Who's Your Author? discussion
Let's talk about...
>
GR change in review policy
date
newest »
newest »
Sorry the hyperlink did not come up so here is the thread for all who wish to read. http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Wow... I wonder if this is due to pressure from Amazon?
I must say that I'm really upset about this. Not because any of my stuff will likely fall into this change, but because I have always enjoyed the ability to learn what others think and feel about books. Authors have a lot to do with books and sometimes personal lives very much influence the book being written. It is always sad when we loose a great tool because others deem things to be "offensive". I find it funny that it's not "censorship" when they are deleting entire shelves and reviews based on "it's been deemed inappropriate".
Personally, I think a BOOK review should be about the merits of...tada...a book. Not about the merits of the author as a person. I have no problem distinguishing between the two, and I don't believe a single review I've ever written would be in jeopardy.If I truly dislike an author's personal life that much, or abhor what I think he or she stands for, I just don't read their books. I mean, why would I want my money to go to support them? And there actually are one or two writers whose books I do not buy any more for various reasons. But only a few. And I don't review their work, because I don't read it.
The rest, I read and review based on whether I think the plot and characters are worth reading about, and any comments on the author would be limited to whether I enjoyed his or her style of writing. I see nothing here that says I can't comment on that, so if I think their writing is peculiar, I might say so. But I would not say that I think the writer is peculiar, and that's the difference I think Goodreads is talking about.
Just my thoughts, for what they are worth, and around this house, that isn't all that much. :)
Marcia, I agree that books should be rated on the content of the book. The real problem lies in how the reader interprets the book, and there are many things that influence how we think and feel. My feelings about a book is not necessary like yours. The reasons could be wide and vary greatly, but I like knowing why someone feels the way they do about a book. If they don't like the authors politics and that's why they don't like the book, it's good to know because then I can better understand why our positions might differ. This is a site for bookies and anything another bookie has to say about books is important to me whether I agree or not. That's why I joined goodreads, not to find readers just like me, but to get the opinions of readers that are completely different. I can't expect to read every book ever published, but when I compare the thoughts of others with my own, I get a better picture of what I want to read. I'm not for Author bashing, but I am for the free flow of thoughts and information. If someone says "I know Jacy and she's a real jerk", I personally want to know why they think that because maybe they know something that is relevant to a situation that would actually affect more than just the sales of a book.
As Jacy said, this isn't really affecting me but it bothers me nonetheless. It's not just reviews, it's also shelves that are being deleted. But this was the change that really got my ranty pants on:https://twitter.com/brigidkemmerer/st...
and
https://twitter.com/JLArmentrout/stat...
If I write a 1 star review I don't get a "sorry you read such a crappy book. Here's how to get a refund." message.
To me, this signals a move from a reader community to an author promotional site.
Just my $.02.
Jacy wrote: "Marcia, I agree that books should be rated on the content of the book. The real problem lies in how the reader interprets the book, and there are many things that influence how we think and feel. M..."I can see your point, but I'm still not in favor of making any book review a personal statement about an author. The only possible exception for me would be if an author wrote an opinion book, perhaps on politics. Then it would make a bit more sense for people who disagree with his points to make comments. I still wouldn't make it personal. I'd say I disagreed with his point of view, and not something that indicated I thought he was a moron for even having those points of view. (Even if I did, I would keep that to myself, or find another venue to express it, rather than in a book review.)
But to me, a work of fiction is a whole 'nuther game. Who the author is or isn't just doesn't seem to have a place in a review of fictional work. If you are reviewing an author's entire body of work, perhaps. But not in a review of one book.
I just would never do it, but that's ME, as I said before. And frankly, if a fictional book is really good, I wouldn't slam it, no matter what I thought of the author. But again, if it is someone I find offensive, I wouldn't have read it in the first place. I'm the same way about movies. I won't spend my hard-earned money to watch a movie starring or produced by someone I find objectionable. I make my statement that way, rather than by bashing a work of fiction written by someone I don't like.
