it backfire, and it's not pretty. I've met a lot of people who don't like writing reviews - it makes them uncomfortable. We did, however, put in a page requirement when it comes to group reads and challenges. It isn't fair if someone constantly reads books that are, say 250 pages, while others use 400 page books. That page requirement helps regulate that aspect.

While I don't put speed-readers down for their ability (heck, I wish I could do that!), I would certainly hope that it wouldn't put others down, making them hate the challenges because they can never 'win'. I think that's why we never actually made a challenge for the # of books read. Try challenges with perhaps certain words in a title, the setting of a book has to be in a certain city, a certain time of year (season), a specific letter has to appear as the first letter of the author's first or last name, along with a page requirement... that sort of thing. Have a few of these involved in a single challenge is the key - everyone picks their own books, and the satisfaction of completing their own challenge is what every mod wants in their members. If a member has to 'cheat', in a virtual book club, where there are no actual rewards other than a 'virtual pat on the back' (or asspat as Tricia put it, LOL!), perhaps their self-esteem needs that boost, or they are Atychiphobic (fear of failure). Some people can't handle that, and end up embellishing their lists.

Thank you Lyn! :)

Thank you, Lyn. I'm glad you enjoy them. ;)

I agree that requiring someone to write a review would most likely scare away people. I know that I do not want to write reviews to prove that I have read a book. I think the biggest problem here is that, like you said Crystal, the group is so large. And the challenge is just one really small piece of it. I believe Angela is going to try getting feedback from the group members what, if anything, they would like to change.

BTW - Crystal and Becky, the challenges in both of your groups are awesome!

I run a lot of challenges in Novel Ladies. A fast reader can whip through several harlequin romances in a day, but you may have another reader who is reading 450 page books. Some members are single, don't have kids, may be unemployed and have a lot more time to read than the members who have a 9-5, 3 young kids, soccer practice, etc, etc. Some read their day away, well others are lucky to get in 2 hours of reading in before bed. I think writing the reviews is a good suggestion, but I have several members in my groups that have never written a review. I don't feel right telling them they have to write a review, or they can't take part in a challenge. That's not fun, and to me, book challenges should be fun. I can only speak for myself, but as a mod, I make it a point to learn, and get to know the members of my groups. I know who the fast readers are, who reads at a slower pace, who reads 20 books a month, and who reads 3. I learn this through polls and just talking to my members. Granted this can be a lot of work the bigger your group is. But, you should be able to trust the members in your group.

I wasn't even thinking of novella length. I have certainly read 3 or 4 200-or-so page paperbacks in one day on occasion.

I almost never get an uninterrupted day to read like that anymore, but back when I was a teenager, definitely.

Angela wrote: "I know that a lot of people have amazing reading skills, but to post that you have read over 3 or more books in a one day period is absurd and unrealistic."

I agree with Rivka. It depends entirely on the types of books. Some ebooks are essentially one short story, but they're sold as a stand-alone book. One such book I'm debating buying is only 17 pages.

Angela wrote: "I know that a lot of people have amazing reading skills, but to post that you have read over 3 or more books in a one day period is absurd and unrealistic."

Actually, depending on book length and content, and assuming I have no other responsibilities that day, I have done this more than once. And I know plenty of readers who read far faster than I do.

Thank you all for your suggestions and feedback. I do not know how many people who run challenges are actually on this particular group and it would be a problem to tell a person that they cannot participate because we 'suspect' they are cheating. I know that a lot of people have amazing reading skills, but to post that you have read over 3 or more books in a one day period is absurd and unrealistic. I think the review idea is a good way to go, but with this challenge we do not want other members to have advantages of books that help others with the challenge, so that is why we do not post the book that is read. We could require it at the end of the challenge to check to see if the books are actually being 'read'. I know that GR cannot control this problem. I was just looking for feedback from the members of GR to help me out. Thanks again for responding!

Becky wrote: "What? 5 books a day is certainly not unrealistic Lyn! Especially quickie books like War & Peace and Shogun and Anna Karenina. 2 hours each, tops. :P"

Ya - I gave Anna Karenina about two hours tops, myself, but then I only got to page 100 or so. That was it for me! LOL.

Removing the member seems awfully extreme, particularly if the challenge is one small part of a larger group. I think there's other techniques that would deter cheaters.

A long time ago, I was in a club in highschool. More than half of the kids there were only there to put the club on their college applications, and weren't participating. One year, we decided to have a mission statement that we would all sign. That act alone discouraged most of those kids.

I'm not saying a challenge should have a mission statement, but having some very simple hurdles would be just enough of a nuisance for those "virtual asspatters" to mostly disappear.

