Poll

Do you think it might be worth listing recent new group reads in the opening post of the nomination thread in addition to the last year's worth of re-visit group reads?

This month, we had two people nominate The Hunchback of Notre Dame - which hasn't even been read yet - and two other books (The Awakening and Madame Bovary both made it onto the ballot despite having been read within the last 6 months.

We keep open on the Group Home page the last three months of selected group reading. Along with the most recent quarterly long read that makes up the 10 most recent past reads. Add to that the current months reading for 4 categories, 5 counting short stories and further add the next months just decided 5 categories, we end up with about twenty books covering a 5 month time frame.

To me that seems like a lot of sugar for a nickel, but if you think it would truly prove worthwhile I can give it a try for the next nomination period.

And the more books you have listed there, the more likely people will just not read them, which would certainly be a problem... And spoiler tags to tidy things up won't work either.

I still think there's an issue when we get two people nominating the same book that hasn't even been read yet.

Hm... What about changing the link to the group bookshelf?

The default view of the group bookshelf shows the most recently read books first. If we used a link that sorted in ascending order for "Date Started", that would put the books that we haven't read recently first, and that might subtly encourage people to nominate the books that haven't been revisited in a long time.

For instance - a link like this: https://www.goodreads.com/group/books...
That wouldn't be much work, I think?

I think editing the bookshelf to list from the oldest to the newest will help in cutting down on the most recent books being nominated for reread and encourage older book nominations. I'll certainly do that for next months nominations.

However in addition to the above fix perhaps adding a new rule on a books eligibility would prove helpful. "Only books that have been on the Group bookshelf for a minimum of 12 months are eligible for rereading nomination"

Bob wrote: "However in addition to the above fix perhaps adding a new rule on a books eligibility would prove helpful. "Only books that have been on the Group bookshelf for a minimum of 12 months are eligible for rereading nomination"

I think that's a good idea.

Bob wrote: ""Only books that have been on the Group bookshelf for a minimum of 12 months are eligible for rereading nomination""

I like that!

Handmaid's Tale was read only 18 months ago - I doubt all the people voting for it have joined the group in that time - so I guess there are some books that people are just happy to re-read regularly

Bob wrote: ""Only books that have been on the Group bookshelf for a minimum of 12 months are eligible for rereading nomination" ..."

I like the 12 month rule too.

Darren wrote: "Handmaid's Tale was read only 18 months ago - I doubt all the people voting for it have joined the group in that time - so I guess there are some books that people are just happy to re-read regularly"

18 months on an internet forum is a long time, and there's a ton of members that have joined since then. But yes, some people vote for things they want to reread. But others just might not have had time to read it last time it was nominated. For instance, despite my using it as an example, I wouldn't terribly mind Madam Bovary being picked. I was right in the middle of moving last fall, so I didn't have time to read it with the group.

I've only just noticed these comments. I think some books just get a lot of popularity and votes, no matter how many times or how recently they be been read. I'd be happy to have a 12 month rule, of no re-reads within the past year.