Policy on Authors adding their own quotes?

[Iben]

Over 6000 quotes?? What did he do, quote his entire books? That's just downright silly.

[Riona]

Iben wrote: "Over 6000 quotes?? What did he do, quote his entire books?"

It certainly looks that way.

[Yossarian]

I agree that it's tacky for authors to add their own but eh. But in this case yes, I definitely think that is spam and their added quotes should be removed (with further permissions denied!).

[Riona]

Okay, glad it's not just me that thinks it's spammy. I'd love for someone with authority to give us an official word though.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Are there specific quotes you feel are spam, or is it just that there are so many? I took a look, and I don't see any problematic ones offhand.

May be some duplicates (or close) that should be merged, though.

[Yossarian]

Rivka, you don't think six-thousand quotes, for one, not-famous person, is incredibly spammy?

(Which isn't to say that even if he were the most famous person in the world that there would be any need for thousands of quotes to be added. But especially as someone essentially unknown.)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

It seems excessive. But not really actionable.

And where is the line? Would 300 quotes be ok? 500?

[[deleted user]]

I agree with Rivka that it doesn't really matter about the quotes, the author is just over industrious. You don't have to read the quotes.

However I am more concerned over the multiple author accounts, as he has three, Orafoura listed as editor is also him/her. So this author's books are listed three times for all three accounts. He is up front about it though, and often rates his own books with one stars.

[Riona]

From page 61 and on, the quotes seem to be exclusively liked by the author himself. (There are quite a few pages I find suspect before that too, but let's ignore them for now). At 50 quotes per page, that's 3,250 quotes that are adding nothing to goodreads' users' experience, they're only there because the author is apparently that full of himself. Even on the quotes that have been liked by other people as well, judging by the dates under "Members who liked this quote", the author himself added most of those to the system himself.

I recognize the difficulty in explicitly saying "well this many is too many", but surely this is well beyond the line no matter where it's drawn.

[Yossarian]

I couldn't say where the line should be, that's not my area, but I don't honestly think any person really needs more than 1000 quotes floating around attributed to them. At that point nothing is memorable any longer. If you quote an entire book, then you're no longer quoting anything, you know? It's senseless, and very excessive. I suppose if GR doesn't have a problem with it, then so be it. But what if everyone starting going around adding thousands of things they wrote? If one person is allowed, then all are, right? Would that not be a waste of system resources? Just seems like it'd be better to put a cap on things the first time it's noticed, before others decide "Hey I can flood the system with my quotes too! Then people will notice me!" Just my own thoughts about it.

[Banjomike]

Mel wrote: "...I don't honestly think any person really needs more than 1000 quotes floating around attributed to them...."

There are many people with more than 1000 quotes/book snippets on GR. Oscar Wilde (1,563), Terry Pratchett, Stephenie Meyer, Shakespeare (1,920). I'm not comparing notability or anything but if you want a numeric limit, say 1000, you are going to have to delete a lot of genuine quotes.

[Riona]

Banjomike wrote: "There are many people with more than 1000 quotes/book snippets on GR. Oscar Wilde (1,563), Terry Pratchett, Stephenie Meyer, Shakespeare (1,920). I'm not comparing notability or anything but if you want a numeric limit, say 1000, you are going to have to delete a lot of genuine quotes."

I can't speak for Mel, but I'm not advocating that there be a cap placed on quotes. There are lots of people who have said many wonderful things, as you mention, and users should be able to add these. What bothers me in this case is that the author is adding his own quotes, flooding the system in an obnoxious marketing scheme. If that's not spam, I don't know what is.

[lafon حمزة]

I don't see anything wrong with them. Sure they're incredibly tacky and because of it I'm not likely to read the author's books, but as long as they meet the quote criteria (and I'm inclined to think that they do) there isn't much to be done about it.

[Banjomike]

Riona wrote: "flooding the system in an obnoxious marketing scheme. If that's not spam, I don't know what is. "

Enthusiastic, yes. Over-enthusiastic, probably yes. Obnoxious marketing scheme/spam, not so sure. None of the ones I've seen have the standard marketing/spam hallmarks. No links to a website or Amazon, no thinly disguised reviews saying "these books changed my life", no obvious sockpuppets (there are several zero bookers with only one quote). I quite like most of the ones I've read, certainly more than the Twains and such.

