Did a writer get bullied on Goodreads? (Salon Article)

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by crdf

It will not happen unless there is a legal precedent. GR is a cataloging site. The information on it is not owned by the authors or anyone else.

But we are talking about a non printed book, as she has said.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Mivo

That was his point: Ratings at GoodReads are useless, and you confirmed that. Now, that wouldn't be a problem if various vendors and stores didn't USE those meaningless ratings in their catalogs (even Kobo does) and purchase decisions were influenced by them.

To the average person out there it is not at all obvious that GoodReads is a playground for children between 8 and 90 ("social media"), so those meaningless "reviews" and ratings have an impact that goes beyond just amusing the kids who use the rating feature for all kinds of purposes other than actually rating a book they have read.

But they are as useless as blog reviews by people you don't know. If an average person thinks that a good or bad rating is something meaningful without checking anything else, well, I'm sorry but...

[Lemurion]

My take from this is that Goodreads just proved exactly how silly the whole place is.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

But they are as useless as blog reviews by people you don't know.

If someone reviews a book on a blog, they will explain what they liked and didn't like, so at least you know that they probably read the thing and what their reasoning is. Having 100+ people giving a book 5 star ratings that they have never read is entirely meaningless.

In general, though, I agree.

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

My take from this is that Goodreads just proved exactly how silly the whole place is.

For certain books, I just stay away from the reviews because the reviewers of those books are silly. Between the stupid GIFs and over the top gushing or bashing that actually says little about why the book was good or bad, I'm better off just taking a chance and reading the book anyway!

For other books, I think GR still provides valuable reviews and information.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

My take from this is that Goodreads just proved exactly how silly the whole place is.

What's silly about a place where you find info about books (I'm not talking about ratings), know future publish date, keep data about your books or talk to people about books?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

But we are talking about a non printed book, as she has said.

I think that is part of the point of some of the questions. Was the book published and then pulled or was it even ever available in the 1st place? If the latter then what is the point of the attack by this person? If I published a book and someone read it and said that my writing stunk and I should take up juggling live grenades instead I'd be offended and hurt, but if my book hadn't even been released yet and someone was to say the same thing I'd wonder what their problem was. While such a reaction to a published book would still be over the top it becomes a farce when it's about a book that no one has even had the chance to read yet.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Mivo

That was his point: Ratings at GoodReads are useless, and you confirmed that.

Average, userbase-wide ratings can be useless, and this thread illustrates why. However, the entire point of Goodreads (IMO) is to accumulate a group of "friends" (or whatever term it is they use) whose opinions you value. These ratings and reviews/comments are placed at the top of your results, and those are the ones you take notice of.

I find Goodreads, used in this way, an incredibly valuable site, aside from its obvious usefulness in bibliographic data: seeing what an author has written, when a particular book is due out, series orders, and so on.

[Josieb1]

I was following this via some friends on Facebook. I have no idea if this is correct or not but apparently the author queried why she was getting low ratings when the book had not yet been created, so no ARCs had been sent out. She asked the question in the wrong forum and that's when she started getting offensive comments, which her supporters tried to respond to.

Personally I don't think it all reads true, but because authors view Goodreads as a toxic site there's no point in trying to say anything to my author friends.

There are nasty trolls over there, I know as I made a mistake once of commenting on a personal attack against an author (and it WAS a personal attack) and got offensive comments back directed at me.

I like Goodreads as a library system and I do rate and review books I've read but I don't use it as a social site.

[pisceschick]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I was following this via some friends on Facebook. I have no idea if this is correct or not but apparently the author queried why she was getting low ratings when the book had not yet been created, so no ARCs had been sent out. She asked the question in the wrong forum and that's when she started getting offensive comments, which her supporters tried to respond to.

She had, in fact, sent out ARCs so the book stays in the database.

Here's a good writeup with screencaps and links: http://darkwriter67.wordpress.com/20...eage-may-vary/

The author has fully retracted what she said, and the Salon article now has been updated to reflect that. Author has also stated over and over again that this has been blown up way out of proportion, and that she was not ever threatened nor was she bullied. She is also blaming her bad behavior on... PMS.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by pisceschick

She had, in fact, sent out ARCs so the book stays in the database.

Here's a good writeup with screencaps and links: http://darkwriter67.wordpress.com/20...eage-may-vary/

The author has fully retracted what she said, and the Salon article now has been updated to reflect that. Author has also stated over and over again that this has been blown up way out of proportion, and that she was not ever threatened nor was she bullied. She is also blaming her bad behavior on... PMS.

As I said I can't confirm anything i only gathered that information from her original blog post and the author comments on FB. I did think it smelt fishy

It certainly won't make me want to read her book any more than I didn't want to before.

[SteveCampsOut]

I'm not the least bit interested in drama whore's whining to get more views.

[alen mcgra]

This DID NOT HAPPEN. Nor are there any quotes, requotes, screencaps, or other such evidence. And such things would have been requoted so that even if the originals were deleted there would be a record of said atrocities.

[hedwig]

Originally Posted by pisceschick

She is also blaming her bad behavior on... PMS.

The author lied about death threats, misread GRs terms and now blames it all on PMS?! Does she realize she has just insulted every woman in the world? Obviously,women cannot control themselves because they suffer from PMS - seriously?!

This authors needs to take responsibility for her own lies and actions or maybe this is all just one HUGE PR stunt!

[crdf]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

But we are talking about a non printed book, as she has said.

What is the difference? The book itself is not ON GR. What GR holds is an information page that the book exists.

Only authors and GR staff can upload books. If that is what you mean.

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

But they are as useless as blog reviews by people you don't know. If an average person thinks that a good or bad rating is something meaningful without checking anything else, well, I'm sorry but...

Agree. It is useless to some, but not to everyone and it is up to the third party sites to choose weather to use a review or not. Also a lot of people with MORE meaningful reviews do not allow use outside GR.

Reviews are owned by the reviewer. As per GR policy