Explanations for What I Do and Don't Do on "Goodreads"
Occasionally, I receive a private message on the Goodreads literary website pertaining to something I have or haven't done. Since I seldom respond to a private message, hopefully, the following explanations will suffice.
When someone challenges your comment, why do you seldom bother to respond?
If someone doubts the accuracy of my statement, cursory research on their part will provide data and details that support and defend it more convincingly than a rebuttal from me.
Why do you constantly inform others that a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation requires consumer reviews that have been solicited, purchased, swapped or exchanged for a free book include a disclaimer stating so?
Two reasons: First, because it does and secondly, because many who post a review that has been solicited or in exchange for compensation by the author obviously are unaware of or choose to deliberately violate the FTC regulation. How do I know this? Deductive reasoning! The reviews of books by authors who constantly solicit reviews and offer some type of compensation for one rarely include the required disclaimer.
Why do you seldom interact with other members in discussion threads?
I occasionally share my knowledge of a subject, but only if no one else has previously provided similar information. Speculation and redundancy contribute nothing of worth.
You sometimes advise writers regarding what to do or not to do in order to enhance the chances of becoming commercially successful. Do you consider yourself an expert?
The information provided has been obtained from seminars, books, articles, lectures and classes. The instructors and authors are the experts; I merely pass along their combined knowledge and expertise.
As a writer, don't you think it would be nice to encourage, support and promote fellow writers?
I don't consider myself a writer. I wrote one novel four years ago and do not intend to write another. I support and promote writers by purchasing, reading and reviewing their work.
When someone challenges your comment, why do you seldom bother to respond?
If someone doubts the accuracy of my statement, cursory research on their part will provide data and details that support and defend it more convincingly than a rebuttal from me.
Why do you constantly inform others that a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation requires consumer reviews that have been solicited, purchased, swapped or exchanged for a free book include a disclaimer stating so?
Two reasons: First, because it does and secondly, because many who post a review that has been solicited or in exchange for compensation by the author obviously are unaware of or choose to deliberately violate the FTC regulation. How do I know this? Deductive reasoning! The reviews of books by authors who constantly solicit reviews and offer some type of compensation for one rarely include the required disclaimer.
Why do you seldom interact with other members in discussion threads?
I occasionally share my knowledge of a subject, but only if no one else has previously provided similar information. Speculation and redundancy contribute nothing of worth.
You sometimes advise writers regarding what to do or not to do in order to enhance the chances of becoming commercially successful. Do you consider yourself an expert?
The information provided has been obtained from seminars, books, articles, lectures and classes. The instructors and authors are the experts; I merely pass along their combined knowledge and expertise.
As a writer, don't you think it would be nice to encourage, support and promote fellow writers?
I don't consider myself a writer. I wrote one novel four years ago and do not intend to write another. I support and promote writers by purchasing, reading and reviewing their work.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Michael
(new)
Dec 16, 2015 04:24PM
thanks Jim
reply
|
flag
Michael wrote: "thanks Jim"My pleasure, Michael. As stated, I prefer not to communicate via private messages or participate in a never ending back and forth debate in a discussion thread; however, I did feel that legitimate questions deserved honest replies.
Thank you for remaining a long-time and faithful follower of the blog.
Jim Vuksic
As always - accurate, concise and directly on point. I love reading your blog. Like I said before it makes me smile.
Christine wrote: "As always - accurate, concise and directly on point. I love reading your blog. Like I said before it makes me smile."Christine,
A complement from you more than compensates for the occasional nasty comment the same blog posts seem to evoke from others. It amuses me that the negative responses are almost always sent via private message rather than the comment section of the blog itself.
Thank you for following the blog and always commenting so honestly whether you agree with a post or not.
Jim Vuksic
Jim,I just wanted to share my thoughts on your blog should you be interested in them. If not I hope you will humor me.
