UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
What Do You Think Of Goodread's New Review Guidelines???
Patti (baconater) wrote: "I'd say that's perfectly acceptable, Peanut.I expect the goodreads mods are most concerned with and perhaps only concerned with the witch hunts of authors has been happening. I'm only peripherall..."
Or a job....
Will wrote: "Tim wrote: "I know we don't tend to see the hate here, but over on KBoards where they have an equivalent thread to this one (and equally calm and civilised), every single author that commented had ..."If you're talking about the Mod in the Mystery group the reason she was removed by GR had nothing to do with the bullying thread or discussion in the group.
Actually she and her at least 7 profiles were removed/banned multiple times and her alternate personality.
Sometimes things look a certain way because people don't have all the info. Certain myths are perpetuated by a specific site and a lot of people choose to believe instead of checking facts for themselves.
At the moment one of the authors on that site is offering money to expose details and other authors from this site have offered him addresses of readers aquired via GR giveaways. How are readers supposed to react to something like that?
That kind of behaviour might make it more easy to understand why some readers are angry.
All that doesn't mean both sides shouldn't look closely at their actions.
None of us can speak or act for others we can only act for ourselves.
All I know is that majority of authors I come in contact with are polite, friendly and more interested in their writing and honing their craft than in dissecting each review. The ones that accept all reviews as part of the job are the ones that do really well.
If a review is not a review each site has a function to flag or report it.
As for people having too much time on their hands and writing blogs about the situation I think one of the major issues on here has been the abuse of the blog feature by authors who have written blogs that weren't about their books.
Using them to voice an opinion on the situation here when they know that readers do not have the same option is a mistake. Then some readers use the only option they have left showing their displeasure by creating shelves or one star ratings.
There are always three sides to every story and at the moment the truth is lost in the drama.
D.D. wrote: "Yeah, I've been invited to join a few of those...*shudder*
Not sure why anyone thought I'd be interested in the first place!!!"
Yes, I've backed slowly away from groups, not making eye contact and certainly not posting!
To go back to Simon's points, the calibre of moderation is very important. Voltaire said that "Governments need to have both shepherds and butchers." This covers moderators as well. Good moderators draw people out and make them feel safe to post. Part of the way they do this is by just deleting trolls the minute they start to kick off.
It's a difficult balance, but I've seen groups destroyed by people who can have joined for no other reason than to destroy them. The first thing that happens is that if trolls are not spotted and dealt with promptly, the group hemorrhages those members who do spot the trolls and just leave because they know what's coming and don't want any part of that sort of petty nastiness.
Very true Jim - it's happened to some threads I was posting on - it's like tumbleweed over there now.
Having a different opinion to someone on a subject does not equate to being a troll or a bully. Both are terms that are bandied about on GR like pollen in summer.
True Cheryl. We have to allow others to think differently. It shouldn't come to abuse though.
Ignite wrote: "True Cheryl. We have to allow others to think differently. It shouldn't come to abuse though."I agree.
It shouldn't come to abuse on either side.
A very interesting thread. I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said, but I do believe that as an author (and therefore, a professional), I am obligated to act and react with professional integrity.
I just finished a book that was absolutely terrible. I mean it was atrocious.I gave it one star and had a little moan about the quality of the writing, plot, dialogue etc. I didn't say anything personal about the author or anything like that.
But now I feel guilty about it. This is why I do not leave a bad reviews because even though I am being fair and only speaking about the book and not the author I feel like I am being nasty.
Hopefully, Lindsay, the author will look at the comments and strive to improve their craft.
Lindsay, if you have good reason to feel that way about a book, and express your disquiet cogently, you have done the author a positive service with your review.
David wrote: "Agree with you entirely DD. I haven't actually seen any nastiness on GR; maybe I haven't explored enough. I see this mainly as a readers' site, and feel lucky as an author to be allowed on here and..."I have, both ways. It has to be said there were a small group, and it was a small group of authors whose behaviour... was ill advised. That said I have seen reviewers/readers who flamed authors and even other readers whose view differed.
Negative reviews are fine, but personal nasty comments no matter whether they come from a reader or an author are not appropriate.
Should Freedom of Speech work both ways? Or should it be limited? Either surely allow both sides to arm themselves or neither. There will always be someone who wants to cause trouble.
