Goodreads Feedback discussion

45275 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 6,101-6,150 of 6,342) (6342 new)    post a comment »

message 6101: by Moonlight Reader (new)

Moonlight Reader (Moonlight_Reader) Anyone who is interested can find my post about Kathleen Hale's manipulative so-called-memoir here.


message 6102: by Nospin (new)

Nospin | 42 comments Buzzfeed article on situation


http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaum...


message 6103: by Libbie Hawker (new)

Libbie Hawker (L.M. Ironside) (lmironside) | 33 comments Mark wrote: "I am not referring to the people who actually read the flipping Hale novel, but I do wonder about the people marking it with a one star rating because of the writers antics and/or reviewers antics...."

You reap what you sow.

I'm an author, and I have no problem with people one-starring the everloving shit out of Kathleen Hale's books even if they haven't read them.

She deserves to have her reputation and her career ruined because of her atrocious actions. The only real shame in all this is that Harper Collins won't take any action against her, because of nepotism. Bravo, guys. Way to be the stand-up people you are.


Batgrl (Book Data Kept Elsewhere) (goodreadscombatgrl) | 138 comments I keep reading all this latest stuff and thinking about how GR felt it was so very important to edit the names of our shelves because of...concerns of some kind (which still seems to be authors' hurt feelings). When a lot of us started those shelves to track authors not to buy or review because we did NOT want to be on their radar at all. Because of discomfort with these kinds of over-reactions to written, personal opinions.

Also I realize it's only Halloween in the US, but still, could this October be any more full of real life creepy stories?! Especially dealing with various online communities. Just, ugh.


message 6105: by Nospin (new)

Nospin | 42 comments L.M. wrote: "Mark wrote: "I am not referring to the people who actually read the flipping Hale novel, but I do wonder about the people marking it with a one star rating because of the writers antics and/or revi..."

Appreciate your standing up for readers. Had your book and just got Audible version to Whispersync.


message 6106: by Caroline (new)

Caroline  (Caro7) | 51 comments L.M. wrote: "You reap what you sow.

I'm an author, and I have no problem with people one-starring the everloving shit out of Kathleen Hale's books even if they haven't read them.

She deserves to have her reputation and her career ruined because of her atrocious actions. The only real shame in all this is that Harper Collins won't take any action against her, because of nepotism. Bravo, guys. Way to be the stand-up people you are."


You are right on. Thank you so much for saying this.


message 6107: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Oct 21, 2014 11:49AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Mark wrote: "awarding a one star ..., is IMHO bullying..."


AAAARRrrrrrggggghhhhhHHH!

Seriously not this star-rating=bullying crap again? Particularly on a site where a ★☆☆☆☆ might mean anything at all to the reviewer including "buy next" or "1st place, best"?


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) [Off to other booksites to exercise my consumer opinion and boycott via shelves, tags, blogging/commenting and rating.]


message 6109: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) D.A.-It's a copyright • Not your right to copy. wrote: "Mark wrote: "awarding a one star ..., is IMHO bullying..."


AAAARRrrrrrggggghhhhhHHH!

Seriously not this star-rating=bullying crap again? Particularly on a site where a ★☆☆☆☆ might mean anything..."


To me the star system is a rating, giving 1 star as a memento to buy or 1st place best is a reasoning that is being used NOWHERE. On a scale of one to five is a rating.
The books I have on my to read list are all without rating as I have not read them yet and as such cannot rate.

You either rate a book or not no excuses, anywhere else such a star system would be considered a rating, GR is nothing special.

ANd I do not mind you rating anything but call it for what it is.


message 6110: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3341 comments Mark wrote: "To me the star system is a rating, giving 1 star as a memento to buy or 1st place best is a reasoning that is being used NOWHERE. On a scale of one to five is a rating.
The books I have on my to read list are all without rating as I have not read them yet and as such cannot rate.

You either rate a book or not no excuses, anywhere else such a star system would be considered a rating, GR is nothing special.

ANd I do not mind you rating anything but call it for what it is. ..."



Thanks, Mark. FOr not a damn thing.

Good thing Mark doesn't run GR.

I can 1-star WHATEVER I want. And since I am following Goodreads TERMS OF SERVICE... I guess you'll just have to get over it.


message 6111: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) MrsJoseph wrote: "Mark wrote: "To me the star system is a rating, giving 1 star as a memento to buy or 1st place best is a reasoning that is being used NOWHERE. On a scale of one to five is a rating.
The books I hav..."


