Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Thanks. Took a few days to get round to it, but now done: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Antonomasia wrote: "Thanks. Took a few days to get round to it, but now done: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..."

Excellent. Looking forward to the discussion

Have you thought about some sort of list or event for titles that have been nominated the most times without winning? I suspect Flatland may be top of that because it appears in the polls so often, and looks set to be in yet another for this July. Perhaps the top 5 or so of these books - which seem to be of great ongoing interest to the most active members but less so to the wider consitutency of members voting - deserve some kind of recognition and shelving?

We tend to use buddy reads for books that consistently make polls but don't win. I'm not sure how a list or event for these titles would work, other than adding another section apart from group reads and buddy reads.

Thank you so much for your welcoming and informative message! If I have any questions, should I come here to ask them?

Bri wrote: "Thank you so much for your welcoming and informative message! If I have any questions, should I come here to ask them?"

Here is our "Got a Question?" Thread. A great place to ask any question about the group: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

thanks!

Bri wrote: "thanks!"

Any time.

Hi, thank you for the explanation. Delighted to have found this site. I have ordered Gaskell's Cranford, as it is--from what I understand--one of the choices for January. But does this mean we should have finished reading the book by January 1st, or just by the last day of the month in question? Or some other scenario? How do people discuss the book if they are at different sections of the book, without revealing spoilers? (I know spoilers may not be considered an issue in serious reading, but still...) Thanks for any insight you can give me!

Victoria wrote: "Hi, thank you for the explanation. Delighted to have found this site. I have ordered Gaskell's Cranford, as it is from what I understand, one of the choices for January. But does this mean we shoul..."

We start reading and discussing on January 1st. So some people read it by then, and others read it during that month. For long reads, we read over three months.

We have two threads for each book that we read. One is a spoiler thread and the other is a non spoiler thread. It is best to be careful when reading the posts in the spoiler thread if you have not finished the book. Some people use spoiler tags, but others are using the app on their phone and those are not available to them.

Hope you enjoy the book.

Hello this is a continuation of an etiquette discussion from a nominations thread. Personally, I think polite is better. Since we are not seeing facial cues and hearing voice cues, I always try to interpret posts in the kindest manner possible.

To thank or not to thank.

I like thank you's. That is my simple answer. Discussion is open for those who would like to discuss it.

Oh I just thought of something else. When making up the lists of nominations,,,you may not believe this but sometimes I make a mistake LOL!! Hmmm The thank you's, if there is like one comprehensive list, is something I actually use to double check myself.

I agree with Lynn! Polite is always better. 😊 When I started participating in the group I saw that people said thank you so I started doing it too. I think it’s friendly and I appreciate it.

I cannot imagine a moderator being so rude to you over such a minor issue, Nike. Even if they objected, it could have been handled without that! Please continue to thank people in any threads I am monitoring. Like others, I find it uplifting to see people being polite and sharing their joys. I am so sorry you spent time hurting over this, because those people don't deserve you...so, just come spend the rest of your time with us. :o)

“People are not voting for you, but rather a book. ”

I personally do not write thankyou to people seconding, for exactly that reason. But I was considering stating to do it, when I read Nike's post: It matters to me that this group is one of the warm, troll-free, cozy corners of the Internet.

I never thank others for seconding either, but I take it as a nice part of a person's personality when they take the time to, and I never want to cancel out the nice things.

Haha!

I seized the idea of thanking from other members, but if it´s too redundant, perhaps a good idea to give one thanks to all who seconded in the end.

I mean, I personally find it abit cringy and annoying (I get that's its nice, but I doesn't seem particularly needed in some ways. we're all picking stuff, unless your choice is really, really bad it's sort of obvious they'll pick yours. They do it out if selfishness more than anything, *they* want to read it. Its not a favour to you), but honestly, who gives a fuck? it doesn't hurt really anyone. And certainly, even if people did have a problem, to respond in the way the moderator, of all people, who, by definition, moderates conversation, to behave so curtly and rudely, is simply outrageous. i think frankly they should consider their position here, if they find it so ardous they can only respond to members (in an open, public forum I need not remind you) like that.

I'll take the thank yous over the silent masses who pile drive the group votes towards group book discussions that they never participate in any day.

I also believe that if we as group members start second guessing too much any sort of post, that will kill group discussion and eventually kill the group. Again polite behavior is good. The point of a discussion group is discussion; obvious, but too many rules kill discussion.

As a moderator I thank all the monthly participants in the nominations threads. I in no way think it has anything to do with me. It's just a nice thing to do.

I thank people sometimes, in the same spirit that I say I'm sorry when something bad happens to someone: not that it's my fault but that I'm sad for them. When I say thank you, it's just sharing the happiness about a book we both want to read.

I can see the pro and con to the many thank yous in these threads, but I don't think we want to go down the road of judging whether someone's post is worthy or not--no matter what they say. Our moderators do take it to another thread when necessary, as was done here, which is very appropriate and considerate for all.

I'm sorry for Nike that she experienced rude treatment in the other group, and I'm grateful for this considerate group and the wise moderators that keep us moving in the right direction.

