Kat Kennedy Kat Kennedy's Comments (member since Apr 12, 2011)

Kat Kennedy's comments from the Goodreads Feedback group.

(showing 1-20 of 70)
« previous 1 3 4

Top Reviewers (129 new)
Jul 23, 2013 08:12PM

1 The real question now is how to go about abusing and taking advantage of the 99%. As the 1%, I feel this is a sacred tradition to uphold.
Mar 17, 2013 02:11AM

1 I agree. Would much rather see Top Friend reviews as opposed to the many five star reviews that are currently showing up on books I'm looking into.
Feb 11, 2013 01:41PM

1 I agree with being able to disable comments. It's an easy, effective way of improving the GR experience for some people.
Images in reviews (184 new)
Aug 22, 2012 05:19AM

1 Lot's of people like different sorts of reviews. Some like thoughtful, focused book discussion, some like to read a review where the book's main character interviews Donald Duck. Others like GIFs and funny pictures. It's the marvel of being human.

I hated over sized images in status updates but I think the gif in reviews hate seems a little out of proportion.
Aug 15, 2012 07:44PM

1 I know, Brian, I was referring to another post.
Aug 15, 2012 07:14PM

1 When you are sending a DCMA, as I've been led to believe, you have to use your real name.

How many people want to give over their real name to the author running this site?
Aug 14, 2012 04:35PM

1 Who do we contact if our reviews have been hidden?
Aug 13, 2012 02:56PM

1 Being notified of their reviews being buried was the one thing that the vast majority of users here requested. You can not have transparency without effective communication. And without transparency, this whole system will become rampantly abused.
Aug 08, 2012 04:28AM

1 Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!
Aug 07, 2012 08:09PM

1 Yeah KarLynP,

I understand that. Notifications and clearing up the "quality reviews" portion is my only real concern. One I hoped wouldn't require excessive time to respond to - the other, would require consideration so that is understandable.
Aug 07, 2012 07:52PM

1 Having the option to bring up deprioritzed reviews would be interesting.

Admin, are we going to hear back about the concerns re: notifications of deprioritized reviews? I would really like a PM or something when that happens.
Aug 07, 2012 06:38AM

1 Amy or "Ames" wrote: "@Kat & Stephanie: I don't know what I want anymore. I just see GR as favoring authors more than reviewers these days. I don't expect them to be perfect but I don't think they've been as transparent..."

I understand. But it has simply not been my experience.

I am still waiting for them to explain or act on my Die for Me and Starters reviews but, I just don't see the issue.
Aug 07, 2012 06:18AM

1 Ala wrote: "And there it is folks, the Nazi post."

The theory is upheld.
Aug 07, 2012 06:17AM

1 No. We're not allowed to complain on the other sites. They start beating us when we get uppity.
Aug 07, 2012 05:59AM

1 Amy or "The fact that they're not answering certain questions about the guidelines and ignoring the GR-related troubles of GR users has me thinking GR has their head in the sand, hoping this will all blow over. I think my growing cynicism about GR's priorities is warranted. "

Well, what exactly is GR's priorities? As far as I see it:

Keep their staff on the books by maintaining advertisers, maintain the site, provide a service. What other priorities should they have? They have 9 million+ users to keep happy. Whilst I agree that many of the people in these forums probably provide a significant chunk of the site's content, nobody asked us to do that. There was no fealty sworn and pledges taken.

Goodreads has to somehow keep us happy, the authors happy and occasionally work on the glitches (though seriously, about those notifications...?)

Is the site perfect? No. But I think the expectations vs realities are getting a little out of hand here.

Hell, even I am ignoring the GR related troubles and waiting for them to blow over. Why? Because Vanity and her site are not worth getting my knickers in a knot over.
Aug 07, 2012 02:07AM

1 "Asking Goodreads to openly pick a side doesn't seem unreasonable. It's made the national media, after all, and saying "we don't condone that's site behavior and see nothing wrong with those reviewers reviews" shouldn't be too hard, unless they're worried about losing the abusive stalker author crowd."

I don't think this is about the abusive stalker crowd at all. They're not losing them because they kicked them out.

Goodreads has come under fire just as we have. They do not need to make a public statement denouncing the site because they made their position clear when they booted the site creator and then Bryant off. Goodreads is a social networking site. I don't know why they are expected to involve themselves in an offsite issue.

But on a site of 9 million users, are you suggesting there aren't SOME people who post inappropriate reviews unfairly targeting authors?

They are making things more transparent. It's better to have the guidelines out there and obvious to all. Now we need more definitive answers about notifications of diproritized reviews but other than that - is this really worth getting so upset about?
Aug 06, 2012 10:38PM

1 Ridley wrote: "Patrick wrote: "I'm sorry you feel that way, Ridley. That's not how we see it at all."

Your staff doesn't have to worry about the ramifications of your policy, just us users, so there's no problem..."

I don't think this is strictly fair. It would be unreasonable to blame goodreads for the actions of an individual/s who operate with unreasonable hatred. They have banned the creator of STGRB multiple times, and they banned Bryant as well when he violated their TOS.

They are not responsible for what takes place off their site. The timing of the new review policy could be better and the policy itself would benefit from further clarifications - but what more can they do?

Is GR to put their undies on outside, wear a cape and propose to fight for truth and justice?

They have already protected GR users ON Goodreads - now they are adjusting their policies which they are entitled to do. What more do you want.
Weird Secret Sauce (145 new)
Aug 06, 2012 08:00PM

1 My Die for Me and Starters reviews are still buried somewhere in the depths of the book page.
Aug 06, 2012 06:45PM

1 Kara wrote: "Kat wrote: "I'm kind of concerned about this line:

"we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality. "

Who is deciding, how, what criteria are you using? This is quite vague."


Thank you Kara.

I think my point is that the guidelines mention appropriate reviews and inappropriate ones. But it doesn't cover what Goodreads considers to be high quality or not - at least from what I can see.

"we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality. "

Am I reading this wrong? The first aspect of this senrence is certainly covered, and covered very satisfactorily in the guidelines below. The second? I don't see where the guidelines necessarily address quality.

They cover:

-reviewing author/author's private life
-abusing ratings system
-Attacking other reviewers
-self promotion
-blog linking
-hate speech
-spam reviews
-commercial reviews

I would deem these under inappropriate reviews. But do these entirely cover the low quality clause? Or is that something else? I would just like some clarification on that.
Aug 06, 2012 06:16PM

1 I'm kind of concerned about this line:

"we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality. "

Who is deciding, how, what criteria are you using? This is quite vague.
« previous 1 3 4

topics created by Kat Kennedy