Goodreads Feedback discussion

500 views
Suggestions & Questions > Weird Secret Sauce

Comments (showing 1-50 of 145) (145 new)    post a comment »

night music -- bring on the clowns ♫ (pjreads) | 546 comments GR's secret sauce for ordering reviews/shelvings on the book page does weird things. What's the logic in intentionally mixing ratings on Read shelves with To Read and Currently Reading shelvings?

Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States has been rated 8 times while shelved a total of 154 times (Read + To Read + Currently Reading).
Page 1 displays the one text review first as the only rated shelving on the page
Page 2 displays two 4* ratings
Page 3 displays two 4* ratings
Page 4 displays two 3* ratings
Page 5 displays one 2* rating

The shelvings are not in reverse chronological order. None of the To Read & Currently Reading shelvings have any text.

Where's the logic? Why aren't all the Read/rated shelvings displayed together on page 1 before the To Read and Currently Reading shelvings?


willaful | 766 comments That's an excellent question. Would make far more sense.


Banjomike | 951 comments If we are talking about reviews then what is the point of displaying "To Read" at all. If it hasn't been read then the "review" would seem to be of very little use.

If it is in the process of being read then a review COULD make sense if it is of the "this book is rubbish" or of the "I cannot sleep until I have finished" variety.


Cheryl (cherylllr) | 2971 comments Agreed. If the book's page is to be most helpful to the most people (including authors and outsiders), it would seem that 'to-reads' (and maybe anything not marked with a date read or, at least, on the read or currently-reading shelves) should be shoved way down.


Bitchie *Bored Now* (Bitchie) | 252 comments If GR fixed it so that "to read" squee OMG can't wait "reviews" didn't show up at all on a book's reviews page, that would help out a lot.

I do think star ratings should plain out not be allowed unless the book is marked "read".


The Holy Terror (theholyterror) | 375 comments Bitchie wrote: "I do think star ratings should plain out not be allowed unless the book is marked "read"."

Ah, but then, what about re-reads?


I ♥ Bookie Nookie (bookienookiereviews.blogspot.com) (IBookieNookie) | 750 comments Bitchie wrote: "If GR fixed it so that "to read" squee OMG can't wait "reviews" didn't show up at all on a book's reviews page, that would help out a lot.
I do think star ratings should plain out not be allowed unless the book is marked "read."


I Totally agree that people should not be allowed to use the star ratings until books are marked as read...


colleen the contrarian  ± (... never stop fighting) ± (blackrose13) | 313 comments I ♥ Bookie Nookie wrote: "I Totally agree that people should not be allowed to use the star ratings until books are marked as read... "

I don't, mostly because I have an exclusive shelf called "abandoned", and I should be able to rate something that was so bad I wasn't even able to finish.

I'm sure other people probably have other exclusive shelves they may use for books they've read aside from the read shelf.


lafon حمزة نوفل (lafon) | 530 comments I completely disagree with the motion to only have star ratings for books marked as "read". For example I have at least two exclusive shelves which I use in place of the read shelf, and I need those to be able to be rated. Never mind the fact that it limits how certain people use the system legitimately.


rameau | 139 comments The Holy Terror wrote: "Bitchie wrote: "I do think star ratings should plain out not be allowed unless the book is marked "read"."

Ah, but then, what about re-reads?"


I'd make re-reading an exclusive shelf but then it wouldn't show on the currently-reading list. Of course, were Goodreads to duplicate currently-reading shelf and rename it re-reading that'd solve my problem for me. But more than that I'd like the option to preserve the dates when I've reread a book automatically instead of manually making a list in the private notes.

I've kind of given up on hoping Goodreads to limit the rating options even to read/did-not-finish shelves. I just wish they'd let us know all the things that affect the review visibility on the book page. Likes, reviewers top-list status, word count, flaggings, whatever it is. I just want to know so that maybe we could open a discussion on it. Is it fair, does it work, could it be improved upon, or is it just arbitrary and dependent on the whims of the Goodreads staff member wading through the flaggings.


Banjomike | 951 comments The Holy Terror wrote: "Ah, but then, what about re-reads?"

