Random Thoughts Showing 4,301-4,350 of 17,689

[Jane]

Can you pick them up by going over to 'Home'? Maybe there's not much action tonight...

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

They're back now. *bangs head against wall*

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I am not getting many notifications either. For about two weeks they have been intermittent.

Goodreads isn't slow for me today. that is fine.
I still can't delete comments off my profile feed. GR says they have passed the bug onto an engineer, but that was about two days ago and still there is no word when they will have it fixed.

[Don]

My wife and me are super excited for Sunday. The big retail used book store in our area, Half Price Books, is having their annual used book clearance sale at out state fairgrounds. It's in an area about he size of a football field with table end to end full of used books at lower prices. If you go on the second day then they cut it down even further. $.25 per paperback and $.50 per hard bound. We are definitely hoping for some good deals this year :)

[happy]

I love fall weather. 2 days ago it was 80 Degrees F, last night we had a white out snow storm, Sunday it is supposed to be back to 70.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Don wrote: "My wife and me are super excited for Sunday. The big retail used book store in our area, Half Price Books, is having their annual used book clearance sale at out state fairgrounds. It's in an area..."

Awwwwwwesome!!!! Make sure you report back if you grab any great finds.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

happy wrote: "I love fall weather. 2 days ago it was 80 Degrees F, last night we had a white out snow storm, Sunday it is supposed to be back to 70."

Mid spring here. We were bordering on drought. Then last week we get a hail storm...now it is back to potential drought.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Inappropriate reviews..."

Goodreads has FINALLY decided to do something about the reviewer/author flame wars that have been going on on GR. So they have been deleting reviews that..."

I am sorry to hear that you have been targeted by nasty authors. But at least you have the dignity which many authors don't have and that's not to respond and start a war. Equally Terri, Authors should not respond to negative reviews, its not professional and it is not dignified.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Inappropriate reviews..."

Goodreads has FINALLY decided to do something about the reviewer/author flame wars that have been going on on GR. So they have been deleting reviews that..."

Ive also seen some of these people on Goodreads who have shelves like "Facebook Pity Party" and "Author behaving Badly" and other such shelves. I've also see wars between gangs of people and an author and their army going on and then people blogging about it. Its like a playground out there sometimes. Actually, no, little children wouldn't behave like that actually!!

[Paula]

Margaret wrote: "Terri wrote: "Jane wrote: "One review and rating were eaten up. I was disappointed it was this particular one; many times I may spend 1/2 to 1 hour on a review to get it just right, opinion plus t..."
you shouldnt have to worry about posting an honest review. Now that is censorship and helps no one

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "You shouldn't have to worry now. The war is pretty much over. both sides have had the table reset.
I think the Authors Behaving badly group is gone. And the authors who had organized themselves to..."

Authors should NOT challenge reviews. That is unprofessional and undignified and gives authors a bad name!

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Thanks Bryn, I was going to mention the pop up, but wasn't sure on the exact words. :)

That is such a positive step. If an author has a problem with a review, they should flag it to Gr and let the..."

Hear! Hear! Terri

[C.P.]

Paula wrote: "Authors should NOT challenge reviews. That is unprofessional and undignified and gives authors a bad name!"

I completely agree with Paula. Also that reviewers who do run into so unprofessional an author should stand back and not respond in kind. And if GR is taking over the policing on both sides, so much the better. As Terri says, that change should have been made long ago.

But I must admit, the GR staff could have handled the announcement better. Also, I do worry about a site that announces it will never delete reviews, then does....

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I don't worry about them saying they will never delete reviews and then breaking that and doing it. Because I think they are sticking to their ethos in a round about way.
To be a review on this site, it must be a review of the book. If it is a review of anything else but the book then it should be flagged and deleted. They have always deleted reviews. People are always flagging reviews that aren't book reviews, and GR delete them. The only difference now is that ones GR used to hide or ignore are finally being dealt with.
It is my understanding that the ones they are deleting are not book reviews. They are author reviews (people reviewing the author not the book) or revenge reviews. Or equally sinister reviews.
One can mention an author in a review in the context of the book, but reviewing an author because you don't like them as a person or they 'hang out' with the wrong people. They should be deleted for sure. that is such a bad thing to do.

[C.P.]

