SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
All About Goodreads
>
GoodReads Now Part of Amazon
Mod
To be honest, as a casual GR user, the only major issue I have with the site (can't tell for the app) is the lack of a decent quote system in discussions.
Allison wrote: "I think what the article is saying [...] is if Amazon can't even be bothered to look at obvious ways the site could be tailored to help users consume more, what is a consumer-mecca like Amazon doing with it, and what are its plans?"Definitely an article written by someone who doesn't seem to have used GR , or understand it. I know it's far from perfect, but as far as being a "sales tool" for Amazon, I think that it's doing quite well encouraging consumption as it is. The social aspect of the site is key in that, and is (at least as far as I've heard from the majority of people that I've discussed it with) far superior to the algorithm based recommendations generated by a server somewhere. Those are never going to be very good or accurate, because taste is SO subjective. Often times, a book that others have completely panned is interesting to me because of why they panned it.
So, while it may not be a direct 1:1 correlation of "this targeted ad resulted in this sale" - Goodreads IS making sales for Amazon.
The Get a Copy link on the book page, the preview sample (look inside), the audio sample, etc, are all quick tools that encourage people to buy, and subtly (or at least not badgeringly) direct them to Amazon to do it.
It seems that the social aspect of the site, and groups, were completely glossed over. Apparently if the site itself isn't generating the recommendations, it's useless.
90 million users and she's talked to 18 people. Some real in depth reporting there.
And yes, 'asking 18 people'.What I remember from my statistic lessons, a good sample should be 100+ 'items' and anything below 30 is unusable and subject to massive bias.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Honestly, though, if people think the trolls are bad on goodreads, you have to wonder if they ever ventured into the cesspool that was the amazon forums..."really - there were regular trolls on there some of whom are on the new Amazon help forum for Devices and Digital content, but they do come down with a heavy hand on the offenders
I do wonder about the recommendation algorithms a bit, because I have gotten better recs from amazon than I do on goodreads (outside of groups). I would actually be ok with amazon using their algorithms here, but I imagine that would also require some backend coding fixes... Allison wrote: " Do you think we're gearing up for a change? "
Not really? amazon's response to their broken forums was to shut them down, for the most part, so... they don't seem keen on fixing things, in general. They just buy and shutdown the competition, like MrsJ said.
" What would get you to leave GR?"
Well, since my biggest thing on GR is probably the groups and friends I've made, it would have to be an agreed upon mass exodus, for one thing.
It would have to have import capability, so I could import my current books list, because I am not rebuilding that sucker.
If it had a decent app, good support (*cough*feedback*cough*), nesting shelves, half stars, private shelves, and some other goodies, and a good social network? I'd consider it.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Well, since my biggest thing on GR is probably the groups and friends I've made, it would have to be an agreed upon mass exodus, for one thing.It would have to have import capability, so I could import my current books list, because I am not rebuilding that sucker.
If it had a decent app, good support (*cough*feedback*cough*), nesting shelves, half stars, private shelves, and some other goodies, and a good social network? I'd consider it."
Ditto on all of this. I have thought about leaving GR in the past, and even took a hiatus for a while, but I come back because of the people.
I'm invested, and here I'll stay until they kick me out.
Allison wrote: "the point for Amazon isn't revenue through good sales pushes, highlighting new works, getting people into communities that we know encourage people to read (and subsequently buy) more books, what's in it for them? Do you think we're gearing up for a change? What would get you to leave GR?"I think GR is an excellent for Amazon revenue. Every single book here pushes into Amazon. Everybody knows when they see a book located in Kindle Unlimited. Amazon pushes themselves.
Amazon isn't bothering itself about OTHER COMPANIES and their bottom lines, but Amazon is killing it. They would have shut this place down if they weren't making money.
Every single author is a company. And amazon doesn't care about [YOUR] bottom line because they have a billion of [yall]. As long as the sale is happening at Amazon, they don't care WHO is being purchased. That - in my opinion - is the disconnect. Amazon knows that its true customer is the customer...rather than the publisher or the author (unlike TradPub). So they don't care that I don't buy and read the latest and greatest SPA. I've spent $$$$$$$ at Amazon. Amazon is good.