They would presumably temporarily disappear from the totals until the re-read was finished.

Colleen wrote: "I don't, mostly because I have an exclusive shelf called "abandoned", and I should be able to rate something that was so bad I wasn't even able to finish."

But the book would not then be on your "to read" or "currently reading" shelves. If the test becomes "display rating and review unless book is on To Read or Currently Reading shelves" then that might work.


colleen the contrarian  ± (... never stop fighting) ± (blackrose13) | 313 comments Banjomike wrote: "But the book would not then be on your "to read" or "currently reading" shelves. If the test becomes "display rating and review unless book is on To Read or Currently Reading shelves" then that might work. "

But that wouldn't stop the issue of people being able to rate books they haven't read, 'cause then they could just as easily have exclusive shelves for to-read books.

For instance, I have a 'may-read' shelf and an 'owned-to-read' shelf, neither of which are treated as 'to-read' by goodreads but which contain books I have not read.


I ♥ Bookie Nookie (bookienookiereviews.blogspot.com) (IBookieNookie) | 750 comments Colleen wrote: "I ♥ Bookie Nookie wrote: "I Totally agree that people should not be allowed to use the star ratings until books are marked as read... "

I don't, mostly because I have an exclusive shelf called "a..."


Ok, there's obviously not going to be a perfect solution. Mark it read and create an abandoned shelf and assign it a star rating


colleen the contrarian  ± (... never stop fighting) ± (blackrose13) | 313 comments Oh - so I have to change how I shelve things to make you happy?


Um, how about no? Does no work for you?

***

On a related issue - I do wish it was possible to select the behavior of used created exclusive shelves. Then we could do thing like create a re-read shelf and have it act like the currently-reading shelf.

That's probably not within the realm of programming capability, though.


colleen the contrarian  ± (... never stop fighting) ± (blackrose13) | 313 comments By the way, snark aside, this wouldn't actually stop anything, especially from those who might 'abuse' the system, because all they'd have to do is put a book on their read shelf regardless of whether they actually read it or not. *shrugs*


I ♥ Bookie Nookie (bookienookiereviews.blogspot.com) (IBookieNookie) | 750 comments Colleen wrote: "Oh - so I have to change how I shelve things to make you happy?
Um, how about no? Does no work for you?
***
On a related issue - I do wish it was possible to select the behavior of used create..."


RELAX! I was offering a suggestion.

Nasty comments and snark are counterproductive.


MrsJoseph | 1752 comments I have use a lot of exclusive shelves and I re-read quite a few books that I have reviewed on a yearly basis.

I think disabling the star rating option will end up doing more harm than good in the long run. Or it will end up making everyone mark every book as "read" and still get the same response.


I ♥ Bookie Nookie (bookienookiereviews.blogspot.com) (IBookieNookie) | 750 comments Colleen wrote: "By the way, snark aside, this wouldn't actually stop anything, especially from those who might 'abuse' the system, because all they'd have to do is put a book on their read shelf regardless of whet..."

I agree with this statement. It is possible the "squee" reviewer will just state their excitement and be deterred from rating it.


The Holy Terror (theholyterror) | 375 comments lafon حمزة wrote: "I completely disagree with the motion to only have star ratings for books marked as "read". For example I have at least two exclusive shelves which I use in place of the read shelf, and I need those to be able to be rated. Never mind the fact that it limits how certain people use the system legitimately."

I also disagree with limiting people's ability to rate books whether they've read them or not. Re-reading (books are on currently reading so they're not "read"), abandoned books (read, but not completely), ratings left because of the whim of the reader (squeeing/ranting, hates/loves the cover, hates/loves the author, etc.) ... these are all legitimate reasons for rating a book, whether everyone agrees or not. GR has specifically stated in the past that the star ratings are used to gauge interest, and that's either positive or negative.

Individual ratings are really only useful for that person and their friends though, right? This is why reviews are important and why it's important to be able to see all of them. If you think it's stupid to rate a book that hasn't been read, you just have to look at that person's review to see if they've read it to see if you value their rating or not.

To address the OP, if we could only have more filters ...