[Riona]

In my view, they're on about the same level as authors who mention their book in every single group post, whether self-promotion is allowed in those areas or not. I'm sure they have the best of intentions and don't realize how annoying this behavior is, but I've seen authors get booted for it. If there aren't any rules against quotes like these, maybe there should be, and that's why I started this post to discuss it. Obviously not everyone agrees, and that's okay too.

A previous poster questioned why this bothers me so much, since I "don't have to read all the quotes". I often browse the recently added quotes section, because it interests me to see what people are adding. Then when I end up having to scroll past 3 pages in a row of very similar, not-as-witty-as-he-thinks-they-are quips all added by the author himself, it just seems like such a waste. The first few times I just shook my head and paged past, but now it's really starting to grate.

[Yossarian]

Yeah I'm not saying others should be deleted, or stating any particular cap should be put on- that number was essentially picked out of a hat as a very large number, and I'm a bit surprised at people with more, but then I don't really go looking around there much, just liking random ones I come across. It was more just, huge number = unnecessary, is all.

Banjomike, it's a "marketing scheme" for trying to get people to read his stuff.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

If they are indeed very similar, merging would be perfectly reasonable.

[Riona]

rivka wrote: "If they are indeed very similar, merging would be perfectly reasonable."

I find it difficult to do quote merges when there are so many. The "find similar" option always times out when an author has more than a few hundred quotes. Still, I may take a look.

[[deleted user]]

Wait... was the 6000 quotes added 1 after another all in one day, or did he take more than one day to do this?

[Riona]

....and now I can't even get to the "Combine Quotes" page without a gateway time-out. Major quote overload.

[Riona]

Nate wrote: "Wait... was the 6000 quotes added 1 after another all in one day, or did he take more than one day to do this?"

Multiple days, but like 100 added every day one after another, which isn't much better.

[[deleted user]]

Oh, okay. I was just curious, there wasn't a purpose to that question.

[Riona]

Could someone actually check if they can get to that combine quotes page? I want to make sure it's not just my connection. I'm having no trouble getting to other authors' combine quotes page, just his.

[lafon حمزة]

Riona wrote: "Could someone actually check if they can get to that combine quotes page? I want to make sure it's not just my connection. I'm having no trouble getting to other authors' combine quotes page, just ..."

Nope, I also get a 504 gateway timeout. Looks like that page is just too large.

[Banjomike]

lafon حمزة wrote: "Riona wrote: "Could someone actually check if they can get to that combine quotes page? I want to make sure it's not just my connection. I'm having no trouble getting to other authors' combine quot..."

Me too.

[Riona]

lafon حمزة wrote: "Nope, I also get a 504 gateway timeout. Looks like that page is just too large."

Well that seems like a problem.

[David]

wow 6,000 quotes period is a lot and quoting from the same book, yea I;d say its a desperate plea for attention.

[Lobstergirl]

Perhaps it's putting extra strain on the servers and causing outages, delays, and 504 Gateways (a big problem as you may have noticed). I would personally be in favor of putting some limit on quotes per author. Surely most things an author needs to say could be said in 2,000 quotes.

[❂ Murder by Death]

I'm not advocating a hard quote limit, but it seems to me that the point at which we can no longer maintain part of the system because that part is overloaded (not able to merge quotes b/c there are too many quotes for the system to handle) - that point should be considered to be the limit.

Sort of like - if you can't keep a house clean because there too much stuff in the house to get in the front door, then it's time to get rid of some stuff. :D

[Banjomike]

David wrote: "wow 6,000 quotes period is a lot and quoting from the same book, yea I;d say its a desperate plea for attention."

Not all from the same book.

