Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I've seen those shelves too and honestly they were already out of compliance with GR guidelines.

Problem is, Maria, neither there were nor there are guidelines for shelves, only empty words about criteria nobody has read.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Does anyone know if Goodreads will be stopping rating a book before you read it too?

Unlikely.

Some author behaviour has been downright shocking. A few of them think nothing about, not 'gaming the system' as I've seen it called elsewhere, but lying and conniving in a way that would make a career politician blush. When you have seen someone use 30 or 40 sock puppet and puppet librarian accounts to boost their books you can really get cynical about everything. That is the cause of many of the anti-author shelves. Hopefully the new changes will improve things. At the very least Goodreads have made their position clear(ish) so any infractions will be easier to identify and act upon.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

And, according to shelves, can anybody explain how due-to-author is an offensive and nasty name? And they have been deleted.

It's not offensive and nasty. It's just not all that useful either. After all, that shelf contains books not authors. Still ... I see no reason that 'due-to-author' should have been summarily deleted. How many of the 21 people ultimately affected had shelves with that particular name deleted?

Do people really have that much trouble remembering authors they don't like that they feel a need to erect virtual shrines to display all (in one location) of those who have in some way earned their disdain with some sort of extra-bookish folderol?

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do people really have that much trouble remembering authors they don't like that they feel a need to erect virtual shrines to display all (in one location) of those who have in some way earned their disdain with some sort of extra-bookish folderol?

Yes, if you are looking at books from up to several hundred authors a day.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

And, according to shelves, can anybody explain how due-to-author is an offensive and nasty name? And they have been deleted.

What does it mean?

Read due to author? Not read due to author? Something else?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Do people really have that much trouble remembering authors they don't like that they feel a need to erect virtual shrines to display all (in one location) of those who have in some way earned their disdain with some sort of extra-bookish folderol?

Why do you assume that it means you don't like the author? Perhaps it's the opposite. Anyway, if it's the catalogue you look at before getting a book, you'll need all YOUR input. And yes, pen and paper is OK too, but I thought we used an online site because we are a step further.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by tompe

What does it mean?

Read due to author? Not read due to author? Something else?

That's the problem. Neither you nor me nor people who have deleted know it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

That's the problem. Neither you nor me nor people who have deleted know it.

Just so I understand you correctly: you're saying you personally had a shelf that was titled 'due-to-author' that was deleted?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Yes, if you are looking at books from up to several hundred authors a day.

Then I stand corrected ... and quite amazed!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

That's the problem. Neither you nor me nor people who have deleted know it.

I googled and found one genre: "No Due to Author Shenanigans Books". So maybe "due to author" is just short (and incomplete) for all shelves of this type.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

That's the problem. Neither you nor me nor people who have deleted know it.

There's two, "Due to Author" lists that I've seen. One is "Popular Due To Author" and the other "Won't Read Due To Author". I'm sure that there's probably more.

I think it was targeted not because it was offensive, but because the books are only on the list due to the author's actions, postings, or other personal reasons and not because of anything to do with the books themselves.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by caleb72

As far as I can tell, any member of Goodreads can create content, and as the new guidelines refer to content, it affects everyone, authors included. Authors have an additional set of guidelines they are expected to follow as authors, but are free to shelve books and give reviews from what I can tell. They are not in a parallel universe.

I really can't see why including book listings in this decision is even relevant, as the reason for the change in policy has nothing to do with the existence of books or their listings on the site. I thought that would have been fairly obvious. This seems to be about member content and behaviour on the site and as such, impacts everyone.

The change in policy that came into effect is not reflected in the Review Guidelines (yet?).

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Do they have different rules, or additional rules? Are there different guidelines regarding how they use site functions shared among all members? ^as mentioned above. It seems the authors can be reading/reviewing members like anyone, but I could be wrong there.

The Author Guidelines seem to make a difference between behaving as an author and behaving as a reader. In the case of groups, authors are asked to participate as a reader first. In the case of reviews it's the opposite:

Shelve your favorite books or the ones that have inspired you and review them. Readers love seeing what their favorite authors are reading.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

It's more like additional rules. We can review and interact just like anyone else, but we are asked by the guidelines and new popups to not leave comments on reviews about our books and to not friend everyone who has ever read our book, looked at our book, shelved it, appeared on a post near ours, etc. There was always a policy asking us not to spam, and I think they will (hopefully) enforce it better. I'm an author, but that doesn't mean I don't receive multiple "recommendations" from the author rec'ing their own book.

But those rules are additional because of the additional situation.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Unlikely.

Some author behaviour has been downright shocking. A few of them think nothing about, not 'gaming the system' as I've seen it called elsewhere, but lying and conniving in a way that would make a career politician blush. When you have seen someone use 30 or 40 sock puppet and puppet librarian accounts to boost their books you can really get cynical about everything. That is the cause of many of the anti-author shelves. Hopefully the new changes will improve things. At the very least Goodreads have made their position clear(ish) so any infractions will be easier to identify and act upon.

Oh I totally agree with you. I think GR had taken a step in the right direction in fixing the mess they have so long ignore. It's was getting to be the wild wild west on that site!

I am currently monitoring a drama on GR about Plagiarism. It will be interesting to see so far it's been civil compare to past reviews.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

This was asked in one of the threads and the GR response was that you can flag/report anything you see and they will take a look at it. I'm not sure if the report button shows for just a star before something has been read/released.

For me, the bottom line is that they are TRYING to get rid of the worst of the abusive behavior regardless of who is starting/finishing/continuing it. I've seen those shelves too and honestly they were already out of compliance with GR guidelines.

Abusive behavior is a good term for it. I applaud Goodreads for stepping in and trying to clean up the mess. Sure there will be some things deleted that might not totally fit the criteria but it's all for the better IMO.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

That's the problem. Neither you nor me nor people who have deleted know it.

Could it be they check the books on the list and it was through that they determine if it fit the new guidelines?