mark monday > Status Update

mark monday
mark monday added a status update
Hi Mark,
Your reviews ... were recently flagged by Goodreads members as potentially off-topic:
All Flesh is Grass
The 5th Wave The Void Moomins Cookbook An Uncommon Whore
As the reviews are not about the books in question, they have been removed from the site. You can find the text of the reviews attached.
If you continue to post content like this, your account may come under review for removal.
Oct 10, 2013 03:16PM

78 likes ·  flag

Comments (showing 51-100 of 208) (208 new)


message 51: by [Name Redacted] (new)

[Name Redacted] Ceridwen wrote: "Can we call this the shark-jump?

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."


Agreed.


message 52: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington I had the very same thing happen...

"Hi Jonathan,

Your reviews of Unannounced and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung were recently flagged by Goodreads members as potentially off-topic. As the reviews are not about the books in question, they have been removed from the site. You can find the text of the reviews attached for your personal records.

Please note that if you continue to post content like this, your account may come under review.

Sincerely,
The Goodreads Team"

The irony is that those reviews were written to point out and check whether censorship was happening on Goodreads. Guess that showed up the system!


message 53: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington Problems with the vagueness:
"Potentially off topic" - Were they or weren't they off topic?
"As the reviews are not about the books in question" - hang on didn't you just say they only might be off topic?
"your account may come under review" - ah the big threat!

No censorship going on whatsoever here people.


message 54: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan Well, the book is the topic.


message 55: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan Jonathan wrote: "I had the very same thing happen...

"Hi Jonathan,

Your reviews of Unannounced and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung were recently flagged by Goodreads members as potentially off-topic. As the..."


What was the content of the reviews?


message 56: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington It's up on my status in the comments here: https://www.goodreads.com/user_status...

It merely amuses me because whoever went through and deleted clearly didn't get why they were off topic or they deleted them because it pointed out some unfortunate truths like the fact that the policy change was sneakily hidden away!


message 57: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Oct 10, 2013 07:39PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ Alfaniel wrote: ""Flagged as potentially off-topic" and "they were not about the books in question"?

There is no "author behavior" in any of them.
(edit: the review of Moomins Cookbook concerns also the author actually, the rest do not. That's 1/5.)"


Alfaniel wrote: "OK, they weren't the most carefully written reviews and indeed off-topic. But they don't concern author behavior (so the new rule doesn't exactly apply, even). ..."

William Herschel wrote: "Well, this is scary. I was under the impression I could write whatever I wanted in my review section. ..."


FWIW, reviews which weren't predominantly about the book were *always* flaggable. But in the past, they were hidden (removed from the community book page), not deleted. Of course, then and now, it always required people to care enough to flag such non-book/off topic reviews.

*shrug*


message 58: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan Point taken, thanks Karma.


message 59: by mark (last edited Oct 10, 2013 07:49PM) (new)

mark monday therein lies the problem. I see no problem with hidden reviews. or hidden shelves for that matter, which do not exist on Goodreads. but instead of hiding, Goodreads prefers to censor. it's a gross decision. and a lazy one as well. both issues (author ire and goodreads' need to make money off of authors) could have been solved by allowing goodreads members to have private shelves and to have their reviews only visible to friends if they fall out of "review" parameters.


message 60: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington mark wrote: "therein lies the problem. I see no problem with hidden reviews. or hidden shelves for that matter, which do not exist on Goodreads. but instead of hiding, Goodreads prefers to censor. it's a gross ..."

Agree 100 percent.


message 61: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Oct 10, 2013 07:55PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ mark wrote: "therein lies the problem. I see no problem with hidden reviews. or hidden shelves for that matter, which do not exist on Goodreads. but instead of hiding, Goodreads prefers to censor. it's a gross decision."

Yup *nods vehemently* And further adding to the insult is the selective manner of enforcement. (By this, I'm referring mostly to the 'author behaviour' verboten crap in that anything negative re: author = deleted whilst anything positive remains.)

ETA: for clarity


message 62: by mark (new)

mark monday the first 21, exactly.


message 63: by Arthur (last edited Oct 10, 2013 07:59PM) (new)

Arthur Graham Who do I have to show my cock to in order to get on this coveted "author behavior" list? That's what I wanna know!


message 64: by Randolph (new)

Randolph What I want to know is who goes around flagging all these things? Who has the time in their life to bother with a bit of fun nonsense and wants to delete it? Is badreads doing this flagging or are there non-br people who actually troll the site looking for something to flag?

Why not just randomly flag everything you come across as an anarchistic protest? bramazon would have to hire a horde of zombies just to keep up.


message 65: by Richard (new)

Richard Derus Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck.