Bitchie *Bored Now* (Bitchie) | 252 comments I didn't think about re-reads, but I made a couple different DNF shelves for different reasons for DNF, one for it sucked, one for lost interest.

But yeah, that would screw up things doing it that way.


Darkpool (protesting GR censorship) (Darkpool) | 231 comments Colleen wrote: "On a related issue - I do wish it was possible to select the behavior of used created exclusive shelves. Then we could do thing like create a re-read shelf and have it act like the currently-reading shelf.

That's probably not within the realm of programming capability, though. "


I want.


message 22: by Louise (last edited Aug 04, 2012 04:22AM) (new)

Louise | 19 comments Well as a reader I am interested in what other readers might shelve something as and why. Just because you're not interested in something doesn't mean other people aren't. If you don't want to read the reviews that are purely shelves and rating's there is already a solution where you can opt to click the 'text only' filter.

But what what a user choses to call their own shelves is not 'vandalism'. Their shelves belong to them to categorise their books however they want - positive or negative. Both sorts can be incredibly helpful to other readers and it would be a real shame if they dissapeared from the book page. If I love a book and it's on someone's 'favourites' shelf I can pick up a lot of recommendations by clicking through and seeing what else they've shelved that way. If I hate love triangles and I see a 'love triangle' shelf I can get an idea of what other books to avoid. If a book or an author is incredibly misogynistic/racist/homophobic and the shelves say so I know to avoid spending my money on something guaranteed to make me rage. And if an author is known to attack negative reviewers and the shelves tell me that it gives me have fair warning to either not read it and avoid the possibility of being harrassed altogether, or to prepare for a shitstorm if I read it, dislike it, and dare to write a review saying so.

Sure it can't be pleasant for an author to see a negative shelf on the page for their book but it is not the author's personal promotion space, it is a place for the readers to note their reactions and in some cases warn other readers. The book is out there and people are entitled to think and say exactly what they like about it, even if that is 'I don't want to read it, here's why'.


As for weird secret sauce: I would like an answer as to why some massively popular reviews are waaay down the page after ones with far less votes.


MrsJoseph | 1752 comments Louise wrote: "Sure it can't be pleasant for an author to see a negative shelf on the page for their book but it is not the author's personal promotion space, it is a place for the readers to note their reactions and in some cases warn other readers. The book is out there and people are entitled to think and say exactly what they like about it, even if that is 'I don't want to read it, here's why'.


As for weird secret sauce: I would like an answer as to why some massively popular reviews are waaay down the page after ones with far less votes. "


I agree.


Re: secret sauce

I have no clue but I've heard it's a combo of how many friends, how many followers, how many likes, how many likes by non-friends/followers, length of review and how many reviews written.

Of course, it probably also includes dancing sky-clad to the light of a red moon while making offerings to the book gods. ^.^


Riona (rionafaith) | 176 comments I wonder if GR's supposed "move toward greater transparency" will include making the secret sauce formula public?


Experiment BL626 | 421 comments Sorry for going off-topic but anyone saw this thread's title and instantly imagined food? Hankering some for meatballs all the sudden...


Mel (Soireb) | 233 comments Experiment BL626 wrote: "Sorry for going off-topic but anyone saw this thread's title and instantly imagined food? Hankering some for meatballs all the sudden..."

lol I did.


Donna (deety) | 947 comments Riona wrote: "I wonder if GR's supposed "move toward greater transparency" will include making the secret sauce formula public?"

I hope not. As interesting as that might be to most of us, knowing exactly what they had to do would just lead to a lot of overzealous promoters trying to game the system.


Riona (rionafaith) | 176 comments Donna wrote: "Riona wrote: "I wonder if GR's supposed "move toward greater transparency" will include making the secret sauce formula public?"

I hope not. As interesting as that might be to most of us, knowing ..."


You're probably right.


message 29: by Kristine (last edited Aug 04, 2012 03:14PM) (new)

Kristine (Kristine_A) | 142 comments I hope not. As interesting as that might be to most of us, knowing exactly what they had to do would just lead to a lot of overzealous promoters trying to game the system. ..."

ditto. I don't want popularity contests - more so than it already is. I can't find the other thread it was discussed, but those with the largest groups of followers/friends get the most likes. While that is indicative of their activity and investment into the site, it doesn't always mean the most liked are the most helpful or most quality reviews (I agree that most are entertaining and quality). I like there to be a mix on the book page - not just the "top most liked".