I would leave GR if I could find a good replacement. I already keep most of my book data elsewhere. The only reason I stay is for the people and the groups. And as long as those stay and I can avoid the shilling, I'll stay. If it gets offensive, its 50/50.
Mod
The infrastructure is clunky, but all my book things do happen in one place, which I appreciate. I am eager for them to pour some of that profit they've been hoarding into this poor site though. I dream of having nested comments with spoiler sections for each chapter in a book or the ability to move people's comments to appropriate threads without deleting things...
I think I'm in the minority of detesting nested comments. I would love a better reply/quote system, but I hate navigating through nested comment threads. Bleh.
Becky wrote: "I think I'm in the minority of detesting nested comments. I would love a better reply/quote system, but I hate navigating through nested comment threads. Bleh."Nope, not alone. Nested comments confuse me, lol. Or maybe I'm too lazy for them. pfft.
I prefer hyperlinked comments. It's much clearer and so easy to use.
ETA: Example of hyperlinked comment:
The "quote" button does all the html in the thread(s). The little blue box by the name of the person being quoted links back directly to the entire comment. Also, the person editing their comment can put WHAT they edited. When I was still a heavy MR user, we were required to state what was edited.
Also, the quote doesnt change even if the quoted person does edit their comment.
Mod
I don't even know how long it took me to get Reddit comment thread structure, and it still hurts my brain and eyes to read through it lol. That is probably why, even now, I don't use Reddit except rarely, even though I really really want to because there's some great stuff on there.
Becky wrote: "I don't even know how long it took me to get Reddit comment thread structure, and it still hurts my brain and eyes to read through it lol. That is probably why, even now, I don't use Reddit except ..."^this. I don't, either. It's a hot mess and a hard no for me.
Allison wrote: "I'm open to suggestions haha! I just hate how firm we have to be about tangents and spoilers. Though it's true, I often lose things in nested conversations."You know, tangents never bothered me as much as being confused, lol. I'd rather read a thread where the comments went off on a natural tangent rather than deal with nested comments. Cause I've never gotten used to them.
Mod
You know, tangents nev..."
That's fair!
Sarah wrote: "The reviews and having author reputations destroyed.. again I feel like that comes back to the user. It’s usually pretty obvious if someone gave a book a bad review because they don’t like the author. But this isn’t a GoodReads problem, it’s an internet problem. And frankly, I’d hate it if there was a report function or something else available- because it’s just another way trolls and whiny authors can use to have reviews removed they don’t like. I’ve personally had negative comments left by authors on books I did in fact read and did not like, and other comments left by users who simply disagreed with my opinion. Having an option to report reviews or a direct path to getting them removed would deter me from ever reviewing anything."I’m hyping this with a whoop-whoop!
Back in the Usenet days I reviewed one of John Ringo’s books where I gave it some praise but said that it overall didn’t work for me. He threatened violence against me. For an incredibly mild review. Lawrence Watt-Evans went after me for *weeks* because I was creeped out that in his comedy fantasy he murdered a little girl. He later claimed he didn’t remember saying any of that.
Pretty sure they would’ve had me banned if they could.
I’d still do reviews, but probably not on this site if that report and remove functionality existed. The bullying I’ve seen on Twitter and YouTube is blood spectacle enough.
By the way, MrsJ - I would LOVE that type of reply quote system.
Mod
And yeah, I do like that there seems to be a lot less internet-mobbing 'round these parts.
Sarah and Trike, I feel you. I tend to write some scathing, ranty, rage-fueled reviews when a book sucks and angers me, and so I get a lot of trollshit heaped on my reviews of these books. Mostly it's just users white knighting on the author's behalf, but I've had a few authors contact me directly (although I'm sure they thought that their sockpuppet accounts were SUPER slick), and I'm sure they would all LOVE to have my reviews taken down, and me banned, so I am also glad of not having that type of system in place here. But I will say that this one aspect of the site is why I don't read self-published authors anymore. I used to review books when asked, and I don't do that any longer either. It's not worth it. (And to be perfectly clear, I would not rage review a book that I was given and asked to review. I reserve that for books that I've spent my own money or investment on.)