Strong letter to follow.


message 66: by Nefariousbig (last edited Oct 10, 2013 08:03PM) (new)

Nefariousbig Arthur wrote: "Who do I have to show my cock to in order to get on this coveted "author behavior" list? That's what I wanna know!"

Did you even have to ask that, dear? I'm standing right here.


message 67: by Arthur (new)

Arthur Graham Frances wrote: "Did you even have to ask that, dear?"

Awww, I knew you'd drop by, sweety :-*


message 68: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig Arthur wrote: "Frances wrote: "Did you even have to ask that, dear?" Awww, I knew you'd drop by, sweety :-*"

I'll always be here for you. I'm always good for one thing or another. So...how about that show?


message 69: by Arthur (last edited Oct 10, 2013 08:11PM) (new)

Arthur Graham So far, I've only ever made it onto the "sweetest authors" list, so maybe it really is time that I stepped up the douche factor?


message 70: by mark (last edited Oct 10, 2013 08:17PM) (new)

mark monday Randolph wrote: "Why not just randomly flag everything you come across as an anarchistic protest? ..."

this is exactly what has been happening, except perhaps minus the anarchistic part. I posted the reviews to be flagged, as a comment on the new policy of course. but they also functioned as a test to see what exactly Goodreads would be targeting. and I suppose to just be a pain in the ass as well. several other reviewers have done the same.


message 71: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig That is fucking BULLSHIT! Those people aren't worthy enough to lick the soles of your feet. Fucking tards. Oh my gosh, I am drunk as a skunk.


message 72: by Trudi (new)

Trudi Frances wrote: "Arthur wrote: "Who do I have to show my cock to in order to get on this coveted "author behavior" list? That's what I wanna know!"

Did you even have to ask that, dear? I'm standing right here."


LMFAO .... awww Frances. Don't ever let them change you.


message 73: by Arthur (last edited Oct 10, 2013 08:19PM) (new)

Arthur Graham mark wrote: "I posted the reviews to be flagged, as a comment on the new policy of course. but they also functioned as a test to see what exactly Goodreads would be targeting"

Well played, my man.


message 74: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig Trudi wrote: .."

Miss Trudi, they aren't even fit enough to chamge my diaper!


message 75: by Arthur (new)

Arthur Graham Frances wrote: "That is fucking BULLSHIT! Those people aren't worthy enough to lick the soles of your feet. Fucking tards. Oh my gosh, I am drunk as a skunk."

I'm replying to this just in case you decide to delete it tomorrow ;-)


message 76: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig Because I said tards or because I'm drunk?


message 77: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan Randolph wrote: "What I want to know is who goes around flagging all these things? Who has the time in their life to bother with a bit of fun nonsense and wants to delete it? Is badreads doing this flagging or ar..."

I have done some of that, after GR new rules the past month: flagging reviews of a handful of reviewers, which were not "strictly about the book". Some were posted intently (as mark above) to object to GR policy. Others were simply breaking (or apparently breaking) the ToU in other ways.

It's very easy to break the ToU. For instance, it claims that everything posted as your user content, must be accurate and complete information. Every review that is an essay, has fictional elements, is a piece of art, is in violation of the ToU.

The ToU is essentially unenforceable, or only enforceable at GR's whim.


message 78: by Arthur (new)

Arthur Graham Because you're fuckin' awesome, bitch!


message 79: by Trudi (new)

Trudi Arthur wrote: "Because you're fuckin' awesome, bitch!"

+1


message 80: by Arthur (new)

Arthur Graham Alfaniel wrote: "It's very easy to break the ToU. For instance, it claims that everything posted as your user content, must be accurate and complete information. Every review that is an essay, has fictional elements, is a piece of art, is in violation of the ToU.

The ToU is essentially unenforceable, or only enforceable at GR's whim. "


That's a very good point. And some of the best reviews I've read/written fly in the face of that shit!


message 81: by Carol. (last edited Oct 10, 2013 08:37PM) (new)

Carol. BirdBrian ***Defy Censorship*** wrote: "
That would be me, probably, but I was a (mean) Silver Ager. Reincarnated now as a- whatever this current age is."


the coal age? the industrial machine age? the stone age? the brave new world?


message 82: by Trudi (new)

Trudi Carol. [Director of My Own Shelving] wrote: "the coal age? the industrial machine age? the brave new world? ..."

All I know, it's thirteen o'clock somewhere. We all should be drunk by now.


message 83: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig Trudi wrote: "Carol. [Director of My Own Shelving] wrote: "the coal age? the industrial machine age? the brave new world? ..."

