Zombies! discussion
Book Discussions
>
Zombie Sausage: Let's Openly Discuss the BOTM Voting for Jan
I will start: I voted for Plagued: The Mid-America Zombie Half-Breed Experiment.
While it is the book that I hope makes it as the BOTM, I will admit the page count is low for a full month BOTM.
I am willing to change my vote for the following titles
Dying Days: Origins
Sadie Walker is Stranded (Note: I would be reading the first in the series as soon as I seen this one won because I hate skipping books in a series)
Give me a solid reason and I will consider other titles but these three are my top choices at this time.
Tammy K. wrote: "Randy Is is Nor or OR there? I want to say,"Nor works fine. It is usually paired with neither, but the "No free books nor..." is the equivalent of "Neither free book nor...".
I keep running late on the BOTM reads. I finished Undead L.A. several weeks after everyone else, and I'm only about 35% of the way through this new Desolation book.
Randy wrote: "..Nor works fine. It is usually paired with neither, but the "No free books nor..." is the equivalent of "Neither free book nor..."..."Thanks :-)
"I keep running late on the BOTM reads. I finished Undead L.A. several weeks after everyone else, and I'm only about 35% of the way through this new Desolation book. "
This reminded me of "The Little Engine that could"
I vote for the Little Engine That Could!Armand
Armand wrote: "I vote for the Little Engine That Could!Armand"
:-D I do not know what the page count is on that title, but it just goes to show that both you and I are "Well read, and Open to Diversity". ;-)
Let it be said that these suggestions were tried and appears to have failed.I call for public polls. Let's see who is voting for and then not showing up for the BOTM.
Let's make a rule that if you vote for a book and it wins, you must participate in that BOTM or you lose your voting privileges.
I agree. The book I voted for never stood a chance. I suspect vote stacking, but I'm a pessimist.
I've only recently started looking at the discussion threads on this site, so apologies in advance if this offends anyone. That being said, I'm having difficulty differentiating the monthly group reads from the read for review. Both seem to consist largely of self-published authors promoting their books through nomination. Some of the monthly group read nominees aren't even available in print which seems somewhat strange for a book club selection. Again, no offense to the folks who are promoting their own work, but if you want feedback from the group it seems more appropriate to utilize the read for review section. Unless I'm missing something....which is always a possibility.
No offense taken, Sara, and welcome to the threads! Good feedback too - I look forward to more book discussions on this group, whether it's BOTM or Read for Review or Buddy Reads. I hope you'll join for January's pick, whichever book is finally selected.
Mod
Thanks for responding Netanella. Last I checked (poll results no longer visible), the selection with the most votes for next month was one that is only available as an e-book. I don't like reading on the computer and, to be honest, am not a fan of the vast majority of self-published online stories. From what I've gathered thus far, this group seems to favor the self-published e-books....there was a recent thread referencing McDonald's food vs. prime rib that suggests this is for economical reasons (although the point of going to the library was never actually addressed). I think I'll continue to lurk and maybe pop in when the group reads something in print (hopefully that I've heard of). I joined a couple of other groups (horror aficionados, apocalypse whenever) and am hoping they will have a few good zombie picks as well.
My McDondalds comment will live on in infamy, muahaha!Personally, I don't think authors should be able to nominate their own book unless it is for a read 4 review. If a fan wants to nominate the book such as november and december's then thats cool.
I have to disagree about the vote stacking. I look at the members in this group and every montha group of members join who rated ten or eleven books (Classics, useally) and then promptly join the Zombies! group and vote on a poll.
sorry but thats weird.
I'm not saying the authors are behind it because some authors have rabid fanbases.
There should be a waiting period before you can vote on polls but I know as much about coding as I do about grammar so I have no clue how you could do that.
Sara, most of the books nominated in November and December have print copies so I don't see your point. The good ones in Jan also have print copies.