[Banjomike]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Surely most things an author needs to say could be said in 2,000 quotes. "

You'd think so. I'd want to know how many (and who) are already at or near that or any other figure. Shakespeare is on 1,920 (hold on, now it says Shakespeare is on 2,451 and Oscar Wilde is up from 1,563 to 1,618). Something is going on. "Time for bed", said Zebedee.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Perhaps it's putting extra strain on the servers and causing outages, delays, and 504 Gateways"

Only likely if/when many users are trying to access them.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Maybe limit number of quotes for books published after, say, 1960? or some other break for classic/nonclassic. That should leave classics or acriptures that could conceivably exceed limits alone.

Assming authors trying to game system cannot change the copyright dates (new librarian here, not sure what authors can or cannot change)

Or an algorithm based on number of pages. There are only so many word/phrases in a 300 page book so too many quotes = too many duplicates. Maybe a straight no more quotes than ten times the number of pages?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

❂ Jennifer wrote: "I'm not advocating a hard quote limit, but it seems to me that the point at which we can no longer maintain part of the system because that part is overloaded"

I have asked for more input from other GR staff members on this. It will probably take some time to evaluate the situation.

[Riona]

rivka wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: "Perhaps it's putting extra strain on the servers and causing outages, delays, and 504 Gateways"

Only likely if/when many users are trying to access them."

I don't think so. I've always had issues when trying to combine quotes from authors with many listed (I know I've had issues with J.K. Rowling, Shakespeare, etc. in the past), even when using the site at very low-traffic times. Usually I only get timeouts when trying to filter by similar, though. With this guy's exorbitant number of quotes, I can't even get to the combine page. Has ANYONE managed that?


rivka wrote: "I have asked for more input from other GR staff members on this. It will probably take some time to evaluate the situation."

Glad to hear you guys will be considering this issue more. The very fact that his quotes can't be combined, because it's just too much for the system, indicate that this is more problematic than just being annoying.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

General strain on the site (for all users) is distinct from a single page not loading for you. Any high-volume quote page may have trouble loading, but it less likely to affect the site for other users if you are the only one trying to load that page.

[Audrey]

Riona wrote: "In my view, they're on about the same level as authors who mention their book in every single group post, whether self-promotion is allowed in those areas or not. I'm sure they have the best of int..."

I agree with this viewpoint. I don't think there should be a cap, but perhaps there should be a cap on how many an author may add for his or her own books. Whether actual readers - and this is a site for readers, after all, right? - add the quotes will determine how many are listed for an author.

[Krystal109]

I never look at quotes, lists, or trivia, but I would image these are the most likely places for self promotion on the website.

If GR's doesn't put a limit on what authors should and shouldn't be allowed to do, they will exploit and over spam these areas.

[Yossarian]

Krystal109 wrote: "f GR's doesn't put a limit on what authors should and shouldn't be allowed to do, they will exploit and over spam these areas."

This, exactly. This is what I was trying to point out up at the beginning.

[Krystal109]

I just think that the users should promote books they enjoyed and this should not be hindered by the over spamming by authors on lists, etc.

Sure they can promote their stuff, but their should be a point where enough is enough. I mean 6,000 quotes?

Then again, I also don't believe in consumerism/advertising. I don't listen to companies and such telling me when and what to buy. I like word of mouth. I believe that if something really is good, then I will hear about it through friends who know what I like.

For me, I am more likely to believe that a book is good if it has 6,000 quotes by users. Seeing 6,000 quotes by an author just tells me that what they wrote must suck. The more you throw it at people, the worse it is.

In this case, there is no GR's policy on this. The author is doing themselves more harm then good... so have at it.

[[deleted user]]

Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that the point of this site was not only for readers to share books, as well as quotes that they like, but also for authors to add their own stuff for people to read...

I mean if there is no one adding new material other than things for example like Stephenie Meyer quotes (who several people, including Stephen King, have said is not very good, but thousands of people love) then what is the point in this site?

Also, has anyone bothered to notice that the author in question here has 35 books. Given the large amount of books, is 6000 quotes really that much? If you do the math it's roughly 172 quotes per book. That's really not much at all.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of his quotes are liked by over 700 people each, and you have to do some searching in the quotes section to actually find him, maybe this situation is not as “extreme” or “spammy” as some people believe. I see nothing wrong with people adding their own quotes if it adds something to the site, which I and apparently a lot of other good reads members believe he is. (Given the high number of likes on each quote, except for the recently added quotes that no one has had a chance to read yet.)

