Goodreads Feedback discussion
Suggestions & Questions
>
Question re Quotes
date
newest »
newest »
I know Goodread's policy regarding both Trivia and Quizzes state that they must be book related, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to quotes.
When entering a quote, the guidelines appear on the right.* Only enter quotes from notable people. Generally, a person is notable if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
Rivka:Thanks for pointing that out.
But that still doesn't answer my other questions. I can't consider Simpsons intellectual and I wish I had chosen a different example, but there are books written about the Simpsons for example. Are they not reliable, intellectually independent?
Just looking for clarification.
Well, then: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History by John Ortved
From Publishers Weekly
Freelance writer Ortved tells the story of a cartoon about a dysfunctional family living in the shadow of a nuclear power plant that became the longest-running prime time series in American television history. The Simpsons first appeared as a series of shorts on The Tracy Ullman Show in 1987 and debuted as a full-length series in 1989. Almost immediately it became an international phenomenon, helping to establish the then-upstart Fox network.
Since then, The Simpsons has featured dozens of celebrity guests, from Michael Jackson to Tom Wolf, and has become a major influence on the development of television comedy and on a generation of Americans.
(My paragraphing for emphasis here)
Ortved has done dozens of in-depth interviews, and they make the book. His oral history approach is particularly compelling through the first 200 pages, where the disagreements over who deserves credit for The Simpsons take on a Rashomon-like complexity. Ortved seems evenhanded in his assessments of principals like Matt Groening and James Brooks-few of whom come through unscathed. As the book progresses, it loses focus, and Ortved inserts more of his own opinions and analyses, which are generally less interesting than the interviews (hating Everybody Loves Raymond isn't exactly a radical stance). Nevertheless, Ortved has done a remarkable job of bringing to light the creators of our beloved four-fingered creatures with the bright yellow skin.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Seems like if something has become an influence on a generation of Americans, it has some gravitas.
(Again, wish I had chosen a more serious example, but the example still makes the point.)
I guess the question is, WHO decides who or what is notable?
True Ralph. So I guess the line is basically pretty darn arbitrary.
Since TV shows are written by someone (and the Simpsons, darn them, certainly don't write themselves) I guess it just comes down to whatever Rivka (not to pick on her exclusively BTW, she's just the one who responded) decides.
There are so many kids, young people (that most people feel need to be encouraged to read, etc.) and even adults who like this stuff (though I personally think it's garbage) it seems a pity to arbitrarily exclude what THEY think is good just because.....
If someone's choice of quotes (however dubious)are routinely deleted, what are the chances that that person will stick around to use GR, encourage their friends to access the site, etc. This also in a small way impacts the revenues at GR I guess since my guess is their ad rates are based somewhat on visits, unique visits, etc.
Wouldn't all Simpsons quotes be attributed to the creator of the characters, Matt Groening? He's definitely a notable person, and Goodreads acknowledges that he's an author.
That's an interesting point, MissJessie, but I think the reverse also holds true.If the quotes section fills up with sayings from movies and tv shows, it becomes dramatically less useful or interesting to those of us who value the type of quotes allowed under the current rules.
There's nothing to stop users from including a favorite tv show quote in the "about me" box on their profile, but I don't think those types of quotes should be allowed to overwhelm the database here.
edit: I'm not sure if it's fair to attribute any tv quote to the creator of the show. They didn't personally write every episode, or even create every character that appears during the series.
Thanks Drjmel, my point exactly.But Donna, why are Matt Groening's words of less value than someone elses? Talk about arbitrary? Ir you want to discuss overwhelmed, what about Shakespeare? Any of the poets, Harry Potter? Twilight series? Why are these worthy and others not?
Two questions: is there a finite size the Quotes database can hold (doubtful I think but possible) such that a "good" quote is bumped by a "bad" quote?
Is there anything making anyone (Donna, Rivka, me, anyone) read quotes that offend? I haven't seen anything myself.
Again, WHO DECIDES? Sorry, it just seems a little high handed to me for any one person to decide another person's taste (or lack of it) is theirs to police.
I wouldn't say that they're inherently of less value. But I do believe that, to a book community, they're less relevant than quotes from authors.I guess I just don't understand why it's objectionable that a book site would want a major content feature to remain focused on books.
And as I said before, every word out of a Simpsons character's mouth was not necessarily directly from Matt Groening. It would be seriously inaccurate to attribute the words of another writer to him simply because he was the series creator.
I think this is a great question. I thought the line was being drawn at books vs. not books, but that does not seem to be the case. I agree with MissJessie that it is too arbitrary to say quotes should be from notable people only, and then leave that up to the librarians. I certainly don't consider a random quote from Harry Potter the character as more notable than a quote from Homer Simpson. But surely if someone quoted Homer from a Simpson comic book, that would be allowed?
Absolutely. As I said, I wish I had picked something other than the Simpsons, because I am not a fan and don't feel too passionately about them.
BUT, I do feel strongly that interesting quotes that seem to matter to someone enough to put them up on GR should be respected.
I would feel less strongly (Maybe) if so much of other areas of GR weren't non-book oriented--role playing, social sites, and so on. It just makes the argument about quotes being book oriented weaker. But, of course, that's just me.
But I have enjoyed this debate anyway. It's a refreshing change.
Donna wrote: "I guess I just don't understand why it's objectionable that a book site would want a major content feature to remain focused on books. ."And plays that have been published in book form?
Private groups are just that. The quotes database is shared by everyone.As Donna pointed out, there's nothing stopping someone from putting such quotes in their "about me" section. I'd add that posting them in the comments section of their profile would also be appropriate.
