Goodreads Feedback discussion

46209 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments Showing 2,651-2,700 of 6,342 (6342 new)    post a comment »

Nicole the Reading Ninja "Carly wrote:"Nicole, by joining GR, you agreed to the GR TOS, which stipulates that you have only a limited license to your work. GR owns the exclusive license; you have the right to post your content elsewhere. They have the right to modify, delete, post elsewhere, etc."

"Kate wrote:"Right. This isn't a public space. It's owned by Amazon. By being on this site, you have agreed to their terms of service. They're not saying you can't post your content ANYWHERE; they're saying you can't use space they privately own to display your work if it isn't the kind of thing they'd like to be associated with."

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I searched in help under copyright and review, I didn't check the main terms of service.


message 2652: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?


message 2653: by ❂ Jennifer (new)

❂ Jennifer  (jennevans) | 978 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?"


I'm going with pissing in the wind. They NEVER make controversial announcements site wide.


message 2654: by Miranda (new)

Miranda (miraelli) Lobstergirl wrote: "What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?"


Another vote for pissing in the wind here. Which is disappointing.


message 2655: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Sandy wrote: "Sadly I know exactly what Goodreads are doing. My work did the same thing not so long ago. They made a decision, gave us no warning that they were going to do it, but opened up a feedback thread ..."

Kudos to you. Very eloquently said. :)


message 2656: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Three wrote: "I suppose the blog post where one author promised to send another the information he gleaned from a giveaway wouldn't be of any concern to you either? I mean, he's only claiming he's going to out people."

This needs to be widely publicized. I'm going to assume this author was banned from GR because that is such a huge violation of any and every rule. What author was it? Can you link to the blog post?


message 2657: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 01:14AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 9 comments I wish they had just deleted the profile (after screenshots and image saves of all edition book covers) and books by the authors whose presence on a shelf were cause for deletion. Then manually add everything back. I know, that's censorship too and by deleting and adding back they wipe the slate clean of all reviews, comments, discussion group mentions, etc. and no doubt the bba would love the clean slate and I loathe the idea of giving their book that nice clean slate. But new policy deleted all the negative reviews so only fair positive reviews would also go away; and I definitely would rather see book removed from a shelf than the collateral damage of vandalizing any member shelf containing the author.

While books were gone, announce policy change, give it some time, then restore the books. Punish members bullying, improperly reviewing and improperly shelving the newly added books. Catch any "gangs" of bullies hounding author. But -- also catch all the author trolls and sockpuppets coming back onto to goodreads to incite stuff and write the gushing reviews. Should be real apparent if a just added book preciously despised by us bullying reviewers suddenly got a hundred positive ratings and reviews with a large number by goodreads members who just joined.

(As a former librarian, I would insist all editions and bookcovers for a work be restored; the clean slate is bad enough without letting them also bypass alternate cover edition rules. And not to speak of all indie authors, but, many who are not getting the reviews, sales and accolades they feel entitled to -- in addition to blaming jealous hater trolls and goodreads bullies -- decide it must be the bookcover so keep updating in their amazon product pages and throwing hissy fits when not allowed to vandalize goodreads book data pages or member shelves to replace edition member shelved with the new bookcover or to remove the older bookcover edition completely so that cover that was threatening their livelihood as an author would never be seen again ...now that the bba are feeling empowered, I don't pity the librarians who volunteered to help maintain the database and might try to deny them anything -- it definitely really hurts their feelings to the point they need a sulkiing font as much as I need a sarcasm font and hurting an author's feelings is against new policy and creates a bad tone for the community.)


message 2658: by [deleted user] (new)

Carmen wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Sadly I know exactly what Goodreads are doing. My work did the same thing not so long ago. They made a decision, gave us no warning that they were going to do it, but opened up a fe..."

Haha thanks. :) I just can't be bothered with it anymore. We all know that nothing will come out of this. Goodreads will still go ahead and do what they want to do. I'm choosing to save myself the energy and stress of wondering what will happen next and I'm getting out as soon as I can.


message 2659: by [deleted user] (new)

Well, I wasn't planning to stay up until 4am, but I really needed to write down all my thoughts on this situation.

Blog post: http://ebebee.wordpress.com/2013/09/2...

Goodnight, everyone. And very soon, goodbye also. I will miss all these intelligent and beautiful voices here. Even though I have not been nearly as involved with the community as some of you, I am still a bit sad to be leaving my small corner, but perhaps I will encounter some of you on other book sites. I am still undecided about whether to convert to booklikes or what, so for now I am going to stick to blogging. Whether or not I encounter you elsewhere, I wish you luck.