Good points, Terri.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Paula wrote: "I am sorry to hear that you have been targeted by nasty authors. But at least you have the dignity which many authors don't have and that's not to respond and start a war. Equally Terri, Authors should not respond to negative reviews, its not professional and it is not dignified.
..."

I have never understood people's need to enact full blown revenge over and over on authors who play dirty.
Why would one want to perpetuate the drama? It always amazes me. I spend my life trying to avoid other people's drama. (I don't even like human drama in my books. lol..:D..)

I dealt with my problem authors as quickly as I could. I was angry and wanted others to know what they had done to me, but once I realised singling them out to the broader community was taking the low road, I tried to get it buried as quickly as I could.

I withdrew any support for them via this group and I also have friends that run the other very active hist fic group on GR and the authors were removed from that group too.
There was no public shaming over and over. they did not end up on any hit lists. They simply proved to myself and the moderators of that other group, that they could not be trusted to have the best intentions towards members, so they were cut off...so to speak.

This is why I have a rule in the group rules saying that no sock puppets, trolls, spammers or harrassment will be tolerated and if it is proven that anyone has done this to our members elsewhere on the site the trouble maker will be removed from A&M.

I think moderators have a role to play in keeping groups a pleasant author/reviewer community. And since a badly behaving author or badly behaving reviewer can ruin a peaceful author/reviewer atmosphere, they are best not allowed free rein in groups.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

P.S
IN reference to reviewers should review books not authors. When I read Strategos - Born in the Borderlands I was so impressed with the way the author behaved with us members - especially with me who gave the book 3 stars and had some negative remarks towards it - that the first couple paragraphs of my review were about how nice the author is and although i wanted to give him 5 stars, i had to give the book 3stars.

I sat on that review for about a week. It was the first time i had ever technically 'reviewed' an author and even though it was all nice things, I was not comfortable with it.
It felt like I had left an author review. Despite it being positive I ended up editing and taking all the stuff out about the author.

So even though I believe it is appropriate for GR to delete negative author reviews I also think, to be fair, that they should delete or ask the owner to edit reviews like I wrote. Positive author reviews.
For half the review I was not talking about the book so, in the end, it is an inappropriate review.

Now it is just a 3 star review of the book with nothing about the author in it. :)

[Bryn]

I understand that thoroughly, Terri. From your initial want to say nice things after your interaction, to your discomfort, to your eventual decision. It's a case study, and proves to me again, I do agree with this policy of Goodreads.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

You are right. It is a case study really. very true.
And it happened around the same time as the review policy announcement broke. It helped me to realise why I was so uncomfortable with my part-author review.

[Don]

Got some decent deals at our sale event. I got a lot of my Sci fi books but I did score a few historical fiction or just historical type novels. I picked up . There were about a billion copies of Pillars of the Earth, but I already have that one set aside.

[Marilee]

I recall an instance this past year where I posted a middling review of a book I'd read. I had mild criticism of how the author handled the story and material, but it certainly was not in any way a personal attack or commentary on the author's qualifications, intellect, person or character. Well.. I got a scathing message from the author accusing me of a personal attack and unfair review [I gave her 3 stars, thank you, my honest rating of an interesting but flawed book on a topic with which I am very familiar] and demanding that I take down the review or at least re-write it so as not to reflect negatively on her work. There was an indirect, veiled threat of "action" against me if I didn't do as she requested.

Needless to say, this author was way, way out of line. I reread my review and had my lawyer husband [an expert in intellectual property] look at it. He agreed that I'd simply given an opinion review and it was in no way slander or libel of a person or their work. I briefly communicated this to the author and never heard back. Nor did I change my review on Amazon.

[Don]

Round Two! We went back to see if anything else opened up. Picked up . All in all, today was a good day :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Marilee wrote: "I recall an instance this past year where I posted a middling review of a book I'd read. I had mild criticism of how the author handled the story and material, but it certainly was not in any way a..."

Sorry you had such a sour experience, Marilee.
A similar thing happened to me, Marilee. I was told to rewrite my 3 star review too. I eventually downgraded it to 2 stars as I only gave her 3 out of guilt because she gave me the book.
She did a lot of other things too. had two fake profiles, one she used to leave condescending comments on the reviews of anybody who had given her books 3 star or less. She used the fake profile to write an excessively long review of her own book in which she put me and my review down.
The other fake profile she used to troll in this group. Trying to cause problems.
She was chums with another author and he openly said to me that he did not see anything wrong with her behaviour so I removed him from the group. As i will do to anybody who thinks it is okay to harass reviewers, create sock puppet profiles and troll and harass people. He then posted long elaborate blog posts over a week which he posted to his profile here on GR. They were one sided, untruthful rants bringing ill repute to me and to the group.