Lobstergirl | 4459 comments So if the secret sauce includes likes from friends, followers, and non-friends, and sock puppet accounts are allowed, how does GR prevent sock puppets from gaming the results? Is GR checking to see how many of your friends and followers share an IP address with you? I can't imagine there are enough resources to do that on a proactive basis.


Lobstergirl | 4459 comments I'm pretty sure GR does look at IP addresses, if a user brings to their attention something like inflated ratings, or a bunch of 5-star reviews that sound like they were all written by the same person. I've seen this and reported it myself. You're allowed to have multiple accounts, but e.g. if you're an author you can't use multiple accounts to game the system and inflate your ratings. GR does look at IP addresses in that instance but what I'm saying is they do it on a reactive, rather than a proactive basis.


Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} (amyorames) | 535 comments I'm sorry to take this off-topic, but I feel this has to be addressed.

Jaq, I and others have ignored your claims before, mostly because your posts indicate you're not an author to be trifled with. Upon investigation into your claims it is in fact you who is the stalker. I'm not going to name who it is because she's been victimised enough. You're guilty of the same crime as STGRB by revealing her personal details online, and issuing a takedown notice for her negative review. She has a right to warn others of your behaviour, she was trying to prevent anyone from going through what she has. If her warnings have seen GR members shelve your book "badly-behaving-author" that's their right. Boycotting is a legitimate form of protest. You've rated the book she reviewed negatively 3 times, once for each edition, 5 stars -playing the system. You've also created a negative shelf authors-with-a-stalker when you're complaining about these kinds of shelf names. So it's do what I say not what I do then.

Your blog posts There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity and Social Networks, are indeed bad publicity.

Please take your hypocrisy elsewhere.

And before you go off and dig for my personal details, revealing them could put me and my family in danger from a REAL stalker.


message 33: by Steph (last edited Aug 06, 2012 05:38AM) (new)

Steph Sinclair (Stephaniesinclair) | 267 comments @Amy, I'm glad you posted that. I was starting to think I was the only one in this thread that saw those instances.

Back on topic: I'd like to know what's in the secret sauce too. As for people gaming that system if they knew: How? I thought it already depended on number of followers, number of friends, reviewer rank, etc. How does a person game all of those systems without investing a significant amount of time into the site AND let's not forget they'd have to out rank existing members who have had accounts for years and thousands of followers.


Brian (AussieCavalier) | 30 comments *applauds Amy*

[image error]


Kat Kennedy (KatKennedy) | 70 comments ^Brian, that is hilarious.

"I sent a standard notice to her server to get the name of the stalker behind the anonymous web hosting service, that's all.

The fact that she had twisted and even outright lied about some plot points in her article made me suspect she might be a particular person. Apparently not but that doesn't explain her motives.

Let her produce the imaginary injunction or a single reviewer besides herself that would claim anything but polite communication from me. She can't because they don't exist."


I believe the take down notice actually is on Issendai's blog here

But back on topic - do we know WHEN GR is posting the guidelines?


Kathy | 66 comments Well, not for a few hours at least. It's only 5 a.m. California time.


Kat Kennedy (KatKennedy) | 70 comments True. I am happy for them to tinker with the recipe and to get a wider variety of reviews at the top - not just the ones with the most votes. I would just like it to be more transparent.


message 38: by Brian (last edited Aug 06, 2012 06:31AM) (new)

Brian (AussieCavalier) | 30 comments Kat wrote: "I believe the take down notice actually is on Issendai's blog here"

Wow, Kat applies another burn... We'll need to start dialling 911 for an ambulance shortly...


Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 3755 comments Jaq wrote: "The fact that she had twisted and even outright lied about some plot points in her article made me suspect she might be a particular person. Apparently not but that doesn't explain her motives."

Motives for what? Reading a book, interpreting what she read and then writing about it?