Just fyi, most of the 'major books' started as self-published books by unknowns. My favorite book, Day by Day, was a poor-selling e-book on Amazon until Permuted Press picked them up.
Remember a little book called John Dies at the End? Same deal.
What about World War Z? Ditto.
All I'm saying is not all self-published authors suck. Their editing useally does suck. But that gets fixed when/if a publisher picks them up. Most of the good ones always get picked up down the road.
You're limiting yourself.
Another thing that will tell if the votes were stacked is if NOBODY participates in the Jan group read. Then I'm calling BS.Day by Day still should have won. Just saying.
Yammy wrote: "Day by Day still should have won. Just saying."You can try and get a buddy read going...
Yeah, I'm doing that atm. I'm just happy walkers didn't win.
I honestly don't know about the nominees from November and December...I just started reading these threads...I was commenting on the top nominee for next month (and your infamous McDouble thread - LOL). You are absolutely correct, I am limiting myself because I cannot stand sucky editing...it takes me right out of any story. For the record, I didn't mean to imply that "all self-published authors suck"...most of the stories are OK but overall just aren't that compelling (especially given all the books out there to choose from). That, coupled with the grammatical errors, has left me definitely favoring those that have been picked up by a publisher and worked over a bit. That being said, I would read something that was self-published if it was getting good word-of-mouth from trusted sources who love them some zombie books (as opposed to self-nominated by the author who is obviously a wee bit biased).
Yeah, I'm not down with the whole self-nominated thing.
The current BOTM selection and nomination is seriously unfair and has been for some time.That isn't said to be rude to the moderators but to point out that the repeated attempts to resolve this issue have fallen on deaf ears.
The only people who have an issue with the current BOTM selection is the small hand full of individuals who actually participate... It works for the authors and so called lurkers.
If this current system actually worked for bring in group members into the GROUP read, yes its called a Group read so it should be the whole Group who voted for the winning title joining in on that GROUP read experience, than I wouldn't have any issues with the current system.
But as it is now The Group Read BOTM is being used to gather reviews, which is what a Read for Review (r4r) is for.
The whole reason for a BOTM discussion is to stir up conversation of the group members. It was supposed to for the group fun, bonding , relating, relationship building event.
It is now about the authors.
An open voting would show for all to see, what is really happening.
There is zero reason (other than to promote authors) that a group selection and polling should be hidden.
Currently I can click on several group threads and see authors breaking the group rules about not self promoting.
Allowing authors to self nominate is self promotion.
The zombies group general members are invisible.
Ask yourself why.
When I started this thread I did it believing that it would fail. But wanting to show to Jim/Elisabeth that it was tried and FAILED.
So next month when it is suggested to try this again you have a record of the attempt.
I express once more, we need public polls which show who voted for what And we need to hold those voting for a group read, group discussion accountable for showing up.
Voting for a book and not showing up is both disrespectful and dishonest.
Now in case you're wondering why I won't be showing up for the BOTM of Better Stay Dead
Here is a link to my review of the episode that the author offered us free in the January BOTM nomination thread (which he encourage each of us to get to sample his work)
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I've been quiet about this topic mainly, but I really feel I should say something here. I would love to see more interactions in the monthly BOTMs - some of them have been great, and some have been dead in the water. McKinney's "The Savage Dead" comes to mind - no one showed up for that book, and it's available in print.So, there's something else going on besides authors self-nominating their book. I can give my reason for why I didn't participate in that particular BOTM read: it was Thanksgiving, I was crazy busy working, and the BOTM for LA Undead had just finished.
Having said that, I've read enough reader comments that state that authors shouldn't self-nominate. And these are readers that participate in the BOTM.
So, mods, let's vote it out. Set up a poll and let's get this resolved democratically. I agree that I don't believe in the vote-stacking statement, and I'm not a fan of changing or influencing votes. However, there should be some guidelines around the books being nominated. How about page count? Availability in print edition, as Sara mentioned?