Yes, we all see things differently, and I sure don't expect anyone else to think I have all the answers. This is just the way I handle it, that's all. Ignore the work of those I have real issues with, and read & review the rest based strictly on the books, themselves.
And I think we all interpret books differently, no matter how we feel about the author. Sometimes I wonder if other reviewers were even reading the same book I was. Everything is subjective, and finding other people who are moved by the same things you are isn't easy. But I still don't get why anyone wants to use a book review as a place to vent their feelings about an author, as a person. As a writer, sure. Maybe you think his writing stinks. That's fair game for a review. But as a person? I can't help but think that pushes the boundaries between free speech and bad manners.
Sorry. No offense meant to anyone who feels differently. Just one lone person's opinion, here. Everyone certainly has to decide how they feel about these changes themselves.
Otis can do whatever he wants with GR I mean it is his site his rules.I think not providing notice to all the members about this change in policy with an effective date is what is most upsetting. It echos amazon when they went through and deleted a bunch of reviews they called sock-puppet but yet they offered no explanation.
Then there is the guideline on what you can name your shelf when you can use a one star review. It is all to much!
@Marcia while I appreciate your point I think there it can be to much of a judgment call. If I say I think the author missed the mark on this one or this author is in dire need of a grammar expert or an editor. Is this offensive or not? While it may be true I would imagine it is still hurtful to the author. As a reader I would rather know before I buy or a borrow a book these will be the issues.
Marcia wrote: "If I truly dislike an author's personal life that much, or abhor what I think he or she stands for, I just don't read their books. I mean, why would I want my money to go to support them? "That is exactly the point of the shelves and reviews they are deleting. They want everyone to think they are ones that "attack" the author or threaten them in some way, but no one has been able to provide me a concrete example of that. But here's an example that is happening to my goodreads friends:
Friend A posts a review about a book, they didn't like the book and said so quite bluntly in their review and explained why. Author comes in and whines about how hurtful the review is. Friend A says they have a right to that opinion and that if the author is so easily hurt maybe they shouldn't read reviews. Author calls in their friends to berate and harass Friend A. Soon Friend B, C, and D see it and decide that this author is not someone they want to give their money to. So Friends B, C, and D create a "will not read due to author" shelf so that should they ever forget they didn't want to patronize that author they will be reminded. And also potentially to warn off other reviewers that they may be harassed if they don't like the book.
That's what is getting deleted...without warning. It's so incredibly wrong I can't even tell you. It's a slippery slope. First it was hiding these reviews from public view. Now it's reviews and shelves about author behavior and just deleted entirely. Maybe next it will be reviews or rating prior to publication.
If they will flip flop on this, they will flip flop on anything and you're reviews might be next.
"First they came for the Communists and I did not speak because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists and I did not speak because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and no one was left to speak for me."
Dawn wrote: "Otis can do whatever he wants with GR I mean it is his site his rules.I think not providing notice to all the members about this change in policy with an effective date is what is most upsetting...."
I agree that things need to be spelled out in a timely manner so no one is confused about what is allowed and what isn't. That's a whole different subject, really.
As for your last paragraph, Dawn, your comments on whether the writer needs a grammar expert or editor, whether hurtful or not, relate directly to the way the book is written. That's fair game. It is part of a critique of the book, itself. No one should consider that a "personal" attack on an author, but merely a comment on his or her writing, and that's part of any good review. I'd be fine with that, and I would DO that, myself. And have done so.
If a work needs editing, or grammar corrections, it isn't personal. It's a fact, and can be said in a constructive way.
I'd LIKE most reviews to contain that kind of information, myself, but again, in a respectful way.
On the other hand, personal attacks deal with an author's character, political viewpoints, intelligence, religion, things of that nature. That's why I feel they aren't fair game in a book review. But it seems to me, the author's style of writing, or command of grammar (or lack of it) ARE, since they are about the book in question.
