THE Group for Authors! discussion

The GoodReads rating system, while a useful tool for readers, is also a hotbed for trolls and sock-puppets. The idea of anonymous star ratings should be eliminated. If a reader has been affected by a book sufficiently to be moved to rate the book, they should be required to leave their username on the rating. I would even prefer to eliminate ratings without attached reviews, as these can also be easily misused. Only when an assigned rating is accompanied by a review expressing the reasons why the rating was assigned, can readers be sure that what they are using to help a reading decision, was offered honestly. Good or bad, a GoodReads review should have the basic requirement of an opinion that reflects on both sides, not just one.

Hmm. I can see your reasoning, but I've added books to Goodreads that I've read in the past and know I liked, but don't remember the details of enough to do a review. I add them and rate them to improve my Suggestions for further reading. If I had to review every one of them, I wouldn't do it and the utility of Goodreads would be decreased for me.

You are the reason this site exists! But there is lots of the nastiness I spoke about going on, including authors posing under false usernames to post bad reviews of other writers work (sock-puppets). How about you leaving your rating along with your username? It should be a two-way street, and even if a review is less than stellar (possibly especially if the review is less than stellar...)some information can help the writer improve their craft. None of us ever learns everything there is to know about writing, and reader comments are critical to our learning process!

Richard - I hear your frustration and some of the unethical things that go on where reviews are concerned can just make your teeth gnash.

But I don't want the readers to be discouraged by having to leave a review if they don't feel they have the time for it. And sock puppets? They exist on sites where reviews are required just as viciously as they do here. They just leave short, nasty, unhelpful reviews.

Alright -- I understand the need to make leaving a rating as easy as possible, but shouldn't at least a userid be required and posted to keep it honest? The anonymous ratings are a source of a lot of this kind of nonsense. By the way, I've never been trolled on Goodreads, but I have been trolled on B&N, and I have friends who have gotten really nasty troll reviews here. I'm just looking for a more reasonable stage for everyone.

Richard, much as I understand what you're saying, I have to agree with Angel and K.A. - I've read so many books over the years and having only recently discovered Goodreads I couldn't possibly review every single one - I'd never have any time left in which to do my own writing!! However, I do like that I can leave a rating (with my user name) without having to write a review. I realise that you're talking primarily about annonymous reviews and those 'sock puppets' (now I know what the term means - I'd wondered!) but as Angel points out, you will get them anywhere if they so have a mind. I'm afraid if I could only leave a rating if I had to write a review as well I wouldn't be able to share some of the books I've read. I do also think that those who know me or who have read some of my reviews, will probably get to know that if they share my tastes then an un-reviewed five-star rating might be to their tastes too and hopefully they'll investigate further.

Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "Alright -- I understand the need to make leaving a rating as easy as possible, but shouldn't at least a userid be required and posted to keep it honest? The anonymous ratings are a ..."

NO -- what I said was reasonable. I can take a bad review, when I've earned it, and I may not be as unique as you might think, but I don't respond to negative reviews, that's for amateurs, still... I believe that anonymous ratings are just troll magnets.

Elaine, I certainly understand about not feeling the need to write a review of everything one reads. I certainly don't, but the whole anonymous thing is absolutely a target for abuse. Most other sites and most every sales venue doesn't allow for anonymous reviews or even reviews from non-customers. I and lots of other writers value GoodReads because of the open nature of it, yet the anonymous ratings can't damage readers, but they can and do damage writers. I don't see why an online community that espouses openness would have the playing field so skewed against some of their members.

Richard wrote: "Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "Alright -- I understand the need to make leaving a rating as easy as possible, but shouldn't at least a userid be required and posted to keep it honest? The anonymous ..."

Oh yes, I do agree about the anonymous reviews; my apologies if I didn't make that clear! I'm of the view that if you have an honest opinion then you should not be shy about putting your name to it. Do you find that anonymous reviews tend to be derogatory and damaging more often than not? Or are there as many fair reviews from people who'd rather not give their names? If the former is true, perhaps we could ask GR to consider disabling them? It would be interesting to hear the point of view from a GR employee as to why they allow anonymous reviews...