All I know, it's thirteen o'clock somewhere. We all should be drunk by now."


WOO FUCKIN' HOO


message 84: by Carol. (new)

Carol. Frances beat us there.


message 85: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig Yes. YES, I DID!


message 86: by Trudi (last edited Oct 10, 2013 09:05PM) (new)

Trudi Carol. [Director of My Own Shelving] wrote: "Frances beat us there."

That girl's faster than greased lightning and easier than an Easy Bake Oven. This one time? She found a liquor store, and she drank it.

*thank you thank you, I'll be here all week*


message 87: by Nefariousbig (new)

Nefariousbig HAHAHAHAHAH! Wait...what?


message 88: by Arthur (new)

Arthur Graham Trudi wrote: "That girl's faster than greased lightning and easier than an Easy Bake Oven. This one time? She found a liquor store, and she drank it"

Yes. Wouldn't know. And lol.


Karma♥Bites ^.~ Frances wrote: "Because I said tards or because I'm drunk?"

Trudi wrote: "...That girl's faster than greased lightning and easier than an Easy Bake Oven. This one time? She found a liquor store, and she drank it.

*thank you thank you, I'll be here all week*"


Thanks, everyone, for the much needed laughs. Awesome to see humour maintained thruout all this. :D


message 90: by Carol. (new)

Carol. Speaking of laughs: my eyes were tired and i thought i read 'tardis' and i was getting confused by how dr. who fit into the conversation.


message 91: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell 'As the reviews are not about the books in question, they have been removed from the site.'

ffffffffuuuuuuuu. Wow.


message 92: by Moira (new)

Moira Russell Carol. [Director of My Own Shelving] wrote: "BirdBrian ***Defy Censorship*** wrote: "
That would be me, probably, but I was a (mean) Silver Ager. Reincarnated now as a- whatever this current age is."

the coal age? the industrial machine age..."


Age of Lead is traditionally the one before shit blows up, I think.


message 93: by Ian (new)

Ian "Marvin" Graye This is the age of Iron Pyrites.


message 94: by Clouds (new)

Clouds **Reposted all Mark's deleted reviews under the Hydra banner.


message 95: by Paul (new)

Paul Bryant Alfaniel was right, his flagging of my protest non-review of "Logic : A Short Introduction" has resulted in that one being deleted. I hope the GR employee who reviewed this review could see the funny side, because it was about him or her .

(picture was of a guy sitting at his office desk regarding his gigantic in-tray with horror) Text as follows:


Another hapless Goodreads employee contemplates his in-tray.

It contains reviews which have been flagged for focussing on author behaviour, which is not allowed ("we will now delete these entirely from the site").

Our poor Goodreads employee now has to read through all these flagged reviews to figure out if they do indeed contravene the policy. It's a terrible job, but somebody has to do it. The flagged reviews are pouring in to the Goodreads office. The ones shown in his in-tray above arrived while he was having a ten minute coffee break. (He'll need something stronger than coffee soon.)

The thing is, what does he do with this beautifully argued review here by the brilliant Manny, which is all about the terrible Holocaust denier David Irving

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

or my own huffy denunciation of the homophobic Orson Scott Card's opinions

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

These clearly should be zapped. We say loudly that we're not going to read these books and the authors are awful.

The New GR Policy was thought up to try to cool things out over there in the YA section, where reviewers and authors have at times, I regret to say, indulged in unseemly name-calling. But there is such a thing as logic and fairness.

So if any reviews have been deleted entirely from GR, the above two should by the same rule.

I will be posting a copy of this short introduction to Logic to the GR head office in San Francisco. It might help.



message 96: by Ian (new)

Ian "Marvin" Graye As your reviews are not about the books in question, they have been removed from sale.


message 97: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan Sorry your review was removed, it was funny and provocative. And with it, there goes the theory that only YA will be targeted. What was that image? Could you submit the text to hiddenreviews.tumblr.com archive?

I'll note that only the text of the review in question is sent to the member. The comments section is lost.


message 98: by Ian (new)

Ian "Marvin" Graye Now we can determine the wisdom of flagging each other's reviews.


message 99: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan I don't think it's "wise" to rely on a single company site for our content. It never is. While it has been interesting to test more precisely the limits and intentions of GR/Amazon, I didn't need a proof that GR/Amazon can be trusted or not; there should never have to be an unique store for our content, and that store, run by a commercial corporation with the usual over-reaching ToS.

With it, they force us, users, to trust them. They get for themselves all rights, and leave for us their benevolence and official promises.


message 100: by Ian (new)

Ian "Marvin" Graye I don't see the issue as that different from control of a blog host.


back to top

All of mark’s status updates