Ceilidh > Status Update

Experiment BL626 wrote: "Belle wrote: "Experiment BL626 wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "They don't understand the dynamic of this site and author/reader relationships at GoodReads. And that's incredibly frustrating."

You know t..."

I know. I had to sign out to find the info.

Here's yet another author who is in favor of reviewers and against the StGRB site : http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/17...

Experiment BL626 wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "They don't understand the dynamic of this site and author/reader relationships at GoodReads. And that's incredibly frustrating."

You know that's a good topic right there to blog ..."

I've had a GoodReads"guide" from a regular's perspective planned in my head for a while. It just hasn't made it into a post. Lol.

Lexxie wrote: "Here's yet another author who is in favor of reviewers and against the StGRB site : http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/17..."

One more reason to love John Scalzi, wow!

I have seen books/authors shelves here on Goodreads as "authors behaving badly" (is that the correct phrase). I would love it if members could decided on a similar, but positive, shelf name to uniformly use for authors that have class. I would love to be able to see those authors who support readers, and who don't scream over bad reviews.

Sheila wrote: "I have seen books/authors shelves here on Goodreads as "authors behaving badly" (is that the correct phrase). I would love it if members could decided on a similar, but positive, shelf name to uni..."

Some readers do have "awesome authors" shelves. I don't because if you are on any of the other "TBR" shelves, then you're already awesome for not being on the "DNR" list. The shelves aren't universal. Everybody creates their own.

Plus, if I have an "awesome author" shelf and review their book positively, I don't want people thinking I gave them a good review just because I really like them. This is why I usually post a disclaimer at the end my reviews of authors I'm friendly with. Since I don't review books by author on my "DNR" list, they same principle doesn't apply.

Lexxie wrote: "Here's yet another author who is in favor of reviewers and against the StGRB site : http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/17..."

I really love that John Scalzi spoke out about this. I still need to read his books, but I've loved his commentary on Writing Excuses when he was a guest there.

The hard thing about that is that 99.9% of the authors are good and I have 3000 books on my shelves. Just can't do that. Plus, I don't know for sure about any. But I'm definitely putting the good ones on a good shelf. Thanks for the idea.

Kelly wrote: "The hard thing about that is that 99.9% of the authors are good and I have 3000 books on my shelves. Just can't do that. Plus, I don't know for sure about any. But I'm definitely putting the good o..."

Most authors are decent people. Still, I want to read some books by authors who actively spoke against the site. They didn't have to say anything about it and they probably irritated a mentally disturbed person by making any supportive gesture. I think I'd rather spend some time focusing on them than the authors who are applauding the site.

Lucy wrote: "Kelly wrote: "The hard thing about that is that 99.9% of the authors are good and I have 3000 books on my shelves. Just can't do that. Plus, I don't know for sure about any. But I'm definitely putt..."

I totally agree. I created a shelf just for authors who spoke against it and I added a book from each one even if it wasn't my thing. I noticed that the majority were paranormal romances which is interesting.

And now a very quick break for some happy thoughts: a few pictures that will restore your faith in humanity:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/p...

@ The Holy Terror and Lucy

That is such a good idea and i have a few Stacia Kanes books here she is definetly getting bumped up on the list.

And now The Huffington Post has been in on the blog. I never knew how much shit that site has spewed could land on soo many things but I guess if your Hershey Squirting you don't know where its going to land.

Ahahaha sorry it was just the first thing that came into my mind.

I'll eat your toast for ya its the least I could do.

Archer wrote: "Lovely mental imagery there Becki... Thank you.

Anyone want a plate of toast I have lost my appetite"

Is it Vegemite? or Peanut butter?

I'll have it if it's Vegemite... I'm allergic to peanut butter though.

You have to check out the whole growing "comments" section of the Huffington Post blog post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stop-th...

Archer wrote: "Jam"

Strawberry?

Sheila wrote: "You have to check out the whole growing "comments" section of the Huffington Post blog post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stop-th..."

I especially enjoyed the backpedalling of the HuffPo Books Editor where he claimed that it wasn't his fault that HuffPo did no fact-checking of the original blog post with his 'they seemed really honest when I spoke to them' theme defence...

Most of or all the apologies concerning this site is.

Ceilidh, did they ever take you up on your offer for an interview?

Archer wrote: "That apology was a load of crap "

It really was. The fact they even allowed that to be posted on their site in the first place made my blood boil.

The apology angered me as much as publishing the blog post itself. At least when it had just been the blog post, I had hoped that it was an oversight, that STGB had solicited them for a post, not the other way around, and that the Huffington Post didn't actually understand what the blog was about. Knowing that they sought out the author(s) of the blog because they were interested in their message makes it even worse.

Seriously. The apology was, as Archer said, a load of crap, and was just a cop out for irresponsibly posting the article without actually looking into the site first. Or, you know, admitting you sough out the site and didn't care they were posting personal information, admitting to stalking, and blatantly inciting hatred against innocent people whose only crime was to post a negative review of a book they didn't like.

Oh yeah, we're terrible people up in here.

I have to stop clicking on these things. I was just over at Huffington Post and its gotten me all worked up again. Can't this all just be over already?

I emailed the editor because it said I could and I simply said that they were allowing a group who was breaking specific laws in the state where the site is hosted to have a forum in which to flaunt their illegal activities targeting women. (The only male up there is a guy I adore but they didn't post a picture or anything of him, just said really nasty things. It still woke up Mother Bear from her slumber and she's ready to rumble.) I compared it to them allowing a blog from a group that thought a woman who was raped was asking for it or allowing a stalker to justify his actions.

They won't reply though and it makes me even angrier because it's supposed to be this really liberal newspaper.

I'm waiting for it to show up on the Daily Show. It's totally something the British guy would do a story/interview on. "So you are gathering people together to go after specific people. Because they are bullies. Right." "So you're mad that they use aliases so you out them so to speak? Ok. But you need to use aliases for your safety? Right. That's why we have you sitting in the dark. Yes, we need to make sure no one gets your name and face! Those damn bullies!" and the guy sits there completely missing the hypocrisy.

Kelly wrote: "I emailed the editor because it said I could and I simply said that they were allowing a group who was breaking specific laws in the state where the site is hosted to have a forum in which to flaun..."

Good for you, Kelly!

I love the idea of the Daily Show or Colbert picking this one up.

Jessica-Robyn wrote: "I have to stop clicking on these things. I was just over at Huffington Post and its gotten me all worked up again. Can't this all just be over already?"

Same here. I couldn't sleep last night because the hypocrisy and injustice was burning me.

Archer wrote: "That apology was a load of crap."

Is this the apology you are talking about?(the new story from the Huffington Post books editor)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-...

Yeah, Sheila, that's the one.

The one thing I will give Huffington credit for is actually leaving up all the comments from the people who are against STGRB, since the website itself deletes everything that they don't agree with. At least now, the other side is being heard.

I got a reply that was a generic reiteration of the initial "apology" on the website that makes me think they didn't even read my message.

[Satan's website] has now allowed a couple of mild posts that disagree with them that are trounced nicely by the idiots who run the site.

Actually, I think the mods have blocked me from the site because I've written so many comments that contain pure fact but still discredit their supporting commenters (for example, the meaning of 'buggery' in Australia). Ah, well.

Stephanie wrote: "Actually, I think the mods have blocked me from the site because I've written so many comments that contain pure fact but still discredit their supporting commenters (for example, the meaning of 'buggery' in Australia). Ah, well."

ROFL

The Meaning of Buggery in Australia sounds like a cultural history monograph :)