Nenia ✨ Queen of Literary Trash, Protector of Out-of-Print Gems, Khaleesi of Bodice Rippers, Mother of Smut, the Unrepentant, Breaker of Convention ✨ Campbell (neniacampbell) | 357 comments I posted about it in my Twitter feed again. I don't have a huge amount of followers, but the livefeed usually guarantees that ten or twenty new eyes land on this blog right away with each new post.

So if you have a Twitter or other livestream blog, definitely post a link to this forum.


message 2661: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 01:23AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 9 comments ♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "... members. I just find it a little upsetting. Personally, I'd suggest that they offer Goodreaders a chance to fix things up and to speak their case..."

Before the Friday announcement they did. (Well any actual threatening content in any form was always immediately deleted--that's not a new policy). Any objectionable reviews were hidden from public view and member could choose to edit or not (no content was deleted). Communication was made by email regarding.

Shelves, unless were threatening, were left alone. Post after post by goodreads staffers including Otis promising our book catalog/shelves would always be ours to do with as we will (again, unless name was making a threat which would get the shelf deleted) including mean, offensive, or snarky literary quotes. Reiterated again when amazon bought goodreads. Always with email notice if any actions were going to be taken.


message 2662: by Meg-Anne (new)

Meg-Anne | 107 comments Lobstergirl,
not sure if this is the right blog but the comment at the bottom by TR Mason mentions the giveaways and real addresses


http://indie-publishing.blogspot.com/...


message 2663: by NiaKantorka (last edited Sep 24, 2013 01:27AM) (new)

NiaKantorka (Kantorka) | 18 comments I'm so disappointed about these few answers from Kara and GR that I also plan to leave Goodreads in the near future. I'm waiting, if the negative publicity e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c...
will bring a change, but I don't think so.

It's so sad, because I've met so many lovely people and I've started writing reviews in English irrespective of all mistakes (that has been a big step for me). I feel so miserable right now I could cry.


message 2664: by Kate (new)

Kate Bond (ladykatebond) Debbie R. wrote: "Kate wrote: "...They're not saying you can't post your content ANYWHERE; they're saying you can't use space they privately own to display your work if it isn't the kind of thing they'd like to be a..."

Debbie, I was posting in response to a question about whether Goodreads is violating copyright law. And it isn't.


message 2665: by Sara (last edited Sep 24, 2013 01:40AM) (new)

Sara | 1 comments Readers should be able to use whatever criteria they want when deciding which authors to spend their hard earned money on. What if someone wants to only read books written by vegetarians? Or maybe someone doesn't want to read any books written by an author who drives an Audi. They should damn well be able to do that and should certainly be able to get or store information like that on Goodreads, if they so choose.

What if I shelve a book as authors-who-adopt-adorable-homeless-puppies? Since that relates to "author behavior", will it be deleted?

I understand removing a specific review or shelf if there is something libelous written within, but the reviews and shelves that have been removed are nowhere near that.

What happens when a reviewer writes a constructively negative review about a book (without making attacks on the author) written by an author who has a history of attacking and stalking reviewers? Since Goodreads has now removed all evidence of this authors attacks, the reviewer will have NO IDEA what they are getting into. Will there be some kind of notification on the author page that the author was banned for attacking reviewers? Just because you ban them on Goodreads doesn't mean they stop stalking reviewers who write negative reviews. They take their attacks to Twitter, Facebook, Email, Blogs, and some even into real life. Is Goodreads really okay with hush-hushing that kind of behavior and pretending it never happened? I sure hope not. I know I can't support Goodreads if this policy continues to be enforced.

This is without a doubt censorship. If reviewers are verbally attacked or electronically stalked based on their reviews, they should be able to express that in a review, a comment, a shelf, or a list. They should not have to keep quiet out of fear of having their reviews or shelves deleted. Goodreads is now essentially enabling that behavior and I'm not okay with that.


message 2666: by Traveller (last edited Sep 24, 2013 02:04AM) (new)

Traveller (Moontravlr) | 69 comments Three wrote: "Maybe because the authors in question have been posting photos -- photos, mind you, that they only suspect are the reviewers in question -- on the web, and encouraging their friends and followers to harass them in real life? Some of those photos contain children, too.

Or maybe it's that some of those authors managed to find a blogger's name, determine her phone number, and started calling her at home. Creepy messages are relaxing, right?

Or maybe it's because some of those authors started sending letters to a reader's place of business.