I was glad to see the back end of those two people.
It is also why i won't read any self pub books anymore. Even though I know not all self pub authors are like that, I had to say no to all, because I did not want to offend any similar types of people and have them bring this group into ill repute again.
They want to harass me, sure I'll tackle that, but it is wrong to target this group just because I didn't like their book.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Wow Don! You got some awesome scores!! Nice one!

[Jane]

Terri wrote: "Marilee wrote: "I recall an instance this past year where I posted a middling review of a book I'd read. I had mild criticism of how the author handled the story and material, but it certainly was ..."

Good grief, 3 stars means you liked it. Maybe you weren't enamoured [4 stars] but 3 stars is certainly a decent rating.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

It was a decent review too, in my case. Even though I eventually dropped the rating to 2 stars, the review was still respectful.

But that's the thing with some authors. Some don't care how respectful the negative or 3 star review is, they only want 4 or 5 stars and all praise.

(NB I say 'some authors'. I know you aren't all like that..:)..)

[C.P.]

That's just sad. Really pathetic. If someone goes to the trouble of reading my book and writing a review, what gives me the right to fuss at them, whatever they say? I am grateful they took the time, not to mention spent the money.

And yes, I know it happens—a lot. But that doesn't make it right. It still riles me every time I read about it.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Marilee wrote: "I recall an instance this past year where I posted a middling review of a book I'd read. I had mild criticism of how the author handled the story and material, but it certainly was ..."

OMGosh what dreadful behaviour. Such a shame that its put you off reading selfpubbed books, those idiots have done indie authors a terrible disservice and giving us a bad name. I dont know whats wrong with some people. Heavens!

[Paula]

C.P. wrote: "That's just sad. Really pathetic. If someone goes to the trouble of reading my book and writing a review, what gives me the right to fuss at them, whatever they say? I am grateful they took the tim..."

Me too!

[[deleted user]]

It's really cool that we have some friendly, down to earth authors around here. I appreciate you all. :) Having authors, who are also avid readers, to interact with are part of what makes this group truly special, too me.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Derek wrote: "It's really cool that we have some friendly, down to earth authors around here. I appreciate you all. :) Having authors, who are also avid readers, to interact with are part of what makes this grou..."

I agree. This is why we have such strict author posting guidelines, so that we can sort the wheat from the chaff.
We like our Authors when they are here to read and talk books with us. Not to try and sell us something. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Paula wrote: " Such a shame that its put you off reading selfpubbed books, those idiots have done indie authors a terrible disservice and giving us a bad name...."

I took a leap of faith and read Strategos the other month. It was self pub. I figured if I did not like it I could hide my negative review in amoungst everybody else's reviews in the group read. :]

IN the end...to be honest..the author didn't 'like' my review, despite telling me that he read it, and yet he 'liked' all the 4 and 5 star reviews.
Most trad published authors won't do that. Most will 'like' our reviews if they are 3. So I guess that shows that many authors are offended by 3 star reviews and won't thank you for the review. While some are pleased with a 3 star review and even if they don't agree with the negative feedback, they want to thank the reviewer for taking the time.

Authors such as Michael Jecks will 'like' 1 and 2 star reviews...because it is all feedback isn't it?

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Paula wrote: " Such a shame that its put you off reading selfpubbed books, those idiots have done indie authors a terrible disservice and giving us a bad name...."

I took a leap of faith and read ..."
Good point! But the whole point of reviews surely aren't for the author in the first place are they? They are for readers so that they can decide whether or not they want to spend their hard earned money on a certain book. Of course feed back for the author is important but i don't believe its the primary purpose of them

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

In my opinion a review is always for fellow readers. I try not to offend an author if I know they are present and will read the review. But that is more a respect based thing, or an avoiding confrontation based thing. I will always be honest in a review though, whether the author is going to read it or not.

In the case of the group read. It wasn't that the author did not 'like' my review - I usually don't care - it is just that i noticed via the author's update feed that he was only 'liking' the 4 or 5 star reviews and that automatically drives home that so many authors don't like 3 star reviews. they want 4 and 5. That always undermines my trust in authors. All authors..not only self pub.

