New rules from Goodreads

[☯Emily]

For those of you who have had your head in a book for the past five days, there's been an official Goodreads announcement of policy changes on permissible shelf names and new review guidelines that has not been announced to all members. This is the link: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

And isn't that a good thing!

[Deborah, Moderator]

Thanks Emily for letting us know. I know I received no notification of the changes, and appreciate the info.

[Frances, Moderator]

OK, Now I'm curious. Can anyone tell me what has been happening to bring about these rule changes?

[☯Emily]

It is a long, long story. Someone has written a synopsis, but I can't find it. If and when I do, I'll let you know.

[☯Emily]

This is not the synopsis I was looking for, but it does give some background. You could also read all the thread I have listed above and it will give you ALL the details you want and MORE. I don't suggest reading more than the first or second page!

This is link for a quick overview.
http://twinjabookreviews.blogspot.com...

[Frances, Moderator]

Thanks-that gave me an idea of what was going on. Reading mostly established (i.e. not self-published or very recently published) lit I hadn't really come across the issue of authors responding to their reviews but I can see how in cyberspace there is the potential for some pretty bad behaviour on all sides-reviewers and authors alike.

Censorship is always a difficult issue-balancing right to free speech with responsibility to use it wisely.

[☯Emily]

Most of my books are classics, so I don't have a problem with the new rules. I have a problem with deleting items without warning and without telling the users of GR that the policy has changed! The announcement was made in the Feedback group only. Most members are not in that group and so are unaware of the changes.

[Frances, Moderator]

Yes, I missed that part. You're right, of course, people should be informed before deleting their things. However, I also think that people ought to be mindful of the fact that when they get something great for "free" and here I'm thinking Google/gmail, facebook, GR and their ilk (or even something like email at work or those great point-earning things at your local pharmacy or grocery store) that there is always a hidden or not so hidden cost-use of your data, ownership of what you write there and the right to read/edit/delete your stuff as the "owners" see fit, and tracking and targeting marketing to your reading/posting/shopping habits. Ultimately each individual has to decide if they're willing to abide by the rules (whether or not they agree with them) to get to use a service like GR or FB or Airmiles or work email for personal stuff. Because I'm pretty sure we all "agreed" to do that when we signed up.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the one-sided changes, just that lots of 'free' stuff comes with a price and/or a set of rules which we might not like.

[Diane]

Strangely I read a review a few days ago that
was just blistering in it's dislike. My
conclusion - why would you continue on reading a
book (most people didn't like the book, although
not as scathing as this particular reviewer and
it had over 500 pages) that you grew to hate the
very sight of. I suppose that's why my reviews
are usually quite positive.
On another point, thanks Emily for the "twinja
bookreviews" link. It was a very interesting
read and explained a lot why some authors get
very "paranoid" about bad reviews. Also with
Emily, I tend to stick to the tried and true
(and sometimes obscure) classics - you can't go
wrong with them.

[Christine PNW]

Diane wrote: "Strangely I read a review a few days ago that
was just blistering in it's dislike. My
conclusion - why would you continue on reading a
book (most people didn't like the book, although
not as scath..."

If you start from the premise that reviews are for other readers, it makes sense that someone would post a negative review of a book that they found to be lacking in some fashion. They are hoping to help a fellow reader avoid making the mistake of spending money on a clunker.

And, yes, if you read mostly classics, it's unlikely that you are going to get something that is really dreadful. It's also (even more) unlikely that if you do get something that you find truly terrible, and you write a one-star review, that the author is going to rise up from the grave to call you names.

When it comes to newly published books, the same is not true.

GR can (and has) changed the rules. The net effect, I believe, will be to make their reviews less reliable and more likely to be gamed. My response is to move my reviews offsite.

[☯Emily]

I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written and my review states that. Guess I'm lucky!

[Christine PNW]

☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written and my review states that. Guess I'm lucky!"

Maybe he will haunt you!

[Frances, Moderator]

Moonlight Reader wrote: "GR can (and has) changed the rules. The net effect, I believe, will be to make their reviews less reliable and more likely to be gamed. My response is to move my reviews offsite. "

I'm curious to know why you feel reviews are less reliable and more likely to be gamed. I checked and both my 1-star reviews with negative comments (about the books, not the authors) are still there. Granted, these were on extremely popular books with much better ratings so if the authors even saw them I'm sure they didn't really care, but it still seems to me that one can continue to post negative reviews.

I've always felt the GR reviews were somewhat unreliable as they are written by people who've chosen to read the book in the first place (and so probably like that author/genre/style already) and that the people who might have started the book and given up as they didn't enjoy it would be less likely to write reviews (unlike me-my only 1-star ratings are on books I gave up on (and I say that in the reviews)).

[Diane]

I actually hadn't thought of the fact that writers
would be scanning the reviews ready to pounce on
unsuspecting reviewers who happen to mark their
book down.
For all this goodreads has helped me enormously
to focus on reading for a while. I can't believe
that I am going to finish "Desperate Remedies"
by Thomas Hardy a week after I started it!!!

[Diane]

☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written and my review states that. Guess I'm lucky!"
In a few years you may return to "Moby Dick" and
wonder why you ever thought it was terrible. That
happens to me a lot and actually "Moby Dick" was
one of the few books I couldn't get through (maybe
about 10 years ago) and no, I haven't been game
enough to go back and revisit it. Guess I just
answered my own question!!

[☯Emily]

Diane wrote: "☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written..."