Linda wrote: "Richard wrote: "Alright -- I understand the need to make leaving a rating as easy as possible, but shouldn't at least a userid be required and posted to keep it honest? The anonymous ratings are a ..."

That's a good point too, Linda - some people ARE shy about openly leaving reviews because of what they might feel are their own shortcomings in being able to express what the feel. Hmm... maybe it's not as simple as a question of disabling anonymous reviews after all!! Having said that, if 'real name' doesn't deter trolls then perhaps it shouldn't deter shy people from using a pen name to review either...?

I would also love to hear a response from GR staffers, Elaine. Also from a few other writers, too. I don't want to have to always make apology for "otherwriters" every time I try to have a substantive discussion on GR. It is true that some writers act like children, but that can also be said for readers, so it's really moot.
Open, honest dialog doesn't have to necessarily be about bashing contests, though. It should be about dialog -- two speak together.

Reliable ratings and reviews depend upon the reader having something to lose if their review fails to meet certain standards. But first, you need to have standards, and like it not, this is the Internet. That means you have to put up with readers who think one star is great and five stars is the equivalent of throwing shoes at the author.

Secondly, as you have pointed out, most reviewers hide behind a veil of anonymity. They lost nothing in the way of credibility or reputation if they quit reading the book after a couple of chapters and write ad hominem attacks. Reviewing books as a hobby, they can publish garbage that The Mojave Advertiser would turn down. After all, this is the Internet.

Thirdly, good reviewers stick to journalistic formats in order to guide their thoughts onto paper and inform potential book readers without insulting their intelligence or wasting their time. Good reviewers are rare, busy, and professional. But once again, this is the Internet.

Sort of makes you appreciate the NY Times.

Jon
Author Behaving Badly

Joh - where have you been? I agree, there are all types of readers. Some will read a book and you'll hear nothing, not even a rating - why? Who knows. Others will take their reading a little more seriously and actually give it a rating. Ratings vary and more-or-less an indicator if the liked the book - it follows the same adage, "Ten that-a-boys are erased by one mistake".

The ones that scare me are the ones that read and want to write a review. You're never sure what is going to come out. I sort have placed them into two classes, honest reviewers that want to let others know the positives and negatives of a book, then their are the "critics" not really a review but someone who believes they are book experts and they owe the world a detailed reason that they should not read this book. (I'm being a little negative here - sorry)

My wife is a perfect example of an avid reader. She'll go through a 300 page book in a day. She devours books , and there are empty book jackets around our house to prove it. However, she never rates a book let alone review it. I've tried to get her to join GR but she isn't interested.

I appreciate the NY Times, but the closest my book will get to being reviewed is if I wrap it up in the book review page of the Times.

Wow. Some people have really been offended by this question. The Internet has always been an anymounous place. My name could really not be my name. What is the point of a name? Nothing. Just a way for others to contact you, when you do not want to be contacted/found. It is up to the individual. Case closed.

Linda-

We assume the reader is a she? lol. Reader should be nongender based. I agree with you, though. I am a reader firstmost and foremost, but sometimes I'm just to busy living to give a book a decent review. Goodreads is for readers, but it can be for writers, too. I'm proof of that. The thing is for authors to stop putting themselves on a platform above readers. All writers are readers. Use GR as a reader and you'll get more friends/fans who could read your book. Make friends and have fun. These things become less of a bother/worry, when you actively participate as a reader. You learn to appreciate it more.

HannaH - HowdyydwoH (pronounced "Howdy Do").

It didn't take long for feelings to get hurt. Already I'm under shelf attack. So for the benefit of those who don't know me, sit back and try not to fidget while I explain what I wrote (above). HannaH! Is that gum in your mouth, young lady?

1. The Internet is as anonymous as you want it to be - THANK GOD (Democrats take note... your politicians want to outlaw anonymity. Republicans take note... yours, too).