Maybe I'm doing a really bad job of expressing what I mean, but for me, it just boils down to this: Remarks about the book/writing/style/plot/editing/character development/grammar should be fine. Remarks about an author's intelligence, character, religious or political viewpoints, culture, etc, should not be fine. Hope this makes sense.
I'm really an easy person to get along with, honest, and I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of these changes. The only part I have an opinion on is personal attack, as opposed to literary critiques.
Hope that makes sense. :)
Stefani wrote: "Marcia wrote: "If I truly dislike an author's personal life that much, or abhor what I think he or she stands for, I just don't read their books. I mean, why would I want my money to go to support ..."Everything I have read here has said an author should never, ever respond to any reviews, especially negative ones. I think that's good advice. You put your work out there, you take your chances. Some will like it, some will hate it, and some will just go "Meh." So. That's life. It has ALWAYS been that way for creative people, and always will be.
Myself, I don't think I would engage in any kind of argument on either side of the issue. Those who hate a book (as long as they are only talking about the books and not the authors) should be allowed to do so. And authors should just develop a thicker skin. Arguing back and forth and letting things turn ugly seems pointless and counterproductive.
I would neither complain about the reviewer (I HOPE), nor would I put up a shelf about authors I dislike for personal reasons. The reviewer is entitled to his/her opinions about a book, and the authors need to cry in private, and move on to the next project.
Easier said than done, I know, but what has been accomplished by the ugly fighting? Better to write what you want to write and ignore reviews that don't like your book. UNLESS, again, they attack you personally. Then you should turn it over to someone else to arbitrate. But engaging in a back & forth accomplishes nothing, right? Except a lot of mad people taking sides.
Doesn't seem worth it. Sounds petty to me, from both sides, and a waste of time that could better be spent reading, or writing, another book. Live and learn and move on.
Marcia, I agree that it is petty and that authors largely need to just ignore it but the problem is the double standard and whether reviewers should be able to categorize authors on their shelves in such a way. According to the GR guidelines...Authors are encouraged to not engage reviewers who write negative reviews and doing so too many times may cause their account to come under review. This is very hand holding wording, you "shouldn't" an it "may" cause something if it's "too many". That's not really a rule, more of a suggestion and one that authors (mostly self published) abuse liberally on this site. Once author abused the system so thoroughly that he was banned from GR and is now creating a website with the express purpose of uncovering reviewer's real information and "paying them a visit." That's beyond the pale and GR largely does nothing.
Reviewers on the other hand have explicitly been told they better toe the line and not mention authors at all (either good or bad) in their reviews or shelves of GR is going to smack you down and delete those reviews and shelves with no warning whatsoever.
Does that seem like trying to solve the problem to you? To me it sounds like taking a firm stance that authors are more important than users.
Stefani wrote: "Marcia, I agree that it is petty and that authors largely need to just ignore it but the problem is the double standard and whether reviewers should be able to categorize authors on their shelves i..."You know, it's all too much for me to grasp, I guess. I don't understand why it has to happen on either side, so I should probably stop trying to figure it out. I'm just going to continue to do my reviews in what seems to me to be fair and thoughtful ways, with honest critiques. And if anyone gives my book an awful review, I'll just shut myself in my room and cry, and then go re-read the good ones I've gotten to make me feel better. :)
I'm not going to engage anyone, if I can help it. And I probably shouldn't have made any comments here, either, since I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation.
I do know I think any personal comments from either party are unnecessary and in poor taste. But that's just my opinion, and how I strive to be, myself. As for the rest, I can think of less stressful things to be writing about. I've read some really great books lately, and I should go do what I love most, and that's review. Or work on my own stuff.
It's been nice chatting, even if I don't understand the reasons behind this brouhaha. Hope you guys find answers that make you feel better about Goodreads. For myself, if a place upsets me that bad, I usually move on, but I realize that isn't the answer for everyone.
