Authors can't delete or combine own books

[M.A.]

I joined Goodreads two days ago at the suggestion of a member who read my first novel, Baby Jane. Anyhow, I went to upload the book and, due to a mistake, ended up with two copies of the same book. I tried to combine the two editions through my author's page but was denied because I don't have librarian status. I have sent an email requesting someone at Goodreads to delete the second book and am awaiting a reply. In the meantime, the Buy Now function doesn't work because my Amazon ASIN was applied to the first upload, but the second one is the one with a reader review, which is thus now the default edition (and to delete that one would be disastrous).

What this all amounts to is that I think an author should have the ability to delete or combine their own titles without requiring librarian status. It just seems sensible for the author to have control over this. (Or do we and I'm missing something obvious?)

Michelle

[Carla]

I had similar problems, and was stuck in a waiting game until someone from Goodreads could rescue me and delete the interloper.

I agree with you a thousand percent. If you're going to allow authors to promote here, then at least give them autonomy, ffs.

[rivka]

The editions were already combined, which is all that librarian status would do you for you. (And members of the GR Author Program DO have the ability to combine their own books.)

What you were not able to do is delete/merge the incorrect edition. This is a safeguard because some authors have been known to delete editions that are out of print, which makes users who own those editions and have shelved them on GR most unhappy.

I took care of it for you. For future reference, the fastest way to get help with this sort of thing is usually the Librarians Group (although several of us follow this group as well).

[Carla]

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you allow an out-of-print edition to be promoted and publicised here, when you obviously can't purchase it? I thought the whole point of a reader being allowed to share reviews was so the author could get free/unsolicited publicity that would hopefully drive their sales. What do those few reviews matter, if the book is no longer in play?

It seems you're putting authors through needless and overt trouble all so you can keep the reader with the odd review happy by allowing an out-of-print edition to remain on their bookshelf. The final decision should be that of the AUTHOR, and NOT Goodreads. This site was created for the readers and the authors, NOT Goodreads and its staff.

(And members of the GR Author Program DO have the ability to combine their own books.)

So you keep saying, and yet, many of my friends haven't been able to do this, and you already know my own hideous experience with trying to do it. YOU had to do it for me, which doesn't speak to my having the capability for doing it.

:@

[rivka]

Goodreads is a place that authors can promote books, but that is not ALL it is. It is also a place where readers can shelve and rate all the books they have read -- the specific edition they have read.

It's not just a few readers. We have many, many readers with editions that are pre-ISBN (i.e., older than 1966/67) listed, not merely out of print.

It may be helpful to think of Goodreads as being more like a library (which does not remove books from its shelves just because they are out of print) than like a bookstore, although we have features of both.

[Carla]

The library analogy hardly works. If a book is on a library shelf, then you have the option of checking it out and READING it. You can't do that here, so I still fail to see the point of preserving something that ONLY serves as a major headache to the authors you say you want to help.

And if you refuse to entertain the notion that out-of-print books really are a pain in the ass to the author, at least give us the ability to remove/delete them from OUR profiles without effecting all those out-of-date and no longer relevant reviews on the shelves of the reader. It only requires the adjusting of a few lines of code.

Why you want to preseve them is beyond me.

[Ralph Gallagher]

The main point of Goodreads is for readers to catalog and rate books they've read, are reading, or want to read. It is not here to sell books for authors, though it does help do that.

If I bought a book a few years ago, I want to list it here and rate it, not having it magically disappear because that edition is no longer in print. My book doesn't magically disappear, so why should my listing? And you can still purchase out of print books at used booksellers, yard sales, library sales, etc.

Goodreads is /not/ here to sell books and provide free advertising for authors. It's hear primarily for readers.

[M.A.]

Hi Rivka:

Thank you for taking care of it. But when I look at the book, there is still a second edition showing up on the right hand side of the page. Is there a delay in it disappearing after a librarian deletes it? Or am I stuck with this mistake forever?!

