UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
60 views
General Chat - anything Goes > A question about author threads. Group input requested, please.

Comments Showing 1-50 of 80 (80 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments I'm considering instituting a new rule concerning author threads, where the thread will be deleted if it's left dormant for more than six months.

Would mean more work for me to keep it tidy, but might help to encourage authors to return.

Good idea! Bad idea?

Could I have your feedback, please?


Michael Cargill Cargill (michaelcargill) | 2998 comments Sounds fair enough.


message 3: by David (new)

David Staniforth (davidstaniforth) | 7939 comments Fine by me.


message 4: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21943 comments Seems fair.


message 5: by Katy (new)

Katy | 3414 comments I think it's fair. I've noticed a few author threads where the author says hello and introduces their book, but nothing after that


message 6: by Will (new)

Will Once (willonce) | 4053 comments Don't mind, but..

Something like that happens naturally anyway. A dormant thread slips further and further down the lists, getting furrier and dustier as it goes. Eventually it disappears out of sight.

Is there a reason for deleting a thread after six months of inactivity? It's a neat and tidy way of doing things, but it seems like more work for you and I'm not exactly sure what it achieves.

If there are space constraints on the website, then fine. Other than that, why not just let them go mouldy?

If nothing else, it means that they would show up on internet searches, which might be important for someone.

I know, I know, I'm rambling. Bottom line: I wouldn't have a problem with it, but not sure if I'd see it as a high priority.


message 7: by Jacquelynn (new)

Jacquelynn Luben (jackieluben) | 278 comments I have occasional flashes of inspiration - if you can call it that, and want to put something on my author thread. They may not happen with the 6 month time frame. I think I'd still like my thread to be there for those moments.


message 8: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25063 comments Yep. I agree with the two posters above. I doubt it will encourage the Drop 'n' Runs to come back and, as my old gran would say, the threads are still there but they aren't eating anything.


message 9: by Richard (new)

Richard Martinus | 646 comments My author thread is teetering on the six-month abyss, but I don't greatly mind either way. When I finally get around to having something to announce again, it'd be easier starting a new thread than trying to find the old one amongst the dust bunnies at the bottom of the server.


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments That's where book marking comes in handy, Richard.


message 11: by Shaun (new)

Shaun (shaunjeffrey) | 2467 comments I haven't posted to my author thread in a while, but I doubt anyone's noticed :p


message 12: by Anna (new)

Anna Faversham (annafaversham) | 1707 comments What about leaving them for a year? That might be good for busy authors who've not noticed the flying time, and yet still gives you a chance to tidy up if and when you want to Patti.

I don't want to cause you unnecessary work though.


message 13: by David (new)

David Staniforth (davidstaniforth) | 7939 comments Jacquelynn wrote: "I have occasional flashes of inspiration - if you can call it that, and want to put something on my author thread. They may not happen with the 6 month time frame. I think I'd still like my threa..."

Good point. If the thread has disappeared, authors too busy to post regularly are likely to disappear too.


Gingerlily - The Full Wild | 36808 comments There is a difference between authors who post a couple of times and never come back, and authors who don't post that often, but are greeted happily when they do. Like Cornelius Harker, and Jon Rosenberg for example. Maybe the number of posts on the thread should be taken into consideration.


message 15: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25063 comments Very good point!


message 16: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21943 comments frantically dusted my thread off


message 17: by Pete (new)

Pete Carter (petecarter) | 637 comments Is there a way to dump all fossilised threads in an 'Archive' folder? That way people can still find them if they need to. I'm thinking of that 7 day promo a week ago that I tried to go back to, but it had gone.(I know - that would still have gone, but author threads are still a useful contact point, if nothing else.)


message 18: by David (new)

David Staniforth (davidstaniforth) | 7939 comments That's not a dead thread, it's resting!


message 19: by Will (new)

Will Once (willonce) | 4053 comments Jim wrote: "frantically dusted my thread off"

Is that a euphemism?