Good luck, and try to feel better about it all. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't worth a single gray hair. I hear an Age of Steam book calling me, so off I go now. Good night! :)
Well GR is trying to redeem themselves...another note from Kara:Additional Update:
Hey Everyone,
Thank you for all the comments so far. One concern that has come up in this thread is that the content was deleted without those members first being told that our moderation policy had been revised.
In retrospect, we absolutely should have given users notice that our policies were changing before taking action on the items that were flagged. To the 21 members who were impacted: we'd like to sincerely apologize for jumping the gun on this. It was a mistake on our part, and it should not have happened.
Anyone else with reviews or shelves created prior to September 21, 2013 that will be deleted under the revised policy will be sent a notification first and given time to decide what to do.
Again, thank you for all your comments. We'll continue to monitor this thread for your feedback.
I'm glad to see they apologized because they really did jump the gun on that. People should have had a chance to re-do their shelves & save reviews to other sites should they want to do so. I think this whole thing is really a sad reflection of many reviewers & authors on the GR. I rarely write or read reviews so I have been mostly ignorant of the dynamics that were going on. Awhile ago I took over an ARE thread & as a result joined some groups that dealt w/reviewers & authors & I was SHOCKED to see and hear some of things going on. I couldn't believe the hatefulness & straight crazy behavior that some people have had to put up with. Then there are all the fake accounts & reviews, etc. It's a mess and I think GR couldn't just sit back and let these things keep going on. But what the answer is that will keep everyone happy, I don't know. I personally think expecting reviews to be about book content only is reasonable but I don't think they should be policing people's shelves. People should be able to have any kind of shelving system they want. That's private. I think these issues are only going to become more complex as the age of electronics grows.
Stefani wrote: "Marcia, I agree that it is petty and that authors largely need to just ignore it but the problem is the double standard and whether reviewers should be able to categorize authors on their shelves i..."Gosh Stephani, I just noticed this policy hit you hard. How many of your reviews were deleted? You know this is not the first time GR has deleted things. Remember the groups that were deleted when the 18+ policy was mandated? GR has a policy of shoot first and ask questions later. Did you get any indication that your reviews were deleted or did you just search and find them?
Goodreads is trying to flush out their policy.Here is a copy the note to members about what is and is not allowed for reviews and shelves here at GR.
Hi everyone,
Over the last week, we have received a number of questions about what is allowed in reviews and on shelves. In response, we’ve put together some answers. We’re sorry about any confusion, and we hope this is helpful and clarifies our policy.
Can I still talk about the author in my review?
Yes, you can talk about the author in a book review – the author is often a relevant part of a book. If it’s an autobiography or memoir, then you might end up expressing an opinion about the life of the author and the behavior described in the book. And, in fiction, often it’s relevant to understand an author’s background and how it influenced the story, the characters or the setting.
However, there is a line between relevant criticism and unhelpful, ad hominem attacks or off-topic reviews that single out individual readers or authors. Reviews-- or shelves--that cross this line are not allowed.
Can I still be critical in my book reviews?
Yes, you can be critical about books in your reviews – this hasn’t changed. We love the passion that our members bring to their book reviews and welcome all opinions of a book, good or bad. If you take a look at our review guidelines, you'll see under "what is allowed":
We allow harsh critical statements that apply to the book or the writing in it, such as "This guy can't write a lick," or "This book is absolute trash." Again, honest opinions about books are always going to be welcome and encouraged on Goodreads.
So what has changed?
We are making some changes to better enforce our existing guidelines with the goal to help Goodreads work better for all our members. In the past, if we found a review that was an ad hominem attack or an off-topic comment about a reader or author, we removed it from the community reviews section of the book page, notified the reviewer, and kept the review on the reviewer’s profile. Now, these reviews will be deleted entirely from the site.
In addition, we are now applying this guideline to shelves. If a shelf functions as an ad hominem attack or off-topic comment about a reader or author, we will delete it from the site.