[Jane]

My goodness, even 3*** [which is a perfectly adequate rating and means I liked the book] or a 2** [at least I didn't throw it in the trash :) ] indicates a positive opinion. I spend at least 1/2 to one hour writing most of my reviews and am proud of them. Even my latest 2** I spent the same amount of time on--a group read earlier in the summer. I try to be respectful and to express myself just right, giving my honest opinion.

[Eileen]

Like everyone, I guess some authors are more sensitive than others. I heard Diana Gabaldon say once that she would not recommend an author check out his reviews on Amazon, but she knows they all do. She's been writing for a long time, and gets a nice royalty check that lets her know how she's doing, so she can afford to be ignorant of Amazon reviews. Young folks,just starting out, may not feel they have that luxury.

Still, if they want to make a profession out of writing, and you don't start out with a string of best sellers like Diana Gabaldon, then you should, in all humility, learn from your reviews and respect them - the good and the bad. Ignoring the trolls, of course.

[C.P.]

I can see why the inconsistency bothered you, Terri.

My own policy is never to comment on reviews, even to "like" them or thank people. Reviewers need to feel that they can say what they think. If the author in effect "votes" for the reviews s/he likes, then it's as if s/he is always present, looking over the reviewer's shoulder. As social beings, we can't help taking that presence into account while writing a review.

In the beginning, I did "like" a few reviews, but not these days. Of course, I am not superhuman, so if I see that a new review has posted, I do read it. But if I don't like what they say, I rant around the house until my hubby confiscates my iPad for my own good. Then I let it go. ;-)

GoodReads could go a long way to solve the author/reviewer problem, I think, if it changed its setup. If you don't have an author profile, you may not realize that GR actively encourages authors to review and rate their own books, which is loco. It plasters a cover image of your "most popular" book up in the top right corner and tells you every time you hit the home tab how many ratings and reviews it has. You can't turn it off, even if you want to. No wonder people get obsessed.

I don't actually understand why authors are allowed to respond to reviews of their own books at all. Aren't the computers sophisticated enough to figure out that Profile X is attached to Books Y and Z? All an author really needs is the ability to skim reviews for useful feedback and a flag to report truly offensive remarks (giving someone a three-star rating does not qualify as offensive).

Of course, you'd still have sock puppets and authors sending reviewers private messages, but that takes effort. GR could at least remove the low-hanging fruit.

[Jane]

I guess I'm a little proud if someone 'likes' a review because of all the effort I put into writing it. I'm only human, after all. :) I've seen some of the authors' rating and reviewing their own books; you're right, C.P., it is goofy!! And authors 'liking' only 4 and 5 star ratings of their own books is sad. Like you said, authors should read reviews, then maybe they'll get some feedback about what impressed, disappointed or disgusted the reviewer, to help the authors in future.

[C.P.]

I use the review space to give background information; quite a few authors do that. (I did thank the people who commented there, because they were responding to me.) But GR could set up a space for that independent of reviews.

Good point about people enjoying the "like" function. I think it's great for readers (and I use it as a reader, if I think a review is thoughtful and well written). But an author either has to like every review or pick and choose. The first could be viewed as intrusive and the second is problematic for the reasons Terri states.

[Eileen]

C.P. wrote: "I can see why the inconsistency bothered you, Terri.

My own policy is never to comment on reviews, even to "like" them or thank people. Reviewers need to feel that they can say what they think. If..."

I agree, it is odd that authors can review and rate their own books. What would it mean if an author gave themselves something less than 5 stars??

It is not necessarily a bad thing that authors can respond to your reviews. It can happen on Amazon. In fact, I reviewed Strategos on Amazon and then Gordon responded back and we ended up with quite a long thread of back and forth comments. We both learned from the interaction, I think. But he was quite polite and reasonable, so it went well, which doesn't always happen. Based on the comments I see posted to the Washington Post website, "polite and reasonable" is a scarce commodity.

