Holy Reader Bailout, Batman! ༄ If You're Leaving, Let Us Know Before Ya Go! ༄

[AH]

Go for it Steph. Announce it here with a link, please!

[AH]

I saw it on BL and joined the group. Here's the link -
http://booklikes.com/groups/show/25/s...

[Steph, Serious series addict]

Just created: http://booklikes.com/groups/show/25/s...

We'll see how it goes.

[Daffodil]

Wonderful!

[Steph, Serious series addict]

:) Thanks, ladies. I appreciate your support and encouragement. It's up. Not sure what I'll post over there yet, but, feel free to create discussion threads as you'd like. I'm guessing that's the way it works right now, yah? I need to learn more about the feature. I'm not seeing the option for folders or any type of organization, which is sure to send my OCDemon into a frenzy. But, it feels good have to planted my SOS flag.

[Daffodil]

I also noticed there's no way to see who other members are. Or am I just missing it?

[Steph, Serious series addict]

Can you click on the "group info" button on the group page? If so, do you see a "show members" option on that page? If not, it may be an administrator option only because I can do that and see who's joined, when they joined and I have the option to block or remove them from the group.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Anyone surprised at a suggestion to implement "most helpful" voting on reviews at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ?

Maybe they are bucking for that forum moderator job where you need to be able to seed discussions.

[Sandra, Kindle Operator Licence Required]

I agree with just about everything everyone has said, and glad Steph has created BL SOS group. Just hope they continue to improve their new groups thing, so its more like here.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Sandra wrote: "I agree with just about everything everyone has said, and glad Steph has created BL SOS group. Just hope they continue to improve their new groups thing, so its more like here."

So far (and I did post in feature suggestions of official booklikes group) the one thing I do not like about the groups is how replies work. It's confusing (particularly on the features thread).

Probably until changed everyone should be careful when replying to say "so and so in message # said" and copy in the original post manually.

Baby steps. I'm not sure I even want them doing too much with group book discussions until they improve how reviews show on books, editions, etc.

[Valerie ~ Val Hall ~]

Since it seems like a good idea I joined booklikes too.. http://Valerie.booklikes.com . I won't be leaving GR yet because it's still a good place but I'll go see the SOS version on booklikes too.

[Cassandra]

I haven't completely left Goodreads, but I'm no longer posting reviews on here. If it wasn't for the groups and the challenges I'm still doing on here, I would completely give up. I'm on BookLikes & Libib. I can't see Libib replacing GR for me, but BL looks good so far.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Cassandra wrote: "I haven't completely left Goodreads, but I'm no longer posting reviews on here. If it wasn't for the groups and the challenges I'm still doing on here, I would completely give up. I'm on BookLike..."

Yeah, libib not a goodreads replacement for me. A very good book catalog, imports data well, and has some grouping/subset of books and shelves options that are nice plus can have multiple libraries/catalogs -- but just for your own books (only social aspect I saw was an option to share a booklist). Not a terrible option to use to backup goodreads data (or once bl offers export feature bl data); but not a replacement.

[Cassandra]

Yeah, not really a good replacement, but I wanted to have a place to back up my books. It's a slow process since I had a lot of trouble with the import feature. I've been uploading one book at a time (via ISBN), then adding tags, reviews and other info. The one thing I really like is the group feature, so all the books one one series can be all together. I'm planning on keeping both it and BL up to date, so one can be a backup for the other, just in case.

[Literary Ames]

The Great Goodreads Censorship Debacle book is now available to read: Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt

You can download it for free from my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Steph, Serious series addict]

Thanks for sharing, Ames. I've downloaded it TBR shortly.

[Sandra, Kindle Operator Licence Required]

Yeah I saw it on the feed last night & liked the hell out of it!!! Though the ISBN is wonky, so can someone post the ISBN here, if there is one, and I'll fix it.

[Literary Ames]

Sandra wrote: "Yeah I saw it on the feed last night & liked the hell out of it!!! Though the ISBN is wonky, so can someone post the ISBN here, if there is one, and I'll fix it."

I went to change it but it was fixed a couple of hours ago by Amara.

[Sandra, Kindle Operator Licence Required]

;)

[Steph, Serious series addict]

A little while ago, I set up a Google alert for Goodreads news to see what the WWW was saying about the recent upheaval around here.

This is a blurb from one of the latest links I rec'd . It appears on a Christian website (Patheos.com) and it discusses the recent changes to user comments on different websites, including GR. I've cut & pasted the bit that references GR in a spoiler block simply to save space. I've made the lines I found most interesting bold.