We're all part of this group because we enjoy zombie literature in many forms - some good, some bad, some just plain ugly. (can't say it's pretty :) Some of us write it, some of us read it.
And we should hash this out if we're going to enjoy our zombie sausage. (with one egg please, over easy.)
Mod
Here are some responses to some of the comments in this thread.
1) Allowing authors to self-nominate books. There are several reasons I've been allowing authors to nominate their own books. While this may be considered self-promotion, it differs from the read for reviews because with those, people are obligated to review the book in return for a free copy. In group reads, there is no obligation to read the book nor an obligation to review it. I also have been allowing self-nominated titles because there are not a lot of people participating nominating titles. I have also noticed a trend that self-nominated titles tend to do fairly poorly in the polls.
For instance, in Jan we had 4 books self promoted- they received 1, 1, 2, and 11 votes. In December we had 4 self-nominated books, their votes were 0, 0, 1, 2. I trust the voters to select the books they want to read regardless of source. In January, they did select a self nominated book and by a far margin.
The other reason I would allow self-nominated works is because some of the more successful group reads have been those with author involvement, either in the discussion for questions or as the moderator. With the new rule requiring nominators to be moderators, this would ensure author involvement in the group read, which in turn, should make the group read more successful.
As far as making votes public, as long as there is perceived intent to target and harass voters to "hold them accountable", I am not a fan of making voters visible. Some voters are new to the group/goodreads and instantly doggying them about their votes doesn't set a warm welcome.
I will post several polls suggested in the comments and give a week or so to vote on them. Once the votes are in, I'll post a thread with the BOTM guidelines based on those votes. Future nominations and polls with reference those guidelines.
Hey Jim, thanks for your thoughtful response! I do agree with you about self-nominating your own book - and the success of some of the BOTMs when the author has joined in. It's been fun for me, and I hope for others. And I agree with the trust part as well - people will vote for what they want to read regardless of source.Plus, if you think about it, if you were running for office, wouldn't you cast your vote for yourself? It would kinda be hypocritical to do otherwise, no?
I feel like I might have failed in clearly communicating my point regarding the BOTM format. I was suggesting that the selections should be available in both print and e-book to allow everyone the opportunity to participate. The current poll options of print only, e-book only, or either print or e-book don't reflect the point I was trying to make. I wasn't arguing that we should only read one format...I was trying to be inclusive :(
Mod
Sara, I modified the poll to reflect the "both" option. You can use the change your vote link to more accurately reflect your preference. The either/or option was meant to reflect "doesn't matter" as opposed to mandating it be in both so the reader can determine for themselves.
Just a concern, a vote of both may limit the number of titles eligible for nomination.
Thanks for the update. Yes, a vote of "both" would definitely limit the number of random, self-promotional e-book nominations. Has anyone noticed that the "winner" for BOTM for January isn't exactly an active member of Goodreads? I mean, apart from signing up for the website last month and then joining 23 groups through which to self-promote his book? He has 3 other books on his profile. I'm sorry for my little rant and don't mean to pick on the author, but I'm struggling to understand why this group doesn't see the problem with self-promotion in the BOTM nominations. Saying "no" to self-promotion (as many groups already do) doesn't mean the author can't participate in the discussion, it just means the nominations aren't to be used as a commercial for his/her book. AAGGGHHHH!!!!! OK, mini-rant over.
My 2 cents on the subject of zombie books and self-publication: As I recall it, in the eighties we saw a slew of zombie stories put out there by well-known, mainstream authors. You don't see that as much nowadays: there are a few mainstream successes, such as World War Z by Max Brooks, but the zombie story has largely returned to the underground/DIY set as the vampire has overtaken the mainstream as the undead creature du jour.I see no problem with keeping the self-promotion down in non-self promotion specific areas /takes notes
Sara, the one thing that we are in this group is honest. In our postings, our reviews, and our discussions on the BOTM. It's all good.