2. Ratings can be severely skewed by a single reader ONLY if you don't have a lot of ratings to begin with. It's the average that's important. A book with 3.75 average from 50 ratings is more likely to draw readers than one with a 5.00 average and only one rating. It's an extreme example, I know, but what do you want? This is the Internet.

3. Linda - you're right.

4. Hannah - you say you're too busy to give a decent review. No s**t, Sherlock! Your reviews are longer than my books! When I was talking about standards and practices of good reviewers, I was thinking about you. Also, trembling in fear.

5. Ratings without reviews are permitted on GR despite the hue and cry from authors and readers alike. You are allowed to rate a book you've never seen because the number you can assign to it will serve as an indication of whatever you (the rater) wants it to be. In other words, the program development team got tired of changing the database design and said "it's good enough". Now it's too difficult to change, so you have a choice - live with it or cry yourself to sleep at night.

****** THE GRAND SOLUTION ******

Try to think about something else, Frederick - you delicate little flower, you. Take up a hobby. I recommend fencing.


Jon
Author Behaving Badly

Here's the point of not having anonymous ratings even online -- if a userid establishes a pattern of trolling books, for their own fun and games, it should bring the userids' spot in the community into question. I've read some stuff said in review of my friends' work that shows the reader did not read the book. Not once in a while, but with some regularity. This shows intent to damage. I can't imagine why anyone would think that this kind of BSW belongs in any community or should even be tolerated. Is the internet finally, our opportunity to revert to infantile behavior and disregard for taking any responsibility at all? If so, is that a good thing?

It's neither good nor bad. It's just the way things are. The way GR was designed encourages cliques that seem antagonistic toward authors (for fun, Google "goodreads badly behaving authors"). The GR design isn't going to change, and serious readers know to take GR ratings with a teaspoon of salt.

That said, if a rating doesn't help you as a writer, ignore it. If a web site causes you heartburn, go somewhere else. And if you're using GR ratings as a metric for how successful you'll be, you're being unrealistic.

Jon
Author Behaving Badly

Richard,

I hear you, but the simple truth is, when you play in someone else's back yard, you play by their rules and they can change the rules anytime they want, or have no rules. That's how life works...

If you don't like the rules, then create your own back yard to play in and hope others with like mindsets will want to come over and play in your backyard.

In other words, create your own Internet and only allow in those you feel are worthy of playing in your back yard. But even then, I feel the trolls will still find your backyard and bomb it from afar. It happens...

Lastly, as an author, you can not tell any reader, troll or otherwise, how they should review a book. Just ignore reviews that do not fit your criteria. Experienced readers know the difference between a honest review and a trolls review, or one in which the reviewer obviously has their own agenda...

Nick -- Whaddya mean playing in someone else's backyard, anyway? Do you really think that Goodreads was established to exclude writers? Really?

I'm not suggesting that Trolls can be eliminated, just that they should not receive the open arms welcome they currently do on ANY site that encourages anonymous ratings.

Jon, as far as "the way things are" we all used to get by perfectly well with kerosene lamps, woodstoves and handfans, didn't we?

Nick wrote: "Lastly, as an author, you can not tell any reader, troll or otherwise, how they should review a book. Just ignore reviews that do not fit your criteria. Experienced readers know the difference between a honest review and a trolls review, or one in which the reviewer obviously has their own agenda... "

+1 - Could not have said it better myself. If I don't want to write a review of a book, it doesn't make my rating of the book any less worthy/true. Also, like Nick said, readers know the difference between "troll" reviews and honestly critiqued reviews.

