Goodreads Feedback discussion

44845 views
Announcements > Important Note Regarding Reviews

Comments (showing 3,651-3,700 of 6,359) (6359 new)    post a comment »

message 3651: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments Karma♥Bites wrote: "Bekka wrote: "For those looking for a comprehensive list of authors to avoid, just check STGRB. Anyone they support is to be avoided."

BUT... be sure to use a proxy!"


http://www.zfreez.com is free proxying.


message 3652: by Christina (new)

Christina Wilder | 16 comments What the brass seems to be forgetting is that the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press" is true to a degree - bad reviews increase awareness of a book and helps promote the book. I've even seen cases of people saying "There's no way this book is as bad as you say it is, I gotta find out for myself!"


message 3653: by Vaughn (new)

Vaughn | 19 comments So many of us have sent complaints about one of your librarians and how they attack authors as well as those who respond to his rudeness, and you have yet removed any of his reviews that have clearly violated your policies before this revision. Will that finally happen now or are GR employees bias?


message 3654: by Rose (new)

Rose (Rosepetals1984) | 126 comments Christina wrote: "What the brass seems to be forgetting is that the old saying "there's no such thing as bad press" is true to a degree - bad reviews increase awareness of a book and helps promote the book. I've eve..."

It also encourages discussion and debate when you have a negative review. Even if people may be put off by a negative review, if they have social circles that promote the discussion of said book, they may pick it up anyway just to peruse.

I really wish people would not assume that a bad review or less than positive reflection of a book is the bane of an author's career.


Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} (amyorames) | 568 comments Karma♥Bites wrote: "Bekka wrote: "For those looking for a comprehensive list of authors to avoid, just check STGRB. Anyone they support is to be avoided."

BUT... be sure to use a proxy!"


Yes, you don't want to catch a STGRB. Prevention is better, because there is no cure.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments Amy or "Ames" wrote: "Yes, you don't want to catch a STGRB. Prevention is better, because there is no cure."

Ahahaha.


message 3657: by G. (new)

G. | 44 comments Debbie R. wrote: "I don't think amazon wants the goodreads members. I think they just wanted a huge active database to integrate in with the kindles now that the amazon community forums and Shelfari are ground down..."

I think you have nailed it: GRamazon does NOT want the curse words, the real reviews, or anything that may interfere with their vanilla offerings?

I envision that the next couple of "bombs" that will be dropped here, will be:

-No "cursing". They (GRamazon) wouldn't want to offend the kindle customers who really couldn't give a shit about reviews.

-No reviews unless there is a vertified purchase stamp on your review.

-All five star, squee reviews will be honored, because they purportedly SELL books. The author to author and family/friends plan will be honored and put forth as legit reviews. The sock-puppets will have a field day. And yet again, these authors who give amazon under a hundred dollars a year, will be lifted up, way above the regular consumer.

-Authors can make death threats, doxing threats, and general shitty remarks, because the fifteen dollars (bless their BBA SPA hearts) they make for the company, are worth more than the people who spend thousands of dollars on the Amazon site.

I would hope that another site steps up and offers the ability to form groups and have PMs. IF this happens? Yeah, many will skate.


message 3658: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Sep 26, 2013 02:59PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (Karma_Bites) | 626 comments Book wrote: "I've been thinking. ...Goodreads doesn't and never has cared about its users. It DOES care about publishers and marketing its reader data/insights to them and making money off ads."

GR certainly does--enough to say something about the new policy to them LAST WEEK (meaning b4 Friday).

Who knows which pubs got told and which didn't but... *shrug*

etc: stupid stuff


message 3659: by A.G. (new)

A.G. Zalens | 5 comments I've used Goodreads a lot in the past but only recently became an official member.

I was so dismayed by the new policy I wrote a blog post about it: http://agzalens.wordpress.com/2013/09...

I wanted to contribute on this forum.

This site is a product (book) review site and the book reviewers are the customers. How the owners of the product (authors) behave is part of customer service.

When a person goes to a restaurant and orders duck and gets chicken they will rate the place low. If the owner sees the low rating and then tells the customer off the next time they visit the restaurant the customer then goes to a review site and gives every detail of that bad customer service experience.

The service is relevant to the product because it determines if customers want to pay for that product in the future.