Jim " As far as making votes public, as long as there is perceived intent to target and harass voters to "hold them accountable"If by accountability you mean that one will lose a privilege which one is clearly abusing than I stand by this.
If you vote on a title to have as the groups read/discussion than your vote is to join in on said read/discussion.
Otherwise stay out of the voting.
It is not rocket science here folks.
Vote and show up or don't vote!
Jim I honest do not understand this.
I feel you might be unwilling to allow for an honest open vote simply because it is me that is asking.
I get that I'm not the moderators pet.
I'm ok with that.
But seriously this hidden and secret polls is unfair.
The lack of accountability is enabling the system to continue and reinforcing it via moderator approval.
I get that the authors do not want to prove a free copy and want to promote their work in any thread/every thread possible.
A BOTM is not was not ever meant to be an authors toy/tool.
It's for the readers.
An author can show up and spam that BOTM if they like, but let's be honest if an author is holding the BOTM discussion it sets an uncomfortable environment for readers to say, this sucks apples.
What are BOTM's if not to be able to share your thoughts about a book?
There are threads in this group for author self promotion.
If an author really wants to spam us with title dropping they can start up a thread in the authors corners.
Goodreads websites has guidelines for authors that they can look up with will explain the tools (options) available to them on the goodreads website.
Again I get that I'm outspoken and not the moderators favorite member, but this refusal to be open and honest shouldn't be about me.
I hope we can be responsible adults here.
Let your vote be seen and live up to your vote.
If you vote, than show up.
If you're not going to participate than do not vote.
It's not fair to those who do participate to continue this system.
For what it's worth, I'm also fine with open voting. I don't have any problem with people knowing which books I prefer nor am I concerned that I will be harassed regarding my preferences. I think Tammy's point is that everyone behaves a bit better in the light of day; I agree that a little bit of accountability would go a long way in this situation.
OK, so here's a strange series of coincidences which lend support to transparency in BOTM voting:- On 12/8/13, "Dave" joins the Zombie group (plus 22 others) and subsequently begins promoting his book, "Better Stay Dead", for BOTM.
- Within the next week, "Ben Johnson", "Solomon Gates", "Ash Beckham", "Kyle Bentham", "Giorgos Kazoulis", and "Leonidas" all sign up for the Zombie group (most are also new to GR the same month).
- In addition to joining the Zombies group, these very same GR novices all begin giving "Better Stay Dead" 5 stars and nominating it to the "best zombie books ever" lists.
- In another odd coincidence, most of these new members also have tags on their profiles which ID them as "top reviewers from Greece". Which is where "Dave" just happens to be from (according to a post in another group).
- All of the above does not take into account that several other new members have their accounts set to "private"; thus, a full review could not be done.
In closing, you all are being played.
Ok maybe, but maybe not.This group gets its fair share of new members each month.
I don't fault an author for gathering friends/family to support his/her work.
I'm pleased to see new group members actually. More fresh zombie bait :-)
All I am stating over and over again is.... If you vote for the group reads, and the title that you voted for wins...show up and participate in that group read.
I don't care if you're friends/family members or alter egos, show up and talk about your reading experience with that book.
If it's a five star book, you should be able to share reasons why you found it to be, if it's a one star book you should be able to voice why, if you simply liked the cover art than say that.
This is a book discussion that we are talking about.
If you vote, than show up.
Fair enough. But just to warn you in advance, next month I am going to take a picture of a turd, call it a zombie story, and nominate it for BOTM. Then I'm going to ask my friends to sign up for GR/Zombies and vote for it; I'll also create a few alter egos to do the same. Whatever it takes to win. Because...you know...democracy.
Never said democracy couldn't be played. Hell, I live in Florida - remember the hanging chads? We're still learning how to count votes down here. I gotta, say, though, Sara, that does sound pretty fishy - hope we're not being played. But you know what? If we are, then that sucks. If we're not, then we gave the author the benefit of the doubt.