Linda -- Let me illustrate from another site, not GoodReads, OK? Now, if you go to Barnes & Noble, you'll find four of my titles there. My newest has only received one review. That review was one star, and the actual review said "You've been trolled! Tral-la-la!" Clever use of the name of my book -- troll, right? But aside from the obvious nature of that, when you search my book by any keywords, or using the title, that one star rating comes up with the title. Now how many do you think are going to click on my book's title? Do you click on one-star titles, yourself? I understand it was all in fun. I used to be a kid myself, but here, I now can't refer my readers to B&N and certainly I donl;t expect I will sell a single copy until I get another review from a B&N customer, but given the restrictions, that will probably be a long time in coming. Just because my book is available for sale there means I should just accept the trolling? Really? The point is that the stuff that passes for "fun and games" may be entertaining and all, but it can also have really terrible effects on someone else. I'm not a cry-baby -- I take the good with the bad, but I think GoodReads needs to grow up when it comes to this stuff. And, by the way, I have been a reviewing member of GoodReads for some time -- several years.

I will also say, congrats to all of you for forcing me off my own topic. You should be so proud of yourselves!

Nor are you, nor are you. As far as pissing in YOUR sandbox, this was my topic, remember? I was looking for some adult discussion, not to step into a troll-fest and get bad-mouthed. Congrats.

Richard wrote: "Nor are you, nor are you. As far as pissing in YOUR sandbox, this was my topic, remember? I was looking for some adult discussion, not to step into a troll-fest and get bad-mouthed. Congrats."

I would just like to point out that if you disregard Linda's comments, there were people who were trying to just discuss things and give their point of view on the topic. But you chose to mostly respond to her instead and flamed the comments. Not everyone was here to "force you out" - sometimes you just have to ignore the inflammatory comments.

Linda wrote: "Just to point out, I've stayed on the topic, and/or its ramifications, from the beginning -- should GR require ratings to be accompanied by reviews. I've stated clearly and emphatically that I don..."

Linda, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were trolling. I was only trying to tell him that he should ignore comments that make him angry and not take it out on everyone else. He should also apply this to his reviews and I think he'd be a lot more content with his reviews on GR and other sites.

Tima wrote: "Richard wrote: "Nor are you, nor are you. As far as pissing in YOUR sandbox, this was my topic, remember? I was looking for some adult discussion, not to step into a troll-fest and get bad-mouthed...."

Wow. I had no idea that this would end up like this. I also had no idea I was being inflammatory. Why is this situation to be endured, or tolerated though?

Richard, seriously, please take a moment to process and not just react. If you read my comment - you'll see that I was not saying anything against you. My goodness.

Tima wrote: "Richard, seriously, please take a moment to process and not just react. If you read my comment - you'll see that I was not saying anything against you. My goodness."

No, of course not, Tima I understand and appreciate your discussion. I'm just shaking from the treatment I've received here. I'm not used to being pushed around by a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

I'm with K.A. I joined Goodreads recently and star-rated books I've previously read that left a lasting impression, without adding written reviews, hoping to get a more accurate list of suggested books from the site. Unfortunately, my reading varies so widely that I think I just confused the matching algorithm. Going forward, I plan on taking ten minutes after finishing books to write a review with what I did and didn't enjoy or understand. It's what I hope my readers will do for me.

When I look up a book on Goodreads, I always read at least 3 each of the lowest and highest rating reviews - a very enlightening process. Sometimes I wonder if they've read the same book, but often the difference between the reviews reflect the different experiences and devices the readers wanted from the book - whether it's plot, character, world building, etc. I've written short stories that have alternately deeply affected one person, while another has read it and gone 'meh'. As an author, I write what I enjoy first and foremost and try to accept that I'm an individual and what I find important/entertaining isn't going to be shared by everyone (or even a significant minority!). C'est La Vie.

I am chewing gum Jon! How did you know? Seriously, where you just in my bushes or something? Yes, Jon. Shiver in fear of me. I might actually make you fameous some day. Where is Fred? I missed that Frenchy. He gave me a free book you know. He loves me better. I'm his muse and yours and Omars.

Speaking about trolls, I was not trolling, but giving advice to actually join groups on this site to gain a following. Act like a reader and connect with like minded people. It's fun. I'm in several groups that love to role play and now most of the members are my friends or fans.

As for gender biased remarks, you could refer to the reader as reader. I do that when I generalize. No he or she words for me. I find it derogatory and sexist. But I am NOT saying that you inteneded it that way. I am actually enjoying your mega posts.

