Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphine
We can't (and shouldn't) pretend to know how to GoodReads staff are going about this; remember that GoodReads has a large volunteer base amongst its staff, and millions of users. It could be that they are merely targeting needlessly negative shelving first.
I have read all of the comments in the news linked in the OP (I wouldn't have commented here, had I not read the link) - and I can understand why they would see 'due to author' as potentially negative. As I said, you can't draw lines in the sand as to what's okay and what's not: when you're being as vague as 'due to author', the staff can't know whether you're saying 'I don't like Stephenie Meyer's writing style' or 'Orson Scott Card is a twat'.
|
Why would they target some shelves first and not all that are against the guidelines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphine
I doubt they would have time to message millions of users to ask them about the exact intentions of their shelves; however, GoodReads should have handled this better. They should have given users warning so that they could edit the phrasing for their shelves (changing 'due to author' to 'due to writing', for instance). Despite that, I feel that GoodReads have made the right decision.
|
But this is supposed to be an issue with a small percentage of users, not all of them.