THE Group for Authors! discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
156 views
General Discussion > Goodreads Algorithm Hurts Authors - And Also How To Improve It

Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) I'm a debut independent author who has had a bad experience on Goodreads but I feel like I have to continue using this site as people (including my publicist) expect me to. I want to be part of the solution rather than the problem, so I am here to give you some feedback.

Goodreads effectively profits off the products (books) created by other people (authors), therefore our thoughts, opinions, and yes, feelings should be considered at all times.

1. Because the Goodreads algorithm means the reviews with most comments and likes goes to the top of the reviews - the reviewers with the most controversial, bad faith, hot-takes naturally get pushed to the top.

How does this help authors or good faith readers? It just makes the site unpleasant.

There is a big difference between a thoughtful negative review and someone who is just there to sh*tpost and put people/books down to make themselves feel good.

2. You should, as a rule, cascade reviews from positive to negative by default.

Comments are disproportionately negative as anger is more likely to prompt a comment than good feeling. Cascading from positive to negative by default would redress this balance and actually help authors.

3. You should also not allow people to "like" reviews.

This feature should be replaced with an upvote and a downvote like on Reddit or Quora. Therefore the community can police unhelpful reviews.

It's been really hard for me to see people who haven't read my book "liking" negative/controversial opinions on my book and unfortunately those including derogatory comments about myself. Using this site has been a painful experience because of this feature and because Goodreads doesn't have enough staff to moderate ad hominem attacks.

4. The upvotes and downvotes feature should be anonymous.

It would be easier for me not to see who has downvoted positive reviews or upvoted negative reviews.

Right now I see Goodreads as an unpleasant side-effect of being an author. Maybe you should consider how you can add more value to both authors and readers? Right now I don't see what service or value you offer me, I just see you as a site that mooches off my output.

I have also experienced harassment on other social media sites and I suspect the individuals doing that harassing found me off Goodreads. I appreciate that's not your fault, however, what should have been a joyful time in my life - the release of my debut novel - has been an unsettling and uncomfortable time and I feel that Goodreads has enabled some of that negativity.

I want to be constructive, and this post is written in the spirit of making the community better. The foundation of the community is the site itself and I believe things need to change.

Thank you,
Sayde Scarlett


message 2: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Sayde wrote: "1. Because the Goodreads algorithm means the reviews with most comments and likes goes to the top of the reviews "

Not true - friends review appear first and personally, that's the way I like it. When I am browsing for something to read, I much prefer to see what my friends thought of a book first and often I don't even bother to scroll any further.

Sayde wrote: "It would be easier for me not to see who has downvoted positive reviews or upvoted negative reviews.

Right now I see Goodreads as an unpleasant side-effect of being an author. Maybe you should consider how you can add more value to both authors..."


If seeing a review up or downvoted hurts your feelings, here's an idea - don't look.

Goodreads is a site for readers, not a place to pander to the delicate egos of authors. Millions of people use Goodreads to find their next book to read and to discuss what they love or loathe. So many threads are started by authors who want Goodreads to change to what they want - when those authors don't ever use Goodreads as a reader, nor do they understand the rating or review system. I love Goodreads and it's my go-to place to find books to buy. Maybe you should stop seeing GR as a place to spam/pitch your book and try using it as a person who loves books? It's amazing what a change in perspective can do.


message 3: by Michael (new)

Michael D'Agostino | 10 comments There have been complaints about trolls on Goodreads, and the best way to discourage them is not to offer your book for free. Very few trolls are willing to pay for a novel. A troll could generally be defined as a person who leaves a nasty, sarcastic one sentence comment that shows no real reading of the work. In a way, Goodreads is not much different than Youtube, where some people enjoy leaving nasty comments. It's to be expected when offering any product to the public.


message 4: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 07:35AM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) A.W. wrote: Not true - friends review appear first and personally, that's the way I like it. When I am browsing for something to read, I much prefer to see what my friends thought of a book first and often I don't even bother to scroll any further.

Not if none of your friends has read the book.

A.W. wrote: If seeing a review up or downvoted hurts your feelings, here's an idea - don't look.