Gingerlily - The Full Wild | 36808 comments Will wrote: "Jim wrote: "frantically dusted my thread off"

Is that a euphemism?"


Nope, he's torching the cobwebs as we speak. Or at least the maid is.


message 21: by Pete (new)

Pete Carter (petecarter) | 637 comments I've just had a look and can't find my thread anywhere. Either something's eaten it, or I've never posted one! Back in a minute - got some frantic writing to do!


Rosemary (grooving with the Picts) (nosemanny) | 9087 comments Seems to me that a thread that has enthusiastic interaction from several people, however intermittent, should be safe.
A thread that appears from someone we never hear of again should be binned within six months.


message 23: by Pete (new)

Pete Carter (petecarter) | 637 comments Pete wrote: "I've just had a look and can't find my thread anywhere. Either something's eaten it, or I've never posted one! Back in a minute - got some frantic writing to do!"

Ah, that's better! Check out my new author thread before dear mod decides it's in the wrong place and deletes my hard work!!(No Patti - that's NOT a challenge!)


message 24: by Will (new)

Will Macmillan Jones (willmacmillanjones) | 11721 comments I had one of those somewhere, but the wheel fell off


message 25: by Pete (new)

Pete Carter (petecarter) | 637 comments Will wrote: "I had one of those somewhere, but the wheel fell off"

The wheel is supposed to fall off! What kind of authors would we be if things behaved normally?


message 26: by Will (new)

Will Macmillan Jones (willmacmillanjones) | 11721 comments Successful ones?


message 27: by Pete (new)

Pete Carter (petecarter) | 637 comments Will wrote: "Successful ones?"

A successful author? Now you are in the realms of fiction!


message 28: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21943 comments Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?


message 29: by Darren (new)

Darren Humphries (darrenhf) | 6980 comments I'm all for making Patti work harder. I think that if a thread goes more than three days without a post then Patti has to track down the owner, speak to them in person and then decide whether or not to put the deletion down to a full vote of the forum with a quorum of 97%, which Patti is required to secure each time.


Gingerlily - The Full Wild | 36808 comments She'll just tell Simon to do it. And he'll ignore her because he's away somewhere working.


message 31: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25063 comments In all fairness, unless the rest of us come and play silly-billies on an author thread it's likely to lapse till the next book. An example recently is Martin Cosgrove whose second novel took 2 years but is a sequel to the first so if he started again we'd lose relevant chat. They are both fantastic and I'd be sad if enthusiastic spring cleaning lost us hard working authors.


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments I'd like to think that authors think of us as more than just punters and would pop in just to say 'hi', not only to flog their wares.


message 33: by Michelle (new)

Michelle (Spiderg1rl) (spiderg1rl) | 735 comments My thoughts are it's a lot of work to take on for tidying up the section.

I've found a ton of new authors to me in this group and although I see where your coming from I wouldn't want to miss out just because an author hasn't been present for a while or not posted in his/her thread. It's more likely we will spot the threads posted in regularly and take an interest in those titles but it does take longer than a year to write a book for some. Although that is the case authors would have a good idea when they hope to finish a book they are working on within a year so my two cents are is it better to do it after 12 months of not posting and make it clear to authors about that so they can post to let the group know a book is in the works and promote their old book as well.


message 34: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25063 comments I have seen so many people pop in to say 'Hi,' in their own thread or elsewhere, and be ignored. You don't bother to do that twice when you've got a full time job and you're working on a book. It does make sense to write in your own thread when you actually have something to say - as an author. About a new book.


message 35: by Terence (new)

Terence Park (archie_tp) | 8 comments Kath wrote: "when you've got a full time job and you're working on a book. It d..."

Agree. Authors have different things pulling them which maybe ought to be reflected in the overall design of Goodreads.


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments Could you expand on that please, Terence?

I'm not sure of the point you're making.


