Goodreads Feedback discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
5113 views
Suggestions & Questions > Why has my review been hidden?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 1,119) (1119 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22 23

message 1: by Ridley (new)

Ridley | 278 comments Why has my review of The Vampires of Vigil's Sorrow been hidden from view? What was the problem with it? We can't have discussions about books we've shelved anymore?


message 2: by Jason (new)

Jason (ancatdubh2) | 107 comments This was Ridley's review:
"When it comes to book bloggers/review websites, I think anyone who posts a scathing rant review of a book without receiving a giant paycheck as compensation are just bitter twats who should probably find a hobby that doesn’t involve tearing down artists who actually contribute something to the world."

You don't say...

But the review itself is hidden. I'd also like to know why.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


message 3: by Bitchie™ (new)

Bitchie™ (Bitchie) | 605 comments GR hides reviews now? I call BS if that's the case.


message 4: by Sheila (new)

Sheila  | 575 comments Was the review about the book, or about the author. I would guess if it was about the author, that might be why it was hidden.


message 5: by Bitchie™ (new)

Bitchie™ (Bitchie) | 605 comments But this just means that GR is listening to all the whining going on about the "bully" reviewers, and that's not fair either. If the author said it, she should have to stand by it, and readers have the right to use it in their reviews.


message 6: by Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:08PM) (new)

Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} (amyorames) | 568 comments I'm guessing someone flagged the review. :(


message 7: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments It would be hard for any of us to decide whether it was fair or not that the review as hidden, or even why since none of us can see the review being asked about.

If enough people flagged it, I imagine it will stay hidden until someone from the GR staff reviews it? I'm not sure how their process works for that, it's not often I've heard about people's review being hidden for some reason. Perhaps it violated the TOS in some degree?


message 8: by Jason (new)

Jason (ancatdubh2) | 107 comments His review was a direct author quote followed by 3 innocuous words. There's no reason that should have been flagged. This GR bullies thing is so stupid. Do people need to be actually bullied in order to understand that a negative review is not bullying?


message 9: by Bitchie™ (new)

Bitchie™ (Bitchie) | 605 comments Has anyone come across any other hidden reviews? Because I've seen some pretty out there reviews, I'd like to know the criteria for getting a review hidden.


message 10: by Lisa (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:17PM) (new)

Lisa Vegan (LisaVegan) | 8927 comments I just saw one that Otis just voted for on The Giving Tree. When I went to view the review, it was hidden. Too bad. Yes, it did look out there as I could view the first couple lines.

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/30... (hmm, sorry, thought that went directly to the hidden review)


message 11: by Tima (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:19PM) (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments Jason wrote: "His review was a direct author quote followed by 3 innocuous words. There's no reason that should have been flagged. This GR bullies thing is so stupid. Do people need to be actually bullied in ord..."

I'm curious how you know what the review was if it has been hidden? When I went to click on the review, nothing showed up but a message stating it was hidden. In my mind, that doesn't prove that there was no reason for it to have been flagged.

If it was unjustly hidden due to vindictive people, I think GR will likely review it and make it visible again.


Edited to add: I just saw the review and the slew of comments afterwards. I can see how that may have been flagged by people who just didn't agree. What a shame, this whole thing has gotten out of hand on this site..on both sides of it.


message 12: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) | 2212 comments @Tiffani I can see the review because Ridley is my friend do her stuff shows up for mr


message 13: by Bitchie™ (new)

Bitchie™ (Bitchie) | 605 comments It showed up for me once I clicked "follow Ridley's reviews". She didn't say anything bad, she just posted the author's quote as reasoning behind it being on her not to read shelf. Hardly a reason to hide her review.


message 14: by Jason (new)

Jason (ancatdubh2) | 107 comments Because you can see it on his bookshelves page. Just go to his bookshelves page and search for "Duffy". At the top, where it says "controls: shelf settings" make sure "reviews" is checked.


message 15: by Jason (new)

Jason (ancatdubh2) | 107 comments I dont know why people are struggling. The review is RIGHT THERE in message 2. It is a quote from Cassandra Duffy, yes from that site, and it is in quotes. NOT plagiarism. It's a quote followed by "you don't say."


message 16: by Sheila (new)

Sheila  | 575 comments Doesn't Goodreads have a policy that reviews are supposed to be about the BOOK itself, and not about the author? There is nothing in Ridley's review (posted in message 2) about the book, only a quote from the author with a comment from Ridley, so that is probably why it was hidden/removed.


message 17: by Dee (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:34PM) (new)

Dee (austhokie) | 2212 comments She hasn't rated the book, it isn't on her read shelf....She left a comment on the book record for her record


Literary Ames {Against GR Censorship} (amyorames) | 568 comments Ridley posted a screenshot of Duffy's comment in the first comment under the review so there's no plagiarism, and Ridley isn't Duffy in disguise.


message 19: by rameau (new)

rameau | 139 comments All my reviews for Cassandra Duffy's books have been hidden too.

