Modern Good Reads discussion

This is totally hilarious. Its a smack in the face satire about Goodreads selling to Amazon.

YOU MUST SEE IT:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/s...

As a reader, I do most of my book buying through Amazon. As an author, Amazon has enabled me to earn a living doing what I love. (I'd love to know how some of you do it at B&N and Smashwords since my sales with them are nominal at best) However, I've always loved Goodreads for its independence and I'm afraid that will be lost.
To my knowledge, my reviews have never been tampered with on Amazon, but I've heard from other authors who've had reviews deleted arbitrarily. I don't want to see that happen here. Amazon also has rules about authors posting reviews which is why I use different email addresses.
I suppose we have no choice but to wait and see and hope for the best.

Travis wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I echo earlier comments about kobo and nook being promoted on this site. No business in their right mind would give their rivals free advertising (if at all) on their site."

Makes go..."

They would have to have a least one competitor in order to get round the anti-monopoly laws, but I hear what you're saying.

Yes, that's one of my worries about Amazon buying Goodreads: will e-books now be all about the Kindle and nothing else? What about all those people with Kobos, Nooks and Sony Readers? Travis and R.M.F. are probably right on the money in that Amazon won't want to direct readers to their competitors. Why should they?
And a merging of pseudonyms with our real names is problematic. I write and exist on Goodreads under a pseudonym, because what I write or say doesn't always gel with my day job as an elementary school teacher. I like to keep those two aspects of my life separate, if I can.

However, much of this is still speculation, is it not? I hesitate to condemn Amazon for things they haven't even done yet. I guess I will wait and see.

Flash ads for beer? I've only been around for a year, but don't think I've ever seen that before until this morning. They've always been about books.

I am waiting to see how much push is put on kindle readers here. Shelfari has it on nearly every page.

Good point, G.E. Now that you mention it, I have recently seen quite a number of ads on Goodreads that are for things other than books. As I write, there are trailers for The Dark Night Rises running at the top of this page. I love that movie, but I'd rather see a book trailer on this site over a trailer for a movie. It just doesn't fit.

Amazon purchased Goodreads out from underneath the deal that APPLE was negotiating.

Now it starts making more sense. This was a very smart move that gave Amazon the power to stop Apple from integrating Goodreads reviews into their system.

http://www.aptaracorp.com/digital-con...

Travis wrote: "Amazon purchased Goodreads out from underneath the deal that APPLE was negotiating.

Now it starts making more sense. This was a very smart move that gave Amazon the power to stop Apple from int..."

Very interesting article. I wonder how upset readers would've been if Apple had purchased Goodreads?

Thanks for sharing this!

No kidding, S.M. So many people have this notion that Apple is this benevolent underdog of a company. Would they be more accepting if Apple was the new owner? Would they cheer? Monopolies in any instance make me nervous.

Who got it is irrelevant. It is the fact that a giant book seller now owns a what once was a neutral, non biased book site. Especial one that is known to delete reviews (good or bad) if it suites their best interest. I have seen this with my own eyes and saw a post from another person stating the same. Although the deletion of the bad review was from a book in the top 100 from a big publishing house. Amazon's reason was "They deemed it suspicious". No proof needed, just because they felt it was.

G.E. wrote: "Who got it is irrelevant. It is the fact the a giant book seller now owns a what once was a neutral, non biased book site. Especial one that is known to delete reviews (good or bad) if it suites th..."

A worrying trend.

D.H. wrote: "No kidding, S.M. So many people have this notion that Apple is this benevolent underdog of a company. Would they be more accepting if Apple was the new owner? Would they cheer? Monopolies in any in..."

If apple had bought goodreads, people would have gnashed their teeth even more. As I said, I will fight amazon until they offer me bags of sweet cash!

Apple is also known to censor their contents just like Amazon.

I'm sure this has happened to a few others, but it will get interesting toward the end.

There is another book with a similar title as mine, but from another country that has recently been translated into English. The only thing in common is zombies are both stories. Covers and authors are different as well as one is from Spain and for mature adults where mine is USA and YA.

I knew as I wrote the book not everyone was going to like it. There would be negative reviews, no biggie. However, when it for the reason of promoting another book, I do. For some reason I am being hit with spamming reviews for the purpose of promoting the other authors work in the first few lines, making sure that is what is visible when placed along the right side of the page, and now it even comes with a hyperlink to that book. Yes, they always have 1 star for added attention.

This would pretty much fall into the spam violation where the review could be removed. However, none of them are. Checking a little deeper I have found that Amazon had purchased the rights to that book. I'm sure this is a big part of why they are being allowed to remain and just another reason why I myself have little to no trust for Amazon.

Here's some more news on the subject:

Regardless of Amazon's seemingly "hands-off" approach in their acquisition of Goodreads, other booksellers see it as a conflict of interest. Many other bookstores/booksellers are cancelling Goodreads accounts.

The ABA (American Booksellers Association) would like to find an alternative to Goodreads.

So, after building this wonderful site filled with bibliophiles chattering about bookish things, they handed it over to Megacorporation Amazon. And now the rest of the bookselling world is shying away from Goodreads as if it were a venereal disease.

So, by default, and by the inherent distrust of competing booksellers, Goodreads is tainted.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by...

Here is the problem I see with bookstores and booksellers leaving - they are expecting the Readers to follow them.

GoodReads is a site for Readers, not booksellers/bookstores. It always has been and will continue to be so. If these companies (who are honestly out to make a buck, just like Amazon) are crying foul and looking for an alternative while expecting all the readers to follow, sorry, but that would be like finding an alternative to Facebook.