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments Kath wrote: "I have seen so many people pop in to say 'Hi,' in their own thread or elsewhere, and be ignored. You don't bother to do that twice when you've got a full time job and you're working on a book. It d..."

Yes, I agree that it seems that many authors don't think of popping into other author's threads, or elsewhere, and simply use the group as a means of promotion. And fair enough.


message 38: by M.A. (new)

M.A. Comley (melcom) Shaun wrote: "I haven't posted to my author thread in a while, but I doubt anyone's noticed :p"

yep, me too. I generally end up talking to myself anyway. :-)


message 39: by Michael (new)

Michael Brookes (technohippy) If a thread is a post and run then I'd say fair enough. If it's just dormant and has seen some activity in the past then I say leave it - they may come back.


message 40: by Kath (new)

Kath Middleton | 25063 comments There's no limit, is there? We don't need to remove them for operational purposes? If not, leave them.


message 41: by Will (new)

Will Macmillan Jones (willmacmillanjones) | 11721 comments Patti (baconater) wrote: "Kath wrote: "I have seen so many people pop in to say 'Hi,' in their own thread or elsewhere, and be ignored. You don't bother to do that twice when you've got a full time job and you're working on..."

I seem to spend more time on other people's author threads than my own, and it's not fair to drop my promos there, is it?


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments No more fair than me burning the curtains, Will. ;)


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments Anyway, the point of my thoughts on this was using a time limit of some sort as a means of encouraging authors to use their threads more frequently, not as a rebuke in any way.

Any other ideas are welcome, of course.


message 44: by Jim (new)

Jim | 21943 comments One problem with author threads is that it can feel a bit like chatting to yourself at times.
If you're on the group to promote, yes, promote there.
But frankly most of the regulars don't really promote on the group.
(The obvious brilliance of our wit and repartee in casual conversation so dazzles other groupites that they dash off and buy the works of lesser minds as a way of relaxing from the over-exposure to genius)

So I can quite see why author threads can languish a bit.
But there again, languishing for six months?
I suppose it's a case of those who are active ought to wander down amongst the cobwebs and post a message on our own threads every so often


message 45: by David (new)

David Manuel | 1147 comments Jim wrote: "One problem with author threads is that it can feel a bit like chatting to yourself at times.
If you're on the group to promote, yes, promote there.
But frankly most of the regulars don't really pr..."


Yes. Also, posting on my author thread often feels self-serving. "Have I mentioned recently you might want to buy my books?" What about authors who contribute to other threads but just don't post often to their own thread? Surely they're not considered fly-bys.


message 46: by Lorraine (new)

Lorraine Versini (lorraineversini) | 8999 comments I think mine's definitely gone dormant (but feel free to delete it, Patti!) - I'm having a lot of trouble considering myself an author, so I'll happily stick to my challenge thread :)


message 47: by L.F. (new)

L.F. Falconer I don't think I've updated my thread for a while now, and if it needs to go, then out it goes. I don't post often in this group, yet I do read through many of the discussion threads when I get the chance. Maybe that makes me more of an eavesdropper than a member, I don't know.


message 48: by Rosen (new)

Rosen Trevithick (rosentrevithick) | 2273 comments Not sure. I sometimes have big gaps in between posts - dunno if it's ever been six months though. Could it depend on number of posts as well as last update so that loyal members who happen to be having a quiet spell don't lose their threads?


message 49: by Sam (new)

Sam Kates I'm more of a lurker than a poster, though I will comment on a thread if I feel I have something useful to add. As for my author thread, I only tend to post there when I have some news to report: completion of WIP, pub dates, etc, but I don't like to overdo it.


Patti (baconater) (goldengreene) | 61757 comments I don't intend on culling threads anytime soon, groupites.

Simon and I will add it to our list of things to discuss over our Christmas Eve dinner together.

Although we seem to spend most of our time discussing beer and cheese...


« previous 1
back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.