Honestly, these authors having snit fits over negative reviews (even if the reviews are not "nice" about it), are hurting their bottom lines more than the reviews are. I don't necessarily write off an author who gets a negative review, because taste is subjective, and maybe what bothered that person will totally work for me, but I will absolutely forever avoid some unhinged loon who thinks that because they clicked "publish" on Smashwords they are somehow special and deserve nothing but praise heaped on them for their effort -- or else.
No thanks.
Becky wrote: "...but I will absolutely forever avoid some unhinged loon who thinks that because they clicked "publish" on Smashwords they are somehow special and deserve nothing but praise heaped on them for their effort -- or else. "But it's their baby. You can't possibly understand. So much blood, sweat and tears went into the creation of their precious bundle. You monster.
Trike wrote: "I’m hyping this with a whoop-whoop!Back in the Usenet days I reviewed one of John Ringo’s books where I gave it some praise but said that it overall didn’t work for me. He threatened violence against me. For an incredibly mild review. Lawrence Watt-Evans went after me for *weeks* because I was creeped out that in his comedy fantasy he murdered a little girl. He later claimed he didn’t remember saying any of that.
Pretty sure they would’ve had me banned if they could.
I’d still do reviews, but probably not on this site if that report and remove functionality existed. The bullying I’ve seen on Twitter and YouTube is blood spectacle enough. ."
Agree x 1billiongazillion!
Back when GR became the wild, wild, west...there was one [male]SPA who wrote romance-leaning YA. And he was both a menace and a nightmare. And while a lot of adults on GR argued and mixed it up with him (myself included), his victims of choice were middle & high school girls. He catfished and harassed and stalked. Especially anyone he could get his claws in that wasn't an American (child molestation laws and all that). It was terrible. But because he was an author, a lot of people were inclined to believe him (until dealing with him, that is), especially since he had a much bigger platform.
If he could have gotten rid of every single adult who hammered on him, he would have. Then he would have shut up the [young] girls complaining and then go on his merry way - fucking up the lives of minors.
Becky wrote: "By the way, MrsJ - I would LOVE that type of reply quote system."Allison wrote: "MrsJ, that is pretty nice! We could make something like that work :)"
Yeah, I adore it. It's impossible to misquote. And even it the quote-er does, the actual quote is so easy to find that its not worth it.
Becky wrote: "Sarah and Trike, I feel you. I tend to write some scathing, ranty, rage-fueled reviews when a book sucks and angers me, and so I get a lot of trollshit heaped on my reviews of these books. Mostly it's just users white knighting on the author's behalf, but I've had a few authors contact me directly (although I'm sure they thought that their sockpuppet accounts were SUPER slick), and I'm sure they would all LOVE to have my reviews taken down, and me banned, so I am also glad of not having that type of system in place here.But I will say that this one aspect of the site is why I don't read self-published authors anymore. I used to review books when asked, and I don't do that any longer either. It's not worth it. (And to be perfectly clear, I would not rage review a book that I was given and asked to review. I reserve that for books that I've spent my own money or investment on.)
Honestly, these authors having snit fits over negative reviews (even if the reviews are not "nice" about it), are hurting their bottom lines more than the reviews are. I don't necessarily write off an author who gets a negative review, because taste is subjective, and maybe what bothered that person will totally work for me, but I will absolutely forever avoid some unhinged loon who thinks that because they clicked "publish" on Smashwords they are somehow special and deserve nothing but praise heaped on them for their effort -- or else.
No thanks."
Agreed.
But this is why I'm glad I tend to read behind the times. by the time I get to it, its not the popular book of the month.
I occasionally get shit on my Mallorean reviews but I know those books backwards and forwards. Anyone mixing it up over those are in for walls of text in reply as I re-read those yearly.
MrsJoseph *grouchy* wrote: "But this is why I'm glad I tend to read behind the times. by the time I get to it, its not the popular book of the month."Yup. It's rare that I read an "it" book while it's still popular. The last one was Recursion, which I DNF'd... but Blake Crouch does it right (interacting, I mean; unfortunately it's been a miss for writing books that I enjoy), and so it has been OK.