Nick! Where have you been?! I hate so say it, but I think I've grown some affection for you.

HannaH - My wife ("She Whose Voice Must Be Obeyed") recommends the gender-neutral "s/he".

FWIW, Richard. Amazon uses the methodology you propose. You cannot rate a book there without adding 20 words (or something like that). Hasn't helped their review problems at all. They are the most abused review system today.

And as far as not allowing anonymous users to post comments on the internet, good luck. That becomes a legal issue. A major legal issue. And one that will likely never work anyway. That would also include thousands of sites to change their posting policies. Any site that rates and reviews any product, not just books, in any language. Because arguing the philosophy of anonymous posting will have no merit if you say it is only Goodreads issue to solve.

Your goal to get more helpful reviews is a nice thought, but if GR made the modifications you suggest, then this site would cease being a place where readers can go to catalog all of their books. That is not a good plan.

Face it, this is the internet. Repeat: INTERNET. Making up rules for how other users use the internet is a futile endeavor. Wishful thinking, but it is never going to work.

There is simply no need to get huffy about this debate. You might as well debate how outer-space aliens should be treated if they ever land on Earth. It is just another far out notion that's highly unlikely to ever happen.

♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "You might as well debate how outer-space aliens should be treated if they ever land on Earth."

I think there might be a smidgeon of misunderstanding.

Alan wrote: "♡KarLynP♡ wrote: "You might as well debate how outer-space aliens should be treated if they ever land on Earth."

I think there might be a smidgeon of misunderstanding."

They'll give us FTL technology, unlimited crops, a map to their home planet, and a large book filled with undecipherable recipes. We'll kick their asses and send 'em home with herpes, shingles, smallpox, and male pattern balding.

It could be hormonal.

Well, it is that time of the month.

I was going to say that but didn't want to risk the reprisal.

Hey guys, isn’t it better to show respect for people whose views might differ from your own? In the long run, it's far more fun to build relationships than compromise them.

Originally I totally agreed and stayed out of this fray but its been going on and on and it gets to a point that it approaches silliness.

I respect everyone's views. What someone believes is true in their reference of reality. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with what they believe. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I have never known someone's point of view to be changed through argument". The only answer is to agree to disagree. So in essence my remark states that I've had enough.

Richard,

Goodreads was founded for readers originally. They added writer groups later. And if you have not noticed, the writers that are complaining the loudest about how GR is run are the self published writers. GR forums have become nothing more than self published writers supporting other self published writers. Think on it, how often do you see Stephen King, GRR Martin, Patricia Cornwell and other published Authors complaining about how GR is run?

And I got to tell you, as a reader first, I am turned off by all the whining these so called self published writers do about their reviews and how its harming sales. As a reader, I don't care about how many hours the writer spent in solitude to create their great American novel. I don't care that they have a mortgage to meet, their kids need dental work, or the family car is on its last leg.

As a reader, all I care about is if the writer puts forth a good product that meets my criteria of a good read. A GOOD READ. And if the writer does this and I enjoy their work, I might even end up following them on their website, and interact with the writer there. Unless all they ever do is spam their latest work. GR is not a place to really interact with core readers because the trolls have taken over.

(Disclaimer before I am tared and feathered...I am not against self publishing. Period. Just poorly self published work.)

I agree...too much fun. Since last night, I've been labeled a douchebag alongside Richard (who was called worse and kept his tempter). Since I disagreed with him, I have no idea why I've been shelved as a douchebag. It stands to reason, therefore, that I must actually BE a douchebag.

Hmmm. I wonder what the well-dressed douchebags are wearing to Walmart today?

Jon wrote: "5. Ratings without reviews are permitted on GR despite the hue and cry from authors and readers alike ..."

I've actually never seen a hue and cry from readers demanding that reviews must be written. I know readers who have never written, never read reviews or buy online, and certainly have no desire to backtrack to review everything ever read.

Frankly, for a long time I only wrote online reviews for a few friends I knew would like or hate same reads I did (the ones you actually passed around dead tree copies with); then when email and all the social sites like facebook came along, we just sent short rant/raves privately to email or facebook messages.

