All About Books discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
General Info
>
Ask the Moderators
Mod
Jenny, thanks. I may do that, but didn't want anyone to feel "got at". All the technical bits and pieces can be tricky, but the author can always be put in the name of the thread!Great that you are discussing numbers. Nobody wants to exclude anybody (I hope) but the total does seem...unrepresentative. Another member, not in this discussion, has already commented to me that the group does not have the same feel, and that she feels "overwhelmed" by all the new members. Of course these must necessarily be ones who have commented, so I can see that you all have a problem!
Jenny wrote: "not only do you have a point Gill, you are also psychic! ;) We have actually started a little discussion amongst ourselves already, it helps to know that there'd be support for a 'trimming'- plan...."Whilst I don't actually believe I'm psychic, Jenny, it is one how often you and I are thinking the same thing!
Whoa Jenny and Gill, am I hear the Twilight Zone music in the background:)I, too, have seen the group numbers swell recently and wondered why. Now I know the answer is probably that we are a featured group.
Trimming - well, I don't think it's a bad idea. But... do we have to consider that some members may be 'shy' and often read the posts but do not comment? Says me - one who was formerly shy but now just cannot shut up. I'm sure my husband would have agreed with that summation!
Bette you are right! We are a 'featured group' now. I am not even sure what that means?
OH that's odd: We have a new section on the groups page called "featured groups." Every week or so our staff will select new groups to feature. If you belong to a group that you think would be of interest to the Goodreads community at large, please tell us by posting here!
* Candidates must be public groups (not private) and currently active.
* Attention authors hosting Q&A groups: Please do not post here. Please email us at support(at)goodreads(dot)com to alert us to your group.
To nominate a group, simply post a link to the group below with a quick note about why you think the group is great. Thanks!
No idea who nominated us though!
At the risk of sounding like a contrarian. I've never been a fan of removing people from groups for not posting. Yes that means there will be a bunch of members who don't post, but that will still be true even if you remove people, new ones will just join and not post. On top of that even if you just kept the people who had posted that would still be far more people then the number of people who post all the time.
Mod
I do agree
This is something for the mods to discuss themselves privately, of course, regarding AAB. But I rather wish there was a Goodreads policy on this. Yes, nobody would wish to stop shy people from observing, but when three quarters of the group have never commented even once, it looks much more like "add-a-group" syndrome. And yes, amber, you are quite right that others will join and do the same. So if this is what happens after one year, after two years then only an 8th of the members may ever have even said hello...and so on, if nothing is done.How about suggesting to the Goodreads feedback group that something is put in place to automatically delete members from all groups, if they have not made a comment in over a year, say. That hardly seems Draconian to me, and would prevent any groups from having this problem. (I'd do it myself, but it would come better from mods.) Readers can always rejoin groups they are truly interested in. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary and misleading number which does not reflect the size of the working group.
Mod
I agree with you, Jean.
This point may already have been covered. Can I be the devils advocate here? Aside from the incidence of spam, what is the real problem with a large membership?Might the solution lie with the Mods simply contacting Otis and Elizabeth to ask them to remove us as a featured group?
Or maybe put the rule; 'this group is not for self-promotion', at the very top of the group's home window? The current Rules has the message contained in a long sentence and might be skimmed over by prospective members. Or additionally, make a rule like; you need to post at least 20 comments within three months to remain in the group!
This all reminds me of a line "a swimmer who never enters the water": this doesn't make them any less than a swimmer. Likewise, a member who does not post is not any less a member.
I, for one, put my hand up again in defense of the people who might read the posts to gain good book ideas and reviews. Additionally, I wonder do we have members who are handicapped and cannot post easily but are happy to read the AAB site for ideas and reviews.
Of course the other easy solution is make AAB a private group!
Just all ideas....
Better BookAddict wrote: "This point may already have been covered. Can I be the devils advocate here? Aside from the incidence of spam, what is the real problem with a large membership?Might the solution lie with the M..."