Your content is admirably presented, your writing skills and command of language are first rate and your message is relevant, informed and insightful. yet I keep going back and forth with myself trying to figure out why I can't connect, intuitively, with your posts. You have said nothing with which I do not agree and I believe your real world common sense is necessary, yet I think at the end of the day it seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder.
You do not suffer fools gladly, that is evident and I do not think that is bad but I also think you may be conflating ethics with pride. Even when we are right there is always room for a bit of grace and poise in our interactions with one another. It boils down to empathy. So if you are sharing your wisdom and years of acquired knowledge it is for a reason, right? It probably is to enlighten others but at times it seems that your internal reason is to show everyone that they are going about things the wrong way. That can be done in such a way as to create teachable moments in an organic way.
For example, if someone asks you for a review or blog interview you do not simply inform them that that is not your policy, you, instead seem to insinuate that they are lazy or stupid and would already know that had they bothered to give your blog a once-over. Technically you are correct but is there not a more professional, outcome-oriented way to go about this? Would it not be more intuitive for you to add a small, permanent disclaimer to each of your goodreads posts indicating your policy? Could you not keep a small, politely worded response ready in your copy and paste arsenal?
None of these things are required of anyone and I do not advocate treating people with kid gloves but there is nothing to be gained by people missing your very important lessons because they feel you were smug. Even great thinkers and writers benefit from humility and a bit of self-reflection. I think that even when you are responding to someone who is belligerent or ignorant you can come out on top because the people following the conversation are paying attention, even if they are not participating. They can learn a lot from you.
Just remember that the people who need your invaluable insights the most can't access you because your position atop your horse may be too high. I would not have said all of this if I did not feel you had something important to contribute. Indie authors have learned so many cringeworthy and head scratching bad habits that I actually wish you had a podcast or blog solely dedicated to the subject, so I am a fan. If I have offended or irritated you I apologize. If I have said anything that is not correct I am open to reprisal but I also believe there may be a thing or two here that deserves some consideration.
Tara - I can see you are new to Goodreads. Your comments to Jim are interesting. They seem to reflect the trendy attitude that everyone needs to be politically correct, empathize with everyone, and maintain a friendly and non-confrontational persona. I have no respect for such drivel.I can't speak for JIm, but I do consider him a good friend. His ability to cut to the truth of the matter, without sugar coating every comment, in my opinion is courageous and quite admirable. I have no problem voicing disagreement, and I'm confident he will, in turn, feel free to voice his point of view.
Isn't that what interesting discussion and stimulating debate is all about. Many writers and readers can learn from Jim, but that is their choice to make. It's a take it or leave it situation. I'm quite sure he is not going to change to accommodate some faceless group.
I admire his intelligence, integrity, honesty, and extensive knowledge. Those of us who follow him, and other members very much like him, have none of the problems you've mentioned.
I would strongly suggest you get involved in various groups and related discussions. I'm sure you'll find it refreshing to have members express their opinions without reservations or imposed restrictions. The nicest part is the 4 million members.
Christine,I appreciate your thoughts. It is indeed unfortunate when every attempt to have a truthful, meaningful conversation brings out the politically correct brigade. It usually serves as a ploy to shut down important dialogue and 'kill the messenger' so to speak. I am certainly not of that ilk. I also feel, however, that the best among us with the most important thoughts to contribute have more of a responsibility to be conscientious in their mission of spreading information. If we care about the message we have to care about how it comes across, in my opinion.
I certainly never advocated restrictions or any other form of constrained speech. I simply shared my thoughts about the importance of being gracious and empathetic in the way we communicate. If Jim seeks to share information with those who already wholeheartedly agree with him and practice what he preaches on a daily basis then it would be pointless for him to consider his approach. He is preaching to his choir. But I suggest that if jim wants to further validate his mission of enlightening those who need it a worthwhile reflection of substance via form is not unreasonable.