And here's what else: if the author is getting fake or real friends to post reviews to inflate the book, then that sucks for him. Fake stuff gets sorted out in the end. Fake reviews, fake boobs, fake teeth - it comes out in the wash.
And truthfully, if this book is turd-material, I'd like to think we'd call it out as such. So, I'm going to take the author up on his free offer, I think, and if the book is true "skata", as Dave's Greek friends might say, then we got a pretty big toilet to flush it. And if the book turns out to be decent, then I'd like to think we'd call it that too.
Netanella wrote: "... And here's what else: if the author is getting fake or real friends to post reviews to inflate the book, then that sucks for him. Fake stuff gets sorted out in the end. Fake reviews, fake boobs, fake teeth - it comes out in the wash. ..."This is so true. I have to remind myself of this when I am writing reviews for Amazon that are getting hammered.
Sooner or later someone else will come along and read/review that book.
It can take a long time but it does happen.
It is far wiser for an author and reviewer to ask for and write authentic reviews, because time will reward them.
Sooner or later it all comes out.
Wow,I didn't realize there was such a notorious climate in this topic. Giorgos Kazoulis is an old friend of mine, I have no idea who the rest you are saying are. I've told Giorgos (who I know cause he is also an author) about my new book and he said he wanted to help me, but I haven't talked to him since.
I would rather watch the first half of the second season of walking dead on repeat forever while people are throwing all the tomes of "In Search of Lost Time" on my head than to host a group read under such circumstances.
I, therefore, am willing to withdraw the nomination so that you can read Walkers which many of you obviously feel was the rightful winner.
Dave,There is no need to withdraw your book.
It was voted on and won.
I hope that all 11 voters showed up to the BOTM.
This thread might seem personal, but it's really not about you or your book.
Dave wrote: "I would rather watch the first half of the second season of walking dead on repeat forever while people are throwing all the tomes of "In Search of Lost Time" on my head than to host a group read under such circumstances...."Sounds painful. We simmer down eventually, once the meds catch up with our dysfunctions. ;)
Tammy's right - "Better Off Dead" won the poll. So let's read it. I understand if you're no longer willing to host the read, however. Hope you change you mind, though.
Mod
There is no need to withdraw your book.
It was voted on and won.
I hope that all 11 voters showed up to the BOTM.
This thread might seem personal, but it's really not about you or your book."
Mod note: Actually, I would refer you back to message number 30 where he was accused of creating false personnas to stack the voting in his favor. This same message was posted in the book group read thread as well. This is the type of hostility I was refering to as to why I didn't want to make voters public.
To clarify, I was saying that the vote stacking happened to 'Walkers', as I can't see that many people liking the book. ;_)
Yup and while you may be unaware of this Sara directly messaged me regarding her concerns. I told her then as I am saying now.
Maybe he is, maybe he's not. I don't know.he could have just gathered friends to support him.
I caution you, don't let this BOTM thing consume your thinking too long.
It comes and goes each month.
There is nothing that can be done this month about the current BOTM.
Trying to change it now will only prevent anyone from wanting to make changes next month.
Breath in deeply and let it go for now.
It won't help to get the moderators worked up and it will give Jim a way to say that there's harassment.
She agreed and dropped the issue
If every time someone says a voice contention a moderator over rules than this isn't going to work.We might as well change our group name to reflect that this group is an author support group.
There was zero harassment just a member voice her legitimate and equally valid concern.
Sorry about the typos up there, I was on my kindle fire.For some unknown reason, it is nearly impossible to type anything of length (or use codes) and have them display properly when I am on it.
My point is this, We have to be able to voice ourselves freely.
We do not need to be treated as children.
We do not need every single thought checked.
We will all have a difference in opinions.
That should be expected.