Readers are comfortable here. They are used to the interface, have built friends/groups/book lists, and asking / expecting them to migrate somewhere else and start from scratch is the wrong approach. I've tried a few other existing sites like LibraryThing (did not like the interface) and the new kid on the block, Riffle (which is so obviously built to sell books instead of discuss them), and I have not found a replacement for what GoodReads offers.

As a reader, I plan to stick around on GoodReads. As an author, I hope that GoodReads will continue to foster a healthy environment for readers to discuss, share and review books.

I hear that C.E. I am here to stay, same as you.

I know they won't see the mass of readers Goodreads has, but, they can create/adopt some format that Amazon has no control over, in order to post reviews and have book discussions.

And, there will always be those who will use an alternative, because of the inherent distrust created by this merger.

So, there's been quite an outcry for it, and something will fill that vaccuum.

But for me, its all about Goodreads.

:)

I have to agree. I love Goodreads, and I will stay with it until Amazon interferes. It doesn't mean I'm not looking into alternatives, however.

C.E. wrote: "Here is the problem I see with bookstores and booksellers leaving - they are expecting the Readers to follow them.

GoodReads is a site for Readers, not booksellers/bookstores. It always has been ..."

I agree. Nothing has actually changed on Goodreads... yet. And like everyone else on this site, I hope the evolution of GRs remains organic.

There have been attempts to establish other Goodreads-type sites long before the merger, but have not been as successful as GRs. I'll use Shelfari and LibraryThing as two examples. I'm registered with both those groups and have the square root of nothing on them. I keep coming back to GRs. It's easy to use, well established, and a place where interesting people come together to discuss books, the news, and life in general.

Personally, I think it would be an enormous challenge for someone to grow another GRs. Until someone does, I personally think its still a great place to be.

You know, I'd almost forgotten that Amazon had bought GR, as it seems to be business as usual. Interesting article in publisher's weekly.

I agree with C.E. about booksellers expecting readers to follow their exodus. I worked in a bookstore and have former co-workers who canceled their GR accounts when the merger occurred. I don't see the the merger as an issue...yet. I started my GR account as a reader (even though I was a bookseller at the time) and use it as a reader. Until there is some sort of interference on Amazon's part, I'll continue to be a part of this book loving community. :)

Brandee wrote: "I agree with C.E. about booksellers expecting readers to follow their exodus. I worked in a bookstore and have former co-workers who canceled their GR accounts when the merger occurred. I don't see..."

Same here. I'm going to be like the Swiss and sit on the fence.

Although this isn't about the Amazon/Goodreads merger, I wanted to share it with the group: Kindle Worlds. It's an interesting concept:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.z...

And here is someone's view on that concept:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/22...

I'm against data mining, though I must say that book suggestions are often well-targetted and personally quite welcome.

On the plus side, it would be good if Amazon could invest a bit of money to beef up the Goodreads servers, especially when America is waking up, and also have a look at the software coding, which is a bit flaky in places. These are things that Amazon are good at, imo.

I am an avid reader and lover of books and I feel this buy out was in no ones best interest but Amazons. Yes they said they were hands off and maybe for the first year they will be but mark my words after that time..their fingers will be all over GR.

I have been around GR for a couple years and pretty active in a lot of groups and we have already noticed a change or two..pictures in our profiles have been deleted as too graphic. I have had book covers that are here on GR deleted same reason. Interesting that these same pictures/covers have been on my profile since I started here...kinda makes you go HRMMMM.

Speaking on both GR/FB and Twitter to friends there are a lot of readers looking for alternative sites..just in case. So members are ready to bail if necessary.

As far as screen names. I personally have been t'irla since 1990 on the internet and just decided to keep the name. If someone needs to know my rl name..ok...if I get to know people well they will find it out anyway. And for people I don't know...I don't really care..harsh but true. With privacy issues now..I am glad I kept it. Something about Big Brother watching squees me out

People have legit reasons to worry about changes, censorship, whatever, but I do think it will be fine and don't believe Amazon has any big plans to change anything.

Amazon keeps itself as a hidden empire with a lot of their acquisitions so we will see, but I think data mining is the main purpose, and also to buy out potential competition as stated.

Erin wrote: "People have legit reasons to worry about changes, censorship, whatever, but I do think it will be fine and don't believe Amazon has any big plans to change anything.

Amazon keeps itself as a hidd..."

I don't think Amazon will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

R.M.F wrote: "Erin wrote: "People have legit reasons to worry about changes, censorship, whatever, but I do think it will be fine and don't believe Amazon has any big plans to change anything.

Amazon keeps it..."

I doubt they would 'kill' it. But Amazon will tweak Goodreads subtly, over time. My fear, and prediction, is that eventually, a few years from now, we find that the things we loved most about Goodreads are no longer the way they used to be.

"Do not go gentle into that good night ... Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Do not go gently into the night, go with laughter and joy, a new morning may bring rain or sunshine. So be joyful for the changes.
We should not forget Amazon made it possible to change the landscape for indie authors, indie publishers, e-book tablets and more. Will there be changes? Probably! Will it be for the better? Maybe! But when you look around the millions of books that sit and are bad, a certain standard has to be established. So maybe a change will be good, censorship it may be called, culling the weak from the herd it will amount to. I have published with Publishing Houses, now Amazon may follow the same business principals! It is a business for writer and publisher, treat it as such. Everything changes, the only constant is change itself! So don't worry, be happy, everything else is fruitless.

I like your comment, Erich, and I aggree with what you've written. I think change is constant; nothing remains the same because we have to move on. Maybe the changes will be for the better, who knows. And who doesn't want to 'make a buck' by renewals? And who knows if Goodreads is pleased at the change? Best thing is to wait and see before feeling sorry. As Eric says, 'So don't worry, be happy, everything else is fruitless.