Politeness and kindness are always appropriate. Lynn said it for me here:

Lynn wrote: "...I always try to interpret posts in the kindest manner possible. ..."

Hi, quick question please. I am busy updating my BINGO Card and want to confirm where I would find the 2021 Bookshelf, in order to verify my reads. Thank you.

Wayne, click on "bookshelf" on the upper right hand menu under the group name. When the bookshelf comes up the books should be listed in chronological order by date read. If they are not, you can click on the "date started" button and it will sort them into that order. Hope this is helpful.

Sara wrote: "Wayne, click on "bookshelf" on the upper right hand menu under the group name. When the bookshelf comes up the books should be listed in chronological order by date read. If they are not, you can c..."

Thanks a lot Sara. I am sure it will help. Much appreciated

Question: I am getting updates for every single thread on this group. Somewhere I clicked "notify me" on all posts, but I can't remember where that was. Where do I remove "notify me when anyone comments in this group"?

If I look up each individual thread/discussion in this group, I see I can remove by clicking "add to my Update Feed". But is there a simpler
way? I am getting dozens and dozens of updates about Bingos and things I don't care about!

Thank you!

Under your profile you will find a tab "get emails". If you click on this and scroll down you will see a section where each group you are in is listed. Next to the listing, you will have options regarding how you want to get notifications for that group.

Also, when you visit a thread (such as this one) the "You are following this discussion" automatically sets itself to "individual email". You will get an email if anyone then posts to the thread. If you do not click on that link in the email, you will not get any further notices from that thread. If you don't want the automatic setting, you can select edit and change to the choice you prefer.

Hope this helps.

Pink wrote: "Hi Veronica, we've debated timescales in the past and after much discussion and voting we agreed on a cut off date of 1999. As we're a classic book group, we like to concentrate on books that quali..."



Since this reaction dates from 2015, wouldn't it be logic to move that breakline to 2009? (as in, we are almost 10 years further ;) )

The idea here is to encourage the reading of earlier works, Soren. You can always form a buddy read for books after 1999, there is no date restriction on buddy reads.

I have a question about the nomination process. Is there any reason to second a book again once it has received a second already? Does it help somehow, or is it just a general sign of enthusiasm for that book?

Teri-K wrote: "I have a question about the nomination process. Is there any reason to second a book again once it has received a second already? Does it help somehow, or is it just a general sign of enthusiasm fo..."

Teri-K, I think the books with the most number of seconds are the ones that go to the poll. One second is often not enough to get there.

Greg wrote: "Teri-K wrote: "I have a question about the nomination process. Is there any reason to second a book again once it has received a second already? Does it help somehow, or is it just a general sign o..."

Oh, thanks! I'll go second my favorite, then, and help it out.

Yes, the seven books with the most seconds advance to the polls. In the case of ties more or fewer books go to the polls.

Soren wrote: "Pink wrote: "Hi Veronica, we've debated timescales in the past and after much discussion and voting we agreed on a cut off date of 1999. As we're a classic book group, we like to concentrate on boo..."

Time keeps moving on. The moderators of this Group have decided that in this group the definition of classic book will be 20 years old or older. Starting in 2025 the New School Book dates will be books first published from 1915 - 2005. Old School dates will be any book first published before 1915.

woo-hoo! 6 more years of New School!

(goes away to prepare short-list of possible nominations...)

:oD

Darren wrote: "woo-hoo! 6 more years of New School!..."

Glad to see you excited for this! We agonize over every change we make in the group.

Yay! This is exciting news. Thank you, Mods.

Thanks, Moderators!

Darren wrote: "woo-hoo! 6 more years of New School!

(goes away to prepare short-list of possible nominations...)

:oD"

Oh yes.

I started a tread for it here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Anyone want to talk about books?

Katy wrote: "Darren wrote: "woo-hoo! 6 more years of New School!..."

Glad to see you excited for this! We agonize over every change we make in the group."

For me this change doesn't mean much, as I prefer to read old-old books. but I appreciate that you're listening to the members but not making changes willy-nilly. This is a great group and the mods are a big part of why it's so great. So, thanks for your time and caring.

You are welcome.

People reference previous comments on a thread but unless it is a very recent comment, it can be hard to follow the conversation. Is there something that either I can do or this group can do to help with this?

James wrote: "People reference previous comments on a thread but unless it is a very recent comment, it can be hard to follow the conversation. Is there something that either I can do or this group can do to hel..."

Good question, but as far as I know, this is a drawback on Goodreads.

It is possible to include a link to a specific comment. For example, here is a link to the comment where James asks his question:

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

I got the link by hovering over the timestamp on the comment, right-clicking, and selecting "copy link".

Wobbley wrote: "It is possible to include a link to a specific comment. For example, here is a link to the comment where James asks his question:

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

I didn't know you could do that! It's very helpful info - thanks.

Great information. Thanks Wobbley.

Wobbley wrote: "I got the link by hovering over the timestamp on the comment, right-clicking, and selecting "copy link"."

Why do Goodreads hide such a useful tool? Thank you. I also did not know.