That, unfortunately, wasn't an option because we were trying to find out who was trolling me online.

A.W. wrote: Goodreads is a site for readers, not a place to pander to the delicate egos of authors. Millions of people use Goodreads to find their next book to read and to discuss what they love or loathe. So many threads are started by authors who want Goodreads to change to what they want - when those authors don't ever use Goodreads as a reader, nor do they understand the rating or review system. I love Goodreads and it's my go-to place to find books to buy. Maybe you should stop seeing GR as a place to spam/pitch your book and try using it as a person who loves books? It's amazing what a change in perspective can do.

I do actually use Goodreads as a reader and as someone who loves books. Do you really think this is the best, most optimal site/way to find new good books? And since Goodreads exists because people like me write books. They literally make money off my product being on their site so, yeah, actually Goodreads should consider my "delicate ego" or, let's change the perspective, they should consider my right not to be harassed on social media or through their site.

Michael wrote: There have been complaints about trolls on Goodreads, and the best way to discourage them is not to offer your book for free. Very few trolls are willing to pay for a novel.

I believe this individual obtained my book through NetGalley which is another site authors are encouraged to use to promote their book.

Michael wrote: It's to be expected when offering any product to the public.

But I don't offer my books via Goodreads. I don't sell my product through this site.

If Goodreads don't want authors to complain maybe they should give us some advertising revenue? How about that?


message 5: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) A.W., I also note that the first tweet on your own twitter feed is a request not to be tagged in negative reviews of your books:

https://twitter.com/AWExley/status/11...

Imagine if there were hundreds of such nastygrams, and derogatory personal remarks coming directly into your personal email and Facebook inbox? Would you merely chalk offence and discomfort at that behaviour down to having a "delicate ego"?


message 6: by lethe (new)

lethe Sayde wrote: "they should consider my right not to be harassed on social media or through their site."

Receiving a negative review on your book is not harassment.


message 7: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 07:52AM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) lethe wrote: "Sayde wrote: "they should consider my right not to be harassed on social media or through their site."

Receiving a negative review on your book is not harassment."


I didn't say it was. Negative reviews containing derogatory remarks about myself - and the subsequent trolling on social media - was the harassment.

Please go back and read my original post.


message 8: by lethe (new)

lethe Sayde wrote: "Please go back and read my original post."

I did. In it, first you say that the most controversial reviews get the most likes and come top of the list, you go on to say that Goodreads should order reviews from positive first to negative last, and then you say that the "like" feature should be done away with.

Since I had seen that there was a 1-star review on one of your books that had received a few likes and was listed first, I assumed that was the reason (or one of the reasons) for your request.


message 9: by Mellie (last edited Apr 16, 2019 12:32PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Sayde wrote: "A.W., I also note that the first tweet on your own twitter feed is a request not to be tagged in negative reviews of your books..."

So we're digging into the background of commenters now? That tweet was regarding a different scenario. I never said I had an issue with negative reviews, readers can rate/review however they want. That tweet was specifically asking NOT to be tagged in critical reviews on Twitter, as that makes them appear in notifications. There are no review notifications on Goodreads and I don't read reviews, nor do I go looking for them.

I note your books are put out via Xlibris, I assume you did your research and know they are a vanity press who take large amounts of money from naive writers to produce a substandard book. I wonder how much of what you call "trolling" are genuine reviews due to legitimate craft/editing issues that Xlibiris don't bother to address in their rush to take your money?

I see you are one of those authors who hovers over their reviews and engages in debate with critical reviewers. I can guess how that is going to play out for you...


message 10: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) lethe wrote: "Sayde wrote: "Please go back and read my original post."

I did. In it, first you say that the most controversial reviews get the most likes and come top of the list, you go on to say that Goodread..."


It's not just that, it's the type of reviews that get pushed to the top of all books. For example: should a book like Game of Thrones be judged on the most controversial take/review on the series?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

The top three reviews - of a bestselling, highly popular book - are amongst the longest, most controversial one-star reviews.

One is even tagged "incoherent-anger".

