Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Not all of the stories are going to be in the anthology. We have always, with each event, added the stories to the database so those that read them can rate and review them. It just so happened that for our last two events, almost all of the stories were later released as compilations.

I'd just like to reiterate for those of you that are not familiar with our group or this event, that these are not just random posts. They are fully developed stories, some novel length, that were written based on a prompt and a picture. I always thought that Goodreads was a site dedicated to reading, encouraging reading and fostering the art of writing. I don't understand why this has suddenly become an issue.

Moderatrix Lori wrote: "I don't understand why this has suddenly become an issue."

It has always been an issue of what GR should or should not catalog. Recently, we have people asking about magazine, fanfictions, and comic books to name a few. And as more people join the site, the more frequent these threads appear. It's not like GR prominently display their rules.

It would be a truly horrible idea to remove the book listings for these stories. They are widely read and reviewed. They are proofed, copyedited ( and sometimes content edited) and formatted by a large group of volunteers in a private group before they are posted to MMR. Many are by professional or aspiring writers. Many go on to be available at Amazon or ARe.

It would be seriously inappropriate to excise these and would infuriate thousands of Goodreads members.

I hope that MMR books wouldn't be deleted it would be great loss for many Goodreads members, myself including.

I don't believe they were.

There are a lot of other things allowed on the website which are less books than these short stories, so I don't think anyone would delete them.

Krystal109 wrote: "I don't believe they were.

There are a lot of other things allowed on the website which are less books than these short stories, so I don't think anyone would delete them."

Agreed. I noticed one of them was deleted earlier today. It appears that was done as a separate thing, though, so I deleted my earlier post that wondered what the heck was going on.

I think this issue was put to bed. Sorry for reviving it in my panicked "what's going on????" state. :)

Audrey wrote: "Agreed. I noticed one of them was deleted earlier today. It appears that was done as a separate thing, though, so I deleted my earlier post that wondered what the heck was going on.

I think this issue was put to bed. Sorry for reviving it in my panicked "what's going on????" state. :)"

As a member of the group who worked on editing and formatting these stories for this event, I wanted to let you know, Audrey, that the story that was deleted was due to the fact that it was incorrectly assigned/connected with the wrong author profile of the same name. We are working with the story's author to straighten out the problem, including a new pen name, and get the story's database entry reestablished. I'm certain that the story is still in it's posted form and that only the book data entry was deleted.

Since there is obviously some gray area here, I feel Goodreads needs to weigh in on this. Short fiction published on a private discussion group does not count as a book. It has to be available somewhere other than Goodreads before it can have a record and before the author can join the author program. Obviously, if it is published as an anthology, then the anthology will have a record, but if the author of the individual story wants to take it out of the discussion board and post it somewhere as a pdf or epub or mobi file, then it will count as a book. Kindle Singles and other e originals count as books, so these would be no different.

That being said, let's not just run out and delete all these books. If people have taken the time to rate them and write reviews of them, let's make sure the book records are instead reported to Goodreads staff who will contact the author of the book to give them the option of publishing it elsewhere to preserve the book record. And if it is going to be published elsewhere (as in, has a definite pub date), then obviously it can stay as well. It would be like any other advance copy.

We don't want to discourage creativity or anything like that, but declaring a message board thread a book opens the door to all sorts of stuff. For instance, this thread right here would rank among the most boring books I've read this year. :) Ultimately, it's not Goodreads place to be deciding which threads are book-worthy and which aren't, so I think it's safer to say that all threads -- as threads -- don't count as books.

Patrick,


So does that mean you are going to reach out to all two hundred plus authors that have participated in this event and delete these?

These authors have brought hundreds of members to goodreads to read these stories they have been nice enough to make, in some cases, exclusive to your site?

This event and the rating and downloading of these books brings in hundreds of members to the M/M Romance Group as well each year we have run it. It also introduces many new fans to the genre and to new authors within it.

Additionally, every one of these stories has been EDITED and beta read before posting, unlike any "random" comment.

Seriously, several of the books you say don't count literally has over 1000 downloads and 100's of comments. This seems as though this meets the spirit of the intent of goodreads.

I would ask that you make an exception for EDITED exclusive stories and that you don't alienate our entire M/M Romance Group with this decision.

May I ask why a story that is available for download (ePub, mobi/prc, and/or PDF), even if only though Goodreads's own download option, does NOT qualify as a book?

It is a published document file available outside of a private group's discussion threads. I don't see how it does not conform to the published guidelines for an ebook set by Goodreads. It has the added advantage of providing a service to Goodreads authors and members that can only be advantageous to all parties.

Furthermore, I have to add that I think the decision that the M/M Romance Groups's events don't qualify as books is rather unfair on Goodreads's part. I think the simple fact that these works are effectively commissioned and fulfilled offers a legitimacy that should belie their publication origins and format. Each story was reviewed for content, proofed and edited for grammar, and viewed by several sets of eyes before it was even considered for publication. Not for nothing, but there were actually a couple of stories that were declined based on their content not matching the genre or the commission letter or prompt. These efforts to provide submission guidelines and adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of them are definitely above any that are required for many self-publication sites or houses.