Michelle

[rivka]

Michelle, sorry, I should have warned you about the caching of the page. The "ghost" edition should disappear in 24-48 hours.

[Carla]

My original point still stands: If you're not willing to acknowledge what a pain in the ass this is turning into for EVERY author I know, then at least GIVE US THE ABILITY TO REMOVE ASSOCIATION WITH THAT BOOK and delete it from OUR profiles without touching the books already shelved.

And if this place isn't for selling books, then ffs remove the ability for a reader to buy one and stop telling us how we can best utilise your services to sell more effectively.

Why is this so hard to understand??

It's hear primarily for readers.

It's here.

[M.A.]

Thanks Rivka. I appreciate it.

Now, Carla, having heard the explanation, I see the logic in not deleting books on the whim of the author; however, I also see the logic of allowing an author to delete from their author page a book they no longer wish to promote; these are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps in future Goodreads will design this function. These things don't happen overnight, perfection is a process, and if users provide constructive feedback the site developers are likely to listen. But swearing at them doesn't strike me as constructive, nor is pointing out someone's typos.

As for readers versus authors, the site is for both because each serves the other. And of course Goodreads is for selling books: no doubt they make a referral royalty from the retailers, as well as advertising fees from authors who elect to purchase that option, both of which then finance the site. It is, after all, free to users, and the money to run the site and continue to develop it has to come from somewhere.

Goodreads is providing a wonderful tool for both readers and authors, and as noted it's free. What more can you legitimately ask for?

Michelle

[rivka]

M.A. wrote: "As for readers versus authors, the site is for both because each serves the other."

Well said.

[Carla]

I swore at no one. I *am* allowed to be upset over this issue since it's been going for SO long and completely unnoticed.

And I always point out spelling mistakes. We're authors, YES? Correct spelling IS a job description, yes? Tjhis is a typo. Using hear for here is a flat out mistake that needs to be fixed.

Your taking time out of your day to point out how much I disappoint you is just about as constructive, so please, no stone-throwing.

Now, back to the issue. Yes, I agree completely--the site IS for authors equally, so anyone's attempts at downplaying that is being disingenuous or really isn't hip to the details of what's going on, and all because they're unwilling to concede my point: Authors being unable to delete their own books is turning out to be a HUGE pain in the ass.

I understand why they want to keep reviews (although I don't agree with it), which is why I suggested a great and brill compromise, which they've yet to acknowledge. And why would they, since TWO of the Goodreads suits have now weighed in and stated for the record that this site is only about the readers?

Maybe your point about hitting them where they live--their pocketbooks, will have greater effect. It all comes down to money, whether folks will admit it or not. And the more Goodreads helps its authors, the happier we will be, and the more money will end up in their pockets.

[M.A.]

Carla: "ffs" stands, I believe, for "for f**k's sake." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that constitutes swearing. Or perhaps I'm just old and not hip to what's going on?

And, no actually, it isn't your place to point out typos. If you wish to offer your services as an editor, perhaps someone will take you up on it, but otherwise this is an open forum and we all tend to hit the send button without re-reading; it doesn't make us lesser beings, it just means we're in a hurry to get on to other things. And you've made several errors in grammar, punctuation, and sentence logic, which no one condescended to point out to you, so perhaps you would be wise to just drop it and move on.

Michelle

[Ralph Gallagher]

I was not aware that I was a "Goodreads suit."

[Patrick]

Carla, nobody is saying that Goodreads is only for readers. It is, however, primarily for readers. We have 4.7 million members and roughly 19,000 authors. If we have to make a choice of a feature that benefits authors or one that benefits readers, we are usually going to choose the latter. Does that mean that we aren't interested in helping authors? Of course not. But we are always balancing the two desires, to have a site that is great for readers and one that helps authors sell books.

[Patrick]

I'm also locking this thread, since it seems like everyone has stated their opinions and it is getting kind of contentious, which suits nobody.