I don't think the behaviour of a few has helped the majority.
Agree, though that this has been done in an odd way. Some prior warning might have been nice. Not that I am generally unkind, even if I think it, and I tend not to leave bad reviews, more because I have no idea what to say.
It will die down, people will complain and leave, and it that is their choice fair enough and in a few months it will be forgotten. I am not saying that is necessarily good, just that is how these things often go.
'The truth is not easy to define - we both have truth is yours the same as mine?'From Jesus Christ Superstar.
A.L. wrote: "'The truth is not easy to define - we both have truth is yours the same as mine?'From Jesus Christ Superstar."
That's one of those lines where they've paraphrased it to fit the music, but which catches the feel of the original nicely :-)
Freedom of Speech should never be limited.
I think that, like other freedoms it should ideally be self limiting. It's all about rights and responsibilities. I have the right to make my view heard but I don't have the right to do it in such a way as to hurt or humiliate another.
A.L. wrote: "'The truth is not easy to define - we both have truth is yours the same as mine?'From Jesus Christ Superstar."
I prefer "This is my truth, tell me yours" but then I am a diehard Manics fan.
Ignite wrote: "I think that, like other freedoms it should ideally be self limiting. It's all about rights and responsibilities. I have the right to make my view heard but I don't have the right to do it in suc..."I agree with that now, but I think that is just what a decent person is...
Elle wrote: "Freedom of Speech should never be limited."I might be tempted to tell the truth about bovine TB in Simon's thread then :-(
Jim wrote: "Elle wrote: "Freedom of Speech should never be limited."I might be tempted to tell the truth about bovine TB in Simon's thread then :-("
If you think I would prefer someone to keep quiet then you don't know me at all Jim! Even if I don't agree with what people say, I always encourage them to speak their mind (in a respectful way).
Elle wrote: "Freedom of Speech should never be limited."Which just leads to all the hate that we had in the Zoo and all the hate that led to this thread in the first place.
People cannot be trusted to moderate their own speech, and so it needs to be moderated for them. Anyhow, this is a private forum and "freedom" only exists so far as the owners allow it to; there is no "right" to say what you like here.
Tim wrote: "Elle wrote: "Freedom of Speech should never be limited."Which just leads to all the hate that we had in the Zoo and all the hate that led to this thread in the first place.
People cannot be trus..."
Yeah but I'm not an obnoxious twat who thinks I'm better than someone else and can therefore limit what they say.
Until I somehow become a perfect human being I feel that I cannot tell others what they can or can't say.
Throw the stone first and all that jazz.
(I think moderation on a forum is completely different. While we have freedom to say what we want, they have the freedom to delete what we say if we aren't nice)
Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.I'm not sure what it has got to do with anything but it came to mind.....
I don't think you can have one black & white blanket rule in life.I agree with freedom of speech. But whereas people have the right to say what they chose, others have the right to choose an environment where they feel protected from spiteful behaviour.
Goodreads aren't saying, 'You can't say what you like', they're just saying 'If you want to be spiteful, go and do it somewhere else' which is their prerogative.
I'm going to a local writers group tonight. If a lady turns up and starts telling my friend that his work is so bad it makes her want to stab out her own eyes, she won't be welcome back.
Goodreads has the same right to pick and chose the behaviour it will and won't tolerate in its own domain.
Elle wrote: "If you think I would prefer someone to keep quiet then you don't know me at all Jim! Even if I don't agree with what people say, I always encourage them to speak their mind (in a respectful way). ..."
Sorry Elle, it wasn't aimed at you, it was meant to be ironic in general, not a prod at you. It's more to do with the fact I'd just seen Simon's thread, thought, no, behave, stay away, and then saw your comment (which I agree with) and went and replied to Simon.
I'd like to point out that I don't think GR is mooching on my freedom of speech (or anyone elses). If it came across that way, I didn't mean it.
So many things I love about our group...We voice our personal opinions. We know we are in an environment that listens to and accepts that we have differing opinions. We hear one another and don't feel polarised. We will never ridicule anyone for changing their opinion or for being on the fence.
Unless someone doesn't like bacon.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "So many things I love about our group...We voice our personal opinions. We know we are in an environment that listens to and accepts that we have differing opinions. We hear one another and don'..."