Do you not find any of that threatening?
..."


This is the really disturbing stuff. It's these authors that have given Goodreads authors a bad name. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of decent authors out there.

Goodreaders should have started a blacklist of such authors on other places than Goodreads and linked to the list from here. I know there were many blog posts about these situations, but we should start a formal blacklist.

On the other hand, there have been some troll reviewers as well, but it tends to be obvious when someone is just trolling.

This whole thing seems to have been handled ridiculously badly,PR-wise but then, thinking back on how Amazon has treated Kindle and other customers in the past, maybe its not so surprising.

The most infuriating part is that Amazon's business is doing better than ever in spite of instances of poor PR.

Btw, I've just been reminded by a post here of the fact that it is us reviewers and librarians who have built up Goodreads' database for them. We've not been paid a cent, but we were happy to do the work because we were getting something out of using Goodreads too.

We were doing it with pleasure because we used to love the site. And now? I'm starting to wonder why we should continue to be dupes working for Amazon for free.

But hey, the database is already there, so what do they care?


message 2667: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 658 comments Traveller wrote: "...We were doing it with pleasure because we used to love the site. And now? I'm starting to wonder why we should continue to be dupes working for Amazon for free.

But hey, the database is already there, so what do they care?"



Short answer = we don't? And yeah, the database will be fine now that it's linked to Amazon again. But from whence shall GR get book reviews? And how to replace all the reviews (content, not just ratings) which members have either deleted already or are in the process of deleting?

During my short tenure at GR, I got the impression that a small portion of GR members (based on overall figures) are the consistent reviewers. Should be very interesting to see what GR book pages look like after the dust settles.


message 2668: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Sep 24, 2013 02:16AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 9 comments It just dawned on me one reason for the reputed removal of the ★★★★★ Harry Potter reviews. The reverse of the corporate trope of an example firing -- a flag they can wave to mollify members asking how come only reviews talking negatively about an author are being deleted while positive reviews about an author get to stay?

Half dead brain cells responding to long ago posts on this thread; just something stuck in my head I was trying to figure out.

Although, come to think of it, those 21 members may have been the virtual booklover community's version of example firings by the new corporation just acquiring the business. Opportunely occurring after members settled down post-takeover, management in place, and after a big enough hike in stock prices from all the takeover excitement to feel you can take a hit.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments Nicole the Reading Ninja wrote: "This is one of the things the Copyright Act allows you to do, "display thework publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, andchoreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work"

found here http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01...

So how isn't the new ToS a violation of that?"


Something else to understand, aside from GR's TOS, is that what that statute grants you is the exclusive right to display your copyrighted work. Meaning no one else can unless you give them permission (which you do here by posting on GR). No one can take your work without your authorization and display it in the aforementioned ways (unless limited by fair use or covered by a statutory exemption). It does not mean you are owed the right to display said works wherever you wish. All of these websites are private entities and you are subject to their rules. However capricious and ruinous.

Just like when people like to claim that something like this is an infringement on the right to free speech. You aren't owed their platform to say whatever you wish. These are not government entities silencing and punishing you for what you're saying. At the end of the day they can do what they want. We can fight against it, we can take our leave, but if this what they're going to do, that is their right. It's censorship, it is not an infringement upon anyone's rights.

A lot of people have that wrong and they really shouldn't.


♥Booklish Reviews♥ (Booklish) | 10 comments GOODREADS....LISTEN TO ME
Authors Behaving badly....There's a list.
The List
Kendall Grey (one star review meltdown.)
Emily Griffin (Now, I've just seen screencaps of hers)
Dan Krokos
Jamie McGuire
Carol Bryant (published a blogger hit list folks.)
Alain de Botton
Alice Hoffman
Jacqueline Howett
Leigh Fallon
Melissa Douthit
Chris McGrath. (PS, GR is owned by Amazon so don't get me stared on this is GR...It's all the same)
Stephen Leather
Keira Cass (her agent started that one.)LOL

SIGHS...And yet readers are to blame....SNORTS. If an author can't take the heat then they need to get out of the kitchen. All of their stories are online WITH screencaps.


message 2671: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Sep 24, 2013 03:41AM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 658 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?"


FWIW, some group mods have already started to send out PMs to members or post FYI announcements in group.


ETA: Aside from being general FYI, notices being sent out to alert group members to back-up data just in case.


message 2672: by Traveller (new)

Traveller (Moontravlr) | 69 comments Karma♥Bites wrote: "Traveller wrote: "...We were doing it with pleasure because we used to love the site. And now? I'm starting to wonder why we should continue to be dupes working for Amazon for free.