We need to be allowed to voice our views, politely but openly.
even though i called it, who cares?if any author wants to sit and make multiple fake accounts just to vote, then I feel sorry for him/her.
may be the case, may not be the case.
the point is that this book won the poll and now this is what we are reading. i asked the author for a copy of the book and he seems cool. hes sending me a free copy just for the read.
because of that, i'll participate.
Mark wrote: "To clarify, I was saying that the vote stacking happened to 'Walkers', as I can't see that many people liking the book. ;_)"probably was jason trying to be the BOTM leader again so he can make essay questions.
jk. jason you're my bro, bro.
I thought Jason did an almost perfect job as BOTM discussion leader. Had he answered his own questions than it would been a perfect job ;-)
Mod
I would suspect it was more likely people seeing the title linking it to the Walking Dead and thinking it would legitimately be an official offshoot of the series. Thus they voted for it without realizing it had no official ties and was of dubious quality. I would probably have thought that had I not seen Jason's comments in the nomination thread about wanting to share his pain.
Jason wrote: ".... The Walkers nomination was intended to be a joke. It's terrifying how close it came to becoming real. ..."When I read your comments on the January nomination thread, I understood it to be in jest.
Especially because this group has a thread for the discussion of that very book/series already and having seen and read that thread it was clear that the book/series was seriously flawed.
Yet it was put on the polling and for whatever reason it received 9 votes.
That blows my mind away to think that with all the discussion about that book/series it was being taken seriously over other options.
However, in past BOTM nomination threads, I have literally begged nominators to nominate titles that were worthy of reading as a GROUP.
It just goes to show that little research is being done by those who vote.
In my first comment on this thread I ask members to give a good reason for the book they want others to read.
Why is this book worthy of a group read?
Let's also keep in mind that this group is supposedly for ages 13 and up. See that orange pop out when you type in the comments for proof.
While I enjoyed last months BOTM Desolation, it was not suitable for young readers.
The selection for January is personally offensive to me (and likely other LGBT individuals) due to the offensive words/tones in it.
So whether it ever gets addressed or not, there is a need to be selective regarding the nomination and selection of the group reads.
Broken record here, we just need public, open, polling.
I've been slamming busy at work and with some other stuff so I haven't been around much and haven't been able to participate in the BOTM. Since I knew I couldn't participate, I haven't been voting. That being said, I'd have to agree with Tammy about the polling being more transparent.
-----
This thread was inspired by Group Moderator Jim's comment in January (2014) BOTM Nomination thread
"... All I can suggest is that if people are concerned about a poor book being chosen, maybe they can either 1) reconsider their vote and change their vote to another title that has a chance of winning in hopes of getting a better group read title and/or 2) recruiting other zombies group members to be involved in the BOTM and vote/read."
I like the idea of PUBLIC discussion of which nominated titles sounds most interesting for group members who will ACTUALLY participate in the BOTM.
Because Let's face it: Many vote, but few actually participate.
Speaking personally, I would rather see which titles that group members who actually do participate in the BOTM discussions want for the next BOTM. Those who have participated are more likely to persuade me to change my vote.
So let us use this thread for the purpose of OPENLY and POLITELY stating which title we voted for, and which title we would be willing to vote for.
If you are asking others to vote for a title that you like, give us a brief reason why. (like: I own this and its been on my to read list a long time. Or It's brand new. Or It's time to see some comedy in the world of zombies.. and so on).
After some thought this evening about how this kind of thread might look/work, I realized that it would be best not to do 'a vote for a vote', because that could get messy real quick.
Instead it should be made clear that by asking for a vote on a title the inquirer "owes" NOTHING! (
NoNeither free books, *nor a vote in the future for another book nor anything at all) to those who are willing to change their vote.Simply put, this thread is to talk about which book we would like to see become the BOTM and why you think others should CONSIDER changing their vote to that title.
*Randy Is is Nor or OR there? I want to say, "You do not get anything for changing your vote."