The Goodreads algorithm pushes the hottest negative takes on the book up to the top. Whilst those opinions are valid, they are probably not the most helpful to readers who may enjoy the story - and many readers did.

This is the type of algorithm that creates a site that punishes challenging literature and rewards self-indulgent rants and sh*tposts.


message 11: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) From one of the top reviews of John Green's A Fault In Our Stars - an interesting disclaimer before the review even starts:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Update (25/06/2014)-
Since I've been receiving a lot of cyber bullies and hate messages, I’m going to clarify few things.

-Firstly, this is a negative review of the book and it has got a lot of potential to infuriate the fans. If you think that your opinion is the only opinion that exists on earth and that no one should dislike your favourite book, then I would suggest you to avoid this review.

-Secondly, This is my review and I have the freedom to analyse and criticise this book as I wish to without being told by others how I’m supposed to criticise it. I have the freedom to have my own thoughts and to express them in whatever way I want to and I don’t appreciate fans shoving their opinions down my throats, I’m not here to cater the needs of TFIOS fandom.

-Thirdly, stop harassing me. Why can't you get it through your thick skulls that everyone has different opinions, they’re going to interpret books differently from you and stop being selfish to think that just because you loved a book that means the whole world should love it. This world is full of people with differing opinions, differing thoughts and differing likes and differing dislikes, learn to respect them even if you don’t agree with what they have to say about your favourite books. Just because you love a particular book that I hate doesn't make you a good person and me a bad person, It simply shows that people like different things.

Every reader has the freedom to dissect and critically analyse any book and write their thoughts on it in their own review space without the fear of anyone (or fans bossing them into writing what the fandom wants). Critically analysing books and criticising problematic aspects of any reading material prevents people from being passive readers.

Shakespeare and J.K Rowling too have their own share of critics then what makes Green’s book flawless that it’s not allowed to be criticised? Honestly, this book is nowhere as good as the works of those two geniuses. Stop thinking that criticising this book is sacrilegious.

-Fourthly, stop cyber bullying and trolling me. Your hate messages and death threats will show much more of your personality than your love for this book. Remember, every time you comment any bullshit here, you’re giving your own fandom a bad name and my review more popularity. Also, your hate messages aren't going to put me down. I’m a strong girl and I’m always going to stand up for what I believe in come hell or high water. I don't fear anyone and no one can ever force me to follow their orders like a puppet especially not a fandom where most of the fans are immature cyber bullies who can’t respect other’s opinions. Also, I've caught fans making fake accounts to troll my review, this shows me that they are big cowards who hide their faces and send me spiteful comments.

-Lastly, I’m NOT shaming anyone for loving this book. You can love whatever you want to and believe in whomever you want to. I have no problem with people who genuinely love this book; I have problems with those who think readers should not have the rights to express their dislike for any book, I have problems with those who approve of and participate in cyber bullying reviewers who write negative reviews on their favourite books, I have problems with those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that their favourite books can have flaws and not everyone’s going to love them, I have problems with those who come here to shove their opinions down my throat. Do you find anyone who hated this book shoving their opinions in comments of positive reviews? Then what makes you think that you have the rights to troll negative reviews?


Even the opposite happens - wherein a community shames other people for disagreeing or creating/writing something they don't like. I had the opposite on my page with negative reviewers dragging people who had left positive reviews.

If anything this shows the need for less emotional "upvote/downvote" buttons rather than a single "like" button.

Is this the best way to run a website for people who supposedly love books? I think not. I don't think Goodreads have ever been seriously challenged on the flaws in their design.


message 12: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 12:33PM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) A.W. wrote: "Sayde wrote: "A.W., I also note that the first tweet on your own twitter feed is a request not to be tagged in negative reviews of your books..."

So we're digging into the background of commenters..."


Looking at the information that you freely put on a public forum is not "digging". If someone sent all those negative reviews to your personal inbox then it's harder to avoid them. I offer you a warm shoulder to cry on when that happens…

I chose to self-publish because I write niche science-fiction. It works for me. Naturally, you're choosing to attack "my craft" and my mode of publishing rather than address my legitimate concerns about Goodreads. That says more about you than it does about me. Several professional reviewers have failed to find egregious faults in my craft so I'll take succour from that.