You are welcome, and I am glad that you can do whatever you want, I would not wish it any other way for you.

I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself.

But I am sure that that is covered somewhere in the terms of service too.


message 6112: by Elizabeth (Alaska) (new)

Elizabeth (Alaska) Linda wrote: "Goodreads is not Mrs. Norma Snap's third grade class at Ridge School, where we had to actually prove we read the books we wrote our book reports about. It's a social media site and a book cataloguing site."

I have rated books 1-star that I have read only the first few pages. I was sad that the book didn't appeal to me. I have no problem with people rating books - however - that they haven't read, including, as you say, 5 anticipatory stars. 5 anticipatory stars is "bullying" readers the same way the 1 I-will-not-read stars are "bullying" the author. Yes, I reject the possibility that bullying is being done - what an absurd idea!


message 6113: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3341 comments Mark wrote: "I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself."

WTF is that? A threat??

For 1-starring a book??

Do you think that I would have any fear of stars? Because the only "retaliation" to a starred rating would be another star.

Or...are you implying that it is OK for someone to stalk, harass and physically attack someone over some fucking internet pixels. I hope that is not what you are implying. That would be insane...


message 6114: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) Linda wrote: "Mark wrote: "I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself...."


(Mark obviously doesn't know me.)"


Nope and how should I?

That said I am sure you are quite a nice person, and that is my idea about most people. I like people that like to read and love books.


message 6115: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) MrsJoseph wrote: "Mark wrote: "I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself."

WTF is that? A threat??

For 1-starring a book??

Do you think that I would have any fear of..."


I think you should change your mindset, there is nothing threatening implied in my remark. And neither is it meant in such a way by me.

But you do prove a point that anything can be taken as a negative from the eye of the beholder.

Once again, my idea is live and let live, live and lets read, as there is more to read than a lifetime worth.


message 6116: by La-Lionne (new)

La-Lionne | 358 comments Mark wrote: "D.A.-It's a copyright • Not your right to copy. wrote: "Mark wrote: "awarding a one star ..., is IMHO bullying..."


AAAARRrrrrrggggghhhhhHHH!

Seriously not this star-rating=bullying crap again? ..."


Nowhere in GR's TOS does it say (or ever did) that rating applies only to read books. Excitement/disappointment for an upcoming book can also be rated.
You don't approve, and yet you're still here.


message 6117: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3341 comments Mark wrote: "I think you should change your mindset, there is nothing threatening implied in my remark. And neither is it meant in such a way by me.
"


I don't believe you.

You are the one threatening people over star ratings, Mark.


message 6118: by Nospin (new)

Nospin | 42 comments Linda wrote: "Mark wrote: "I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself...."


(Mark obviously doesn't know me.)"


Obviously.
;)


message 6119: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) Linda wrote: "The point I was trying to make, Mark, is that I am absolutely honest with my reviews/ratings, regardless of the reason. I refuse to take responsibility for how the authors react to those reviews, ..."

Linda I did not mean that giving 1 star reviews might invite retaliation.

What I meant to say is that I would never do anything to somebody else what I would dislike happening to me. regardless of anything here on GR. I would never say anything online I would not say in your face.

If I would review a book with one star I would give my reasons as to why that does mean to me. And I would try to be objective without any personal attacks on the writer.

Actually I tend to look up the 1 star reviews on Amazon to see what the highly critical have to say, and sometimes they are quite insightful and sometimes the ramblings of a looney.

But a one star or a five star without a reason is for me a non-entity.

I like to read why people like or dislike a book. a well written review is for me a guide to visit places I might otherwise not have been before.

And I have found a lot of great new writers through positive and great reviews written by people that love books.

This is why I enjoy GR and the politics be damned.


message 6120: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3341 comments Linda wrote: "He starts out saying stalking over a negative review is wrong, but...........

But...........

But...........

Is that an implication that maybe sometimes stalking isn't wrong?

Because he goes on to say he read both sides of "that Hale woman's story" but in fact there is only one side: Kathleen Hale's. And Kathleen Hale is the one who did the stalking. Blythe Harris wrote a book review, a series of status reports while she was reading, and some comments in response to other comments after the review. Blythe Harris read the fucking book. She apparently changed the rating -- and perhaps the review -- later, due to the reaction of the author. Was that so "over the top" that it warranted her being stalked to the point of not feeling safe in her own home?