But hey, the d..."


This is what happens when you lay all your eggs in one nest. The problem is that there hasn't been a good alternative to GR.

But that's probably people like me being lazy and doing all my book activities on just one site. It seemed so perfect. Sadly there's no free lunches in our specific universe is there?

Ah, the good old days when the internet was still a different place and users weren't products.


message 2673: by Kat (new)

Kat (katrogiers) | 121 comments We just hit 3000 comments and still no decent answers to our concerns from Zombiereads.


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?"


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell... Since it's obvious Goodreads isn't gonna do much informing, why don't we do it? I mean, if we can tell people about it, maybe we can actually get the attention of Goodreads. I mean, it feels like they aren't reacting, but if we can get more and more people to notice and say something, maybe Goodreads will take our opinions seriously? I mean even if we only tell a few people on GR each, won't that help?


message 2675: by Mike (new)

Mike  Davis (mldavis2) | 114 comments The only people now who do not spend time in blogs who will notice are those who do not use "offensive" shelf names and lose their work.


message 2676: by Brian (last edited Sep 24, 2013 03:50AM) (new)

Brian (AussieCavalier) | 30 comments This thread moves at warp-speed, so the following comments are in response to things already posted:

Batgrl (#2145): Hear, hear!! Well said!!

♡KarLynP♡ (#2431): Well Said!! +1 x 100000000000000

Debbie R (#2435): LOVE IT!! Mind if I borrow that for my 'violation' reviews?

Leah (#2468): HEAR, HEAR!! Well said!! I really hope Otis et al pay PARTICULAR attention to your post!


message 2677: by Dorianna (last edited Sep 24, 2013 04:22AM) (new)

Dorianna | 7 comments It seems that Goodreads is now becoming a lot like the Etsy of book reviews, with the Immaculate Cupcake Brigade making sure no one says anything that doesn't look like it was licked clean by glittery unicorn saliva. Unless, of course, the Immaculate Cupcake Brigade doesn't like something, then they are allowed to resort to their own spiteful childish antics but everyone is being MEAN to THEM when they instigated the very problem in the first place. A good chunk of Etsy sellers are fraudulent re-sellers, but as long as they sell you're not allowed to say a bad thing about them. Meanwhile, I saw a lot of quality sellers suffer as a result of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Goodreads started to see an increase with similar problems now, because some writers formed their own Immaculate Cupcake Brigade and ironically find the written word weally, weally, scawey. Apparently the same freedoms they enjoy when writing their stories doesn't apply to the people who may or may not be reading.

In the end, once a company or website makes people look into jumping ship and boycotting, they have taken power away from the user. And leaving doesn't exactly give the power back. It just gives users a temporary pass until the next place begins following the leader. Not that I blame people for their personal boycotts, or look down on them, I just think it's sad that it's come to that. Because if there's one thing I've learned, once it comes to limiting peoples' choices, Goodreads and Amazon have already, in a way, won this game.

People should not be made to feel bad for owning a Kindle now that Amazon leaves a sour taste in their mouth. I don't have the money to go around constantly buying new e-readers every time a company shits their own bed and expects their customers to either clean it up or roll around in the stench in blind unchecked glee so to speak. People shouldn't have to be wasting their time creating booklikes accounts and importing their ratings and reviews. I have better things to do with my time than to create a CSV file. For one thing, I could be reading. That was kind of supposed to be the point.

Writers are not special snowflakes and we're not here to applaud everything they do. Disagreeing with them or considering the behavior of some unacceptable is not censorship. They're still allowed to go on doing exactly what they please. Only now they can do what they please without consequences. That always ends well.

Bullying is unacceptable. Calling out a writer who was convicted of pedophilia or other writers for plagiarism is not bullying. Those are facts. And when we start hiding facts and clutching our pearls over honesty then you have successfully created a place where the true bullies thrive.

Right now I'm not sure about what to do. I have set up camp here, and I enjoy interacting with people on here and I can't expect them all to jump ship with me. So for now I stay to remain in touch with those interactions even as I set up shop with Booklikes and get ready to import everything there.

But I've decided to look at it positively. Because while I don't suffer terrible books or shady writers gladly, I support other writers for their books that brought me joy in some way. Now with both accounts I can hope to reach more people from different outlets. My audience is small but every little bit counts.