Interestingly, some of the reviews that I get the most grief for are by authors who have absolutely zero need of the defense - critics with much much larger audiences than I could ever dream of have trashed on Stephen King's work, which has had not even a tiny effect on his sales, yet I call his last few books complete garbage and suddenly people are mad. LOL People are weird.
Becky wrote: "MrsJoseph *grouchy* wrote: "But this is why I'm glad I tend to read behind the times. by the time I get to it, its not the popular book of the month."Yup. It's rare that I read an "it" book while..."
LOL
They are looking for confirmation. You gave them truth. LOL
Shelves are private if you have your Profile set to friends only. I don't accept many friends (4 so far) so mine are private as is my profile.
I read the article before reading any of the comments here, and I came away with a similar impression to several others here, that it was heavily biased toward author concerns. I do think GR has some issues, but if I were to make a list of things I think need improved, very few of them would correlate with the things mentioned in this article. However, I’m not an author, nor do I typically read indie books, so maybe I would have a different opinion if I were more involved in that scene.I did think they made some valid points about the site’s stagnancy, but I also thought they ignored a lot of good points about the site that users can take advantage of if they put a tiny bit of effort into it. For example, finding friends with similar tastes helps with recommendations, as does joining in on groups like this one. I’m not sure what they mean why they say there’s no “central online community where they can discuss favorite novels or dish about exciting new releases”. By “central” do they mean some sort of forum where all members talk about all books? I imagine there are already groups like that, but I prefer a more specialized group like this one that focuses on my favorite genres and where its members do in fact very often “discuss” and “dish”.
What I would most like to see is improvements to the feed on the home page. I could write an entire novel about my complaints there. I think there is quite a bit of room for improvement around the site and, as I said above, I do think development is stagnant and their direction is unclear. I would focus on different issues than those in the article, though.
I have ventured out to a couple other sites over the years. The only other site I’m using right now is LibraryThing, which I really enjoy. It’s a different style with a different design philosophy, and I think it probably turns most people off who try it out with the hope of finding something similar to Goodreads. The first impression I had was that it was completely non-social, but you just have to take a different approach. I actually get more discussion over there in response to my reviews than I do here. I say that not at all to snub the great conversations I’ve had here on GR, both in review comments and in this group. I value them greatly and they’re the main reason I’m still here. I say that only to point out that it is possible to have good social interactions on LT despite the impressions to the contrary.
I miss fict fact. hopefully that wont happen to GR
I joined GR because I can never find people in my immediate area that read sci fi / fantasy etc and are adults. I like the readers point of view.
If I wanted the publisher point of view and the authors I can go elsewhere.
fully agree with MrsJoseph
ps why have you added "grouchy"?
I would like to comment about reviews. I never read them. I read recommendations and maybe a short comment, but I always feel every one has different opinions and different base ideas. That said I have agreed with various people over time and am inclined to read things they are positive about and so on
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Well, since my biggest thing on GR is probably the groups and friends I've made, it would have to be an agreed upon mass exodus, for one thing."Yep! I totally agree. No way would I risk losing this group.
I agree the article is imperfect. What I liked is how it emphasized that there are such easy things that could be fixed: search functions, the feed, etc.
I don't have any problems with Search unless I don't spell it correctly, so I don't understand where that complaint is coming from. It's actually better than Amazon is some respects.In the first search examples, all they needed to do is type in The Confession Burton thus adding the author and they would have had the desired result near the top of the list (it's number 2). It's the same for using Catch and Kill Farrow which brings up one result, the one they were looking for.
Mod
Also I have a pitiful memory, so remembering title or author is about all I can realistically expect of myself LOL
Feed dupes and find groups and searching for new books.
App tags and friend adds and banners aren't good looks
Trying to get the bookshelf all arranged
These are a few of the things I would change
(But agreed, talking to power users is a great place to squeeze functionality out of this old thing, and groups are what make it fun!)
Becky wrote: "But I will say that this one aspect of the site is why I don't read self-published authors anymore. I used to review books when asked, and I don't do that any longer either. It's not worth it.---
Honestly, these authors having snit fits over negative reviews (even if the reviews are not "nice" about it), are hurting their bottom lines more than the reviews are. I don't necessarily write off an author who gets a negative review, because taste is subjective, and maybe what bothered that person will totally work for me, but I will absolutely forever avoid some unhinged loon who thinks that because they clicked "publish" on Smashwords they are somehow special and deserve nothing but praise heaped on them for their effort -- or else.