These events and stories provided a jump in the M/MR Group's membership of over 2,000 members. I think it would be safe to say that many, if not most, of those new members were not only new to the group but also new to Goodreads. Certainly, this was a boon for Goodreads to be able to tout ever increasing membership due to the membership growth efforts via edited stories written exclusively for group members of a very active community whose home is within Goodreads's realm.

This aside, your guidelines do not say, either specifically or even nebulously, where a story (short or otherwise) can or can NOT appear to qualify or be disqualified as being published online. This is a crucial point. The vague nature of the current guidelines leaves plenty of “wiggle room” for both sides of the argument. It seems that it would be better to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion unless or until more specific guidelines are provided. What is not specifically denied in the rules should be allowed until rules are amended.

Serialized publications abound in the Goodreads database. These event stories are serialized, too. They have their own titles, clearly presented as the thread topic, and follow completely in sequence much like chapter entries in a serial publication on WorldPress, FictionPress, etc. These publications have the added advantage of being published all at one time if only in 10,000 to 11,500 character blocks.

All of these stories were given the respect of not only the authors in creating them but also the readers of the group in commenting on and rating them. Their online location and/or format should not invalidate the contribution. The authors wrote these stories with the explicit intention of publishing them online. The fact that they are available behind the thin curtain of group membership (free membership to any who are old enough), which is far less restricting than those publications that are only available through PAID subscription to websites, should not disqualify their entry as books.

The members of this group follow a genre that is often persecuted and many seek safe places to read and discuss the books and socialize with other people who enjoy the same material. Many may have believed they’d found such a place within Goodreads in general for its very diverse members and groups and specifically within the M/M Romance Group. As a member of this group, I find it difficult not to feel like the arbitrary classification of these stories as nonbooks is an attack on the genre, group, and events since the rules do not specifically exclude them as books published online. The most recent ruling uses selective rules and convenient reasoning that steps beyond Goodreads’s published guidelines about what qualifies as online publishing, resulting in the exclusion of a gay or gay-supportive community.

Many, including publishers and obviously authors, have viewed and supported the M/M R Group’s writing events as positive celebrations of writing, reading, and community that are exclusive in the sense that stories are written for the members of a small group yet inclusive because the intent is to bring the community together as well as to increase the community’s member size by opening its doors and welcoming all to participate and experience the offerings. In light of recent occurrences of author bullying, any event that is positive in spirit and nature and supported and annually anticipated by not only group members but also publishers offers only the best light for Goodreads to shine as a forum for promoting books and reading since it by nature becomes the preferred host of such an event. This provides a tremendous amount of goodwill for the M/M Romance Group as well as for Goodreads and should not be disregarded.

I hope that Goodreads will reconsider its stand on this matter. If it will not, then Goodreads needs to revamp its guidelines to specifically state what venues and formats will or will not qualify for entry in its database since Goodreads is taking action without firm basis in its rules and guidelines. Until then, I believe that Goodreads and its member would be better served by utilizing the letter of the guidelines rather than interpretation when deciding to take drastic actions.

Thank you Melanie for articulating so well how all of us associated with this event feel.

This event continues to grow and have broader appeal so I would appreciate a response from Patrick or Otis soon before we start planning our next event. I don't want to have to take his event offsite because we both lose if that's what you insist we do.

Thank you, Melanie, for clearly and accurately expressing my thoughts and concerns on this issue.

Patrick, you ask that we not run out and delete all these books and instead report these records to the Goodreads staff who will then contact the author. Well, unfortunately, this comes a little late for at least one author I personally know of (I believe there is another who has also been affected, though I have no personal knowledge of this). The author found, without any notice being given at all, that her book record had been deleted, and by extension, her author page and the book's download page where .ePub, .mobi, .pdf and .zip versions of her book were available to anyone to download. As an added insult, the author received no response until two weeks had passed, and a second email sent, after she requested information as to what had happened. It saddened me to think of the many hours spent on writing, beta reading, editing, proofing, formatting and publishing a 45,000 word story had been deleted without the courtesy of at least notifying the author, not to mention the loss of other members efforts to rate and review the story, particularly on a site that celebrates the written word. I truly hope that it won't happen again, and the author is indeed given the option and time to address the issue.

As Melanie noted, the guidelines do not explicitly or even nebulously state that the book must be published outside Goodreads, whether it is an online short story or an actual ebook file. If or when the guidelines clearly state such, only then, I feel, should such book records be examined, and if need be, the author given notice of the impending deletion, providing time for the author to list/publish the story outside the Goodreads site.

The 'message threads' containing the published stories, within their own distinct and separate Event folder, are each clearly designated as a story, with its title and author appearing in the thread's header, and the story is published in its entirety, without interruption other than those caused by the 11,000 character per message limitation of the site. This holds true for the stories of a few thousand words all the way through to the stories of 70,000 words. After each story has been completed, it is only then that group members may make a comment on that thread - usually a note of appreciation for the author, sometimes including story feedback too. Honestly, I can't see how this greatly differs from the online stories found on LiveJournal, Wordpress, FictionPress or other FanFiction sites or even the online fiction sites where membership is only available through paid subscription. Indeed, in some ways it is superior, as all these stories underwent independent editing and proofing before being published, which can't always be said for the sites previously listed.

