中文图书书友会 > Members
Members
Showing 1-30 of 463
Status:
"On page 162, ‘—rhododendrons—It rained every day—Crops were flattened all over—predators ate well that week, without having to work hard for their food—some men kill for fun. He never killed anything for fun—not interested in trophies. He only killed to protect his pheasants, which were then killed by other people for fun. He was a functional killer—not proud of it—did not think his work was anything to make an exhibition of.’" — 18 hours, 8 min ago
"On page 162, ‘—rhododendrons—It rained every day—Crops were flattened all over—predators ate well that week, without having to work hard for their food—some men kill for fun. He never killed anything for fun—not interested in trophies. He only killed to protect his pheasants, which were then killed by other people for fun. He was a functional killer—not proud of it—did not think his work was anything to make an exhibition of.’" — 18 hours, 8 min ago
Status:
以功能的全面、ui的精美、运行的流畅论，Goodreads远不及豆瓣。
即便以所收书籍的全面论，Goodreads在英文书方面不过略胜豆瓣一筹，但中文书的收录几乎是残缺的，许多中文书籍或是只有一个版本，或是完全没有条目，使用中必须频繁反馈，不断要求官方增补书籍信息。
但我仍然选择使用Goodreads，盖因Goodreads其本质是一个书评平台，而豆瓣本质是一个社交平台，豆瓣上充斥的焦虑议题、性别议题、社会议题和优越展示是没法屏蔽的，不能把阅读板块从豆瓣里抠出来单独使用，社交功能造成的干扰远远超过了其完善的阅读功能带来的便利。而Goodreads的社交功能的贫瘠反而确保了其核心书评功能不被干擾。 — Mar 15, 2026 08:23PM
以功能的全面、ui的精美、运行的流畅论，Goodreads远不及豆瓣。
即便以所收书籍的全面论，Goodreads在英文书方面不过略胜豆瓣一筹，但中文书的收录几乎是残缺的，许多中文书籍或是只有一个版本，或是完全没有条目，使用中必须频繁反馈，不断要求官方增补书籍信息。
但我仍然选择使用Goodreads，盖因Goodreads其本质是一个书评平台，而豆瓣本质是一个社交平台，豆瓣上充斥的焦虑议题、性别议题、社会议题和优越展示是没法屏蔽的，不能把阅读板块从豆瓣里抠出来单独使用，社交功能造成的干扰远远超过了其完善的阅读功能带来的便利。而Goodreads的社交功能的贫瘠反而确保了其核心书评功能不被干擾。 — Mar 15, 2026 08:23PM