In the review space all it said was "See comments" and in the first comment there was a link to Ridley's first comment showing a screencap of Duffy's own comment, the one Petra X linked to.


message 20: by Patrick, Product Manager (new)

Patrick Brown | 957 comments Mod
This is actually not a new thing. We've "hidden" reviews (which means removing them from the book page) ever since I started working here. The new thing is the message that tells you it's been hidden. We recently decided that we should be more transparent about what we do with reviews, so this is the first step in this.

We'll be posting our review guidelines, which clearly spell out what is likely to get a review hidden, in a couple of days. We've been working on these for the past few months, and we think they'll bring a better level of transparency to the site and make it a better place for everyone who contributes.

Our philosophy is that your review is yours to write as you see fit and we're happy to have you express whatever opinions you like in those reviews. They'll always be shown on your profile and be on your shelves, but the book page is ours to curate, and that's something we've been doing since the start of Goodreads. We want to make sure that we're showing the most relevant and most useful reviews on that page.

Ridley, in this particular example, your review was hidden because it is not a review of the book, but rather of the author. One of the points in our guidelines will be "review the book and not the author." If you want to post something about the author's conduct or behavior, that's fine, and we certainly aren't going to delete those reviews, but they will not be shown on the book page. Your friends and followers will be able to read them, just like they always have, but the book page is and always has been for reviews of the book. Again, this isn't new. This is just a more transparent approach to something we've always done. I'm sorry you saw the message before we got our guidelines up. Hopefully when we post those, it will clarify what to expect.


message 21: by Ridley (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:51PM) (new)

Ridley | 278 comments To be fair, I'm reacting to the author's *words* and not her personally. I'm also not calling her names or anything else verboten by the TOS. I could see if I was spamming all of the author's books with 1-star ratings or otherwise gaming the system, but I'm not. I've shelved her book, and my friends and I discussed why in the comments.

So what's the problem? Surely you can find a way to allow readers to freely discuss books and the authors who write them that preserves the integrity of your star rating and review system. In light of the website stalking me and other GR users you must understand why we need to be able to discuss these sorts of things.

(Also, I'm a she, FWIW.)


message 22: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) | 2212 comments So basically what is being said if you cite the authors own words as a reason not to read their book that is an anti-author review and not allowed....


message 23: by rameau (new)

rameau | 139 comments Patrick wrote: "This is actually not a new thing. We've "hidden" reviews (which means removing them from the book page) ever since I started working here. The new thing is the message that tells you it's been hidd..."

That all sounds so fine and uplifting, but right now you're hiding MY reviews from ME. How exactly does that fit in your policy?


message 24: by Patrick, Product Manager (new)

Patrick Brown | 957 comments Mod
rameau wrote: "That all sounds so fine and uplifting, but right now you're hiding MY reviews from ME. How exactly does that fit in your policy?"

Okay, that definitely shouldn't be happening. I'll get somebody to look into that ASAP.

Dee, to answer your question, the same applies to reviews that are like "This author is a total sweetheart." It goes both ways. If it isn't about the book in some way, it's not going to be on the book page.


message 25: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments Great clarification Patrick, thank you for posting a response in such a timely manner and so thoroughly explaining why the review was hidden on the book's page.

Writing a book review that does not have anything to do with an actual review of the book, seems like a good reason to not have it show up in the review section. A reason that seems very legitimate to me. I think opening a discussion on your profile or in a group would be a better place to discuss the author, if that is the person's desire - something I think everyone has the right to do.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments Patrick wrote: "This is actually not a new thing. We've "hidden" reviews (which means removing them from the book page) ever since I started working here. The new thing is the message that tells you it's been hidd..."

Two things:

1. Are you implementing the ability for users to hide their own reviews as well? I know this has been asked for before. It seems unfair that we can't choose to do so but Goodreads can decide for us.

2. What if I want to see a user's "review" (though really these are comments, obviously not reviews) without having to become friends with that user? Sometimes I get linked to things from my friends. Also, I actually already follow Ridley's reviews (but I'm not friends with her) but it is still hidden from me.


message 27: by Kat Kennedy (last edited Jul 25, 2012 05:54PM) (new)

Kat Kennedy (KatKennedy) | 70 comments I think that's a good point, Patrick and probably a good measure for Goodreads to take. But can we get clarification on Rameu's status? That is my only concern.