"
As someone who reads a lot of self-published books and is getting involved with the scene, I have to say something to this.
The category you describe is a nightmare both to read and to interact with and you're right that there's barely anything worse than someone who hits 'publish' on a completely unedited first draft, thinking that's it - and then get angry when someone brings out that their book suffers from all the typical first draft issues, be it poor plot, poor flow, poor grammar, and whatever else. Not to mention they probably know next to nothing about the 'writing world' and what it requires from an author.
On the other hand, there are many good self-published authors who approach writing seriously. They go through several drafts to polish their work as much as they can, invest into a good cover, and either don't react to criticism at all (one of the advice for self-pub authors is to avoid reacting to negative reviews to avoid feeding potential trolls) or do so with a professional's approach. Some of them are very friendly and willing to give others a helpful tip or two or to talk privately about some aspect of the story and I am very glad I've met those more than the first group. (And I want to be like them one day but that's a bit off-topic)
The problem with what I said is similar to a raging kid in a supermarket. If there was 50 other well-behaved kids, you'll still remember that one brat. The good thing is: they'll probably kill their writing 'career' before it even starts. The bad thing is the massive collateral damage they cause to the writing community.
To tie it to the topic: yes, any kind of report function would be massively weaponized by trolls. Yet, I still think trolls had quite a wide space here if they want. Part of me thinks that an author should not be able to review his/her own book because it's damned if you do, damned if you don't - some will say that author giving himself 5* is just trying to 'boost' the book or being overconfident/unrealistic. I've seen an author give himself a 4* in an "I could probably keep pushing it but that'd led me to take several more years before release" manner and someone reacted with "if you don't give yourself a 5*, why do you even publish?" And there are many people whose reviews are as useful as a fly swatter outdoor in -20°C.
Allison wrote: "I think what the article is saying (and it is Medium, so it's very much an opinion piece meant to spark conversation more than a deep dive into investigative journalism, let's keep that in mind!) i..."Goodreads drives book readers to Amazon to purchase books. I know that not everyone uses the purchase buttons but they're there and I'm sure they drive a lot of traffic to Amazon. Add in the compatibility of Kindle and Goodreads and it's pretty easy to see the relationship. I mean, my super basic paperwhite kindle will show me books from my "Want To Read" list on one of the pages in the hopes that I'll purchase those books.
Pretty sure Amazon is just fine with how Goodreads works as a consumer mecca.
I'm not sure the suggestions in the article would actually cause the users to buy more, they'd just help non-Amazon people market things better.
Mod
And you may have hit it, Melani, that the minimal upkeep this site requires put out enough of a return that they're happy to stagnate. I'm certainly not advocating this become a site that involves *more* marketing--I think I've made my stance pretty clear on how important I think reader spaces vs. author spaces are--but I do wonder at capitalist-run spaces that do not attempt to push for more profit. In capitalism, growth is how you ensure primacy. If they're not seeking growth, I wonder if it means they think it's entirely impossible to get more out of this (and that they have a monopoly that cannot be assailed) or if they no longer want to be supreme.
That's what I'm musing on. I don't expect answers, and I don't want more marketing schemes, I'm trying to think about it from a business perspective, and what that means for me!
Allison wrote: "but I do wonder at capitalist-run spaces that do not attempt to push for more profit. In capitalism, growth is how you ensure primacy. If they're not seeking growth, I wonder if it means they think it's entirely impossible to get more out of this (and that they have a monopoly that cannot be assailed) or if they no longer want to be supreme."I wasn't joking about the author/reader-reviewer wars. There are some scary people online - and some of them are here.
I think the issue - or maybe the reason - there hasn't been a full push to make this place 100% SALE! SALE! SALE! is the fact that its more of a social network than a marketplace. Readers are not as "loud" with their social media interactions because - at its core - reading is a mostly solitary and quiet activity. That kind of loud, bright aggressive atmosphere is going to do more to turn people off than on.