Joining Living Social's Visual Bookshelf (transferring data to goodreads when they went defunct) had me posting reviews online again, none of which transferred to goodreads, as I was finding reviews there helpful and other readers reading lists to checkout, so wanted to join in and return the favor.

Watching the review systems being gamed on amazon [and usually refused by Barnes and Noble's little censoring program (apparently "protagonist" or "series" in my review attempts there kick it back out)], made me want to write real review from actual reader. Seeing amazon review always buried by the 5-star sock-puppets or 1-star trolls, discouraged me from participating.

As I got more used to goodreads, like I did for Visual Bookshelf, I used reviews so thought when time permitted, maybe I should add some.

As I participated more on goodreads and realized how very important most authors seemed to feel getting reviews were, I did make a concerted effort to review when I could put it into words and had the time to do so (stuck in airports and stuck on planes provide a surprising lot of time).

If all I have to say in a review is that I loved or hated it, I just rate it without a review. I don't care what anyone thinks about that.

If I have limited time, I would rather read new books than write reviews.

If a clunker took too much of my life and I want those hours back ... I will immediately ★☆☆☆☆ to warn off my friends but not interested in that book sucking up still more of my free time to write a review. But, someday, after calming down, it's on the list. And I will pen something scathing next time stranded in airport or waiting room with nothing better to do.

If goodreads makes requirements for rating and reiewing, I'll stop doing either.

Any account can set their user name to anything they want; sock puppets make dozens of accounts — not sure how prohibiting anonymous ratings would help. The sockpuppet fake accounts and names could care less. Shier readers would be discouraged.

Unless a reader is a professional reviewer, I doubt they consider themselves under obligation to ever review a book. Or likely to raise a hue and cry over rated books not getting a corresponding review.

Richard wrote: "Here's the point of not having anonymous ratings even online -- if a userid establishes a pattern of trolling books, for their own fun and games, it should bring the userids' spot in the community ..."

Anonymous to display is not anonymous to goodreads staff being able to track troll/puppet id's down. The data systems in place ... Goodreads is one of the better sites at catching spammers, trolls, sock pppets and all the other unwanteds.

This has been a fascinating conversation to watch unfold. Lots of great information.

For the record I really like Goodreads, I think it's probably the best book related site there is. No doubt there are a few readers/trolls who use the open nature of the format to target some authors books. I actually think negative reviews are far less harmful to the book industry than the positive reviews most of the big publishing houses generate.

My best example of this is the book Custer my father in-law purchased. All the big newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times praised this book and highly recommended it. Based on one of those reviews my father in-law purchased this book. Turns out the book was a complete stinker, not only was he out the time it took to read the book but he was now $30 poorer as well.

I just happened to be on Goodreads while he was ranting about being ripped off, so I asked, "Would you like to post a review?" He was very happy to write a less than favorable review, and guess what? He wasn't the only person who felt that way.

Is it possible that the big reviews this book received from so called professional reviewers are actually little more than advertising? For some reason most of the crowd from historians with a specific interest in the topic to average people like my father in-law think this book was lousy.Just because he used my Goodreads account to post this review does it make this review of any less value? Whose review are you going to trust?

Afterwards I spent some time looking at the Amazon reviews of this book and you can see the positive review trolls (fluffers)fingerprints all over this book. So what's more damaging to the literary world fake negative reviews or fake positive reviews?

As authors we don't have a right to people's time and money. My father in-law is not an avid reader and I can guarantee you that it will be a while before he buys another book. So an author and publisher in this case made a short term sale at the expense of long term sales for the rest of the industry.

I also think that readers are getting smarter and that can help explain why Goodreads continues to grow. Credibility no longer comes a single person or organization. Instead of trusting Enron or Lance Armstrong we now trust the crowd. It's possible to fake a small number of reviews but you cannot fake large numbers and the value of the book will become apparent.

