Play Book Tag discussion
Footnotes
>
No More Private Messaging on Goodreads
date
newest »
newest »
Anita wrote: "Did everyone get a copy of this message?In the coming weeks, we will be making some updates to how messaging works on Goodreads.
What's Changing?
• Direct messages between individual members wil..."
Have you changed it since August, 2023?
A very stray thought - no idea if it is possible - out-of-the-box...Can you set up a google form similar to the PH submission form we used for prompt ideas next year for members to contact you if need be and it's a form that just stays available? It would only go to you and it would allow someone to provide you with whatever contact info you needed - email, snail mail, telephone.
At the very least it will be used every month for raffle responses.
One of the issues going forward will be new members .... if the google form can work, then new members are addressed.
What a weird, annoying change!I actually didn't get a message about it at all, but some sort of poll asking where I would migrate when GR shuts down PMs. I misread it at first and thought they said GR was shutting down entirely. A little presumptuous but it does make me wonder about the future. GR has barely been updated since I joined in 2009. I have dabbled in other sites like Storygraph and Fable but not extensively, and PBT is here, so I don't feel like trying to leave unless I'm forced out, haha.
I hope a solution can be found... Theresa's google form idea seems promising. I wish I had more thoughts beyond that, but I don't. :(
People have been getting the message throughout the day. I must have been one of the first. There is a LOT of discussion in various groups. Mods can set up a private group to communicate with each other, and Mods can do broadcast messages. But many games and activities need contact between members and Mods. Plus so many of us have made friends and connected IRL. That wouldn't happen or not without some kind of workaround. It wouldn't hurt to submit feedback to the Help or Question threads on GR, but I don't know if they care.
Assuming they don't care, whether likely or not, and thus not writing and stating your opinion, is defeatist and not the response to have. It's like not voting because you figure the guy or woman you can't abide is going to win anyway. You have a voice: use it. Here that means emailing into the GR ether, signing petitions.
In addition to the google form for Anita, Jason has offered to set up a website. Theresa mentioned (and I agree) that maybe there's a way to use that one for member-to-member communication that's not public if/when we might want to share personal details like our full names (so we might connect via facebook or other social media) and/or email addresses.
Of course, Jason would have to weigh in on that.
Theresa, your idea is excellent for at least the interim! Thank you!!! I will set up a permanent Google form that anyone can use to contact me. I am also going to set up a thread where I can call out to you if I need a private communication for some reason. Maybe anyone who cares can make sure to get notifications turned on for that thread.
Um, okay reading this more closely, now I'm even more concerned.Does anyone interpret the second bullet point as meaning all messages?
What's Changing?
• Direct messages between individual members will no longer be available
• Images and external links will no longer be supported in messages
So I won't be able to link to a Google form any further for voting or anything? It must mean all messages because if there's no more direct messaging, the second bullet would be irrelevant.
I think it means that you won't be able to include external links & images in your Admin Broadcast messages, which are the only messages that will still be allowed. I interpret it to mean people will still be able to link to a form or insert image or link externally within a post on the GR site in the Group conversations/threads.
Joy D wrote: "I think it means that you won't be able to include external links & images in your Admin Broadcast messages, which are the only messages that will still be allowed. I interpret it to mean people ..."
Ohhhhh. Okay. I really hope you are right! Thank you for talking me down off the roof.
They could have been more specific on that point.
the Mod Support GR group has been conversing and trying to get a straight answer on whether links are banned just in messages (which are going away in any case) or in all threads. So far, GR just sends back bot messages restating the original email. Several years back they did take away posting external links but there was a way to get around it with the html commands. We just don't know yet how this will shake out.
I wonder if anyone has a contact in the press or blogosphere who could feature this issue and maybe embarrass GR into looking at this. We have lots of human interest stories about what the groups mean to us.
When I was a mod in a different group, we setup an email account that we used for group business so that we could publicly post the address without exposing our personal information.All the mods had access to it, and whenever we solicited information from members we would have them email with a specific subject line, like "Rabbit Hole suggestions".
Anita wrote: "I am also going to set up a thread where I can call out to you if I need a private communication for some reason. Maybe anyone who cares can make sure to get notifications turned on for that thread"
I think that's a great idea!
Last time I was anywhere near the GR loop, they were having major issues with bots/spammers in PMs, and my guess is this is their way of addressing it once and for all. As user-unfriendly as possible (the official GR motto at this point...)