I find it bizarre that a review site would side with the owners of the product and reject customer reviews because the owners had their feelings hurt.

It would be like small businesses banning together to complain about bad reviewers and then organize to get them back online. Those businesses wouldn't stay open very long.

I think authors should realize they are now business owners and how they treat the reviewers is part of customer service. You make up for a bad customer experience, you don't go after the customer.

I want to be one of those authors in the future and the way this has turned out bothers me.


message 3660: by ♡Karlyn P♡ (new)

♡Karlyn P♡ (KarLynP) | 371 comments As time goes on and their silence continues, I am more and more inclined to believe that Goodreads feels that they have already notified 'those who matter'. I disagree. They need to do damage control.

Word is spreading organically through sound bites around Goodreads and other social media, and (as to be expected) the message isn't always correct.

Some members wrongly believe (at least, for now) that the new policy is to remove snarky negative reviews about the book, and others fear any kind of 'if it hurts the authors feelings' content is at risk.

The new policy change has set an ominous tone for the Goodreads community, and they shouldn't just sit back and do nothing. I am seeing a general silencing of members as they fear any open dialogue about an author (that isn't glowing positive) may get them banned.

Customers should matter, right? Or are we now to believe that the 'Goodreads customer' has become the authors who they want to sell ad space to, and no longer the members who provide boat loads of free content and site support, and buys tons of books?

Goodreads cannot undo the mess they made when they specifically targeted 21 members, judged them guilty based on the complaints of some loud authors, and then punished them by deleting a lot of their reviews and shelves with no warning. Matters made worse when they justified their swift actions because they just changed their policy a few seconds ago.

I appreciate that they apologized for their poor execution and finally admitted these members should have been given the opportunity to adhere to the new policy, but we all know why they didn't do this in the beginning: they were too focused on pleasing the loud group of whining authors who complained about 'rape' and 'sodomy' shelves, and yet which none of these 21 members had.


message 3661: by Moonlight Reader (new)

Moonlight Reader (Moonlight_Reader) | 322 comments ♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "Customers should matter, right? Or are we now to believe that the 'Goodreads customer' has become the authors who they want to sell ad space to, and no longer the members who provide boat loads of free content and site support, and buys tons of books?"

That's exactly what I believe.


message 3662: by Bekka (new)

Bekka (yerawizardbekka) | 93 comments I think it's a load of bullshit that only 21 people had content removed.

I had content removed and I'm hardly influential.


message 3663: by ♡Karlyn P♡ (last edited Sep 26, 2013 03:59PM) (new)

♡Karlyn P♡ (KarLynP) | 371 comments Linda wrote: "♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "As time goes on and their silence continues, I am more and more inclined to believe that Goodreads feels that they have already notified 'those who matter'. I disagree. They need..."

I must not have been clear, because I agree with you 1,000%. The GR-21 were cherry picked and targeted, and I don't believe they regret it for a second. But this has snowballed well past the GR-21, and has thousands of regular members upset and confused. As a result of their haste, it is no longer 'business as usual' for thousands of members.


message 3664: by [deleted user] (last edited Sep 26, 2013 04:09PM) (new)

I don't disagree with much that has been said here. I've tried to be very supportive, and to promote the argument that we ALL lose when member content is deleted without notice and because it does not conform to groupspeak.

Docile sheep? That's where you lose me. That's the point where this becomes a lot like high school ("Anyone who doesn't fit in with me and my friends is a nobody"). I don't think the people who have not been formally informed by GR staff of their new censorship policy are docile sheep. I think they're clueless, and I think that's Kara's fault.


message 3665: by A.G. (new)

A.G. Zalens | 5 comments ♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "Linda wrote: "♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "As time goes on and their silence continues, I am more and more inclined to believe that Goodreads feels that they have already notified 'those who matter'. I disag..."

If you think about it, their policy changes don't effect the overall numbers very much. When they joined with Amazon a bunch of members left and since then they grew by a few million.

I think they need to be careful upsetting the customer (book reviewers) by siding with the product owners (authors.) Other review sites make sure to keep that separate.