Sorry, what "Private groups are just that..." have to do with it? We are I think discussing the database shared by everyone. At least, I was.
By the way, my #15 absolutely was in response to #13, not #14, although if it were in my power I would absolutely #14 last line too.
You made an analogy between RPing groups (most of which are private) and the quotes database. I don't think the two are analogous.
Djrmel wrote: "And plays that have been published in book form?"Absolutely. And quotes from famous and/or historical figures that were recorded in nonfiction books, or words from published speeches.
This is just my personal perspective, and I have no idea if it matches up with current GR policy, but I wouldn't have a problem with quotes linked to screenplays that were published in book form. Or quotes from Matt Groening that were sourced from a biography.
Again, this is my personal opinion, but I think that the quotes should have some kind of "published in a book" textual basis. Yes, it rules out funny things we saw on tv, song lyrics (unless they were considered notable enough to use in something like a biography), and things that my friends or family have said (no joke, I've seen people add those to quotes before). I think it's a reasonable line to draw on a book site.
Someone above said that I don't have to read the quotes I don't like. I guess that's true, especially if you're just thinking of quotes in terms of things that show up listed in user profiles. But I really love browsing the quotes pages. I click around on the various subjects to see what comes up. Maybe that's odd, but it's fun to me. I just think it would be a shame if the book-based stuff got drowned in movie catchphrases and a bunch of "Magnets, how do they work?" type stuff.
Rivka: Not trying for an analogy. Pointing out that to me their mere existence weakens the argument of "books only."Esp. since so MUCH of the site seems devoted to them. Or the social groups. Not against either one, just making a point.
Example: there is a group for Mormon young women that I read sometimes, just to try to get an understanding of a point of view with which I am not familiar. But it isn't book oriented.
Song lyrics: if they are in a bound book of lyrics, are they acceptable? To me, yup.
I understand absolutely Donna your point of view; I also browse quotes, both here and through books of quotes. A favorite hobby.
I just don't like and can't personally fathom anyone, privately or publicly (as Rivka points out) feeling that they somehow have greater -- I don' know what to call it, all are equally inaccurate and possibly offensive -- power, taste, discernment, ability to do so, just plain nerve or whatever, to edit other people. For me, this is contrary to everything that matters.
Differences of opinion make life more interesting; not necessarily soothing, but interesting.
Much of this site is not devoted to role playing. The only place on this site where role playing and non-book related information is "allowed" is the group section. Trivia, Quizzes, and Quotes are all supposed to be book/literature related. There are no role playing quizzes or trivia questions (if there are, a librarian will most likely remove them).The focus of this site is books. Goodreads was created to be a social networking site centered around books - not movie quotes, not personality quizzes, not jokes your heard your girlfriend say.
MissJessie wrote: "I just don't like and can't personally fathom anyone, privately or publicly (as Rivka points out) feeling that they somehow have greater -- I don' know what to call it, all are equally inaccurate and possibly offensive -- power, taste, discernment, ability to do so, just plain nerve or whatever, to edit other people. For me, this is contrary to everything that matters."With this paragraph, I think you're making the quote removal into something it's not.
I don't think there are librarians running around deleting quotes because they think the taste of those who listed them is somehow inferior. I think they're doing it because they don't believe those quotes fit the rules as laid down by GR staff.
Actually, the current rule for the quotes database, as Rivka quoted in msg three, is an extension of the original idea that only authors could be quoted. By "notable figures", I think they were looking for major political figures or scientists or the like who made major contributions to society, but didn't happen to write a book.This is a book site more than a general social networking site, therefore a common database of quotes should be kept on the "literary" theme, since most of us are here to share our common love of reading.
MissJessie wrote: "Esp. since so MUCH of the site seems devoted to them."It doesn't seem that way to me, but I guess that's more an issue of what someone spends time on, rather than server space.
Oh, and FYI, I have deleted quotes that I had listed as favorites because it was pointed out by another librarian (or in a discussion in the librarians group) that they didn't meet the criteria. It is not a question of taste; it is a question of meeting the agreed-upon criteria.
I was afraid what I wrote would raise hackles but could not think of a more politically correct was to put it."Goodreads was created to be a social networking site centered around books - not movie quotes, not personality quizzes, not jokes your heard your girlfriend say." Never said it was Ralph. But if you actually think all of the social commentary on Good Reads surrounds only books, you haven't read a lot of them. Example above of the Mormon young women (and I'm not suggesting banning them, quite the reverse). There are many random chat groups too. I'm not against them, just pointing out their existence.
This is an issue which will be forever without a resolution because in the end you will do what you have to do and feel is right (and I'm not saying it isn't to you Ralph, Rivka, et al) and I will not agree.
I find discussions with substance like this to be interesting and also expanding of my knowledge of other people. I have not intended to offend, if I have.
BUT, I still think I'm right :)
I have read through the Librarian section re Quotes before asking this and could not find an answer.
Is there anywhere on Goodreads defined that quotes must be from books only? (Books including bound sheet music, lyric books, etc., for example).
There seems to be a lot of conversation about deleting "bad" quotes (not referring to obvious spam, sales pitches and so forth). Just quotes from movies, TV shows, friends, etc.
I'd like to see the written policy somewhere to avoid confusion. For example, I personally don't watch the Simpsons but a lot of people seem to value what they say, and at the same time a lot of Librarian time seems to be spent undoing what individuals do on their personal pages--why is it not allowed on a personal page?
It's true that GoodReads as mentioned on the Librarian page is "literary", but at the same time a great deal of it seems devoted to Role Playing and social networking, neither of which are literary.
I am just curious about the GoodReads policy because it seems like censorship to me.