What happens when you discover a review or shelf that needs to be deleted?
If we determine that something does not fit within our guidelines, we will send the member the content of the review or shelf for his or her personal records and delete it from the site. For reviews or shelves that were created before the updated guidelines were announced on September 20, we will also give the members advance notice before taking action.
What if I see inappropriate behavior from other members?
The best way to handle any behavior that you think is inappropriate is to flag it for us to review or email us at support@goodreads.com. We will deal with it promptly.
Right after you made the recent changes to how you handle reviews, did you delete any shelves or reviews without advance notice?
Yes – as we put these moderation guidelines into place, we began to delete reviews and shelves that were not within guidelines and sent notifications to the members in question. In retrospect, we should have notified the members before removing their reviews/shelves and provided them with a copy of their content. We will provide the deleted content to those members for their own individual records.
At one point we also mistakenly deleted a shelf called “Due-to-author”. We know that this caused confusion to people and we were not clear in our previous response about this. “Due-to-author” is a shelf that is allowed on the site. We’ve apologized to the member in question and will provide the member their data.
What are examples of shelves that will be deleted?
badly-behaving-authors
abusive-attention-whore-authors
butthurt-crazy-stalker-authors
author-insults-and-attacks-reviewers
victim-of-troll-attacks
Can you give me some examples of what kinds of author-related shelves are allowed?
The overwhelming majority of shelves on Goodreads are already within our guidelines. Some examples of shelves that are allowed are:
not-interested
not-for-me
will-never-read
did-not-finish
authors-i-don-t-want-to-read
russian-authors
female-comedians
LGBT-authors
signed-by-author
booker-prize-winner-authors
If you have any questions about whether one of your reviews or shelves fits with our guidelines, please email support@goodreads.com and we can take a look.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
russian-authorsfemale-comedians
LGBT-authors
signed-by-author
booker-prize-winner-authors
Are they joking? What they did was seriously wrong and they should sincerely apologize for it and not joke around.
I have a feeling that GR didn't expect the outrage they got. They will never fully admit they were wrong, but hope it goes away.
It sounds like they got a little too carried away and are now backing off. I understand their reasoning, they just went about it the wrong way. There are some nasty wars going on between some reviewers and authors. The hateful name calling and labeling isn't acceptable in the real world and shouldn't be online either. It seems its easy to say some pretty nasty things to and about others that people don't actually have to see face to face. I think GR needs to make clearer guidelines for authors as well though. The making of fake profiles is a big issue for me. As for actual reviews and shelves, I don't think those should be deleted. I think that most like it because of the honest reviews and opinions (amazon ratings are usually a whole star higher), but it's starting to seem as if people are realizing the marketing tool GR is. Unfortunately bad reviews don't sell books, and now that the book selling site and book reviewing site are together, I'm sure we will continue to see more of these issues. Already the new kindle paperwhite will have links to GR and friends reviews at the kindle store.
It is totally a marketing site and while I get it I think it could have been handled better.I will stay with GR as long as they do not mess with the forum.
Here's an article on Salon that kind of cleared it up a little bit for me. I loved that Pippa said claimed death threats were really just PMS. You're right, I don't think Goodreads realized how many normal reader/reviewers could be scared. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/goodr...
That is a well balanced view!Thanks for posting.
At any rate here is the actual notice.
Since our inception, Goodreads has lived by a few simple principles with our reviews. You can see our full policy in our review guidelines, but at a high level, we believe:
1. Reviews should be about the book. If you think a book is a masterpiece, tell people why. If you hated the book, say so. If it had potential but fell short, share your perspective.
2. Members are not permitted to harass or threaten other people. We have always dealt with this promptly when it has been brought to our attention.