Becky wrote: "What? 5 books a day is certainly not unrealistic Lyn! Especially quickie books like War & Peace and Shogun and Anna Karenina. 2 hours each, tops. :P"

Ya it depends on the book certainly. :)

Tricia - I agree, for the life of my I cannot see a reason why someone would want to cheat. The situation is just strange.

And I agree it is up to the mods and the challenge leaders. Sometimes getting other, non involved, people's ideas really helps.

Adding: The reason I suggested what I did in my previous post is because I really dont think Goodreads staff can do anything about this particular problem. =/

I would think its up to the mods to police their group as best as they can to keep it an enjoyable experience for the whole of its members.

What? 5 books a day is certainly not unrealistic Lyn! Especially quickie books like War & Peace and Shogun and Anna Karenina. 2 hours each, tops. :P

The only thing you could do is remove them from the group.

If they are saying they have read 3 books withing mere hours of the challenge's start.. and you firmly believe they are cheating AND you have numerous complaints..

As a mod you have the right to remove them. You just have to make sure you use that power with caution.

Is the only thing I can suggest you do.

Exactly - Cindy just outlined the exact situation. I know some people read incredibly fast, but to have read a multiple of books (I'm not talking two or three) withing the first few hours of a challenge is a little hard for me to believe, especially when they have almost no books listed on their "read" shelf. The pace we are talking about here is on the order of having read 1000 to 1800 books a year. And to only list 100??

Actually, in the earliest stages of this challenge, a list of the books read was required, so I think re-instituting that in some way is in order.

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback all. It is really appreciated.

Yeah I agree it is, I utilize my shelves as much as I can as I think its an awesome tool. Its the main reason I came to Goodreads actually... the groups and other things are just a super nice bonus :D

Though, and I can certainly not defending actions of cheaters here, but I can see someone not wanting to bother with shelves.

If they just want to read books and catalog their shelves elsewhere, or just at home.

Oh! I see what you mean Cindy. Yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the number of books reported for a challenge match their "read" shelf.

Virtual asspats! That seriously made me snort!

Sure, people on GR can & do read really, really fast. But don't most of those people record the vast majority of their books as they go along? i.e. mark them as "read" on their profile.

It's a little odd to have someone participate in a challenge with a read # far, far beyond anyone, and have very few books recorded as "read" on their profile compared to their challenge numbers. (I totally understand not putting some books on your read shelf, especially if you only read them for the challenge and don't want to share.)

It's a real bummer if just the mere fact that a fast reader isn't shelving any of their books for a challenge puts off all other folks in the challenge.

Yeah, I know some insanely fast readers and I wouldn't for a second think they were cheating.

I see no point in cheating on here for the challenges. What do they get from it? Virtual asspats?

I mean if you were rewarding winners with something like books or whatever maybe I can see the incentive to cheat for some people, as dispicible as that is.

But otherwise its a personal goal for people to do these challenges.

What are we talking about as unrealistic? There are many people on GR who read incredibly fast. I think I've seen people reading upwards of 300 and 400 books a year. And these are personal challenge goals, so there is no incentive to cheat.

With that in mind, I think that your best bet would be to require a review in order for the book to "count". Or you could ask one or two questions regarding the books that people read, or allow OTHERS to ask questions, etc.

Challenge rules and verification depends on the person running it, so it's up to you! :)

I have had the same problem in a couple of the groups that I am in. In one group in particular, the challenges are finished so quickly, that people just drop out because there is no challenge anymore. One thing we might try is to ask for feedback on things that may need to be changed before the next cycle and see if what people's comments are. If people are getting frustrated, they may be able to suggest changes that would alleviate their frustration. Asking for some sort of a review sounds like a good idea, as most of the other challenges that I am in ask for some sort of review as to what books you read.

I think even a small proof requirement would be enough to scare off most people messing around. The most obvious is to require that the players record all reads on their "read" shelf as they go. Also, emailing you a list of all books read at the end of the challenge. You don't have to look at the lists, but they can still think you are. And tell them you'll do a little spot check. ;)

It's difficult in challenges where the reads need to be 'secret' from the other members.

♥Tricia♥ wrote: "I don't see any good way to *prove* someone is cheating as everyone has their own reading speed."

I agree with this. I suppose requiring all books be over a certain page length could help, too.

Thanks so much for thinking about this, Angela. It's very thoughtful to think of the players. :)

When I do contests in my group I always base them off our reads (either the challenges in the group or monthly reads) and ALWAYS ask them for a review.

I feel that this way its less likely for people to cheat and say they read it and not really read it.

I don't see any good way to *prove* someone is cheating as everyone has their own reading speed.