Jonathan Terrington > Status Update

Jonathan Terrington
Jonathan Terrington added a status update
HAHAHAHA it looks like I did beat the system. My reviews of Unnanounced and Chairman Mao's Quatations were deleted! And apparently if I keep posting reviews not about the book my account will come under question!
Oct 10, 2013 06:53PM

10 likes ·  flag

Comments (showing 1-14 of 14) (14 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington "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"

So, um, censorship anyone? Now any review not talking about the book can be deleted :O


message 2: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington The two reviews read as such:

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung, by Mao Tse-tung

So apparently Goodreads want to remove, without warning, any review that doesn't actually talk about the book (well more or less) but attacks the author. Not hide, not ask the author nicely to change, just a total removal. So I'm not actually going to write a review about this book, I'm testing the waters (inspired by certain friends) to ask whether we can all show Goodreads just a little how ridiculous and unprofessional the sudden changes to its terms of service are by posting reviews and shelves like this. I mean, really, what kind of grey area are we going into? Are some of the excellent humorous reviews out there just going to disappear, hence removing some of the fun of this site?

If this review still stands by the same time next week as it is (including shelves). Well, I'll take it that Goodreads are making empty statements and that is that - more for the sake of legalities.

Also, Chairman Mao was a rather vile dictator who killed off millions of his people. More of his own people than Hitler committed genocide. I can't see his ego getting stroked from beyond the grave...

Which is why I want to further add. Why are Goodreads making this effort to stoke author egos? I see more directed at readers here. Yes, maybe some shelves are pointlessly rude. But not giving people a chance to save content and change (doing a backflip) is just unethical. And Mao is still evil.

UPDATE: Still nothing from Goodreads on what they've done so unprofessionally. An amendment and apology couldn't be that hard right?


message 3: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington Unannounced, by George Beddingfield


Okay, I'm totally hijacking this novel for use in protesting against the unannounced changes to Goodreads policy. But, it was a non-reviewed or read novel so I figure I'm giving it more attention than ever before!

For those of you unaware of the situation:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Yeah, that's right. Rather than make a sitewide announcement they put up an 'important note' sloppily stating that any review could now come open for questioning on a group that was hidden away.

Yes, none of my reviews have been affected and maybe none of yours have been. The issue is the potential the particular wording and background movements behind this which none of us are fully aware of. We need more transparency on something in which we are invested and in which we create the content which allows for Goodreads to make money.

There was an analogy made in an article arguing that this was not censorship. The article suggested that this was like me using a friend's garage to store my valuables and then either later getting upset when he decided he wanted to loan out the garage to someone else or make me pay for it. It's his garage, the article said, and you've been getting a free service for it all along. That is true, but the more appropriate analogy would be to say that Goodreads are the friend that either throw out your valuables without warning or sell your stuff because it suits them. Both are highly unethical.

I'm sorry, but censorship exists anytime you tell someone emphatically that there are only particular ways to respond to something. In deleting negative reviews of the book - well particularly singling certain reviewers out and driving them away - Goodreads is acting in censorship. By staying silent and not giving a sitewide announcement they reveal more and more that they know what they are doing is wrong. And regardless of what you think, censorship has historically never worked and always is shown as wrong.


message 4: by Amber (new)

Amber It sounds like the users are the ones flagging things but I don't know if that isn't simply a covert and clever way to shift blame off the website masters...


message 5: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington Amber wrote: "It sounds like the users are the ones flagging things but I don't know if that isn't simply a covert and clever way to shift blame off the website masters..."

We are, we're trying to see what Goodreads vague policy really is. That's the irony of getting these reviews deleted!


message 6: by Alfaniel (new)

Alfaniel Aldavan GR official statements say that users flag, but a GR employee looks at the flags, and determines if the reviews abide by the ToS or not. If they do, they won't be deleted no matter how many times they're flagged.


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

I think it's because there's been too many troll flaggings and reviews for the staff not to respond and they can't think of any other way.

But it's creepy, nevertheless. Can't they just get the hint and repeal the policy already?


message 8: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington Jocelyn wrote: "I think it's because there's been too many troll flaggings and reviews for the staff not to respond and they can't think of any other way.

But it's creepy, nevertheless. Can't they just get the hi..."


It's still unprofessional and unimaginative either way...


message 9: by Clouds (new)

Clouds ** Hydra


message 11: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Amber wrote: "It sounds like the users are the ones flagging things but I don't know if that isn't simply a covert and clever way to shift blame off the website masters..."

You know, I can't think of why any reviewer or booklover in his right mind would support this ridiculous arbitrary censorship. Rather, I think this is a movement that is being sponsored by certain indie authors. I don't know about you, but I have a lot of indie authors in my friend's list. Some of them are definitely above board and I know they wouldn't be involved in friending people to stalk them and flag their reviews, but there are other authors that I've stupidly accepted GR friendhip requests from, that I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't unfriend and block, bc I can't think of anybody else who would be doing all of this flagging.

It looks like the current GR staff are either too stupid to care about losing their best reviewers, or Amazon is simply too big for them to care.

Ugh, how Otis could have sold us out like this... this whole thing is doing so much harm to what used to be a wonderful repository of knowledge and creativity.


message 12: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington It's the thing about big giant corporations. They reach a point where they don't care and ever so often it actually does come back to bite them. It happened in the civilisation of Rome - because it is the public that controls these corporations with the power of awareness.


message 13: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Good point about Rome! The hubris...


message 14: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Terrington Traveller wrote: "Good point about Rome! The hubris..."

I love Gladiator as a film, not because it is in any way historically accurate, but because it best shows how Rome was a machine fuelled by the mob. Goodreads and the internet is similar. Fuelled by the people.


back to top