No, I will never read it again! This is what I thought of the book: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Christine PNW]

Frances wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: "GR can (and has) changed the rules. The net effect, I believe, will be to make their reviews less reliable and more likely to be gamed. My response is to move my reviews of..."

I'm just going to refer you to my blog post, which you can read or not as you like:

here

It's pretty long, and explains my perspective.

[Pip]

☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written and my review states that. Guess I'm lucky!"

Ah, so you're the other one! One of the best reviews I've seen on GR of MD was along the lines of: "A fabulously detailed whaling manual marred only by irritating snippets of irrelevant narrative".

[☯Emily]

Pip wrote: "☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic' ever written..."

lol!

[Diane]

☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "Diane wrote: "☯Emily Who Wonders Why GR Is Silent wrote: "I'm sure that Herman Melville is no longer concerned that I gave Moby Dick a 1*. I doubt if he cares that I think it is the worst 'classic..."
A hilarious review.

[Robin P, Moderator]

Not to be cynical, but Goodreads was never "ours", even before being bought out. The owners can make whatever rules they like, and if participants aren't happy, they can leave. If a lot of people leave, maybe the management will reconsider, maybe not. Anyone can have their own website or blog at their own expense and write whatever they wish.

I haven't seen any of the nasty comments that apparently triggered this, but that sort of nastiness would cause me to leave a site more quickly than concerns that I can't say absolutely anything in any manner. I realize we have this site largely because we can be advertised to, and I still love Goodreads and recommend it.

As far as reviews go, we always have to use some common sense. If the book isn't out yet, or the review seems too good to be true, maybe it is. I can't always go by reviews from NY Times either. We have different tastes. For example, after avoiding Moby Dick for decades, I read it last year, was amazed, and gave it 5 stars. But I totally understand how readers could hate it. That doesn't diminish it, or them, in my eyes.

[Christine PNW]

Robin wrote: "Not to be cynical, but Goodreads was never "ours", even before being bought out. The owners can make whatever rules they like, and if participants aren't happy, they can leave. If a lot of people l..."

That's not cynical, it's realistic. But there are a lot of users who provided a lot of free labor to a site that marketed itself as catering to readers, and many of them feel they have been dumped, and that GR is no longer a safe place to post negative reviews of bad books in an effort to help other readers.

Some of them are leaving. All of us generally think a site-wide notification would be appropriate.

[Frances, Moderator]

Moonlight reader-thanks for the link to your blog post-it was very helpful in explaining this, and yes the link to the reviews of a non-existent book was illuminating-not sure whether to find that whole set of posts funny or sad-I guess fans enjoy their communities of like minded folk as much as any of us.

I think by now that the whole amazon/Goodreads review thing has been somewhat tainted and I expect many readers have gone back to the old-fashioned paid reviewer in edited publications thing. I do see how people might feel 'dumped' by GR but then I never felt I was writing reviews for the site-I always felt it was for other readers and because I enjoyed reading what other people wrote in return.

Oh well, here's hoping the Readers Reivew, with no new authors to plug and its entire reading list mostly free to be downloaded, will remain free of commercials, flaming posts and general bad manners.

[Linda2]

I'm entering the conversation a little late. I've never left off reading professional reviews, but I don't read just the Times. There are too many ditzy reviews at GR by folks who don't know what they're talking about, and you have to winnow the intelligent ones out from the dreck.

If you're interested in intelligent commentary and book reviews, try www.aldaily.com, my Firefox homepage. Almost every important English language newspaper and magazine is listed along the left.The 3 columns are a digest of current articles, changed twice a week and moved down the page.

[Madge UK]

It is also worth keeping an eye on European newspapers such as Der Spiegel and Le Monde both of which have links to a translation service. This is a useful website:-

www.searchenginesoftheworld.com/europ...

[Linda2]

Madge wrote: "It is also worth keeping an eye on European newspapers such as Der Spiegel and Le Monde both of which have links to a translation service. This is a useful website:-

www.searchenginesoftheworld.co..."

Thanks.

[Madge UK]

I am puzzled by the attitudes expressed here towards professional reviewers v. amateur (GR) reviewers. We appreciate professionalism in other walks of life, why not in writers of reviews, some of whom are both experienced and learned, who have 'earned their stripes'? Especially those who have had an academic career in English Lit and who have spent many years reading professionally for top publications. And writers who have spent a lot of time researching their own books often bring expertise to the books of others.

[Linda2]

Madge wrote: "I am puzzled by the attitudes expressed here towards professional reviewers v. amateur (GR) reviewers. We appreciate professionalism in other walks of life, why not in writers of reviews, some of w..."

It's all over the web, Madge, unfortunately. Movies too. I think it started with Wikipedia, but it's a steamroller that can't be stopped any more. I have friends my own age who don't rely on reviews at all: "My friend said it was good."

But they're not using the web to read newspapers or magazines either. Many younger folks, especially, get their news from Facebook or Google now.

The only place I rely on non-pro reviews is for consumer goods, and that's priceless. And I've submitted a few myself.

[Madge UK]

I like reading professional reviews and you can often get into the 'mood' of a reviewer who you feel suits your way of thinking. I avoid histories written by right wing historians for instance and there are going to be a lot of those for WWI this year, all trying to whitewash the needless slaughter of millions:(

[Bu]

Well, I'm not surprised, given that people tend to behave with others over the internet in a way they wouldn't dare if face to face...