I felt forced to keep a closer eye on my reviews after the trolling started, much against my better judgement. Part of what prompted this post is my resentment that I had to, and I feel I wouldn't have had to were Goodreads a better site.

Deliberately berating other reviewers, making ad hominem attacks against authors and trying to push up negative reviews is meant to be against Goodreads guidelines. I don't think they enforce their own rules. If they can't do what they say they're going to do, they need to make changes to the site.

Do you really think Goodreads is the most ideal vehicle for both readers and authors?


message 13: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Sayde wrote: "It's not just that, it's the type of reviews that get pushed to the top of all books..."

No they don't, and this is what you don't seem to understand. When I click on that book, first up I see dozens of reviews by my friends. That's how it works, friends reviews come first.

I have seen numerous cases on Goodreads where authors stalk, harass, and intimidate readers who leave critical reviews. Maybe if you used this site as a reader you would understand why a few feel the need to make such disclaimers on their reviews. Maybe then you would understand why you leaving comments on critical reviews and scolding readers for their opinion is a spectacularly bad idea.

Your discussion in this thread is casting you in a negative light. You are complaining about critical reviews, calling readers trolls, commenting on reviews on your book expecting readers to justify their opinion, and generally coming across like a special snowflake who can't handle criticism.

I don't see you complaining about fake 5-star reviews that are upvoted? Interesting that some authors complain loudly about critical reviews and expect Goodreads to do something about it, but they never complain about the inflated reviews left by friends, family, or that they purchased/swapped.


message 14: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) A.W. wrote: "Sayde wrote: "It's not just that, it's the type of reviews that get pushed to the top of all books..."

No they don't, and this is what you don't seem to understand. When I click on that book, firs..."


Book pages are available to the public. If you're not signed in you don't see "your friends" reviews first. You see the sh*tposts firsts - that's the way the algorithm works.

I do use this site as a reader - hence why I leave very few one-star, "scathing" reviews myself and make no ad hominem attacks.

I have made legitimate criticisms of this site and its algorithm and all you can do is make ad hominem attacks against me.

Do you really think this site is flawless?


message 15: by Mellie (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Sayde wrote: "Do you really think this site is flawless? "

Where did I say that? Do I think there are ways this site could be improved? Absolutely, and sometimes I contribute to the relevant feedback thread. Overall, I use this site in a way that works for me. I enjoy reading friends reviews of books I'm thinking of buying. When I mark something as TBR, I have friends commenting with their opinions and we talk about what we liked/disliked.

You are the one complaining about trolling, harassment, and critical reviews on your book (a book produced by a notorious vanity press that is known for low production standards).

Then when you were called on your behaviour, you tried to expand it to include critical reviews of other books. That's how this site works - people rate/review how they want which means that yes, some books have lots of critical reviews. Some books have very active discussion about what people like/dislike because the book has polarised opinion.

You keep complaining about critical reviews but as I said, I don't see you complaining about fake 5-star reviews. Nor do I see you taking issue with the stalking/harassment of some authors against GR users (which I see you engage in). The changes you want GR to make (positive reviews have to be shown first, changes to upvoting, no liking etc) are all changes to protect author egos from critical feedback.

To top it off, when someone points out that you have an issue with critical feedback, you immediately complain of being "attacked".


message 16: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 01:26PM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) A.W. wrote: "Sayde wrote: "Do you really think this site is flawless? "

Where did I say that? Do I think there are ways this site could be improved? Absolutely, and sometimes I contribute to the relevant feedb..."


You're certainly being very defensive here - it does sound like you've taken real umbrage at me criticising Goodreads as though I'm not entitled to that opinion.

And I'm the first to admit that Xlibris is a terrible company - but you know what? They're not the worst. Why would you even need to bring up my mode of publishing if you're not making a personal attack?

I'm not complaining about having critical reviews on books, I didn't ask for any to be removed. Ad hominem attacks should not be allowed - and they're technically not allowed as per Goodreads own guidelines but that rule isn't enforced.