@Anita - I agree with Joy's interpretation -- and I truly parsed this as I would a legal document -- comes naturally! However, it's poorly drafted leaving too much interpretation room. I think part of the problem is that while we refer to it as Direct Messaging or DM or even PM for Private Messaging, on GR is just Messaging. Underlines the disconnect between users and owners/managers of GR. Basically, I think that newsletter and moderator member message blasts will no longer be able to include images or URLs. I do believe you will be able still to provide HTML links to specific posts within the group. Example, you could send an email blast to all members telling them to send you their Grab Bag tag suggestions using a link back to where you have posted instructions or a link to Google.
It doesn't say it's limiting within the group discussion posts at all.
I use private messages often both as a moderator, for our conversations before we go public on a topic and for internal negotiations, and for keeping in touch with my friends here. It's one of the basic functionalities of the site that is taken away and it will force us to create special groups for discussion or to use external chat apps to replace the removed private messaging.The next step will probably be to require Real ID in order to use the site, followed by censure of 'sensitive' topics, like the suffering of Palestinian people or immigration policies.
Theresa wrote: "@Anita - I agree with Joy's interpretation -- and I truly parsed this as I would a legal document -- comes naturally! However, it's poorly drafted leaving too much interpretation room. I think part..."I used to write contracts, so you and I have something in common. I would suggest not getting too worried over the usage within our GR Groups just yet, since it reads clearly that they are talking about messages.
We can all speculate, but we don't actually know for sure what problem they are trying to solve. This is the "solution" they've selected to whatever problem they are solving, and obviously they did not ask us or consider the impact on groups, or, if they did, they just don't care or perhaps the other options were deemed "too expensive." (Just for what it's worth, I'm thinking some type of legal liability is most likely.)
I sent them feedback that they should tell us WHY they are making the change. It helps to accept change if you know there's a good reason for it. They are obviously horrible at change management.
Joy D wrote: "I sent them feedback that they should tell us WHY they are making the change. It helps to accept change if you know there's a good reason for it. They are obviously horrible at change management...."Agreed 100%. I don't feel like I've ever been good with change, but this always helps me come to terms with it, especially if I don't agree with it.
(I say I'm not good with change, but the amount of change at my work and in the technology the past 24 years I've worked where I have is crazy! LOL!)
I was able to post an external link today, but initially had read it as meaning posts, too. This is probably from old things such as message boards.
Something people mentioned in the Moderators' group is the fact that these comments on these threads are initially called "comments" as you type them, but once it's posted, they are numbered as "messages". So, being specific and defining the terminology would be helpful.
It's not totally clear what will be restricted, and no dates were given for the changes. My son, the Apple "Genius" (his actual work title) recommends Discord. He belongs to multiple groups there and runs one. Theresa had some pros and cons for it. But how can we Play Book Tag, without tags/shelves? Any move to another platform would lose members for sure. So I think our best bet is to stay here and try to find all the workarounds we can. Those who want to can share personal emails. What will suffer is new people may join but not really get involved.
I guess one other option would be to form a closed group where members were comfortable posting personal contact info. But then new people wouldn't find us. They would have to be invited by someone.
I don't believe in closed groups. Thats not in the spirit of what we do/are (to me). I suppose, if you wanted to share information with a specific person, you could wait until a moment where you are on at the same time. Like those moments where it feels like someone is responding with you in real time. You could quickly type your contact info and then once you get the acknowledgment that the other person received it, you edit out the conversation. It would either read blank or you can put in personal exchange of info. I imagine it as, hey, you on right now? Want to take a moment to exchange than delete some contact info? Like awkward, but probably pretty safe.
In the coming weeks, we will be making some updates to how messaging works on Goodreads.
What's Changing?
• Direct messages between individual members will no longer be available
• Images and external links will no longer be supported in messages
While direct messages between individual members are no longer available, you can still access your past messages from your inbox, Group moderators can still send broadcast messages to their group members, and you can still send group invitations to your Goodreads friends. All other public interactions, such as writing and responding to book reviews, remains unchanged.
-The Goodreads Team
Personally, I find this highly annoying. It really makes it difficult for people to get in touch with me about their prizes, gift cards, etc.
I'm happy to give people my personal email address, but I don't want to type it in a public message. If you are an active member, I invite you to PM me asap to obtain it! So you'll have it, and when I say "contact me", you'll know what to do.
If anyone has any genius ideas on how to make the administrators more accessible beyond a public message, I'm all ears. I really haven't had time yet to contemplate what to do.