All good points Bette. Be sure that we will not be making any hasty decisions -- right now we are just discussing the issue both pro and con.
Thanks for your input guys. All the points made, regardless if pro or con are very sound ones, and since there's no easy solution we are discussing it at the minute. I would hate to remove someone from the group who's been actively 'lurking', meaning might not comment but still actually follows what is happening, and I think that is true for all of us mods so I don't think we are in danger of taking this too lightly.
I have to agree with Bette on this . I belong to several groups and it seems to me it's pretty much the same there . It's the same people commenting and a lot of others who don't . I'm not sure I see the harm in this . The idea of booting people from a group because they don't comment just doesn't seem right to me . However , I am all for deterring self promotion .
...and there Leslie and I went cross-posting. ;)
Jenny wrote: "...and there Leslie and I went cross-posting. ;)"And luckily saying basically the same thing :P
Plenty of food for thought for the mods here :) I tend to think the outcome of all this will not matter too much, as you mods are all experienced anyway, so are not likely to be fazed and do silly things as a result of a sudden surge in membership.Plus there is a difference, of course, between a sudden spurt of growth in active members, and the cosmetic enhancing of numbers, which really isn't much of a problem except that it isn't truly representative. Which, as I indicated earlier, is really a problem for Goodreads as a whole.
Personally I'm bowing out now and will be happy whatever you mods decide. Though if it had been a private group in the first place, I would never have joined it, and you would not have one of your resident jokers... (Some may say that's no bad thing!) :D
Yikes! There were SIX more comments before I posted mine! :D
Jean wrote: "Yikes! There were SIX more comments before I posted mine! :D"So what's with this 'bowing out', oh Jean of the another comment 6 minutes later?!
...of the discussion itself! Nothing else :)
Jean wrote: "...of the discussion itself! Nothing else :)"Long live the 'wise women' and the 'resident jokers' of AAB, you make this group all the better:)
Disappointed that you're discussing a membership,'cull'. I'm a (very) occasional commentator, and a regular 'lurker'. I post when I have something to say but I'm not generally the chatty type - on or off-line. I belong to two other GR groups, where my pattern of behavior is much the same. Nevertheless, I value the book discussions, and whilst I'm not big into "challenges" and rarely formally join one, I appreciate the wider and more eclectic literary pastures to which they have brought me.
I understand that self-promoters can be a pain - which (as far as I can make out) is the genesis of the 'silent' member debate - though I would have have thought they were at most deeply dull - but these threads are valued by many more members than those of you who like to chat.
So I would say value your members - all of them. Just because we don't post, don't assume we're not interested.
Better BookAddict wrote: "Aside from the incidence of spam, what is the real problem with a large membership?"One problem is that some of those people from time to time vote in the polls, even though they will never participate in the discussion. So the books chosen are sometimes those the regular discussants aren't interested in reading, and the group gradually loses interested posters.
This doesn't happen often, but it does from time to time, especially when a fan-addicted book gets nominated and the fans somehow find out about it and rush in to vote for it. In one group a few years back this happened with Twilight which got chosen for the group because a bunch of Twilight fans rushed to vote for it, but never participated in the ensuing discussion.
Susan wrote: "Disappointed that you're discussing a membership,'cull'. I'm a (very) occasional commentator, and a regular 'lurker'. I post when I have something to say but I'm not generally the chatty type -..."
Susan, don't get us wrong. We DO appreciate our members very much, and as you can see from my former post that includes people actively 'lurking' even if they don't comment (yet). Also: this isn't about occasional participants, I am one of those in some groups as well.
But because we do appreciate our members so much we are also protective of the space we've created and are currently merely discussing ideas, and we are discussing them also based on what has been done in other groups in similar situations. We've had a big increase in people only joining to spam (culling won't really take care of that) and the problem that Everyman has pointed out is becoming more apparent though so far I think it has always still been balanced by enough interest by active members.