This site has done a good job of that in the past and they should go back to their previous attitude toward reviewers.


message 3666: by Moonlight Reader (new)

Moonlight Reader (Moonlight_Reader) | 322 comments Jennifer (Sanity is overrated) wrote: "I don't disagree with much that has been said here. I've tried to be very supportive, and to promote the argument that we ALL lose when member content is deleted without notice and because it does..."

Jennifer, I don't really think that anyone is suggesting that people who are unaware of the new policies are by definition "docile little sheep." I do think that GR management will be happier when the flies in the ointment leave. The new people coming in don't have the same expectations of GR that the people who've been here for years have.

People who are accustomed to being able to speak freely react when their speech is inhibited. The people who've never had that experience think that's the way it has always been, so they have nothing to get upset about.


message 3667: by [deleted user] (new)

Here's where I wade into quicksand...

A lot of people said they would leave after the Amazon take-over. How many of them actually did? And while many members are dead serious about leaving this time, it's possible that GR drew the conclusion that there would be many threats but few actual departures.

That doesn't make what they did right, fair, or good judgment...but it's possible they thought this would not be the major identity crisis it has become.


message 3668: by [deleted user] (new)

I love the name Moonlight Reader, by the way :)


message 3669: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus (Oldfan) | 316 comments I lost about 30 friends post-Ammy. I've got over 60 friends on BookLikes now, and not a-one of 'em is from any other place. I won't delete my account. I like the social bits. But adding data, no.

ETA except my protest reviews!


message 3670: by Penelope (new)

Penelope (ReadingFever) | 1 comments Will this include things written in private notes that can't be viewed by other members?


message 3671: by Jenna (new)

Jenna I think everyone should create a new topic in Feedback expressing their opinion. Goodreads will have to do SOMETHING then. Even if it's freeze them.


message 3672: by Thalia (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) | 420 comments Belle wrote: "I think everyone should create a new topic in Feedback expressing their opinion. Goodreads will have to do SOMETHING then. Even if it's freeze them."

Mmm, I like that idea.
I also support the mass log out.


UniquelyMoi ~ BlithelyBookish | 778 comments Is there a list of the 21 targeted members? I'm not seeing it, and I'd live to know who they are.


C is for **censored** (LWYCMB) | 39 comments Penelope wrote: "Will this include things written in private notes that can't be viewed by other members?"

One of my more serious questions and has been ignored so far. Oddly enough my emails are no longer being responded to.


message 3675: by [deleted user] (new)

Personally, I think there are more than 21, but I can't prove it :(


message 3676: by Jane (new)

Jane (jane_e) | 130 comments Jennifer (Sanity is overrated) wrote: "Personally, I think there are more than 21, but I can't prove it :("

I would say you are right.


C is for **censored** (LWYCMB) | 39 comments I also started a new thread...whether or not Private Notes would also be evaluated for Goodreads Approved Standards (GAS). Seeing as no answer here, might as well try with a new thread.

My reviews are what they are, but my private notes are where I rant. To myself. In my own words. Expressing my own thoughts, even when scattered around and not logically organized yet enough for a 'real' review.


message 3678: by Mike (new)

Mike Puma (Puma52) | 183 comments Of the 30 friends I have in the new Booklikes group, 13 are 'best reviewers' (14, counting myself)--several are 'top reviewers', and a couple are authors who are active and their reviews are well-received in the community. That's just from among my Friends, and I'm certain others are 'top' or 'best' reviewers with whom I haven't had the pleasure of meeting.

My point, which is actually less of a point than a question, is what happens if those people should simply go away? Additionally, are some of the system-supportive commenters seeing this as an opportunity to finally matter? If so, I think I can safely say, the joke's on them--individually, and perhaps even collectively, it doesn't appear we do.


message 3679: by Gary (new)

Gary | 14 comments C wrote: "Penelope wrote: "Will this include things written in private notes that can't be viewed by other members?"

One of my more serious questions and has been ignored so far. Oddly enough my emails are..."


I'd have to say that to "BIG BROTHER" that anything posted on here, anywhere, is fair game, if they can remove what they consider offensive reviews without anyone's consent. Censorship is censorship.


