Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

77 views
XI. Misc > Group policies?

Comments Showing 1-37 of 37 (37 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments I didn't see anywhere else to post this so, forgive me for stirring the pot again, if you will.

In the last couple of days, there's been something of a kerfluffle in the group. As a result of the person posting the initial threads being displeased with his reception (I'm assuming), these threads have apparently been deleted.

I didn't know that was possible on Goodreads, unless the group moderator steps in. I admit, therefore, to being curious if that's what happened in these instances.

If so, is that to be expected in this group?

And if it was not a group moderator doing the deletion, was it done by a Goodreads staff member? A Goodreads librarian?

What is the reasoning behind deleting these threads?


message 2: by Shaun (new)

Shaun Horton | 248 comments I actually asked this in another group and checked this group's rules.

Generally, an author of a thread is allowed the ability to delete that thread until it reaches a certain number of posts. (10-20 I'm guessing)

In this particular group, an author has the option to ask a moderator to delete their thread after they can no longer do so themselves. The rules state that the thread still may not be deleted, as the mod may find the information posted of use to others, but it seems, in this case, with all the offending posts removed, the thread was enough of a mess to warrant deletion. I am currently considering opening a new thread to discuss the issue further, as I believe the offenders are still around, and likely looking for new ways to scam authors.


message 3: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments Thanks for doing the research, Shaun. I looked too and didn't find answers, hence the post.

It will surprise no one that I encourage you to start a thread to continue the discussion, I'm sure.


message 4: by R.A. (new)

R.A. White (rawhite) | 361 comments I think we can safely refer to him as a singular offender. :)


message 5: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments ...and another topic is deleted without warning.


message 6: by Shaun (new)

Shaun Horton | 248 comments That one was almost undoubtedly a mod. At this point, they might as well just lock controversial topics as soon as people open them. Would save all of us a lot of time posting on them just to have them wiped.


message 7: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (henrymartin) I agree with the mods deleting this one. It was getting out a bit out of hand, with self-promos, name calling, etc.


message 8: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments Agreed.

I just emailed the group mod to see if he could let us know updated policies or warn us the thread's gone too far, at least.


message 9: by Shaun (new)

Shaun Horton | 248 comments Henry wrote: "I agree with the mods deleting this one. It was getting out a bit out of hand, with self-promos, name calling, etc."

Well, the thread started with name calling.

I just looked and was rather surprised to find we only have one active mod for a group of this size. That is an awful lot to ask of one person.


message 10: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments I can see why it was deleted, sure. It would just be nice to have some warning.


message 11: by Vanessa Eden (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 509 comments Was the 'have you been bullied' thread been deleted?

If so, I hope it wasn't because I called bullies on good reads sphincters. :/


message 12: by Ken (new)

Ken Doggett (kendoggett) It appears to be deleted. Probably a good thing.


message 13: by S.L. (new)

S.L. (slgray) | 37 comments Yes, the thread was deleted, by request, according to the mod.

I don't know that I call it a good thing, but I understand why it was done.


message 14: by Vanessa Eden (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 509 comments Its like big brother or something.
That is my only complaint with forums. You have to censor yourself diligently for fear of being thrown out of a forum or your threads being deleted.
If anything that is one of the main reasons I left a group because I had a differing opinion of a book (Fifty shades of grey) and it was deleted.
To me that was unfair. What's the use in being in a forum if you cannot speak your mind. So long as it doesn't border on abuse, of course.


message 15: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (henrymartin) I asked the Mod to delete the thread. It was getting out of hand.
Since I was the one involved from the beginning, Feliks is out, and James left the group, I felt it appropriate.

Don't blame the mods.


message 16: by Vanessa Eden (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 509 comments I must have missed the drama in the thread. I just hope I didn't cross the line when I called bullies sphincters.


message 17: by Justin (new)

Justin (justinbienvenue) | 2163 comments It's a shame, sarcasm and philosophy will go down at least 20% percent without Feliks..


message 18: by Mary (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments Mmmm... I was wondering why I couldn't read Martyn's comment. (Shrug)


message 19: by Mary (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments Henry wrote: "I asked the Mod to delete the thread. It was getting out of hand.
Since I was the one involved from the beginning, Feliks is out, and James left the group, I felt it appropriate.

Don't blame the..."
Apologies if my comment was over the top as well...


message 20: by Shaun (new)

Shaun Horton | 248 comments If we needed anymore proof that James is just a troll, he's started a new thread in a different group ranting about people reviewing without reading.


message 21: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (henrymartin) Yup, I just saw that. It's a feedback thread. Personally, I'm not going to bother responding to him.


message 22: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (henrymartin) Mary wrote: "Apologies if my comment was over the top as well..."

Mary, no need to apologize.