For the last three months someone has been sending increasingly worrying messages directly to my email address and through my personal social media - some of which clearly originates from Goodreads. That *is* trolling. I can't block out those messages and Goodreads enables that behaviour even if they're not responsible for it. I have tried to have as little contact with the people who review my books as possible, unfortunately, that was a liberty denied to me.

You called me a snowflake because you don't like what I'm saying - get a sense of perspective here.

The changes you want GR to make (positive reviews have to be shown first, changes to upvoting, no liking etc) are all changes to protect author egos from critical feedback.

Goodreads makes money off other people's work. If they want to do that and not give authors a cut or offer any real service to us - then they should actually help us make money rather than reward the biggest sh*tposters on the site.


message 17: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 01:25PM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) Also - how am I meant to know which reviews are fake or not? This is an anonymous site. Where users - but not Authors - are offered complete freedom from the consequences of their actions. My guess is there have been both negative and positive fake reviews.


message 18: by Mellie (last edited Apr 16, 2019 02:10PM) (new)

Mellie (mellie42) | 618 comments Sayde wrote: "You called me a snowflake because you don't like what I'm saying - get a sense of perspective here."

You are the one demanding changes to protect your author ego.

You are the one stalking Goodreads users and digging through their profiles.

You are the one commenting on critical reviews on your books and demanding readers justify their opinions.

I'm not the one who needs a sense of perspective.

I looked who published your book, because your comments in this thread are common among certain writers. When I saw you paid Xlibris, that confirms what I have seen in the past. When writers rush to publish their first book and don't spend time working with critique partners, alpha/beta readers, and good editors, they become very reactionary to critical reviews.

Again your comments show that you don't understand how Goodreads works. The primary purpose is a book catalogue and a place for readers to discuss books. I'm not sure why you expect a financial "cut" just for being a GR author? Goodreads is rolling out features that will sell more books for authors - such as the notifications of titles on sale. There are hundreds of genre groups where books are recommended between readers, which then spurs sales. But then you'd have to be using the site as a reader and engaging in those groups, to see how that works.

Authors and their friends/family creating fake accounts to 5-star their books in an attempt to manipulate averages, is a long running problem on Goodreads. Authors stalking/harassing readers who leave critical reviews is another continuing issue. Vanity presses such as Xlibris have a reputation for paying for fake glowing reviews on their titles. Again, if you were using the site as a reader and engaging with other readers, you might have an idea of the extent of the problem.


message 19: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 02:42PM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) You are the one demanding changes to protect your author ego.

Goodreads is a site that monetises Authors and their books. We are the product and they sell us and our books to their advertisers. They're effectively pimping us out.

They don't provide any service to authors but we are the only reason the site exists.

Right now, I can barely use my browser because it is so laden with ads. We are a product and a commodity to them and we have no control. If they are going to commodify us then they should not allow us to be defamed.

The site should be pleasant for us to use and they should portray us in the best possible light. I don't expect an explicit cut, but they should be courteous to us. We are the product and we have very little control.

Goodreads are as benign as Facebook. You think it's a fun little social network at first - it's not.

You are the one stalking Goodreads users and digging through their profiles.

Where am I doing that? Your Twitter feed is at the top of your publically accessible profile - as is mine. That tweet was at the top of your feed. Your Twitter feed is not protected. You published it publically. What are you talking about? If you publish something where is freely and prominently available on the web it's not "stalking" or "digging". That tweet was literally two clicks away.

You are the one commenting on critical reviews on your books and demanding readers justify their opinions.

Where have I done this? I requested one user to withdraw an ad hominem attack on myself and another user and they admitted they were wrong and they removed it. End of. Other than the harassment to my personal accounts I have had very little engagement with other Goodreads users.

You can't admit that I have any valid grievances so now - I didn't get my book edited enough (it went through several rounds of editing, proof-reading and critiques and it took over a year from the first draft to publication) - I have the wrong type of publisher (traditional publishers don't publish uncomfortable books about war and terrorism, you should go ask them why that is…) - all my positive reviews *must* be fake…

I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about because I just don't use the site as much as yourself. Well, excuse me, your Majesty. I bow to your superior grasp of this "book catalogue and a place for readers to discuss books".