If, in Mark's opinion, giving a one-star rating to an unread book is "bullying," how can Blythe Harris be guilty of bullying if she read the damn book? Or is ANY one star rating the same as bullying and stalking and harassing and threatening? Remember, Mark, she changed her rating because of the actions of the author. Blythe Harris was bullied.

Mark dismisses his own potentially negative opinions as having any value because there are already so many out there and his wouldn't add to anything. So he only posts positive ratings, which is within his rights as a Goodreads member.

But then he goes on to warn those of us who would do otherwise! Live and let live?? I don't think so, Mark. I think you only want us to be nice girls, to say only nice things, and I'm fucking sick and tired of being told to be nice, only say nice things, be supportive, be encouraging, don't criticize, don't point out flaws, don't nitpick.

I just reported one of our favorite fiverr shills for her 15th sock puppet account. I'm tired of it. I want honest reviews. I want honest discussions, warts and all. I want to know which authors are jerks, which are liars, which are dedicated researchers, which are homophobes and which are out socialists. I want to know who are got their publishing spots because of who they know, who they're married to, who they slept with. I want to be an informed fucking reader who can make up her own damn mind about what to read and what not to read. About which authors to support and which to avoid.

I'm not a precious snowflake who has to be protected from the heat of passionate discussion and disagreement. I'm a 66 year old woman with a graduate degree and a mind perfectly capable of making itself up. I dislike condescension as much as I dislike dishonesty and disingenuousness. "




SLOW CLAP


message 6121: by Mark (new)

Mark (markvanvollenhoven) Well Linda I do not mind if you are nice or a witch, that is your prerogative.

I like a decent review, and F^^k it with a load of insulting shelf names do not rate high on MY list of decent reviews, I would call them downright rude. But apparently some people consider that their right, which is fine for them. It is no way enough for me.

As for any behaviour outside of common decency or the law I do not condone in any way.

But it seems that I have given some folks the idea that I did threaten them, which is for me the proof how easily any conversation can be turned into something negative.

This whole Hale affair has two sides and one of them gets crucified, and the other is flawless. It is a very black and white scenario in such a way that I was curious as what was the truth and what not. I do not think I'll ever find it on GR.

I find the mood on threads like these rather one sided and found out myself that any reasonablity is hard to find and will not waste any more time on this thread. As I do not want to hurt anybodies sensibilities.


message 6122: by Krazykiwi (new)

Krazykiwi | 460 comments "one gets crucified and the other is flawless"?

Oh rubbish. Everyone who disagrees with you is not being unreasonable.

One party acted entirely within their legally protected rights (to use a pseudonym, to have an opinion, to express that opinion) and within the TOS of the site chosen to express that opinion (this one.) Once, one time. Probably noticed by a few dozen people, at most, at the time it happened.

The other acted wildly inappropriately, and quite possibly illegally, harassing someone they didn't know over a period of months, invading their privacy, possibly their livelihood (people lose jobs over being stalked at work all the damn time) and accusing her of being "bonkers" in an international forum with readership in the millions.

What Blythe's opinion was, and whether anyone here agrees with it or not, is not even remotely the point. The point is, Hale's response to it was entirely out of line and, dare I say it, unreasonable.


message 6123: by Cphe (last edited Oct 21, 2014 02:27PM) (new)

Cphe | 35 comments There is a history here, and it goes back a long way. In some ways this is the latest installment of what readers have stated/felt/argued against for years- it's not been a pretty "beg your pardon" history.

As I stated in an earlier post - actions are escalating and people are understandably concerned for their privacy etc.

Everyone has the right to feel secure in their own home.

No one is perfect Mark, not be a long shot......but some things you just don't do......


message 6124: by TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (last edited Oct 22, 2014 07:57PM) (new)

TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments Mark wrote: "I like a decent review, and F^^k it with a load of insulting shelf names do not rate high on MY list of decent reviews, I would call them downright rude. But apparently some people consider that their right, which is fine for them. It is no way enough for me."


Mark, you seem to keep ignoring what people are telling you.

Blythe didn't just write a review saying "F^^k it with a load of insulting shelf names". She posted an actual review, though I can't say whether it would be one you'd consider 'decent' or not, she did post a review explaining her feelings and rating and never mentioned the author personally.

