Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

I didn't see anywhere else to post this so, forgive me for stirring the pot again, if you will.

In the last couple of days, there's been something of a kerfluffle in the group. As a result of the person posting the initial threads being displeased with his reception (I'm assuming), these threads have apparently been deleted.

I didn't know that was possible on Goodreads, unless the group moderator steps in. I admit, therefore, to being curious if that's what happened in these instances.

If so, is that to be expected in this group?

And if it was not a group moderator doing the deletion, was it done by a Goodreads staff member? A Goodreads librarian?

What is the reasoning behind deleting these threads?

I actually asked this in another group and checked this group's rules.

Generally, an author of a thread is allowed the ability to delete that thread until it reaches a certain number of posts. (10-20 I'm guessing)

In this particular group, an author has the option to ask a moderator to delete their thread after they can no longer do so themselves. The rules state that the thread still may not be deleted, as the mod may find the information posted of use to others, but it seems, in this case, with all the offending posts removed, the thread was enough of a mess to warrant deletion. I am currently considering opening a new thread to discuss the issue further, as I believe the offenders are still around, and likely looking for new ways to scam authors.

Thanks for doing the research, Shaun. I looked too and didn't find answers, hence the post.

It will surprise no one that I encourage you to start a thread to continue the discussion, I'm sure.

I think we can safely refer to him as a singular offender. :)

...and another topic is deleted without warning.

That one was almost undoubtedly a mod. At this point, they might as well just lock controversial topics as soon as people open them. Would save all of us a lot of time posting on them just to have them wiped.

Agreed.

I just emailed the group mod to see if he could let us know updated policies or warn us the thread's gone too far, at least.

Henry wrote: "I agree with the mods deleting this one. It was getting out a bit out of hand, with self-promos, name calling, etc."

Well, the thread started with name calling.

I just looked and was rather surprised to find we only have one active mod for a group of this size. That is an awful lot to ask of one person.

I can see why it was deleted, sure. It would just be nice to have some warning.

Was the 'have you been bullied' thread been deleted?

If so, I hope it wasn't because I called bullies on good reads sphincters. :/

It appears to be deleted. Probably a good thing.

Yes, the thread was deleted, by request, according to the mod.

I don't know that I call it a good thing, but I understand why it was done.

Its like big brother or something.
That is my only complaint with forums. You have to censor yourself diligently for fear of being thrown out of a forum or your threads being deleted.
If anything that is one of the main reasons I left a group because I had a differing opinion of a book (Fifty shades of grey) and it was deleted.
To me that was unfair. What's the use in being in a forum if you cannot speak your mind. So long as it doesn't border on abuse, of course.

I must have missed the drama in the thread. I just hope I didn't cross the line when I called bullies sphincters.

It's a shame, sarcasm and philosophy will go down at least 20% percent without Feliks..

Mmmm... I was wondering why I couldn't read Martyn's comment. (Shrug)

Henry wrote: "I asked the Mod to delete the thread. It was getting out of hand.
Since I was the one involved from the beginning, Feliks is out, and James left the group, I felt it appropriate.

Don't blame the..."Apologies if my comment was over the top as well...

If we needed anymore proof that James is just a troll, he's started a new thread in a different group ranting about people reviewing without reading.

Henry wrote: "Mary wrote: "Apologies if my comment was over the top as well..."

Mary, no need to apologize.

It was the self-promo at the end, about a high school bullying story, that rubbed me the wrong way. ..."

Hope you didn't mean me Henry :D My mum's advice was actually most effective against a bullying former boss! :)

Lisa wrote: "Henry wrote: "Mary wrote: "Apologies if my comment was over the top as well..."

Mary, no need to apologize.

It was the self-promo at the end, about a high school bullying story, that rubbed me t..."

Your comment wasn't promoting your book. The person who commented saw bully in the title of the thread, didn't read it, and then slapped a promo for her book about her bullying experiences out of the blue.

Ahhh... understood. :) Opportunism.

Wow! Now I've been guilty of self-promo in some places (because I was still learning how to behave on these boards) but I think I've gotten over it. I do my self-promos on Twitter and LinkedIn now where it's more appropriate. I do know the sensitive creative mind and figure now if something is said that I don't like I should do the old "Count to ten" or just go Away instead of retaliating. Sometimes we just provoke each other. And by the way the rating without reading complaints... I still think it's unfair and I was ranting about those awhile ago myself. :)

S.L. wrote: "I didn't see anywhere else to post this so, forgive me for stirring the pot again, if you will.

In the last couple of days, there's been something of a kerfluffle in the group. As a result of the..."

LOL! Maybe it's me... It seems every time I start feeling confident enough about myself to make a comment I find a kerfluffle...Used to happen to me on Facebook too!

Mary wrote: "Sometimes we just provoke each other. And by the way the rating without reading complaints... I still think it's unfair and I was ranting about those awhile ago myself. :)
"

Rating without reading, yes, I totally understand that one and agree wholeheartedly. I think it says more about the reviewer than the book.

My guess is that's what happens more often than not with paid reviews. Personally, I won't rate a book unless I finished it. I did write a kind of review for a book I hadn't finished, trying to explain why for those who would want to know, but I didn't rate it because I don't think it's fair.

That's the way I think it SHOULD be.

I have written a review without having finished the novel. The reason being that the book was incredibly boring to me and the writing was lacking.
That is the only way I think it is suitable to write a review without finishing the book; if it were lacking. In my review I stated I hadn't finished the book because of said reasons.
Other than that I write reviews when I have finished the story. I can't understand why people write reviews without reading the novel, what gratification does one get out of having 2000 reviews on good reads?

I used to be so concerned about reviews. I understand why they're helpful, but I've gotten to the point where I don't even try unless the reviewer has a well-followed blog or is part of a big site. I'd rather do other things with my time and books.

Vanessa Eden wrote: "I have written a review without having finished the novel. The reason being that the book was incredibly boring to me and the writing was lacking.
That is the only way I think it is suitable to wr..."

Well maybe it was coincidence but my one star came from a person I'd just had a disagreement with on the boards. COULD HAVE BEEN A COINCIDENCE? HMMMM....No accusations or names...

It's hard to imagine someone being that obvious, but the good news is that bad reviews and ratings are usually not taken seriously as long as they're over-run by lots of good ones, and usually fake reviews can be seen for what they are. I know I'VE seen some obvious fakes.

Vanessa Eden wrote: "I must have missed the drama in the thread. I just hope I didn't cross the line when I called bullies sphincters."

I think the word "Sphincters" was OK. Since it refers to a circular muscle closing an orifice. The body has many of them. But strangely enough most are found somewhere in the Gastrointestinal tract.

@ Mary
Yea it definitely sounds like that was a revenge rating to me.