As a member of the M/M Romance group, as well as 21 other groups, I can't help but feel that the group, and its authors, is being unfairly targeted by an implementation of a 'rule' that is open to interpretation, or is not explicit in any way, within the guidelines. Any action to delete the book records of any of these online stories, not to mention the stories with ebook files, when it is not clearly supported by the guidelines, strikes me as not only short-sighted, but as excluding a genre and group that already suffers from discrimination and persecution in real life. The M/M Romance Group has been and will continue to be, a safe haven for members who are gay or who support the gay community. Our membership includes members from around the world, including countries where the battle for gay rights has already been largely won, to those where homosexuality is illegal and means imprisonment. In the latter instance, our group is often the only safe way for those members to freely discuss and acknowledge who they are. To find that Goodreads now intends to delete the work of its members and authors seems yet another way of excluding this community. I assume that this will not have been Goodreads intention, but until such time that guidelines clearly state that a story/ebook needs to exist outside the Goodreads site, and how, it sure seems that way.

I think you're ascribing malice where none exists. And I say this as a fan of the genre and a former member of the aforementioned group.

You're using the message boards in a non-standard way. As such, I'm not sure why you expected Goodreads to have the foresight to disallow something they didn't expect anyone to ever do.

Malice implies intention, and, no, I don't believe it is the intention of Goodreads to actively target the group, but I believe it feels that way to many within the group, including the authors concerned. As I stated, it certainly feels that way to me.

Sure, I accept that Goodreads couldn't have the foresight to determine how message threads will be used, which is why we are asking that until guidelines/policies clearly determine what is and what is not allowed, and where that guideline can be clearly seen and read by any Goodreads member, the book records should remain untouched. Afterall, until then, they are not clearly violating a Goodreads policy.

I don't understand either why a book should be available outside Goodreads. What is the difference between an ebook that you can download from Goodreads or one you can find on an author website?
I agree that message threads without intention to publish these stories in an other way should not be listed as books. But when there is a clear intention to publish them in an other way, what is the difference with any other book announced by an author but not yet published?

Goodreads itself probably started out as a non-standard use of the Internet. Many things start with a non-standard application to a common or new technology and evolve into something different, something more, something amazing. Cell phone, MP3 player, personal assistant device, smartphone, apps. Online journal, MySpace, FaceBook, Blog, Twitter, Pintrest.

Yes, the threads were used for something more than the original intention, but that doesn't mean that stories that were written by the authors and read by the readers are less than stories because they had to be posted 11,000 characters at a time instead of in one large (very large in several cases) block of text. Each has an unique title, which, along with the author's name, is the name of the thread (much like a news article or blog entry); has introductory information and publishing metrics; follows in its entirety until it ends; and is followed by its author bio. Many even have individual cover designs. All of these are present in other ebooks represented in Goodreads. The reason for their being posted in discussion threads was to make them available to ALL group members, which can not necessarily be said of other publication options as it is possible that not everyone in the group has access to the same technologies to read other publication formats, but by simple fact of all of them being members, they ALL have access to the discussion threads.

It was stated earlier in this thread that Goodreads isn't in the business of determining the legitimacy of a work as a book. But that is exactly what this ruling does when it denies these works entry in its database simply because of the restrictions of their origin. These aren't calendars or promo schlock or bundles of separately published books. They are stories written with specific guidelines for the express purpose and intent to be published online in the most efficient way possible within the chosen forum. Every effort was taken to present quality and professionalism to the intended and expectant readers. Delegitimizing the works of the M/M R Group's members is unfair and demoralizing to everyone involved and does them a grave disservice.

To say that the stories aren't published online simply because they are part of a private discussion group is an irrational argument when Goodreads legitimizes other stories that are only available online at paid subscription sites. The only requirement for anyone to become a member of this group is that he or she be 18 years of age. They need not even prove it, merely state it. No registration, no credit card information. Just be a member of Goodreads and ask, not even nicely. Then anyone and everyone has access to tens of thousands of discussion threads and hundreds of bookshelves with thousands of book entries.

Were these stories and novels presented in an unconventional way? Of course. But let's be progressive and advance the definition. Let's take the intention of all involved--from the group and event coordinators, to the members offering prompts, to the authors, to the readers--and acknowledge their generosity, creativity, and hard work.

The intention all along was to write a story and present it to anyone online (over the age of 18) who wanted to read it. That is exactly what was done. This discussion thread is not the most boring story ever because it is not a story. It was not written by an author (or a partnership of authors) with the intent of being a story (view spoiler)[ Trust me, NOTHING I write could ever be considered creative with even the broadest definition. (hide spoiler)]; therefore, this thread and most of the threads in the M/M Romance Group or any other group on Goodreads do not qualify for entry in Goodreads's database. This group has never tried to gain database entry for all of its threads.

Goodreads could see this as a opportunity to expand its perceptions and definitions and to acknowledge that sometimes using something for a purpose other than its original intention can grow it into something different and something more and something amazing.