Because here is how Goodreads really won by inspiring boycotts and leaving. It ultimately hurts writers and reviewers by setting up limitations all around. For every disappointed or angry Goodreads user that leaves, or doesn't feel comfortable leaving a review here, several writers deserving of attention do not get their due. Every time a shelf is removed without warning that is filled with writers who plagiarized their work, and honest writer who wrote their own work suffers the risk of having their words stolen or has to share company and attention with a fraud. Writers known for attacking reviews because they weren't made to feel important enough because they managed to string some sentences together get free reign and hurt everyone for their own sake. Readers won't be aware of what they're reading, and can't give an honest review that meets their own terms and standards. It punishes the good while making sure the whiny feel okay about themselves.

I can't change Goodreads, and to be honest, they're not going to no matter what anyone does. But now I have two outlets to give my own opinions, which I never would have looked into before. So thanks, Goodreads. I remain resentfully yours.


message 2678: by Rita (new)

Rita (RitaLB) | 407 comments Leah wrote: "Dear Goodreads,

I have been a registered reviewer on your site since 2010, and was a lurker long before then. In July of this year, I became a Goodreads author when I self-published. When your com..."


Love your comment Leah, thanks to Brian for bringing it out of the +60 pages of comments and into the light again.


message 2679: by NiaKantorka (last edited Sep 24, 2013 04:56AM) (new)

NiaKantorka (Kantorka) | 18 comments ♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Lobstergirl wrote: "What percentage of regular users remain utterly ignorant of the new policy?

Will it ever be announced site wide or are we just pissing into the wind here?"

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell... Since it's obvious Goodreads isn't gonna do much informing, why don't we do it? I mean, if we can tell people about it, maybe we can actually get the attention of Goodreads. I mean, it feels like they aren't reacting, but if we can get more and more people to notice and say something, maybe Goodreads will take our opinions seriously? I mean even if we only tell a few people on GR each, won't that help?


Really good idea. Have changed my profile (pic and about me) and post the topic in my groups. If everybody who disagrees with the TOS change will do something like this the word is spread in no time. That's a piece of cake!

EDIT: Did you see this?
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/g...


message 2680: by Standback (new)

Standback | 6 comments Hi Kara, GR staff, and fellow reviewers. We've reached 3000 comments and things seem to be going, well, rather poorly. Other people are doing an admirable job of pointing out problems and objections; I thought I'd try to give a little bit of constructive criticism. Less "STOP THIS IS AWFUL" (although, yes, I'm kind of with that crowd too), and more, "Hey, Goodreads, here's some stuff you could do that might improve the the situation a bit." I know there's a lot of anger and frustration right now, but I'm guessing this change wasn't aimed to deliberately inflame the GR community - it's something the company considers necessary, or beneficial, but the presentation and handling have kind of gotten out hand.

A Few Things GR Can (And Should) Do, ASAP

First and foremost, we need firm reassurance that our reviews are not subject to arbitrary deletion. I know a lot of reviewers are deeply upset about the author-behavior issue, but this is even more fundamental than that. In the first toe-dipping of the revised guidelines, we're already seeing reports of innocuous, five-star reviews being deleted; we've seen innocently-named shelves like "icy-hex" and "taa" removed; reviewers have reported dozens of reviews being deleted in a swath. And Kara, as GR's spokesperson, has explicitly said that deleted content can't be restored (implying no option for appeals) and that a shelf with an inoffensive name may still be removed, subject to an unexplained "confidence" by GR staff.

What I'm taking away from all this is that any reviewer's content can be deleted at any time, without justification or opportunity for appeal. I'm sure you can see how this undermines any enthusiasm we might have for contributing - and I don't think this is actually the policy you're trying to pursue. But you can see why I'm worried.

That's why we need you to explain the criteria for deletion. The opposite of "arbitrary" is "for a specific reason"; so far, deletion has been (apparantly) arbitrary. Once the criteria for deleting reviews and shelves is clear, I'm certain there will still be plenty of disagreement - but at least we'll know what we're talking about; we'll know where the boundaries are; we'll be able to judge the policy for what it is and how it's going to be implemented. Most importantly, we'll be able to write reviews that we know will not be deleted.

Ostensibly, we already have a basic criteria - a review or a shelf can be deleted if it is (A) flagged, and also (B) focuses on the author's behavior/history/personality. But that's a very vague guideline, since books are so difficult to seperate from their authors. Since many reviewers are worried about being harrassed by authors retaliating against unflattering reviews, this seems to open up a very real risk of using flagging and review deletion as a method of harrasment. We need to know how you are going to keep this from happening. That means we need the nitty-gritty of the moderation process - is one flag enough, or do you need a dozen? Will there be any monitoring to detect mass flagging? No less importantly, there should be a method of appeal - unless deletion is going to be so rare that we don't need to worry about mistakes or borderline cases or problems that could be solved with an easy edit, ever.