*Nevercmind. Answered. Thanks.


message 28: by Dee (new)

Dee (austhokie) | 2212 comments So by this new logic I could shelve the book no "review" but comment links etc and it wouldn't be hidden...correct


message 29: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments Alicia: To your second point, I don't follow Ridley's reviews and am not her friend but when I go to her profile I was able to see her review of the book in her "Recent Update" section of her profile, as it is public.

I think it only pops up with that message if you click on a direct link to the review.


message 30: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Patrick wrote: "It goes both ways. If it isn't about the book in some way, it's not going to be on the book page. "

So....to be clear....if a review includes opinion(s) about the author but discusses the book, the review will not be hidden? Because often it's awfully hard to discuss a book without implicating the author, and the quality of said author, in some way.

Thus far I'm finding this new policy worrisome and a little creepy.


message 31: by Ridley (new)

Ridley | 278 comments Can't you just de-prioritize them below reviews with a rating? Why hide them entirely? Why isn't an author a legitimate discussion topic?


message 32: by rameau (new)

rameau | 139 comments Patrick wrote: "rameau wrote: "That all sounds so fine and uplifting, but right now you're hiding MY reviews from ME. How exactly does that fit in your policy?"

Okay, that definitely shouldn't be happening. I'll ..."


I'd also like to know are you going to start hiding reviews from the people I'm following? There's a reason I'm only "following" their reviews and haven't tried to friend most of them. The reviews and shelvings are that reason.

Also, how are you determining what is and isn't about the book? I have reviewed and shelved several books under the same text in the review space "See comments" but in the comments I've clarified whether the shelving has to do with authorial behaviour or the book itself.

For example, if you were to peruse my p2p (short for pulled to publish fanfiction) you'd see that I've catalogued books that started as fanfics and were published for money after a mere search & replace place names. I consider that "review" to be of the book and not the author. Are you hiding those as well?


message 33: by Steph (last edited Jul 25, 2012 06:01PM) (new)

Steph Sinclair (Stephaniesinclair) | 272 comments Okay, here is my concern. I understand why this policy is in place and to be fair, I was fully aware of it. Though, I must admit I didn't know GR hid reviews. I thought they deleted them, since that is what happened to one of mine when I quoted an author.

I don't expect my "see comments" or "DNR" shelvingd to make the book page. That's fine and dandy, but why is it that the direct link does not show you the review? I'm not friends with Ridley nor do I follow her, but when if I wanted to see the review? Why am I censored from the direct link? That is my only problem.


message 34: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments That's my understanding, Lobstergirl. Patrick did say that this is not a new procedure and they've been doing for quite a long time, only now they are making it transparent and releasing a set of policies for people to follow.

Many of my book reviews have had mention of an author in a good/bad light and none have been hidden thus far, so I assume it's fine and dandy as long as it's relevant to an actual review?


message 35: by Patrick, Product Manager (new)

Patrick Brown | 957 comments Mod
Tiffani wrote: "Alicia: To your second point, I don't follow Ridley's reviews and am not her friend but when I go to her profile I was able to see her review of the book in her "Recent Update" section of her profi..."

Yep, that's expected behavior. Your profile is yours, so the review will always show as public there, to friends or not. The only place it isn't going to appear is on the book page.

Lobstergirl, this isn't a new policy. It's always been the case. Of course if your review touches on the author but is clearly about the book, that's fine and will not be hidden. We understand that it's tough to discuss a book without discussing the author.

Dee, that sounds like something we would hide, as well. Again, it's fine if you want to shelve the book "will not read" or whatever, but we're probably not going to show that on the book page.


message 36: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl This is all very Stepford.


Alicia (is beyond tired of your *ish) (OstensiblyA) | 358 comments Tiffani wrote: "Alicia: To your second point, I don't follow Ridley's reviews and am not her friend but when I go to her profile I was able to see her review of the book in her "Recent Update" section of her profi..."

Once it's gone from her front page I won't be able to see the review. And I can't see the comments and participate if I want to. This is really prohibitive.


message 38: by Kim (new)

Kim | 105 comments Ridley wrote: "Can't you just de-prioritize them below reviews with a rating? Why hide them entirely? Why isn't an author a legitimate discussion topic?"