Pretty sure that's what reviewers do.


message 40: by [deleted user] (new)

Donna wrote: "hope not. As interesting as that might be to most of us, knowing exactly what they had to do would just lead to a lot of overzealous promoters trying to game the system."

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

In the first comment, Jaq tells people to like and tag each other's (GR authors in this group) reviews (on Amazon). In the third comment she has other advice for her friends on how to vote on "troll reviews".


MrsJoseph | 1752 comments At this point its starting to look like Jaq needs to step away from the keyboard for a little while.

Everywhere I go for the last 5 plus days I've encountered numerous posts from Jaq accusing someone of stalking her. But when I look it up...all I see is Jaq yelling at someone who dared to give her a bad review. TO which she sent a take down notice.

And after that, all I see is Jaq going around and either complaining about a system being used in the way that she uses it (shelves, anyone?) or trying to game a system (Amazon).


...


Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 3755 comments deleted user wrote: "Donna wrote: "hope not. As interesting as that might be to most of us, knowing exactly what they had to do would just lead to a lot of overzealous promoters trying to game the system."

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

In the first comment, Jaq tells people to like and tag each other's (GR authors in this group) reviews (on Amazon). In the third comment she has other advice for her friends on how to vote on "troll reviews". "


Just... Wow. *SMH*


Steph Sinclair (Stephaniesinclair) | 267 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "At this point its starting to look like Jaq needs to step away from the keyboard for a little while.

Everywhere I go for the last 5 plus days I've encountered numerous posts from Jaq accusing some..."


^Yup, this completely.


Brian (AussieCavalier) | 30 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "And after that, all I see is Jaq going around and either complaining about a system being used in the way that she uses it (shelves, anyone?) or trying to game a system (Amazon). "

Not just trying to game the Amazon system MrsJ, but also gaming the GoodReads system by rating 3 different versions of her own book...


Wonder if that is covered by GoodReads policy (or perhaps in the new guidelines Patrick is due to release today)...


Petra X (PetraX) | 4738 comments I don't think we should be hard on Jaq, there are a lot other authors doing it too:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

This is not from Jaq, but Deb, I wonder how common it is,
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Deb wrote: "Right Jaq and Jennifer. It's too bad. I'm lucky a few of my friends saw the 2 2 stars and entered 5 stars to balance it out but now I have 6 ratings for a book that hasn't been published yet..."


Steph Sinclair (Stephaniesinclair) | 267 comments And that is why I don't trust Amazon ratings and reviews (Though, I do post my reviews there).


MrsJoseph | 1752 comments Petra X wrote: "I don't think we should be hard on Jaq, there are a lot other authors doing it too:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

This is not from Jaq, but Deb..."



Oh, I agree. A ton are doing it (and I dislike it). I've just had the pleasure of seeing her complain about this for days now. It feels as if she says one thing but does another and it's a little annoying.


MrsJoseph | 1752 comments Stephanie wrote: "And that is why I don't trust Amazon ratings and reviews (Though, I do post my reviews there)."

I give Amazon very little to zero value add. I stopped reading Amazon reviews long ago. I trust them not a bit.


Dawn (breakofdawn) | 31 comments That's just plain pathetic...


Becky (Beckyofthe19and9) | 3755 comments Jaq wrote: "Becky wrote: "Motives for what? Reading a book, interpreting what she read and then writing about it? "

For following me around for 5 years. joining any group that talks about me, approaching me under one name while trashing me under another."


I'm sorry, didn't you JUST say you suspected that she was a "particular person" but she wasn't. So, now you're back to saying that she IS that person? Which is it?

Let's refresh our memory: Jaq wrote: "The fact that she had twisted and even outright lied about some plot points in her article made me suspect she might be a particular person. Apparently not but that doesn't explain her motives."

So, just to be clear: Because this reviewer didn't like your book and got something out of it that you didn't intend, that makes her a "liar", which makes you suspect her of being "a particular person" who was "stalking you", so you request her personal information from her webhost, proceed to threaten her with legal action if she doesn't recant her OPINION, and even AFTER finding out that she's not the person you thought she was, you still are justifying harassing this reviewer by claiming this ridiculous circular persecution complex as evidence.

Seems legit.


« previous 1 3
back to top