As part and parcel of explaining what the plan is, we also need you to explain what's already happened. A lot of the immediate loss of trust we're seeing in this thread is because GR's initial volley of deletions looks very odd, and that's pretty disconcerting. Kara has stated that precisely 21 members have had content deleted so far, but it seems like these few members are having a LOT deleted - Ridley says 90 reviews of his have gotten the axe (though he amends to 36 elsewhere). In addition, Linda's story of new, re-labled shelves and Kara's assertion that Linda's shelves were looked into individually makes it sound like it's not individual shelves or reviews being targeted due to flags - it's individual members, getting all their content investigated at once.

Now, I can see it being necessary for GR staff to check out a particular member who's been involved in complaints. I'm not anti-moderation; there could be great reasons to do that. But GR's TOS has always allowed staff to moderate and treat special cases specially. What seems to have happened here is the a widespread policy was announced, but the immediate implementation was investigation of a handful of individuals, without any clear reason for them getting special attention. This is, again, precisely the type of arbitrary ruling that makes the policy so hard to understand, let alone swallow.

Lastly, GR, if you need time, say so. People make mistakes; shit happens. Maybe the original intention was to roll this out more slowly; maybe GR didn't realize it needs to work out all the kinks and details before they start deleting content. That's likely to be a lot of the reason for the meager response from GR so far - they don't necessarily have the answers they're clamoring for; it makes good sense to figure things out before they go back to deleting stuff. But, if that's the case, then you really want to say it explicitly. Instead of letting this thread fester and boil, you could cut a lot of the tension off with a simple, "Listen; you're right. We're making changes, but we were hasty with this one, and we messed up the introduction. We'll figure it out, and do it better. We'll hold off any deletions until we've got everything tidied up; look for an announcement on [DATE]."

Again, this won't stop the criticism, because it's a change many people object to. But ultimately, it's OK to make changes some people don't like. What's NOT OK is to take everybody by surprise, do stuff without anybody actually certain what's been done and what's not allowed anymore, and then maintaining radio silence in response to questions and arguments. Telling us what's going on, telling us what to expect, will go a long way to actually convincing the community that Goodreads will remain the awesome site we all love.


message 2681: by Moloch (new)

Moloch Bravo Ziv!


message 2682: by [deleted user] (new)


message 2683: by Carmen (new)

Carmen | 6 comments Lizzy wrote: "Thank you Goodreads for this policy change. This makes me extremely happy.

Book reviews should be about books, not authors.

(Although I do agree that there should have been a grace period to all..."


+1


message 2684: by Катя (new)

Катя Czaja (KatyaCzaja) | 8 comments Thank you, Ziv.


message 2685: by ♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (last edited Sep 24, 2013 04:55AM) (new)

♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."


Wow. That last sentence in the article? I kinda feel like they're stirring the pot and/or telling us to just suck it up, we aren't important to Goodreads.

Hey Sandy? I heard you were leaving Goodreads soon...? Like forever?


message 2686: by MLE (new)

MLE (Jyanx) | 19 comments Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."


I see some of the banned accounts doing their typical whining there.


message 2687: by Dorianna (new)

Dorianna | 7 comments Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."


From the article:

"But the underlying problem here is what I like to call the Dave’s Garage problem of the Internet. As someone pointed out during the “What? Instagram Can Share Your Photos?” scandal, if you store all your belongings in your friend Dave’s Awesome Free Garage, and one day Dave comes along and says, “Hey, friend, I no longer want to store all your things. I only want to store SOME of your things, according to NEW RULES,” that’s not really censorship. That’s Dave’s right. It’s his garage.

But this goes both ways. If Dave doesn’t run the only garage in town, you might take your things that you are storing in his garage for free somewhere else. And that will show HIM! (But actually, it will, because your things are what gives his garage its value.)
The Internet is full of people who write things. Some write for free. Some write for pay. Some write for pay but would do it for free. Most of the people who make the Internet and Goodreads the wonderful, engaging places that they are by giving freely of themselves, their time, and their opinions — freely being the key word here — ask nothing more than our +1′s and our Likes and our follows and our upvotes in return. Take them for granted, though, or tick them off, and you risk losing all the wonderful things they are giving you for free — unless you have already attained Facebook-like levels of You Can Never Leave This Place For All Your Friends Are Here saturation. Is Goodreads there? We’ll have to see.
Goodreads noted via email that “Readers are the biggest audience on Goodreads. Our site is designed to help them find and discuss books they love. We’re in awe of the passion and thought that goes into the book reviews on our site. We think we have something special here with the Goodreads community and we want to support and protect that.”