Because you were writing a book review, not an author review. When looking at books to read I don't care one bit about the author, just the book. I want to read reviews about the book. If you want to discuss the author then discuss them, but not in a book review.


message 39: by rameau (new)

rameau | 139 comments Stephanie wrote: "Okay, here is my concern. I understand why this policy is in place and to be fair, I was fully aware of it. Though, I must admit I didn't know GR hid reviews. I thought they deleted them, since tha..."

Sounds like the problem I have with my own reviews. The direct links aren't working.


message 40: by Patrick, Product Manager (new)

Patrick Brown | 957 comments Mod
rameau wrote: "Sounds like the problem I have with my own reviews. The direct links aren't working."

A developer has just committed a fix for that and it will go live tomorrow morning. Thanks for your patience.


message 41: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Does this apply to dead authors? Dead authors don't really care.


message 42: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments I guess I don't understand what is so terrible about it. If you're not discussing the book at all and are just talking about the author (whether it be positive or negative) posting your opinion in a section dedicated entirely to reviews, doesn't really fit. In my opinion, anyways. Reviewing an author is not really reviewing a book and therefore should definitely not show up on the books review page.

Or maybe I'm just missing understanding of what makes this such a creepy thing? Care to explain why?


message 43: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Kim wrote: "If you want to discuss the author then discuss them, but not in a book review. "

Oh come now, that's silly. Really.


♆ BookAddict  ✒ La Crimson Femme (lacrimsonfemme) | 470 comments Patrick wrote: "
Dee, to answer your question, the same applies to reviews that are like "This author is a total sweetheart." It goes both ways. If it isn't about the book in some way, it's not going to be on the book page. "


Patrick, I'm concerned and was hoping for clarification. Does this mean when I reference the author in my review, it will mean the review will be hidden? I will eagerly wait to see the updated clarification so I know how to ensure my reviews don't violate anything.

I think I'm okay here but now I'm not sure. I generally give things I would have liked to see and make recommends to the author. (Well, they probably never seen them.) I also mention what I really liked that they did. Other times, at the end of a book review for a book with a cliff hanger, I'll write something like "And we better be seeing XXX in the next book, Mr./Ms. Author! Write faster!"

For example - I have this in one of my newest reviews - Backfire review.


This was well done of Ms. Coulter. Her bad guys were bad with a purpose. Learning about their backgrounds shows why they do what they do, even if the readers find them repulsive or reprehensible.

Ms. Coulter creates great villains in this story. While there are some run of the mill con artists, the mastermind behind the killings are phenomenal. These are bad guys with a plan and who think. Many times, authors create the villains to be dumb and bumbling. Here, there are direct and thorough planners as well as the elaborately psychotic ones. It's an interesting dichotomy which baffles the LEO in the story as well as readers.
Once more information is revealed, it all makes sense.

Is this wrong? Should I not do this?



message 45: by rameau (new)

rameau | 139 comments Patrick wrote: "rameau wrote: "Sounds like the problem I have with my own reviews. The direct links aren't working."

A developer has just committed a fix for that and it will go live tomorrow morning. Thanks for ..."


Your tomorrow morning will be my afternoon if not evening, but thanks. I just hope it works for all users and not just me individually.


message 46: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments Kim wrote: "Ridley wrote: "Can't you just de-prioritize them below reviews with a rating? Why hide them entirely? Why isn't an author a legitimate discussion topic?"

Because you were writing a book review, no..."


I should've refreshed the page to see your comment, Kim! Took the words directly out of my mouth.


message 47: by Ridley (new)

Ridley | 278 comments I find it stifling. Authors should be fair game for discussion. Books aren't written or read in a vacuum.

Why not just leave the "reviews" on the book page and trust users to decide for themselves if the info has value? Why make that decision for them?


message 48: by Bitchie™ (new)

Bitchie™ (Bitchie) | 605 comments Kim wrote: "Ridley wrote: "Can't you just de-prioritize them below reviews with a rating? Why hide them entirely? Why isn't an author a legitimate discussion topic?"

Because you were writing a book review, no..."


But some of us DO care, and do not want to reward very bad behavior, and tend to investigate more carefully, authors on people's do not read shelves, and hiding their reviews makes that difficult.


message 49: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Tiffani wrote: "Or maybe I'm just missing understanding of what makes this such a creepy thing? Care to explain why? "

It puts a damper on free discussion and free opinion. It causes self-censorship.


message 50: by Tima (new)

Tima (tsunanisaurus) | 180 comments The review is only hidden if it contains absolutely no review of the book and is only about the author.

The authors are fair game for discussion, from my understanding, they just need to be conducted in the right place.


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22 23
back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.