Why aren't the topics publicly visible any more?

[Jade]

Seems like you have to join to see the discussions here now... Can I ask why?
Having this group open is great "passive help" for people who are googling or searching Goodreads trying to find a book, and the more people who see the topics, the more likely someone knows and will be able to help.
(Personally, this group was my springboard to join Goodreads, I was fine just lurking and reading reviews before)

[Kris]

Goodreads experienced a massive spam attack in the popular groups. Hopefully it's a temporary situation. We had to switch this huge group to private.

Please REPORT SPAM when you see it. For example:

- Comments in discussion boards > Click the "Flag" link (beside the "Reply" link). Only available on the Desktop version of the Website.
- Spammer's Profile Page > Click the "More" (or "v") drop-down: Report this account.
- Contact Us form: https://www.goodreads.com/about/conta... > "What can we help you with?": Report spam...

[Jade]

Thank you so much for replying! (and I see how appaling my grammar is in topic line... written when I was really tired and not paying enough attention)

Hopefully it can re-open later when spam's less of a problem.

[Bargle]

I assume that's why we've had so few new threads recently?

[Kris]

Currently, we have almost 2,000 "active" requests in the "Unsolved" folder from the past four months. "Active" in the sense that someone recently posted in these threads. The original date of these requests could be earlier than the months shown below:

August = 464 "Unsolved" Requests (last comment was posted in August 2024)
July = 520
June = 509
May = 440

Total = 1,933

[Bargle]

Kris wrote: "Currently, we have almost 2,000 "active" requests in the "Unsolved" folder from the past four months. "Active" in the sense that someone recently posted in these threads. The original date of these..."

Actually after thinking about it a bit, it's more that there's less activity overall here. Usually there's about 2 pages of new posts when I check in, but lately there's been no more than one.

Maybe it being back to school time is part of it?

[Ayshe]

It doesn't look like they'll figure out the spam problem soon, I noticed considerable amount of new spam lists: https://www.goodreads.com/list/new_lists
I've reported few accounts and I also contacted support, it's supposedly forwarded "to the relevant team so they can look into this for you" 🙄 (that phrase annoys me no end, why for 'me'? I do have life of my own without fighting spam on goodreads 🙂)

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

GR is ridiculous. It makes you wonder if anyone is behind the wheel.

The most irritating for me (and not just me but lots of others) was when they started doing imports from Amazon around April 2023 that resulted in thousands of junk editions. For some books 75% or more of the editions are junk. And GR staff doesn't bother cleaning them up because no one cares or it's not a priority. The attitude is that their free labor force (librarians) will do it so why bother. Then there are all of the amazon_catalog edits where actual book descriptions/plots are changed to things like "book" or "Book by author name" or the book's physical description from the used bookseller. No one at GR gives a sh*t. Integrity of the database is not a priority.

[Rosa]

It used to be that librarians could delete redundant editions of books. I haven't seen that option lately. How does Goodreads expect librarians to clean up the database if they aren't allowed to delete unnecessary editions?

[Ayshe]

Rosa wrote: "It used to be that librarians could delete redundant editions of books. I haven't seen that option lately..."

It's still there, called edition status and moved on top of the edit page. I avoid to use it since I'm not certain they don't really want those booksellers' paper editions with amazon ASINs now. Plus who knows what else it might actually delete, I noticed for merges other than the default in the instructions there's additional step of watching the log before doing the combine back otherwise reviews could be lost 😲 Also, for not-a-book things with reviews you're not supposed to delete, only set to invalid as to not lose the reviews.

[Rosa]

Thanks, Ayshe! I would never have noticed. They certainly made that less easy.

[Emily]

I am wondering, can the moderators make the group Private? It is currently listed as Secret, so no one is able to join or access the URL of the group.

[Lisa]

Emily wrote: "I am wondering, can the moderators make the group Private? It is currently listed as Secret, so no one is able to join or access the URL of the group."

Same. I guess if there is a backlog of requests I get it but a group with over 112,000 members and broad appeal should be as public as possible.

[Damon_A]

I completely agree that this group should be public. It’s honestly one of the most helpful resources out there for people trying to remember the name of a book, especially when all they have is a vague plot detail or a fragment of a memory. Being able to stumble across these threads via Google — even without having an account — is what makes this group so valuable. That kind of passive accessibility is huge. It’s actually how I found Goodreads in the first place, and I know I’m not the only one. Locking it down really limits its usefulness.

[Lobstergirl, au gratin]

This group is public.