The Internet is full of sites where we put our things for free and build wonderful communities. But unfortunately, if you’re getting a service you love without paying for it, you aren’t the consumer. You’re the product. Goodreads reviewers seem to be learning that the hard way."

Yes, whether I like it or not, it's true that Goodreads is allowed to set up any policy they wish, at any point. And people are allowed to dislike it and complain about it. I'm sure GR considers their policy changes beneficial. I consider it harmful for everyone involved.


message 2688: by [deleted user] (new)

MLE wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

I see some of the banned accounts doing their typical whi..."



Haha yeah I noticed. They're the ones who are giving all authors a bad name and they're too arrogant or stupid to see it. But I guess bitter, twisted people have gotta hate, don't they?


message 2689: by Lia (new)

Lia (alifebetweenthepages) | 4 comments I don't think I'll be able to add anything that hasn't been said in the last 60 pages or so, but I do want to weigh in with my thoughts on the new policy.

I get what Goodreads is trying to do. GR has been receiving bad PR lately, over "reviewers bullying authors" and I guess this was their way of trying to minimize the bad PR. I have a few things I have to say about the whole thing.

One is that the new policy indicates that author behavior is NOT a factor in deciding whether or not someone wants to buy a book. For some, it is. For others, it's not.
Personally, as a reader I would want to be informed about an author, especially if it's bad author behavior. I would want to know if an author is likely to freak out or give out my personal info or murder my plushie toys if I give them a bad rating or review.
If a reviewer I trust says that an author goes ballistic at a poor review and my research confirms it, I'll most likely not buy the author's products.
It's not bullying, it's not libel.
What the reviewer did was to disperse a fact.
What I did was exercise my right as a reader and a consumer to not touch a product I dislike. It's called voting with my wallet.
If an author loses sales because of this, then s/he should probably take a look at what caused it, rather than blame the reviewer.

During the weekend, various reviews and shelves (including some of mine) have been deleted, some without prior notice.
Um...GR team, what made you think that this was a good idea?

I'm not as angry as I should be because I've already backed up my files when it happened, but what about the people who didn't?

I/They trusted GR not to delete my/their reviews or at the very least notify me/them first, but boy did you prove me/us wrong.

You've deleted content from people without even informing them and it's disgusting that you would treat other people's hard work in such a blase manner. OI! It takes time and effort to write a review, it doesn't matter if it is about the author or not. You deleted it without giving them the chance to explain or back it up.

Kara, as much as I feel sorry for her for having to be the one to be the public face of this policy, answered questions and concerns in the worst possible way. Kara, you have been selectively answering questions and concerns while ignoring very valid ones.
Questions such as, WHY is there no site-wide announcement?

Out of the supposed 20M people who frequent this site, only more or less 13K have been made privy of it.
I don't think this would have blown up as much as it did if you guys simply took the time to address issues and concerns instead of dropping this at a group where not even half of the population has joined and then running off.

"What constitutes as acceptable and non-acceptable references to authors?"

Seriously. 60 pages and I'm none the wiser. You delete shelves based on what you think the reviewer was thinking of when they created it? Wut? Are you suddenly mind-readers now to know exactly what the shelf-creators were thinking?

Ultimately, GR has every right to enforce such a policy, but it has done so in such a way that made GR a place that I do not want to be in.

I used to regard GR as a safe haven, where I can discuss books (and yes, authors) without fearing that my stuff will be deleted. Now I'm not so sure. I don't want to write reviews or create shelves while constantly looking over my shoulder and asking myself whether or not you'll somehow read my mind and say that it was created with the intent of bashing an author. I don't want a site that I have to self-censor myself because I fear you might delete it.

'cuse my rant, I'm tired, I'm sleepy but that was oddly cathartic. Meh. Call me a slowpoke for being slow on the uptake but it's not like this policy was anywhere near publicized enough for most people to find.


message 2690: by MLE (new)

MLE (Jyanx) | 19 comments Sandy wrote: "MLE wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

I see some of the banned accounts doing thei..."