UniquelyMoi ~ BlithelyBookish | 778 comments Mike wrote: "Of the 30 friends I have in the new Booklikes group, 13 are 'best reviewers' (14, counting myself)--several are 'top reviewers', and a couple are authors who are active and their reviews are well-received in the community. That's just from among my Friends, and I'm certain others are 'top' or 'best' reviewers with whom I haven't had the pleasure of meeting. "

Many of my friends on those lists have started feeling like their reviews don't matter anyway. They find themselves getting bumped lower and lower on said lists by people who aren't even reviewing the books, rather, just promoting them for authors and publishers.


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (SusannaG) | 1659 comments Mike - also a number of Librarians, there, as well.


message 3682: by ♡Karlyn P♡ (new)

♡Karlyn P♡ (KarLynP) | 371 comments Mike wrote: "Of the 30 friends I have in the new Booklikes group, 13 are 'best reviewers' (14, counting myself)--several are 'top reviewers', and a couple are authors who are active and their reviews are well-r..."

Mike, my BL acct is: http://karlynp.booklikes.com. I am a GR Best Reviewer too, and have been ever since that list was created years back.

You ask "what happens if those people should simply go away? "

I don't think they will go away, but you can bet many will not be putting the time into this site as they once did. Less reviews, less librarian edits, less 'find me at Goodreads!' comments on their blogs...etc.


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (SusannaG) | 1659 comments Less talking up GR as the place to go for book talk...


message 3684: by Stacia (the 2010 club) (last edited Sep 26, 2013 05:40PM) (new)

Stacia (the 2010 club) (Stacia_R) | 331 comments Mike wrote: "My point, which is actually less of a point than a question, is what happens if those people should simply go away? ..."

At this point, I think GR is not considering it much of a loss for those with the biggest influence on the site to get gone.

Those who yell the loudest are often seen as a nuisance, even if they're yelling truth.

It's something we'd talked about a few pages back - there are always up-and-comers willing to step in and take the positions at the top. At this point, I wouldn't see it as a big thing to have a name on this site when the people who were pioneers and had an influence on how many of us now format groups and think about reviewing are gone. If you can't make a name alongside the best there are, it doesn't seem like much of an achievement to have a name.

It is sad to see some of the most influential people on the site either gone completely or choosing to remove reviews, only staying around to visit with friends in groups.

It's been said before, but GR has to be counting on the new Kindle rollout w/GR integration to be the new milestone of GR growth. Out with the old, in with the new (members).

Sad. Sad. Sad.


message 3685: by Mike (new)

Mike Puma (Puma52) | 183 comments I'm a frustrated librarian as well: diligently, if only occasionally, making corrections to bibliographic data, with book in-hand and after making certain ISBNs match, only to have changes reversed a couple days later. I can see how little value a library cataloger and someone who supervised the Library Services and Product Development department of a national book distribution company wouldn't really know what he (in my case) or she were doing. Also, I've been the Marketing Manager for two national companies, and I really don't see how the alienating lack of response from GR serves anyone particularly well. If the 5-star reviewers (and I've given plenty) come to dominate here, those reviewers will lose favor with readers, the site will lose credibility, and the marketing potential of the 'order now' function will seem less compelling. It will take a while, but it will happen sooner or later.


message 3686: by Charming (new)

Charming (charming_euphemism) | 122 comments Vaughn wrote: "So many of us have sent complaints about one of your librarians and how they attack authors as well as those who respond to his rudeness, and you have yet removed any of his reviews that have clear..."

Links?


message 3687: by M'rella (new)

M'rella (Mrella) | 86 comments So, are we going to do a mass log out at some point in the future? O.o

The easiest way to reach as many people as possible is to get in contact with owners and moderators of top 20-25 communities. And they can send newsletters/messages to their members. That should be relatively easy. Just need to decide on the day.


message 3688: by Charming (new)

Charming (charming_euphemism) | 122 comments Moonlight Reader (fka Christine) wrote: "I do think that GR management will be happier when the flies in the ointment leave. The new people coming in don't have the same expectations of GR that the people who've been here for years have.

People who are accustomed to being able to speak freely react when their speech is inhibited. The people who've never had that experience think that's the way it has always been, so they have nothing to get upset about. ."


Yes, I think that's true. Goodreads/Amazon has not made a mistake here - they are happy to have mouthy captious people leave, and feel that plenty of new people will replace them when the Kindle is hooked up to Goodreads. It's a feature, not a bug.