It was the self-promo at the end, about a high school bullying story, that rubbed me the wrong way. I don't know who the poster was, but all I have to say is, "Time and place."


message 23: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Marie Gabriel (lisamariegabriel) | 207 comments Henry wrote: "Mary wrote: "Apologies if my comment was over the top as well..."

Mary, no need to apologize.

It was the self-promo at the end, about a high school bullying story, that rubbed me the wrong way. ..."


Hope you didn't mean me Henry :D My mum's advice was actually most effective against a bullying former boss! :)


message 24: by Gregor (new)

Gregor Xane (gregorxane) | 274 comments Lisa wrote: "Henry wrote: "Mary wrote: "Apologies if my comment was over the top as well..."

Mary, no need to apologize.

It was the self-promo at the end, about a high school bullying story, that rubbed me t..."


Your comment wasn't promoting your book. The person who commented saw bully in the title of the thread, didn't read it, and then slapped a promo for her book about her bullying experiences out of the blue.


message 25: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Marie Gabriel (lisamariegabriel) | 207 comments Ahhh... understood. :) Opportunism.


message 26: by Henry (new)

Henry Martin (henrymartin) Exactly!


message 27: by Mary (last edited Feb 13, 2014 02:20PM) (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments Wow! Now I've been guilty of self-promo in some places (because I was still learning how to behave on these boards) but I think I've gotten over it. I do my self-promos on Twitter and LinkedIn now where it's more appropriate. I do know the sensitive creative mind and figure now if something is said that I don't like I should do the old "Count to ten" or just go Away instead of retaliating. Sometimes we just provoke each other. And by the way the rating without reading complaints... I still think it's unfair and I was ranting about those awhile ago myself. :)


message 28: by Mary (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments S.L. wrote: "I didn't see anywhere else to post this so, forgive me for stirring the pot again, if you will.

In the last couple of days, there's been something of a kerfluffle in the group. As a result of the..."


LOL! Maybe it's me... It seems every time I start feeling confident enough about myself to make a comment I find a kerfluffle...Used to happen to me on Facebook too!


message 29: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Marie Gabriel (lisamariegabriel) | 207 comments Mary wrote: "Sometimes we just provoke each other. And by the way the rating without reading complaints... I still think it's unfair and I was ranting about those awhile ago myself. :)
"


Rating without reading, yes, I totally understand that one and agree wholeheartedly. I think it says more about the reviewer than the book.


message 30: by R.A. (new)

R.A. White (rawhite) | 361 comments My guess is that's what happens more often than not with paid reviews. Personally, I won't rate a book unless I finished it. I did write a kind of review for a book I hadn't finished, trying to explain why for those who would want to know, but I didn't rate it because I don't think it's fair.


message 31: by Mary (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments That's the way I think it SHOULD be.


message 32: by Vanessa Eden (last edited Feb 14, 2014 06:52AM) (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 509 comments I have written a review without having finished the novel. The reason being that the book was incredibly boring to me and the writing was lacking.
That is the only way I think it is suitable to write a review without finishing the book; if it were lacking. In my review I stated I hadn't finished the book because of said reasons.
Other than that I write reviews when I have finished the story. I can't understand why people write reviews without reading the novel, what gratification does one get out of having 2000 reviews on good reads?


message 33: by R.A. (new)

R.A. White (rawhite) | 361 comments I used to be so concerned about reviews. I understand why they're helpful, but I've gotten to the point where I don't even try unless the reviewer has a well-followed blog or is part of a big site. I'd rather do other things with my time and books.


message 34: by Mary (new)

Mary Woldering | 87 comments Vanessa Eden wrote: "I have written a review without having finished the novel. The reason being that the book was incredibly boring to me and the writing was lacking.
That is the only way I think it is suitable to wr..."


Well maybe it was coincidence but my one star came from a person I'd just had a disagreement with on the boards. COULD HAVE BEEN A COINCIDENCE? HMMMM....No accusations or names...


message 35: by R.A. (new)

R.A. White (rawhite) | 361 comments It's hard to imagine someone being that obvious, but the good news is that bad reviews and ratings are usually not taken seriously as long as they're over-run by lots of good ones, and usually fake reviews can be seen for what they are. I know I'VE seen some obvious fakes.


message 36: by J.T. (new)

J.T. Buckley (jtbuckley) | 158 comments Vanessa Eden wrote: "I must have missed the drama in the thread. I just hope I didn't cross the line when I called bullies sphincters."

I think the word "Sphincters" was OK. Since it refers to a circular muscle closing an orifice. The body has many of them. But strangely enough most are found somewhere in the Gastrointestinal tract.


message 37: by Vanessa Eden (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 509 comments @ Mary
Yea it definitely sounds like that was a revenge rating to me.


back to top