I feel like there is something physically wrong with me that I don't love bacon. I mean, I don't know a single person in my real life who doesn't worship bacon.
I love bacon...... damn - I've just got a splinter in my b*m from the fence I was sitting on!!
All hail the bacon gods!And the grease they recline upon. :)
And Peanut, I love you even though we'll never share a bacon butty.
Erm. Actually, I love EVEN MORE cuz I'll never have to share my bacon with you. :)
I saw an interesting post on Booklikes yesterday, apparently all those disagreeing with Goodreads over this issue are decamping over there.The post was welcoming new people to the site, it was also telling them to play nice because they didn't want any angst on their nice friendly site!!!
Elder Daughter only recently had her first bacon butty.I was very worried about her.
How could someone growing up in my house not like bacon?
But finally, things turned out fine!
So there's hope for Elle yet!!! ;-P
You've been been making them wrong all these years, Nosemanny.;)
When I have have time to breathe, I'm going to check out the whole Booklikes thing.
I like Facebook. I love our group. I'm not adverse to perhaps spending a bit of time in other places.
We should never limit ourselves.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "You've been been making them wrong all these years, Nosemanny.;)
When I have have time to breathe, I'm going to check out the whole Booklikes thing.
I like Facebook. I love our group. I'm not ad..."
I be there when you check it out Peppermint P! You can visit me, I'll get my best fluffy pillows out!!! ;-P
I don't really have the time or energy to look elsewhere tbh. I agree with the policy now BUT I do think it was handled badly. I have been reading the really long thread attached to the original post and a few people sad they agreed or dared to spoke out against the vociferous majority and were flamed for it. Not everyone is a sock puppet, a BBA or the friend of one but it seemed any author or reader who applauded the new changes was all of those things and worse. I was too scared to comment. That is the point though isn't it. It works both ways. A smallish group of readers who apparently can one star a book, be unkind to the author and anyone who supports him or her but if the author dares respond then they are outraged.
Of course I don't think negative reviews should be banned, that would be very silly but I do think they should be about the book, or at least if they mention the author it should be in relation to the book. Want to bitch about someone go do it on your blog, private group etc.
Ah well it will calm down.
If the really vociferous minority decamp to Booklikes....their mods will have their work cut out
Being devils advocate, A L.A reviewer who one stars a book should never be flamed by an author, nor an author's ra ra group.
I know it hasn't happened often, but it has happened.
I'm so pleased that I have no knowledge of any active member of our group taking part in those activities.
I don't hate bacon and the only way I had it is with brown sauce in between two fluffy bits of white bread.But I can't even remember the last time I had a bit of bacon. I just don't even go for it.
ACTUALLY one of the main reasons is that my oddball of a family like it UNSMOKED. I can't think of ANYTHING more tasteless than a bit of unsmoked bacon. (slight exaggeration)
Bacon...bacon...no, don't recall bacon.Is it like lettuce?
I see a lack of accountability and acknowledgement when it comes to seeing the part that a small group of authors have played in this fiasco. This wasn't just caused by readers/reviewers.GR didn't handle this with any kind of PR savvy. They have also been deleting reviews that weren't negative or authorcentric.
Reviews that could have been changed to fit the new goalposts and shelves that could have been changed if given due notice.
What the fuck is more flavourless than fluffy bits of 'white bread'?I'd rather chew styrofoam.
Or polystyrene, as you Brits call it.
Oops. Off topic. *giggles*
I am not a white bread fan (i take all my sandwiches in wholemeal) but sometimes you just cannot beat it.Bouncing back to the topic - GR have never, ever been PR savvy. They are in desperate need of a decent PR dude
Cheryl M-M wrote: "I see a lack of accountability and acknowledgement when it comes to seeing the part that a small group of authors have played in this fiasco. This wasn't just caused by readers/reviewers.GR didn't..."
A lack of accountably and acknowledgement by whom, exactly?
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Cheryl M-M wrote: "I see a lack of accountability and acknowledgement when it comes to seeing the part that a small group of authors have played in this fiasco. This wasn't just caused by readers/r..."In general.
It is always about the mean reviewers and never about both groups of individuals.
Both have gone too far.
This thread is doing a lot of stereotyping and forgetting individuals should take responsibility and don't blame it on a group.
Me either, Tim. Just, WHY???