[Michal]

I guess I can understand if an author likes reviews based on the length - in a sense that they like if someone took the time to think and write more elaborate feedback, regardless of the valence of the feedback (as long as it is polite).
The liking of only positive reviews...well, it is a bit weird. In the incident described by Terri...I was not following it very closely, but Gordon seemed to be quite friendly and open to negative feedback and therefore I would give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps when reading very positive review he just automatically liked it as a thanks for the praise and buying the book, while with more constructive feedback he was just thinking of how to incorporate it into his writing and forgotten to like it, even though in fact he did like it :).
Anyway, I think it is a bit naive to think that most of the people think that it is quite positive feedback when they are rating the book with 3 stars. This measure has very likely range restriction problems. Without paying too much attention to what the stars mean in words, 3 stars seem to be an average. For me it means that "ok, I have finished it, but I am unlikely to read anything else by the author". If I thought I would give lower rating, then I probably wouldn't have finished the book (it is not my job to finish the books, I want to be entertained) and therefore I wouldn't rate it. This way it will be rare for me to use the lower rating, and it will happen only in cases where I was tricked by the author into hoping that the the book was going to improve, which consequently made me angry. These are actually quite frequent problems when you are using any rating scales. Anyway, there are clearly users that are trying to use the whole range of stars in their evaluations. I am just saying that most of the people probably do it the way I just described...

[Jane]

I try to follow what GR says the ratings mean: 3 stars means you like the book; whether or not you would read any others by the author is irrelevant. 2 stars means to me the book was just ok, so-so, mediocre. I'd definitely not read anything else by that author unless there were a subject I was really interested in, plus positive reviews, not only GR or Amazon but library magazines, etc. For some of my reviews I've given partial stars, i.e., .5 or, say, .75, since GR doesn't have any other option than their 5-star system. So to fit in the GR system, I have to use what options they give and either round up or down from a decimal system.

[Andy]

I tend to follow reviews from friends & like minded "associates" that i follow so that I can look to wead out any dodgy books on my trl than jus the usual Ohhh that looks a preety cover I might like that...!

As for giving reviews myself, well i spend about 5-10mins tops & try to give out a heads-up synopsis that this might get yer fancy OR steer clear, i mean what more could you ask for? I dont tend to read thro all 30-50 reviews but jus get a feel/snapshot for the book

Now if you do it professionaly then ok it's a diffo kettle of fish but for us punters (i'd say the majority on GR) it's really mostly (imo) jus a friendly (or not so) token review & should be taken as thus by any such professionals?

[Mark]

I kind of go with the star rating of friends and people I follow on goodreads, if a book gets different star ratings I see which friends rated it low and I ask what they didnt like about it and go from there.

[Bryn]

I came to the conclusions C.P. did, and never 'like' reviews of my books. I have to hope that isn't seen as ungracious. It's meant to be non-intrusive.

[Andy]

That would seem to be the best way Bryn to my way of thinking too. If I'd made a review on a book & the author came back to me "publically" with comments i'd think that a bit strange tbh.

[Darcy]

I never understood why authors use the 'like' feature for reviews of their own books. Unless it's used as a means of thanking the reviewer for their time, in which case they'd have to 'like' all reviews. I also don't understand why an author has the ability to rate and review their work. That's like asking a defendant to determine guilt or innocence. A few will be honest, the rest... are going to save themselves. ;)

The only time I don't mind discussing a review with an author is if I won the book and it's done in the back ground as a request for more constructive information. I've had some quite wonderful dialogues. I can see how these could also deteriorate, but it's my estimation that if they bothered to spend time reading my review and ask for more, then they're more than welcome to it, time allowing.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

I have to admit I like it when anyone "likes" my reviews. It tells me that people are reading them.

[Jane]

Same way I feel; not only folks are reading them plus I am a little proud when someone 'likes' the way I've put something together! :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

C.P. wrote: "GoodReads could go a long way to solve the author/reviewer problem, I think, if it changed its setup. If you don't have an author profile, you may not realize that GR actively encourages authors to review and rate their own books, which is loco. It plasters a cover image of your "most popular" book up in the top right corner and tells you every time you hit the home tab how many ratings and reviews it has. You can't turn it off, even if you want to. No wonder people get obsessed.

.."

Really!!?? I am stunned. This is bad policy. IN my opinion, an author should NEVER rate their own book.
They shouldn't review it either, but I am a lot mroe comfortable with an author doing a write up on their book. As long as they don't rate it as that affects the overall average rating.

Still..I can't see why an author should be allowed to review their own book. that has always been weird to me. At least if they use their own name and are clear that it is their book and the words are talking about the book...not negative towards reviewers, then I guess it is harmless. Weird, but harmless.

It is the self rating that bugs the hell out of me.