[Banjomike]

It has been pointed out that the quotes are NOT from the same book.

[Yossarian]

I see nothing wrong with people adding their own quotes to an extent. And yes, 172 is a lot per book. For instance, his first book listed has 108 pages. Seriously, how many books have you read where every. single. page. had not one, but even two worthwhile quotes?? This is what I mean by quoting so much that you're no longer quoting anything.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Quantity is a decisive factor in evaluating for spam.

Suspicious too for a not well known author to have hundreds of likes or ratings on anything.

Gee, goodreads overcapacity or having growing pains...golly...wonder where some pruning could be done?

Actually for both authors and readers, does anyone need to have the capability to create more quotes than pages? At what point is it violating copyright making quotes if you are not the author? Most copyright notices allow for brief excerpts/quotes for use in reviews or as properly cited research source material. How many quotes before you may as well have uploaded the entire book or at least an over-generous excerpt—I know an author cannot plagiarize their own work but sheesh...are they trying to practically read their book aloud to us with all the quoting? And do hundreds of non-sockpuppets go through and like the quotes?

(Personally, I have zero interest in reading anything with more quotes than pages. Getting a headache just thinking about; and, if author was one I liked would much rather they were spending their time creating new escapes for me than quoting, spamming and trolling about).

[❂ Murder by Death]

I agree with everyone here that this author's quotes are excessive and feels spammy.

But, what it really boils down to is this author has entered in so many quotes that his combine page is inaccessible. I don't care if every word out of an author's mouth is art and a gift from the gods, no one should be able to render any part of the database unusable, even just one page.

We can argue the magic number that equals spam forever, but any part of the db being unreachable is a pretty definite line in the sand in my opinion.

[Banjomike]

❂ Jennifer wrote: "any part of the db being unreachable is a pretty definite line in the sand in my opinion. "

That is beyond argument.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Amy wrote: "the author in question here has 35 books. Given the large amount of books, is 6000 quotes really that much?"

Shakespeare, one of the most quotable authors ever, has fewer than 3000 quotes in the database. It takes some hubris to consider oneself more quotable than Shakespeare.

[Riona]

Banjomike wrote: "❂ Jennifer wrote: "any part of the db being unreachable is a pretty definite line in the sand in my opinion. "

That is beyond argument."

Agreed.

[[deleted user]]

rivka wrote: "Amy wrote: "the author in question here has 35 books. Given the large amount of books, is 6000 quotes really that much?"

Shakespeare, one of the most quotable authors ever, has fewer than 3000 quo..."

Adding quotes doesn't mean that he considers himself more quotable than Shakespeare. He's just putting his stuff out there for people to read, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that!

I would also like to point out that it's free content, and quotes are the reason most of the people are on this site. He's been tweeted twice as I was writing this, and those people get those quotes from Goodreads! Do you think YouTube or Wikipedia censor how much people put on their sites? No. Because anyone who has a brain can see that content, of any kind, is good for the site.

And Riona,
what exactly is your agenda here? Why on earth are you trying so hard to get someone who clearly has become popular on gr kicked off? I mean you are censoring him, and the funny part about it is that you actually have people backing you up. It's clear you are a very angry person with an agenda, but I guess any idiot can get followers. At least when Hitler convinced Germany to go on his tirade he did it eloquently.

But hey, I think while you guys are at it you should start up a fire and throw some books on there. I mean there are too many books in the world, right? This needs to be resolved now before the problem escalates. People need to know that you have absolute authority on how much of what can be shared. I mean what are we going to do if people continue to write down their ideas, and share them with people!? It would be absolute chaos!

[Krystal109]

Dude, you are massively over reacting and being defensive. Burning books... please! That is uncalled for.

No one is ATTACKING the author. We are talking about whether should be a policy on how much an author can quote themselves.

There is a point where promoting your work turns into spam and we are trying to define that line.