Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[Ravensknight]

Goodreads Will Now Censor Reviews, Shelves and Groups

Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior

I wasn't ruffled by the Amazon takeover of Goodreads, but since it seems to have led to this, I think I'm done.

I've already joined Booklikes.com and will be creating a wordpress book blog.

Blast it!!!! I've got YEARS invested in Goodreads and now it is going down the drain.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Goodreads Will Now Censor Reviews, Shelves and Groups

Starting today, we will now delete these entirely from the site. We will also delete shelves and lists of books on Goodreads that are focused on author behavior

I wasn't ruffled by the Amazon takeover of Goodreads, but since it seems to have led to this, I think I'm done.

I've already joined Booklikes.com and will be creating a wordpress book blog.

Blast it!!!! I've got YEARS invested in Goodreads and now it is going down the drain.

If you follow their guidelines there's essentially a zero percent chance of having your review deleted. This isn't communist Russia.

[Ravensknight]

and their guidelines silence anyone talking about author behavior. Which can play a HUGE part in people's choice of whether to read/support a specific author.

My "author behaving badly" shelf has been deleted. How is that in ANY way right?

[holymadness]

What is it about mobileread that brings out the histrionics? Not a day goes by that someone doesn't claim the sky is falling, that something new is just the WORST, that a company has ruined their life, yadda yadda.

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by holymadness

What is it about mobileread that brings out the histrionics? Not a day goes by that someone doesn't claim the sky is falling, that something new is just the WORST, that a company has ruined their life, yadda yadda.

For me, it is because I've invested time and effort on reviews, finding and vetting friends and creating a "social circle" that was quite comfortable.
Almost 7 years worth of investment, and 13 years worth of data.
Thankfully no data has been truly lost, but 7 years of creating "my special book place" down the drain.

You bet I'm going to have histrionics

[cfrizz]

Basically all they are saying is that attacks on authors personal lives & habits will NOT be tolerated.

If you can stick to reviewing the book and not the author you won't have a problem.

But if you don't like the book and then decide to make aspersions against the writer because you don't like the book, that is pretty much wrong plain & simple.

You call it censorship, I call it enforcing a bit of civility. Too many people decide they can be as rude and disrespectful as they want because no one can reach through a monitor and knock their teeth out for being obnoxious.

So a well run board will do the next best thing and delete these useless posts instead.

Deal with & and examine your own behavior. If it falls within the guidelines that have been set, then you have nothing to worry about.

[jgaiser]

You know what? Their site. Their rules.

I ran a collectors forum for a couple of years. Dealing with members who felt that they could say whatever they wanted -- because you know, FIRST AMENDMENT -- without any action from me sometimes got overwhelming. I eventually shut down the site.

If you don't like the rules, pay for a site of your own (which Ravensnight seems to be doing). Just don't bitch about site operators having to deal with the blowback from nasty posts and then making rules dealing with that.

My two cents.

[Fbone]

They changed the author's guidelines also. Any response to a bad review puts their account under "review." Too many to positive reviews also will be reviewed and possibly deleted as spam.

[library addict]

Agree their site their rules. But wouldn't it have been better to announce the new policy, allow members the opportunity to change their shelf names and revise the reviews rather than just deleting them with little/no warning? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what happened.

I am not on Goodreads, but I sometimes do read the reviews there.

[jgaiser]

Could Goodreads have handled it better? Maybe, but I'm not the one getting emails from disgruntled authors.

If you want to write reviews on *BOOKS*, it seems that there isn't going to be any problems. If you want to write reviews on the authors, it's time for you to start your own blog.

For me, I'll stick around. Goodreads is still a useful site for me.

[DiapDealer]

I think it's a good move, myself. *shrugs*

There's far too many online amateur "personalities" out there getting bent out of shape over some stupid online kerfuffle with an author (or some perceived injustice) in their comment sections (or the authors' blog comments section) who then muster their personal GoodReads army to go forth and trounce all of said authors books. Very "torches and pitchfork"-ey type stuff.

I'm all for anything that keeps reviews more "I liked this book because..." or "I dislike this book because the style..." rather than; "No one should read this book because this author was a big meany-head to my internet bff."

A line certainly needed to be drawn somewhere.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

If you can stick to reviewing the book and not the author you won't have a problem.

This. Absolutely.

Spoiler:

* hurries to rename his 'all-authors-that-i-think-are-cottonheaded-ninnymuggins' book shelf *

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Fbone

They changed the author's guidelines also. Any response to a bad review puts their account under "review." Too many to positive reviews also will be reviewed and possibly deleted as spam.

Goodreads recommends not responding to bad reviews. I am not an author, but generally that's a good idea. If the author thinks it's a unfair review, they can still flag it.

Too many positive review by the same (sockpuppet) user *should* be removed.

Are you reading these guidelines differently?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Goodreads recommends not responding to bad reviews. I am not an author, but generally that's a good idea. If the author thinks it's a unfair review, they can still flag it.

Too many positive review by the same (sockpuppet) user *should* be removed.

Are you reading these guidelines differently?

Not essentially. However, Goodreads is now, in essence, telling authors not to respond to any review.

Added: I don't have an issue with the new guidelines.

[fjtorres]

From what I've heard here and at author-focused sites, Goodreads was becoming something of a free-fire zone.
After the Salon article last month some kind of response was inevitable.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=220632

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Fbone

However, Goodreads is now, in essence, telling authors not to respond to any review.

Could you point me to the guidelines that you think say that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not seeing that and following link after link is getting kind of confusing.