We have done our best to uphold these tenets, and they aren’t changing. But we recently recognized that we can do a better job enforcing them, particularly in the small number of situations where tensions start to run high. We took a long, hard look at our guidelines and how we moderate Goodreads and identified some areas where we can be clearer and where we can improve. I wanted to share with you some of the changes we are now making:
**Make it easier for anyone who feels concerned about content on Goodreads to get help from Goodreads staff. We have now improved the visibility of our flag button, and have added the ability to flag inappropriate friend requests. Of course, people can also reach us through support@goodreads.com. If you see any inappropriate content or behavior on Goodreads, please use these options. We’re here to deal with this so that individual members don’t have to.
**Better education for authors about Goodreads and our review guidelines. It’s clear that some problems have come up because some authors who are new to Goodreads don’t know what’s appropriate on Goodreads and/or take matters into their own hands rather than flagging content that they feel is inappropriate. We’ve therefore revised our author guidelines to make them clearer. We’re also working on improving how we introduce new authors to Goodreads.
**Delete content focused on author behavior. We have had a policy of removing reviews that were created primarily to talk about author behavior from the community book page. Once removed, these reviews would remain on the member’s profile. Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior. If you have questions about why a review was removed, send an email to support@goodreads.com. (And to answer the obvious question: of course, it’s appropriate to talk about an author within the context of a review as it relates to the book. If it’s an autobiography, then clearly you might end up talking about their lives. And often it’s relevant to understand an author’s background and how it influenced the story or the setting.)
We recognize that not everyone is going to agree with our approach. People have different - and often quite strongly held - viewpoints about what should and should not be allowed in a review. We’ve had suggestions that no GIFs should be allowed, reviews should be limited to 300 words only, reviews should only be allowed if you have read the book to the very last page, etc.
What we try to do is provide room for our members’ own personal approach within our overall principles rather than set rigid guidelines. We’ve found it has worked well for the community overall so far and is something that readers value.
By the way, to put things in context, every day we have more than 30,000 reviews written on Goodreads and, on average, only a handful are flagged as inappropriate. That means 99.99% of new reviews are happily within our guidelines. (Funnily enough, we get way more flags from people asking us to add a spoiler alert to a review than any other type of flagged review.)
We think we have something special here with the Goodreads community and we want to support and protect that. Thank you for being part of this. As always, we welcome your feedback on these changes and on how to make Goodreads a better place for readers and authors.
Update:
Hey everyone,
We’ve been reading all the comments and wanted to give an update based on some of the concerns in the thread.
To clarify, we haven’t deleted any book reviews in regard to this issue. The key word here is "book". The reviews that have been deleted - and that we don't think have a place on Goodreads - are reviews like "the author is an a**hole and you shouldn't read this book because of that". In other words, they are reviews of the author's behavior and not relevant to the book. We believe books should stand on their own merit, and it seems to us that's the best thing for readers.
Someone used the word censorship to describe this. This is not censorship - this is setting an appropriate tone for a community site. We encourage members to review and shelve books in a way that makes sense for them, but reviews and shelves that focus primarily on author behavior do not belong on Goodreads.
Some people are perhaps interpreting this as you can't discuss the author at all. This couldn't be further from the case. The author is a part of the book and can certainly be discussed in relation to the book. But it has to be in a way that's relevant to the book. Again, let's judge books based on what’s inside them.
Some people are concerned about their "not-interested" shelf or variants of that. We are not deleting those; you are free to keep cataloging books that way. We are deleting shelves like "author-is-a-jerk", as they don't fit our guiding principle that the book page be about the book.
Regarding this kind of concern: “We're being told to put up and shut up with author behavior, even if you've been attacked and harassed.”
We want to be very clear about this: we do not tolerate authors attacking or harassing reviewers on the site. This violates our author guidelines and authors who engage in this type of behavior will be removed from the site. We are simply asking that you flag the content to staff’s attention rather than responding to inappropriate behavior in the review space. We will take it from there.
And finally, we welcome all opinions about a book, whether it sucked or was the best thing you’ve read all year. It wouldn’t make sense to delete reviews simply for being critical of the book.
We hope that clarifies some things for you.