Bear with us here. Hitting 1200 members came very sudden, and so did the challenges that came with it. We're adapting, and on occasion thinking out loud, because we trust that we've build a foundation which allows for that. But like we've said before: this is a merely a discussion so far that we are happy to hear your thoughts on, but we haven't decided a thing.
Jenny wrote: "not only do you have a point Gill, you are also psychic! ;) We have actually started a little discussion amongst ourselves already, it helps to know that there'd be support for a 'trimming'- plan...."You'd have my support, too.
Susan wrote: "Disappointed that you're discussing a membership,'cull'. I'm a (very) occasional commentator, and a regular 'lurker'. I post when I have something to say but I'm not generally the chatty type -..."
Susan, thank you for posting. This is the first time I've heard from a "non-poster" and I'm thrilled at your comment.
Can I ask: I understand being a non-chatty type and finding pleasure in lurking. Is there never a time, over the course of a year or two, where you would want to comment, even once? I think this is the crux of a lurker issue: why do lurkers never post, not even once a year or so? Why can't a group engage a lurker even that little bit?
It's a conundrum, for sure. There's no easy answers.
Hello Petra. I do post - just not frequently. Indeed, I think Jean will testify that I posted long and often in another group on the theme of women in literature.Why don't I post more often? Well - often it's time - sometimes it's interest. Why do you feel lurker's aren't engaged though? I feel very engaged - just not very chatty!!
Hi Susan! I did feel very tempted to put fingers to keyboard to attest that you do, indeed, post or else I would never have got to know you and have you as a friend! Of course I well remember your long and interesting posts on that "Sexism in Literature" thread I started off in that other group. I am sure that the intention here would not be to "cull" observers. There is a high proportion of "occasional posters" in every group.
My reticence in saying anything now was entirely due to the fact that Gill will tell me off for not sticking to my promise of silence... but I plead extreme provocation m'lud! :D
@Jean. :D laughing here in Aust!I still think that "THIS GROUP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR SELF-PROMOTION" as our first group rule might rid us of the 'spammers'.
@ Susan , I for one , think it's fine for you to be engaged without making a lot of comments .if it's self promotion that's an issue , then I agree with Bette we should address that .
I do not think the spammers care about the rules. I am in other groups were self promotion is not allowed and it has never stopped those who ardently self promote.
I moderate on another group - spammers and self promotion is always problem. For spammers we delete the post as soon as it is spotted and block the person from the group. In the case of authors self promoting, we delete the post and send them a PM directing them to our author promotion area. If they continue to sin then they to are deleted. Recently we gave one author 3 or 4 warnings, s/he was blocked. They PMd and begged forgiveness and asked to come back and their very first post they self promoted!
It's hard to make these decisions sometimes. I don't envy you :)
Mod
Jean wrote: "Hi Susan! I did feel very tempted to put fingers to keyboard to attest that you do, indeed, post or else I would never have got to know you and have you as a friend! Of course I well remember your ..."OK, I let you off Jean!
Also to say, Susan, that I assume if the mods do anything it won't be an instant removal of members, but that they will contact people first and give 'Lurkers' etc the opportunity to say they want to remain in the group.
Mod
I'm afraid you're right
Susan wrote: "Hello Petra. I do post - just not frequently. Indeed, I think Jean will testify that I posted long and often in another group on the theme of women in literature.Why don't I post more often? Well - often it's time - sometimes it's interest. Why do you feel lurker's aren't engaged though? I feel very engaged - just not very chatty!! ..."
I really appreciate this input, Susan.
I guess I feel that lurkers aren't engaged because they never post. I'm not talking about those who occasionally post but those who have 0 posts after being members for many years. There are apparently (from reading previous posts here) pages and pages of members for this group without a single posting. That makes me feel as if they have either moved away from the group (or GR) or are not engaged in the conversations and/or book selections. This makes me curious as to why someone would be a member of a group if they aren't interested enough in what's going on to even comment occasionally. I use "once a year" as a general amount to post as it seems that within a year there must be something of enough interest to warrant a comment?