I think far to few people have opinions and if by allowing them to remain anonymous we can get more rating or reviews than I think it serves the market well.

Linda,

I may not agree with Richard's views on this topic, but he has a right to express his views, right or wrong, just as you or I do.

What I find very disturbing by this conversation is the fact that you and others have decided to put Richard's books on a do not read shelf because he expressed an opinion about how he feels reviews should be handled.

Since when is a book judged on a writers beliefs about how reviews should be given? Such a very small and petty issue and if I might say so, very unprofessional. I also find it a turn off when I see this type of shelving.

Just as you have shelved Richard's book as do not read - special snowflake, other readers also hate this type of stuff and frown upon the writers doing it. We may not put that writer on a do not read shelf, but we do remember them and their pettiness.

Think about it.

Shakes head...

I may not agree with Richard's views on this topic, but he has a right to express his views, right or wrong, just as you or I do. What I find very disturbing by this conversation is the fact that you and others have decided to put Richard's books on a do not read shelf because he expressed an opinion about how he feels reviews should be handled.

Standing Ovation, Nick.

And if you really don't want to give an author's books a read or in any benefit them, don't shelve as anything. It just increases the book's popularity and moves it up the display pages on the many goodreads features that list in popularity (from what I understand).

I disagree with Richard's wanting every rating to require a reader to take the time to write something. Not his place to tell a reader about their reading/rating/reviewing habits.

But, get a grip. That's not what the shelves or the Badly Behaving Author's lists were started for.

Richard is not behaving badly. He ventured an opinion in the Goodreads Authors Feedback group discussion/forum.

The BBA lists and shelves initially were adding authors who threatened and harrassed readers on their reviews, in the blogosphere, created troll accounts to do the same, ...

Richard didn't even post in other group discussions or try to hijaak another poster's discussion to pound in his own point repeatedly.

Save the "bad" shelves and lists for the real special snowflakes if you want to (keep in mind, too, that for some groups and listopias, the BBAs are actively adding their names to the lists ... "Don't feed the trolls"). BBAs are convinced any attention better than no attention.

Don't equate a difference of opinion with what Richard said with the BBA who threatened one reviewer's children and posted photos with schedules of them being dropped off at school with the home and school addresses.

Linda,

Aren't most PMs unsolicited?

Still, if Richard did PM you with inappropriate comments, then I can see your point for placing his books as you have.

In the future, might I suggest you put him or others you do not agree with, or find offensive on ignore.

Reason, readers won't understand why you placed an author on a do not read shelf was because of bad personal interaction between you and the writer. Just like some readers lump all self published writers into the poorly written camp, they too lump writers behaving badly when in some cases, that is not the case...

Good luck in the future...

Linda wrote: "Debbie wrote: "And if you really don't want to give an author's books a read or in any benefit them, don't shelve as anything. It just increases the book's popularity and moves it up the display p..."

Okay. Actually, always okay to do your shelves however you like. I was going by posts here.

Never okay and is a BBA if inappropriately pm'ing or otherwise contacting goodreads members.

You did flag, right? And goes without saying to go to very bottom of his author page and "block" to avoid future.

(I'm not looking at what shelf names you put him on; might be worth creating "inappropriate messages" type of shelves as well as usual douchebag ones mentioned above. I'm an all or nothing gal — I wavered between creating lots of specific spam, bba, special snowflake-y shelves or just a personal unseen lists for the bad authors.)

Nick wrote: "Richard,

Goodreads was founded for readers originally. They added writer groups later. And if you have not noticed, the writers that are complaining the loudest about how GR is run are the self-published ..."

Hey, Nick! You don't suppose that's because the ratio of self-published to conventionally published is about five hundred thousand to one, do you?

Of course, factoring in the "stink index", it drops to about five to one.

Linda wrote: "And Jon, I didn't think you were a douchebag at all."

Why, Linda! You hardly know me. Ask HannaH whether I'm a douchebag. In last week's Swashbuckling Theatre of the Mind, she was left to rot in a convent while the guys retired to a public house for a round of meade and challenging conversation.