Lastly you state that I feel people must be friendly and non-confrontational. I think being friendly is a personal choice and in the end it is not really an important trait to have in the public forum. I think being courteous is far more important. As for being confrontational i have found over the years that confrontation is for those who are easily threatened. People who are secure are more likely to challenge,question, ask uncomfortable questions, stick to their guns and tell their truth with confidence and decorum. That doesn't sound confrontational to me. And Jim seems about a million years away from being confrontational in my opinion so I am not sure how that came into play with your comment.
Again, thanks for weighing in!
Tara wrote: "Jim,I just wanted to share my thoughts on your blog should you be interested in them. If not I hope you will humor me.
Your content is admirably presented, your writing skills and command of lan..."
Tara,
I found all of your comments to be quite interesting and well worth reading. They reveal that you have carefully read more than just this one blog post. That and the fact that you expended the time and effort to state your personal observations and opinions so thoroughly is impressive and flattering. Whether I agree or not, I always appreciate constructive criticism.
Rest assured that nothing you stated was offensive or irritating. It takes more than a difference of opinion or criticism to offend or irritate me. What a dull place this world would be if its inhabitants always agreed and placated each other.
Thank you again for viewing the blog and taking the time to share your thoughts. It is very much appreciated.
Jim Vuksic
jim,Your considerate reply has been very validating - my hunch about you was spot on. You are a man of integrity and insight and I am proud to add my name to the many who receive valuable information from your posts. Thank you for not treating my original post with anything less than thoughtfulness and respect. Had you not I would not have blamed you - it can be discouraging when some unknown comes along and presumes to give you advice. but again, your blog content really resonated with me. I believe your brand of truth is sorely needed today and I felt a personal responsibility to communicate my feelings about what I observed. I am afraid I am an original Southern belle and geility still means a great deal to me and my family, lol.
You illustrate such an important point - disagreement does not have to equal discord. I am very much encouraged by your example and the positive lesson I have learned here. Christine is proof of what I say - writers with intelligence and relevant perspectives are rare and inspire loyalty from their readers. You've earned it, jim.
Thank you and I look forward to future posts.
Tara
Tara - Great rhetoric but with little real substance. In your first message, you accused Jim of having a chip on his shoulder, being prideful, and critical. You then went on to claim he lacked grace, poise, and empathy. In your opinion, he was smug, non-professional, and lacked humility and self-reflection. The ending comments accused him of being on his high horse and discourteous. You have attacked a man based on YOUR assumption his MISSION is to enlighten the masses. The rhetoric and double speak in the second post touches on the ridiculous. Your response to Jim is a complete turn around - now you cannot compliment him enough.
No one has an issue with someone voicing an opinion and your comments on the CONTENT of Jim’s post would have been appropriate. Rather you attacked and insulted Jim personally. That is unacceptable on every level. Since you are new, I did not FLAG your first comment although I would have been within my rights to do so, because it contravenes the TOS of Goodreads.
Here is some enlightenment from my perspective. No one on this site will tolerate personal attacks and Goodreads TOS agrees:
From the Goodreads Terms of Service: …“You agree not to post User Content that: … (v) contains any information or content that we deem to be unlawful, harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, harassing, humiliating to other people (publicly or otherwise), libelous, threatening, profane, or otherwise objectionable;…”
“…Goodreads reserves the right … to reject and/or remove any User Content that Goodreads believes, in its sole discretion, violates these provisions…”
I would strongly suggest in the future you stick to the content of the blog and keep your opinions and feelings about the person's perceived behavior to yourself.
Christine,I am not entirely certain that there is any benefit to discussing this further with you. I think your dusting off the goodreads harassment policy and waving it in the air is a misguided bid to shut down the conversation by shutting down the conversant. Nevertheless it was never my intention to upset anyone here and i certainly never attacked jim. I have every right to commend Jim for how he handled the situation and I am just as proud as I was before to call myself a fan. I believe you are a fan as well? I suggest you borrow a page from his book and show a little more courtesy with those you may find yourself in disagreement with. Good reading and good day, or as my mother would say, bless your heart.