When I am in favor of culling, it's these people I'm speaking of; not those like yourself who occasionally post. The non-posters have possibly moved on to other sites and/or groups. It gives the wrong idea of the group to others to see a large membership when, in reality, only a small (50% or less) number of the members actually participate.
In the case of culling - and I believe someone else mentioned this point, which I thought was good - could a private message be sent to all the 0-post members, asking them if they're still on the site and still checking in on the group? You're right Petra, many of them may not even be on goodreads anymore.On the other hand though, are they really troubling anything?
At this very minute 949 of our 1380 members have never commented. Quite a few of them may have abandoned their Goodreads account a long time ago.I think one of the problems with being a group with 1000+ members is, that the bigger a group is, the more attractive it becomes for spammers and self-promoters.
This is what got us to actively thinking about culling. Not because it's a way of deleting the people who spam, but because it reduces attraction for spammers. We look huge when in fact we are a super active, super friendly bunch of a few hundred people. And we do feel protective of that.
If we were to do this, we would a) make sure everybody knows about it well in advance, and b) give people who joined a long time ago but haven't made a comment yet the opportunity to signal that they are nevertheless actively following or interested in staying.
However things got a bit more quiet again in terms of spam, so lets hope for the best and thanks again folks for all your input.
Jenny wrote: "At this very minute 949 of our 1380 members have never commented. Quite a few of them may have abandoned their Goodreads account a long time ago.I think one of the problems with being a group wi..."
I agree, and ironically , this is my first posting, ever, in any of my groups. But my reasons are in the field of being extremely busy, not having enough time to go through and look for posts that peak my interest. Also, lets never talk about spam, because "if you speak of it, it will come" (A congrats to whoever can guess the original quote of my quote and what movie it came from!) Anyways, I'll be posting more after my Birthday, which is Sept. 22nd (Which is a warning to anyone who likes rationality.)
Kasey, you've just made my day ;) It is ironic indeed, but an irony most welcome as it's a lovely turn for this discussion to take! Looking forward to seeing you around!
Thanks for your eminently sensible post Jenny :)
Ahhh, I understand now. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Can I Just add something about non active members? It's just a theory but here it goes. I discovered AAB because it's one of the top groups listed in the category "groups in Italy". I saw the upcoming reads, liked what was on the bookshelf and so I joined. But I was expecting a group in Italian. I can imagine others making the same assumption and then thinking"the horror! why is everything in English? " ( I actually really like it, it's a chance to practice and see how people write and learn new expressions and phrase construction) and they might have joined because the group is very appealing and they too could use it to improve their English . It is not easy to discuss books in general, it's even more difficult when you do it in a language that is not your own (and we know that there are people from more than 20 countries in here, so many will understand it) because sometimes you just don't have the words to write what you would like to. At first I mostly read comments, then noticing how genuinely nice people in here are, I felt confident to write and not fear people judging even if my grammar isn't the greatest and sometimes I yell "damn you consecutio temporis!" and delete the comment because it doesn't make sense. Maybe there are others shy or insecure about their English writing skills who read the threads, but don't comment.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
All About Books
Books mentioned in this topic
Sodom and Gomorrah (other topics)Sodom and Gomorrah (other topics)
Around the World in Eighty Days (other topics)
The Apology (other topics)
The Imaginary Invalid (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Theodore Roethke (other topics)August Wilson (other topics)
Lillian Hellman (other topics)
August Wilson (other topics)
Lillian Hellman (other topics)
More...
@Jean, yes I agree it would be helpful for people to add the author to the readalongs. I wouldn't want to make it a rule (some people may prioritize getting all the member names in) but I'd strongly encourage it. I guess the more people do it, the more it becomes standard procedure, and you can always just suggest it in the thread itself.