Case in point: the [blog] complaints about the color scheme here. IDK how many of yall were in Feedback before they took it to a separate site but people HATE the idea of the color scheme here changing (towards the brighter side) and they let GR staff know that. People wanted the colors to resemble book pages instead of bright white spaces.
I'm sure - if the site stays active and stays profitable - Amazon will eventually crack the code on what makes reader social media so different than Facebook or Instagram. But until then, they either stop from overwhelming us or the Wars start again.
And Amazon is the loser during the Wars.
Kateb wrote: "I miss fict fact. hopefully that wont happen to GR
I joined GR because I can never find people in my immediate area that read sci fi / fantasy etc and are adults. I like the readers point of vie..."
I often feel like a grouchy old lady.
MrsJoseph *grouchy* wrote: "Case in point: the [blog] complaints about the color scheme here. IDK how many of yall were in Feedback before they took it to a separate site but people HATE the idea of the color scheme here changing (towards the brighter side) and they let GR staff know that. People wanted the colors to resemble book pages instead of bright white spaces."I discovered, via hubs, "Dark Reader", which converts my entire internet to a black background with whiteish text - which is great for me, though I know other people hate that.
Before that, I used CSS to alter the display of the site, because I hated the uber-white background.
Also, re the homepage which was mentioned by somebody, I detest the homepage so I avoid it. I use Requestly to redirect the link, so whenever I click on Home is takes me to the Group Discussion page.
The only time I ever visit the Homepage is when I want to update a state on the book I'm currently reading, and that's not that often, really...
Allison wrote: "Melani wrote: "Allison wrote: "I think what the article is saying (and it is Medium, so it's very much an opinion piece meant to spark conversation more than a deep dive into investigative journali..."I think it's more that they have a monopoly. The only serious book seller competition that they have is Barns & Noble, and they don't have a huge online presence. So there's no reason to change, because there's no competition. Given the penchant for buying and then killing other bookmedia type things, I suspect that it's a monopoly they don't want to see challenged either.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Also, re the homepage which was mentioned by somebody, I detest the homepage so I avoid it. I use Requestly to redirect the link, so whenever I click on Home is takes me to the Group Discussion page.."Agreed. Though I use it occasionally to see what my friends are doing. Idon't even bother to normally update books there - I use my profile page
Melani wrote: "I think it's more that they have a monopoly. The only serious book seller competition that they have is Barns & Noble, and they don't have a huge online presence."Well, by what I learned about the relatively recent history of publishing says that most of the big traditional publishers were doing what they could to slow down the coming of e-reading and saw (maybe they still do) e-books as a necessary evil instead of a natural evolution of things in the digitalizing world.
Thus, it's just as well their fault - if they accepted e-reading instead of denying it (and leaving Amazon free to fill the gap in the market all alone), maybe the situation would be different.
Tomas wrote: "As someone who reads a lot of self-published books and is getting involved with the scene, I have to say something to this.The category you describe is a nightmare both to read and to interact with and you're right that there's barely anything worse than someone who hits 'publish' on a completely unedited first draft, thinking that's it - and then get angry when someone brings out that their book suffers from all the typical first draft issues, be it poor plot, poor flow, poor grammar, and whatever else. Not to mention they probably know next to nothing about the 'writing world' and what it requires from an author.
On the other hand, there are many good self-published authors who approach writing seriously. They go through several drafts to polish their work as much as they can, invest into a good cover, and either don't react to criticism at all (one of the advice for self-pub authors is to avoid reacting to negative reviews to avoid feeding potential trolls) or do so with a professional's approach. Some of them are very friendly and willing to give others a helpful tip or two or to talk privately about some aspect of the story and I am very glad I've met those more than the first group. (And I want to be like them one day but that's a bit off-topic)
The problem with what I said is similar to a raging kid in a supermarket. If there was 50 other well-behaved kids, you'll still remember that one brat. The good thing is: they'll probably kill their writing 'career' before it even starts. The bad thing is the massive collateral damage they cause to the writing community."
I completely agree, and honestly, most of the SPAs that I've personally interacted with have been professional and courteous, even when I am critical. I've been lucky in that regard.
Other readers have not been so lucky, and their experiences have turned me off of dealing with them.