She removed the review when the author posted her article.
*ETA: I don't know if this true and further info shows Hale took snippets of Blythe's comments in discussion w/other readers and presented them as a 'review'.
More detailed timeline of events w/ss's can be found here.*


So, in reality, you should take your complaints to the author Kathleen Hale b/c until her little Memoir of Crazy Stalker, the 'decent review' you so desperately want would've been available to you.


message 6125: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (HenryMartin) | 20 comments L.M. wrote: "I'm an author, and I have no problem with people one-starring the everloving shit out of Kathleen Hale's books even if they haven't read them.

She deserves to have her reputation and her career ruined because of her atrocious actions. The only real shame in all this is that Harper Collins won't take any action against her, because of nepotism. Bravo, guys. Way to be the stand-up people you are. "


I am an author as well,

(although a bit afraid to admit it) :)

and I completely agree with you. In the past, I had gone after authors using disreputable marketing techniques and making false posts. Now I have to add a shelf just for the nutjobs out there who think that a publishing contract is a license to harass people.

I, for one, feel ashamed to share a profession with people like that.


message 6126: by Pisceschick (new)

Pisceschick | 52 comments Mark wrote: "I like a decent review, and F^^k it with a load of insulting shelf names do not rate high on MY list of decent reviews, I would call them downright rude. But apparently some people consider that their right, which is fine for them. It is no way enough for me."

It's my understanding that Harris' initial review was very long and detailed and not only negative (and therefore by your standards a "decent review") . She changed the content to simply say "Fuck it" *AFTER* being hassled by the author. For someone supposedly looking for the truth, you're making a whole lot of assumptions.


message 6127: by TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (last edited Oct 21, 2014 03:41PM) (new)

TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments Linda wrote: "Pisceschick wrote: "It's my understanding that Harris' initial review was very long and detailed and not only negative (and therefore by your standards a "decent review") . She changed the content ..."


I think you're right. What's there is the multitude of status updates as well as all the discussion in the comments.

It looks like she may have tried to come to back to it, maybe over a few months?, and then finally just DNFd it.

Which is still perfectly legitimate. She even uses several quotes from the book in her status updates. And she never claims to have read the entire book.

She also may have removed it back in January if that was when the author first started complaining about reviews.

Either way, still doesn't excuse Hale stalking her for almost an entire year and then posting an article trying to humiliate and discredit her. Frankly, it looks even worse for Hale if the review only said 'fuck this', IMO. She basically lost her shit and was driven to stalking a total stranger over a few comments and a one-star.


message 6128: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (HenryMartin) | 20 comments Mahala wrote: "You don't share a profession with people like Hale, you are an author and she is felony waiting to happen.
"


I must say that you have a way of finding the silver lining. :)


message 6129: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 626 comments Mark wrote: "...I would only add: Don't do things to another you would not wish would happen to yourself. ..."

May I ask that you forward the same advice to Ms. Hale?


message 6130: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Kathleen Hale seems to forget that her own safety is an issue here too. You don't just show up unannounced and stalkerish at someone's house in our new (or maybe not so new) environment of lax gun laws and "defend your castle" laws. While I absolutely do not defend anyone shooting someone who comes to their door, and think they ought to be prosecuted for such an act, it does happen. It seems to be happening increasingly. Some people have itchy trigger fingers. Not knowing who was at the other end of that doorbell, why would you put yourself in that type of potential danger? After all, the blogger knows what you look like. You don't really know what she looks like. You don't even know if it's a she.


message 6131: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl People are downrating the anthology she is a contributor to. I wonder if the other writers in the anthology are happy about that. I do feel bad for them, since it's not their fault. Lie down with dogs, etc., but they didn't know that in advance.


message 6132: by Christine (new)

Christine Hayton (CCMHayton) | 57 comments I'm a reader and an honest reviewer and I have no intention of changing the way I do those things.

That means that sometimes I DNF the book. The book is not readable for a variety of reasons, and that includes formatting errors, or lack of proper editing. Sometimes the story and plot will be boring or chaotic making it impossible to follow the story. Sometimes the genre is not my cup of tea and bored to tears I close the book. These issues will be noted in the review.