(view spoiler)[

Users were not quite so calm when they learned that the guidelines on reviewing authors had changed. In fact, there was quite a backlash from readers when they realized that their comments on authors were being deleted without consent. After all, Goodreads was built on the underlying principle that readers sell books, and so the readers’ reviews and opinions were central to its ethos. Therefore, readers liberally lent their views on everything, including their opinions about authors, and Goodreads never felt the need to hinder them before. As Laura Miller writes on Salon.com:

“As these readers see it, Goodreads exists for them to keep track of their books and reading and to exchange thoughts about it with fellow readers and friends who share their tastes. The shelves… are like the shelves in their own homes: their business and no one else’s, apart from invited guests. These users create most of the content that makes Goodreads more than a mere database of book information, and furthermore their relationships with each other are in many ways the true locus of the site’s value.”

Alongside that, Miller notes that Goodreads was also a meaningful platform for writers, especially independent writers who needed the vote of confidence from readers for promotional reasons. It also provided authors a platform to network with other authors for support and encouragement. This collaboration worked for a while until authors received harsh reviews and retaliated. This led to an all-out war. Therefore, when Goodreads changed its guidelines, it also made a compelling argument that they were motivated to promote the common good by preventing cyber-bullying. That is a good motivation . . . and it’s also fair to wonder why they were never motivated to do anything about it before Amazon bought them out. As online site Gigaom states, “Some users think the new policy is evidence that Goodreads now values authors, publishers and advertising dollars over members.” It also points out that soon, “Goodreads will be integrated into the new Kindle Paperwhite… [where they’re] likely to see another surge in members soon.” Once again, the issue isn’t so much that their new stance on cyber-bullying is wrong—because any type of bullying in any kind of community, online or offline, is bad—but apparently they didn’t base their decision on ethical concerns so much as bottom line interests.

(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

I think the question is whether GR is deleting reviews because the reviewer is being really rude and mean OR are they buckling under pressure from authors who just don't like negative reviews?

A reviewer shouldn't be harsh for the sake of being harsh but also, people have personal opinions not everyone is going to LOVE an indie author's book or whatever author for that matter. What will happen is people will stop reviewing books, I have stopped reviewing books and as a rule I don't read/review indie books BECAUSE if I don't like the book and I review it as such and the author gets mad and I get flagged or whatever...I am never rude but if I don't like something I say it. Negative reviews come with the territory if some people can't handle it, they are in the wrong profession. BUT bullying should be unacceptable and GR should have addressed that no matter what. I think deleting people's reviews or shelves is wrong, specially without telling them. Pretty soon GR members will slowly start to leave.
:(

[Literary Ames]

The last line Steph bolded is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: '...but apparently they didn’t base their decision on ethical concerns so much as bottom line interests.' Integration with the Kindle will probably see reviews and shelves showing up on these devices and that will only deter Amazonites from spending money, and we can't have that.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Delmy =^.^= wrote: "BUT bullying should be unacceptable and GR should have addressed that no matter what..."

Goodreads always handled.

BUT goodreads always did do something when spotted or brought to their attention. Any content anywhere (including reviews, comments, shelf names, listopias, etc.). The site TOS (accessible from any goodreads page at bottom or from help screens) always prohibited attacking other members including threats, hate speech, harassment ...

What goodreads did not always do was believe a negative review = bullying or other form of abuse or attack.

What goodreads did not always do was look at which group of authors were getting a lot of blogosphere exposure by claiming bullied by goodreads and then proceed to remove any shelves with those authors books that were made by members negatively reviewing those authors.

Not removing objectionable, offensive, hateful or "bullying" shelf names (if you believe there is such a thing as a bullying shelf name). But removing shelf names that in "context" based on the books it contained were deemed "inappropriate to tone" of community.

That was the first round of deletions and what initially got my panties in a knot.

Of course "author should be raped" or "kill this author" shelves should be renamed or removed. But to remove a shelf for containing the wrong set of books?

Then in the next round to delete a shelf based on a suggested reading list and friend recommendations of computer books that help study peer to peer computer networking tools? Just because that round of deletions were started by a butthurt whackjob author's screechings on how shelves called "P2P" were bullying her and causing her to lose sales got picked up by mainstream media and started going viral?

Gee, that must be what all the anti-bullying sites love to hear. No doubt none of them think that using "bullying" to mean "Preventing me from getting rich" or "not liking my uploaded bunch of words I sold as a book" in any way undermines their efforts or trivializes the issue. I'm sure the bully prevention organizations that threatened STGRB with lawsuits unless their organization info on site signifying they supported STGRB were removed—any day now they'll be issuing official apologies and clamoring to be put back on as supporting their efforts ... *gag* ...

Yes, of course it prevents bullying if you vandalize my book catalog because I made a P2P shelf. And it is a heinous evil act to shelve an author as "spammed our group" that should get a member's months in the making book catalog destroyed or even their account revoked of they persist in shelving books by those authors even if they call that shelf "Best Writers" -- in context they are still bullying and threatening those authors.

And just because new policy said there could be no mention of author behavior doesn't mean goodreads has to remove content positive about authors just because that might promote book sales. I'm as sure they are removing all the glowing reviews and author praising content as I am that they are striking a blow to prevent bullying because they deleted P2P shelves.