I mean, on top of the writing often being... really bad. I would much rather let the vetting happen without me.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I used CSS to alter the display of the site, because I hated the uber-white background.Also, re the homepage which was mentioned by somebody, I detest the homepage so I avoid it. I use Requestly to redirect the link, so whenever I click on Home is takes me to the Group Discussion page."
My Goodreads experience is so heavily altered (with Stylish), that I sometimes get a real shock when a page loads without my scripts. I quickly refresh and it takes care of the problem. I also haven't been to the homepage more than five times since it was launched, because there is nothing there for me after they took Discussions out.
But I've complained about all things GR enough I think, I'll save it for the next time something rage-inducing happens.
Some of GR's quirks like having to type in my own HTML tags are just things I've learned to deal with. One feature that I'd like to have is to block authors (no one I've seen here recently, by the way). The ones I never notice at all unless they're actively ruining group threads.What would make me quit GR? That's an easy one. If it became "just another social media site" that made it harder and harder to access non-algorithmic content, i.e. if it prioritized promoted content, ads, spicy/vapid s**tpost type reviews, etc. over friends' posts.
Travis wrote: "https://onezero.medium.com/almost-eve...All the valid critiques in this article make me wonder all over again why Amazon bought this site in the first p..."
Wow, this brings up memories! First they bought Shelfari--before GR, I believe, which I liked a great deal better, but GR was drawing more and more people, so they bought GR and stopped caring for Shelfari so it went downhill and finally closed it. All they care about is $$$. I started coming here more because my first GR group that I had close ties with found this the best second-rate platform for how they had it set up on Shelfari.
FROM ONE Wikipedia page on Shelfari:
Shelfari was launched on October 11, 2006.[5] In February 2007, Amazon invested $1 million in Shelfari,[6] and moved to acquire it a year later in August 2008.[7]
From wikipedia on the GR page:
Goodreads was founded in December 2006 and launched in January 2007 by Otis Chandler and Elizabeth Khuri Chandler. ... On March 28, 2013, Amazon announced its acquisition of Goodreads.[11]
Once they bought GR, their support of Shelfari began dwindling until they moved the woman who handled it to something else.
Beth wrote: "What would make me quit GR? That's an easy one. ..."I would just like to second that whole paragraph. That's exactly it. I don't want Goodreads to be another social media site where I can't keep up with my friends because the algorithms refuse to show me their posts. I really don't want reading to become something where I feel like I have to keep up with the hot newness because that's what's being promoted and talked about. I like reading new books, I like reading old books, I like re-reading books and I like reading books for the first time. And since Goodreads has added that re-read feature in their tracking system, I've become even more fond of the site.
Here's hoping that changing GR in that specific way would be too much work for them. ;)
Melani wrote: "I don't want Goodreads to be another social media site where I can't keep up with my friends because the algorithms refuse to show me their posts."This is already happening to me... After the Great Homepage Split of 2016, the homepage became MUCH less useful to me for following friend updates. (I pretty much stopped using the site for a long time because of it.) Obviously I came back, but I still have issues with my homepage updates. It seems to want to show me updates from my friends based on some logic or algorithm, which results in me missing a ton of friend updates unless I specifically go looking for them (or get reviews emailed to me).
For instance, the homepage used to just show me everything in order. But now, it tries to "curate" my feed for me, as well as limiting the page to 10 or so posts before loading the next batch. I don't know if you've ever used the random shelf order here, but if you use it with infinite scroll on a shelf, you'll find that each "reload" randomizes the entire list - so you'll have books repeat if you have a large shelf that has to load multiple times.
I have that issue with my homepage, only with friends. So I have I'll have 3-4 updates in a row from one friend, then a few updates from another friend, someone else in between, one or two single updates from people, and then a repeat of friend 1, then a few new ones, then more repeats. It's like it's SORT of based on recent activity, but where it used to just show me all of the updates they've made in order and I could scroll back as far as I wanted, now it's like it tries to show me "relevant" updates over just... all of them.
I have to use the Top Friends filter, keep it to around 20 or so people, and curate who is on it frequently because otherwise I'll miss updates unless I want to LEAVE this site and go check my email. Very frustrating.
How dare us peons read what we want!