Goodreads is going to get sued sooner or later and it's going to be fun to watch it when it does.


message 20: by Tina (new)

Tina Weaver (tinaweaver) | 27 comments I’m not sure how to read all these posts as the have repeated posts.
I don’t find GoodReads a reliable source for promoting a book. I did read a few reviews on a book and found it was a good thing I did. I’d been holding off on getting it. Then I read a review that mirrored what I’d been thinking. The books blurb was well written but the book didn’t match it.
I get emails from that same book review that was done a few years ago. I don’t think many people are reading it. I feel bad for the author but it is what it is. Some people won’t mind others do.
My book did ok and I’ve just republished it. I love it. Others love it. Is it a best seller? It could be. If it got that one break like 50 shades. Wouldn’t it be great to get the following you deserve?
I think fighting the system just doesn’t work. If you’re getting negative reviews. Look at your writing. Do the reviews match your work? What is being said? Not everyone can be wrong.
Why would anyone give you a bad review for no reason?
If you knew it was true then I’d be contacting Goodreads and Amazon.
If they were doing it to others not just you then they need their account canceled.


message 21: by Sayde (last edited Apr 16, 2019 02:54PM) (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) Tina wrote: "I’m not sure how to read all these posts as the have repeated posts.
I don’t find GoodReads a reliable source for promoting a book. I did read a few reviews on a book and found it was a good thing..."


There are negative reviews and there are people randomly sending you Facebook messages and emails insulting you and copying in your negative reviews. Goodreads should be above that. Right now, it's not.

And we can't know who's really doing that because users on this site are anonymous and immune from the consequence of their actions.


message 22: by Tina (new)

Tina Weaver (tinaweaver) | 27 comments Sayad. I found the comment about Xlibris offensive. I’ve had a book published where I paid nothing. I got what I paid for. While the book is a great read they skipped the proof reading because the person was sick. They just published it.
This second go around is a little better. I paid for some editing and a new cover. I’m happy. Sometimes you have to pay to get it done. I know I couldn’t have put it together on my own.

My new book Silent River soo does to be released is published by italics publishing. They are great to work with. I love the cover. They are doing a PRelease to 500 places. I’m cool with that. Will it be a best seller? I doubt it. But who knows?

What I’m trying to say is, everyone moves at a different pace in the writing and publishing process. Recognizing where you are doesn’t mean your any better or worse than anyone else.

If your writing is good that’s what matters. Make sure it’s the best you can do and keep writing. When looking at reviews take half the 5 stars and all the 1 stars and throw them out of your mind. It’s the 3&4 stars that will tell you where you need to improve and what you did that was good 👍


message 23: by Sayde (new)

Sayde Scarlett (goodreadscomsayde_scarlett) There's a lot of snobbery about self-publishing. Please see her Majesty's comments above. My book didn't find a publisher because of its content, war and terrorism, not it's quality (please its reviews from Kirkus, SPR, Blue Ink and Readers Favorite). I didn't use any of Xlibris's marketing services at all. Believe it or not, some of my positive reviews might just be genuine.

Goodreads monetises authors but offers them little in return and doesn't have good control or oversight over its community. It'll come back to bite them eventually.


message 24: by Emily (last edited Apr 16, 2019 03:25PM) (new)

Emily (emilyfortner) Thanks for your feedback. Reviews in the Community Reviews section are ranked based on a number of factors, including number of likes, length, popularity of the reviewer, etc. While we don’t have plans to change how reviews are displayed, we strive to make Goodreads a positive experience for both readers and authors. If you have encountered reviews that violate our Review Guidelines, including reviews that contain ad hominem attacks, please flag that content to bring it to our team’s attention and we will take the appropriate action.

As a reminder, our Author Guidelines are a helpful resource about how to use Goodreads as an author, and you can also contact us if you have any further questions.

I’ll be closing this thread to prevent further personal attacks amongst group members.


back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.