[[deleted user]]

Agree with you, it doesn't seem right. I am only here now for the groups (like SOS) and the people in them, if they start messing with the groups, I will leave.

[Ninab (Honesty is the Best Policy)]

Delmy =^.^= wrote: "if they start messing with the groups, I will leave."

GR has "sanitized" reviews and shelves. The one area on a book's GR page left to be sanitized is the Topics section which lists group topics specifically about the book or which merely mention the book. It's at the bottom of the page, so maybe most folks won't even know it's there, or maybe the Paperwhite won't show it, but I definitely feel like it's possible that GR will start some "sanitizing" of group discussions next. It unfortunately feels securely in the realm of possibility.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

That book being discussed/topics at bottom of page, I'm of two minds what they'll do about.

It's actually a good way of promoting a book and for authors to find group members to spam. If they consider it that way, it might even be made more apparent on kindle screens or book pages. Which unfortunately would mean they'd have to sanitize the groups the same way as shelves, reviews, listopias and other content.

If they don't deem it to contribute to book discovery and sales, it may just disappear from book pages like genres and shelves do but still show to authors so they can find spam targets. I don't want that to happen; but, I think I'd prefer losing discussions from book pages to group posts getting sanitized.

[Steph, Serious series addict]

D.A. - barely here ☺ - wrote: "I think I'd prefer losing discussions from book pages to group posts getting sanitized."

Absolutely! I won't be happy at all if group edits/deletions/strict modifications come into effect.

[[deleted user]]

have you ladies noticed any extra code on your posts when you link a book? cloudfront.net, which basically collects user data on behalf of amazon? i don't know if i like this at all...am i being paranoid or a drama queen? i don't remember agreeing to this when i joined "Goodreads"

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Delmy =^.^= wrote: "have you ladies noticed any extra code on your posts when you link a book? cloudfront.net, which basically collects user data on behalf of amazon? i don't know if i like this at all...am i being pa..."

That's a feedback post also at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Tonight, there is a major amazon import going out. So expect lots of strange things. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Goodreads began moving their databases and content from their gr-asset servers and cdn handlers to amazon's cloudfront servers October-November. You'll see cloudfront in url of images hosted on goodreads and book covers also.

That data migration caused a ton of issues (still unresolved) that goodreads blamed the booklikes sync for all disingenuously as if nothing but that booklikes sync was going on.

There are really old cdn and content handling threads in feedback forum where they used to tell us these things if you find the cdn stuff is confusing. (Like this one at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... )

ETA, added links

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Not a bad idea to do an export of your "my books" because tonight's data import will alter some kindle edition data even if a different edition or book was shelved.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Site maintenance underway also - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Steph, Serious series addict]

I didn't know the why or what behind it, but when I was updating a thread created in 2012 that had a lot of cover art I noticed some weird/extra info when I tried to edit. I wasn't able to edit b/c I no characters left, even though initially (in 2012) I had plenty remaining. Not sure if this update was the reason or not.

Also, anyone checked out the newest social book site, Leafmarks? I've gone ahead and created an acct but haven't done anything with it. ( Me @ Leafmarks) I'll poke around the site, modify my acct, and add books after the holidays. The BL group, here on GR, is also chatting about the new LM site, for those looking for more info/chatter about it.

[AH]

I joined Leafmarks. Might as well spread the stuff around.

[Steph, Serious series addict]

LOL! Right?! I haven't kept up with BL and still joined LM. >.<

[Dawn]

I joined LM yesterday and the import was super fast. I am not sure I can keep up with posting what I read in three different places though ***sigh*** I have a hard enough time doing it here on GR

Geez why did GR have to sell out to the man lol

[AH]

Dawn wrote: "I joined LM yesterday and the import was super fast. I am not sure I can keep up with posting what I read in three different places though ***sigh*** I have a hard enough time doing it here on GR Geez why did GR have to sell out to the man lol

..."

We would have all sold out so we could swim in a swimming pool full of money.

[Midu]

and burgers, don't forget the hamburgers. Scooby & Shaggy measured money that way!

[Midu]

I joined leafmarks. This is me: https://www.leafmarks.com/lm/#/users/... however, it won't let me export any more books, any ideas?

[Literary Ames]

AH wrote: "We would have all sold out so we could swim in a swimming pool full of money."

LOL. Definitely.

This is me: https://www.leafmarks.com/lm/#/users/...

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Gee folks -- did you hear about the BBAs claiming 4-day old Leafmarks is ruined already with hater trolls and fraudulent reviews? They have proof.

Seriously, they have proof. Their proof? Screenshots of top reviewer statistics bcause otherwise how could so many reviewers read and review thousands of books in just three days?

(Duh. Like maybe they are importing data backups of months and years worth of reviews maybe?)