They are probably right. There is a small risk they are wrong. After all Amazon killed Shelfari dead after buying it. But I expect they learned from that.


message 3689: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Mammarella wrote: "The easiest way to reach as many people as possible is to get in contact with owners and moderators of top 20-25 communities...."

It's infuriating that it's up to the members to let people know. Much like it was up to the members to make this site amazing.

I'm not in favor of a mass log out, even though I like the idea. It's like boycotting as stations on certain days, it's just implausible.


message 3690: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments It just seems like one of those things that's only great in theory. I never remembered which day I wasn't supposed to get gas. :/

I'm not against doing something, just to be clear, I just know that this particular method never works for me personally. I think the idea of starting new threads is a fabulous idea though. ^-^


message 3691: by M'rella (last edited Sep 26, 2013 06:22PM) (new)

M'rella (Mrella) | 86 comments Brandi wrote: "It's infuriating that it's up to the members to..."

I agree with you, but what else to be done? Nothing else helps. We can talk and keep sending letters until our heads and hands fall off, but something has to happen for them to actually react.


message 3692: by M'rella (new)

M'rella (Mrella) | 86 comments Wikipedia shut down in protest. Why can't we exit GR in protest?


message 3693: by Tracey (new)

Tracey (Stewartry) | 120 comments Mammarella wrote: "So, are we going to do a mass log out at some point in the future? ...."

Oh, good, this is exactly what I joined the group to ask. (I've been lurking on the thread.) There are over 300 members of a Booklikes group, and if a substantial number of those folks plus a substantial number of this thread's folks plus whoever else can be reached all went radio silence for a couple of days, it might be noticed. They might not care, but they ought to notice.


message 3694: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Mammarella wrote: "Brandi wrote: "It's infuriating that it's up to the members to..."

I agree with you, but what else to be done? Nothing else helps. We can talk and keep sending letters until our heads and hands fa..."


I don't disagree.

Has anyone made an announcement in the librarians group yet? I'm assuming so, but I'd like the confirmation if someone knows.


message 3695: by Iola (new)

Iola | 41 comments Charming wrote: "Is that site mirrored anywhere? I don't want to give them my IP address. "

No, you don't want to give them your IP address, or you'll find yourself blocked from their site (as I am. I think. I haven't bothered to check in the last year). I was once also blocked from http://melissadouthit.com/ (even though I had never before visited her blog, and even though she claims not to be behind STGRB). Curiously, I just googled to get the site address and I'm no longer blocked there.

Anyway, the simple answer is that if you must visit that site, use a web proxy. Google will find one for you.


message 3696: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Susanna wrote: "I think that "20 million" is exaggerated. A lot fewer active users than that. How many? I don't know.

But to take the example of my own household, three here are members, but the other two have..."


It's enormously exaggerated. A lot of accounts have been inactive for months or years. Many people join only to participate in a Giveaway. In one of the groups I'm in, "What's the Name of that Book," we have a lot of joiners who only join to get their book mystery solved and have no other interaction on the site.


message 3697: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Brandi wrote: "Has anyone made an announcement in the librarians group yet? I'm assuming so, but I'd like the confirmation if someone knows. "

I certainly haven't seen one. It would immediately be shut down in any case because such announcements only belong in the Feedback Group....naturally.


message 3698: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl And another thread closed down.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...


message 3699: by Nasty Lady MJ (new)

Nasty Lady MJ (HowdyYAL) | 64 comments Linda wrote: "(it's just another way of saying, "we don't give a fuck.")"

Pretty much. That's just the passive aggressive spirit of GR. Whoever is in charge of the PR department is doing a "great" job.

As for the log out thing, if we're going to do it, it needs to be organized set date, set time, and there needs to be enough time where everyone can plan. Maybe a banner or something could be created and spread around so it could be more visual. While I really don't think GR will do anything if we do it, I think they'll at least notice-especially if content is deleted/not updated and at the very least if it's moderately successful uninformed members might become informed about the situation.


message 3700: by Brandi (new)

Brandi (BrandiDado) | 149 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "And another thread closed down.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1..."


Wow, nice. Although I will say I really appreciate Emily saying that at the end about our frustration. I hope saying that just now didn't get her in trouble, but I mean it. It wasn't much, but it was something. Why isn't she the director?


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...