Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

44 views
Book Issues > Please separate

Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Melody (new)

Melody (runningtune) | 13258 comments This message was posted in my in box by a user. I'm not able to spend time on Goodreads today. Is there someone who can help?:: Message follows:

I need the help of a librarian.

Some genius has "combined" the first and second volumes of Ballantine's two-volume collection of John Updike's "Rabbit Novels," which means you can't add both to your bookshelves, since the system is treating them as a single book.

Can you fix this?

This is Vol. 1: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...

This is Vol. 2: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...

It would be nice if they were uncombined.

Thanks!

By the way, do you know if the people running the site are doing anything about the bugginess of the interface? Also, there doesn't seem to be a main "help" desk, which is why I had to find your name in the list of librarians and randomly send you this message.

The site has a lot of potential, but someone is going to come along with a better-run site (technically) and steal all the users.

Anyway, thanks for taking a look at this.

Marc


Thanks,

Melody


message 2: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Melody, I'll get them separated out, but you might want to point this person to the librarian and feedback groups and remind them that they can shelve two editions of the same book if they want to.


message 3: by Melody (new)

Melody (runningtune) | 13258 comments I responded to his email. Thanks so much Cait. I could probably handle this tonight - but just couldn't help today.



message 4: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 590 comments By the way, do you know if the people running the site are doing anything about the bugginess of the interface?

Am I the only one offended on behalf of Goodreads seeing all these general complaints of bugginess? They are a small staff and they're pushing features left and right. Would people prefer that they hold off on releases so that they can test them exhaustively? Because that's the alternative. You can get near perfection or you can get responsiveness.


message 5: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41003 comments Mod
mlady_rebecca wrote: "Am I the only one offended on behalf of Goodreads"

No, but I figure I'm more biased than most. ;)


Lisa  (not getting friends updates) Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Am I the only one offended on behalf of Goodreads seeing all these general complaints of bugginess?

As far as the bug reports, I think Goodreads wants to know about what's buggy. As far as the degree of ire shown, you're not alone in being bothered. I do think some newer members don't know so can't appreciate how responsive Otis and Goodreads have been!!


message 7: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 590 comments Lisa wrote: "As far as the bug reports, I think Goodreads wants to know about what's buggy. As far as the degree of ire shown, you're not alone in being bothered."

Oh, of course. I know they want to know about any new bugs. There have just been several cases of general put downs for the number or frequency of bugs recently.

I'm as addicted as the next person, but I really admire all the hard work the staff does to not only keep the site up and running, but to continue to work to improve the user experience.

I don't know. I guess I've seen too many complaints, and not enough complements lately. *g*


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments Things have been buggier lately than usual, but I'm also rather annoyed about the outrage a number of users, particularly new users, are showing over a service which they have paid absolutely nothing for.


message 9: by Random (new)

Random (rand0m1s) | 56 comments This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "Things have been buggier lately than usual, but I'm also rather annoyed about the outrage a number of users, particularly new users, are showing over a service which they have paid absolutely nothi..."

I've noticed over the years that people tend to expect more from free services than they do for paid ones.


message 10: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse How do you know they've paid nothing? With services supported by advertising, there's no way for anyone to assess how much they may have contributed.


Lisa  (not getting friends updates) Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Squirrel, That's different than paying out of pocket for a service, such as a monthly or annual charge. Goodreads is free to members. Yes, there's advertising that helps pay for the site, but even though we view it, and some may spend money because of it, it's not the same as a pay for use service.


message 12: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse I didn't say it was the same as pay-for-use; I contested the claim that users have paid 'absolutely nothing' :).


message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41003 comments Mod
If they are new users (which is what Michael specified), odds are that they have not yet paid anything, via whatever means.


message 14: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse How do you know? They may have already bought extensively from GR's advertisers.


message 15: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41003 comments Mod
If it was before joining GR, how is that paying for GR?


message 16: by Debbie (last edited Sep 03, 2009 04:12PM) (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Er...the money earned from advertising is aggregated from the advertisers' income. They don't look at their customer base and only take a percentage from those who also use GR....

If the building society I'm with sponsors a sporting event, I'm still paying for that event whether I go or not.


message 17: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41003 comments Mod
I think there is a huge difference between sponsoring an event (or site), and paying for advertising on an existing site.

Regardless, the disproportionate outrage is still just that.


message 18: by Debbie (last edited Sep 03, 2009 04:28PM) (new)

Debbie Moorhouse There is no difference in principle: the money comes from the advertiser's customers; not from the site/event's customers.

But yeah, the outrage is pathetic.


back to top