Exactly. They can't see how their own behavior caused the backlash against them. Sure you are free to act as you wish, but you are not free from the consequences of those actions. In essence if your sales are hurt because you chose to treat readers and reviewers a certain way you have no one to blame but yourself.


message 2691: by Rita (new)

Rita (RitaLB) | 407 comments ♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Wow. That last sentence in the article? I kinda feel like they're stirring the pot and/or telling us to just suck it up, we aren't important to Goodreads. ..."

GR would be absolutely noting if it wasn't for US: readers, users and content providers! Adding limitations and this level of censorship adds nothing to the site.


message 2692: by [deleted user] (new)

MLE wrote: "Sandy wrote: "MLE wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

I see some of the banned accou..."


I agree. My sympathies lie with the solid SPA's who are professional and respectful. Because of a few brats, it's making reviewers wary of buying self-published books for fear they'll get someone unstable.


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Rita wrote: "♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Wow. That last sentence in the article? I kinda feel like they're stirring the pot and/or telling us to just suck it up, we aren't importan..."

Too true. The more I talk about this, the madder I get. Oh wells. Let's keep going. It feels like they've taken everything into consideration for this. Oh wait. They forgot just one thing in this new policy. US!!!


message 2694: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 658 comments Sandy wrote: "...I agree. My sympathies lie with the solid SPA's who are professional and respectful. Because of a few brats, it's making reviewers wary of buying self-published books for fear they'll get someone unstable."

^^^ THIS!! And FWIW, a little part of me speculates that certain authors and/or persons behind That Site (whether already banned from GR or not) are lashing out along the lines of "if I can't have it, then you can't either'.


message 2695: by [deleted user] (new)

Karma♥Bites wrote: "Sandy wrote: "...I agree. My sympathies lie with the solid SPA's who are professional and respectful. Because of a few brats, it's making reviewers wary of buying self-published books for fear they..."

Wouldn't surprised me one little bit. They're jealous when another self-published author succeeds because they wanted it so bad they could taste it, but instead failed epically.

What's sad is they draw other successful authors into their poisonous web.


message 2696: by [deleted user] (new)

♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Wow. That last sentence in the article? I kinda feel like..."


Yep. I'm deleting my account. I have a bad feeling this is only the start of things to come. I want no part of it when it does. What are they going to censor next? Groups? Changing the rating system? Controlling your language? I'm sorry, but this site is not my mother. I have one, thanks.


message 2697: by Brian (new)

Brian (AussieCavalier) | 30 comments Three wrote: "Pamela Su wrote: "Frankly, I've seen some of the reader groups overreact to a small human comment an author makes and they all pile on the author making them feel bad for even asking a question abo..."

Three, I loved your rebuttal of Pamela's comments, but I just wanted to highlight one specific thing:

"Tell you what: next time you find a hair in your salad or a fly in your soup, don't tell the management. Sure, you paid for the food, and those things shouldn't be there... but if you complain it might hurt the management's feelings. Besides, maybe they already had a complaint today, and yours would push them over the edge."

Under the 'definition' as given by STGRB, any mention of a hair in the salad (or in a case of my wife recently a whole caterpillar sitting in plain view on the lettuce!) or a fly in the soup would be 'bullying', and therefore the management would have every right to call the police (Read: GR for books).... not to mention make a note of your personal details so that they can spit in your food should you ever come back.


message 2698: by MLE (new)

MLE (Jyanx) | 19 comments Sandy wrote: "♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Wow. That las..."


I liked this site because they treated us like adults, and that seems to be going away. I'm afriad of the same changes you are. I don't want to see the "nice" brigade win, but I'm afraid they will leave this site a sanitized shell of what it used to be.


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Sandy wrote: "♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ wrote: "Sandy wrote: "So did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c..."

Wow. That las..."


*cries*

You'll be missed. Your reviews were always awesome. Hey? Didnm't you have a blog? Can I subscribe to that?

How do you delete your account?

I feel a bit paranoid and feel like we'll be on some black list for all of this... Like they'll get mad for us expressing our opinions on this... Oh well. I'm a little worried about future changes too. What if in the future they'll just not tell us? *facepalm*

It's started guys. From experience, I feel that once it stops being about the members and people and more about money and whatever, that's when the sites begin to lose members rapidly.


♥ Innocent Lamb ~ Forever Reading ♥ - AKA Smarties (NotJustAnyOrdinaryGirl) | 22 comments Hmmmm... Maybe. We know GR is owned by Amazon and since washington Post is going to be owned by Amazon. THis is probably them telling us to sit down, be quiet and stop making such a ruckus. LOL.


back to top