There are books I refuse to read because they were written by a notorious or unethical author or have been reviewed by trusted friends as just plain terrible. They will sit on my DO-NOT-READ shelf and are visible to anyone interested. I will not normally rate these books unless I feel it important to note that author.

Sometimes I'm going to give 1* reviews because the book was simply terrible - but the star rating will be fair and the review will explain the rating. It will be my personal opinion and I will do all this within the TOS of Goodreads.

This current situation makes reviewers like myself think about what we do. Its intimidation - Am I safe? Will some crazy author start stalking me? Yaadaa, yaadaa, yaadaa...

I am not intimidated and neither should you be. I'm pissed off and if anything I will make a devoted effort to keep on doing what I'm doing. I won't hide under my bed because some spoiled arrogant author has decided I don't have the right to express my honest opinion about their book.

I will keep going for the hard-working honest authors out there who understand one opinion is just one opinion. I will keep reviewing so these authors get the reviews that help sell their books. Keep in mind Ms. Hale represents a very tiny minority and the vast majority of writers appreciate what reviewers do and are on our side. Honestly speaking - An occasional 1* review lends credibility to the 5* reviews.


message 6133: by Oldham Rocker (new)

Oldham Rocker (Old_Rocker) | 89 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "Kathleen Hale seems to forget that her own safety is an issue here too. You don't just show up unannounced and stalkerish at someone's house in our new (or maybe not so new) environment of lax gun..."

My family was victimized in a home invasion. Doorbell rings aren't a welcome sound.


message 6134: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm sorry that happened to you and to your loved ones, OldRocker. I hope everybody is OK - physically, at least; some scars never heal.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments Linda wrote: "Harris's GR review is dated January 2014. If she deleted the original, she did it then, and not more recently in response to Hale's . . . actions."

That doesn't always change when you make changes. I've had reviews where I've made substantial changes and the date never changed, and others where I fixed one word and the date changed. Of course, this is Goodreads. Why code things so they work uniformly . . . or properly? (And never give the users what they want. Good thing there are other book sites that have immediately jumped on making the changes users ask for.)


message 6136: by Gerhard (last edited Oct 22, 2014 04:32AM) (new)

Gerhard (GerhardH) | 22 comments Christine wrote: Sometimes I'm going to give 1* reviews because the book was simply terrible - but the star rating will be fair and the review will explain the rating.
According to the Goodreads rating criteria, 1 star implies you did not like the book. It says nothing about it being a bad book as such. (I am highly ambivalent about the 2 star 'it was okay' rating, which to me seems something of a cop-out. I have racked up a lot of 1 stars this year, but I always keep my reviews balanced between what did not work for me and what might appeal to other readers. I do feel readers and reviewers have a responsibility to promote a healthy literary culture, which does include vigorous debate and acknowledgement of the simple fact that tastes do differ. What is non-negotiable is respect and common courtesy towards everyone in this community.


message 6137: by Sparrowlicious (new)

Sparrowlicious | 149 comments Christine wrote: "Honestly speaking - An occasional 1* review lends credibility to the 5* reviews."

Agreed. It usually seems suspicious if a book only receives glowing 5 star ratings and not a single one below 4 stars. These 1 star reviews are as valuable as any other reviews. Sometimes they point out exactly the things some readers do not want in a book. (I have some 'do not read' themes as well and love it when reviewers point these out if they appear in a book because I'll obviously be extremely annoyed if I come across them while reading a book).

Btw, I usually put my 'reviews' on my tumblr blog instead of GR. For no real reason, really. To be honest, I rarely review books I didn't like. Except if something of my 'do not read' themes pops up because those are things I don't like reading for a REASON. And you can bet those are not things like 'aww man, [main character] is a cat lover' but things like 'the narration was sexist'.


message 6138: by Shannon (new)

Shannon (theholyterror) | 445 comments Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) wrote: "Linda wrote: "Harris's GR review is dated January 2014. If she deleted the original, she did it then, and not more recently in response to Hale's . . . actions."

That doesn't always change when you make changes. I've had reviews where I've made substantial changes and the date never changed, and others where I fixed one word and the date changed. Of course, this is Goodreads. Why code things so they work uniformly . . . or properly? (And never give the users what they want. Good thing there are other book sites that have immediately jumped on making the changes users ask for.)"


The date will only change if you push it to your update feed. So you can change your original review over and over and still have an old date on it.


message 6139: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Oct 22, 2014 07:57PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 626 comments The Holy Terror wrote: "...The date will only change if you push it to your update feed. ..."

Or GR decides to tweak its algorithm in some specific/targeted fashion :P

etc: typos


TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments Just leaving this post by Alex Hurst for anyone who wants a detailed timeline of events, including relevant ss's and links.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments The Holy Terror wrote: "The date will only change if you push it to your update feed. So you can change your original review over and over and still have an old date on it."

Ahh, did not know that. Thanks for the info! I wish I did before I changed one of my long standing reviews.


message 6142: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl I didn't even realize until I read a handful of state stalking laws that leaving an object on your stalkee's property can be a component of stalking. KH left the Anna Quindlen book on Blythe's doorstep (claiming it was a gesture that meant raising the white flag). It's just so weird. Is KH that canny, making sure she has enough components in her story to add up to a legal definition of stalking?


message 6143: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl The Holy Terror wrote: "The date will only change if you push it to your update feed. So you can change your original review over and over and still have an old date on it. "

I don't think this is true....I just tried it and the date at the top of the review changed to today.


message 6144: by Shannon (new)

Shannon (theholyterror) | 445 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "The Holy Terror wrote: "The date will only change if you push it to your update feed. So you can change your original review over and over and still have an old date on it. "

I don't think this is true....I just tried it and the date at the top of the review changed to today."


Hmm. You know, I just checked myself and you're right. It used to be like that though, I'm not making things up! Perhaps this is another bug they fixed (instead of the lists /beatsdeadhorse).


message 6145: by Shannon (last edited Oct 24, 2014 06:54PM) (new)

Shannon (theholyterror) | 445 comments It looks like it may have been fixed sometime in late spring/early summer. Here's an example. I know I didn't push that to my feed because I didn't write a review, and it shows the day I added it, even though I rated it and read it much later. Other books from July on seem to have the day I rated it as the "review" date. Maybe this has something to do with Kindle integration? *shrugs*


message 6146: by TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (last edited Oct 24, 2014 07:18PM) (new)

TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "I didn't even realize until I read a handful of state stalking laws that leaving an object on your stalkee's property can be a component of stalking. KH left the Anna Quindlen book on Blythe's doo..."


I think its a lot more likely she's so busy thinking she's special and unique that she doesn't realize she's just a textbook stalker. She actually fits the Resentful Stalker to a tee. It's creepy, really.

(view spoiler)


TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments The Holy Terror wrote: "It looks like it may have been fixed sometime in late spring/early summer. Here's an example. I know I didn't push that to my feed because I didn't write a review, and it shows the day I added it, ..."


Im pretty sure it's a bug and I'm not sure if they've fixed it (at least not totally) b/c sometimes when I edit it changes the date, but a few times recently I've gone in to note that it was a reread and the date never changed.

In fact, just last week I had to go back into it twice and then put it back on my currently reading shelf and mark it read through my updates before it updated.


message 6148: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Oct 24, 2014 07:21PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 626 comments TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "...Im pretty sure it's a bug and I'm not sure if they've fixed it (at least not totally)..."

Something's definitely still buggy. I noticed a while back that date changes when I edit shelving. So not even edits to text in review field :/


TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ (TinaNicole) | 302 comments Karma♥Bites ^.~ wrote: "TinaNicole ☠ Le Book Nikita ☠ wrote: "...Im pretty sure it's a bug and I'm not sure if they've fixed it (at least not totally)..."

Something's definitely still buggy. I noticed a while back that ..."



Really? I never even look when I shelve. Gah, I wonder how many are screwy? -_-


message 6150: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 626 comments Eh, don't care b/c I gave up trying to fix my GR data at this point. After however many books went from one shelf to 'read' and others appeared out of nowhere on my to-read and read shelves, I decided to track via personal programme. I'm not techy enough (or have time) to deal w/ this agita.


back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

The Declaration of Independence (other topics)
Baptist Churches in Kansas: Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, the Most Hated Family in America, Red State, Snyder V. Phelps (other topics)
Purple Hibiscus (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
The Secret of Castle Cant: Being an Account of the Remarkable Adventures of Lucy Wickwright, Maidservant and Spy (other topics)
More...

Authors mentioned in this topic

A.C. Crispin (other topics)
Stacia Kane (other topics)
Martin Amis (other topics)
Orson Scott Card (other topics)
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)
More...