Do you list every book you've read in Goodreads or other sites?

[ps67]

No. I don't do it. I already spend too much time formatting books, changing metadata, etc. I want to have some time left over for reading!

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Yes, there are errors. The Storygraph has some also.

I don't know about Storygraph but the staff at GoodReads seem almost actively hostile towards removing anything. Five years ago, I complained about the number of reviews of Wen Spencer's books that had not been published and yet over 200 people had listed themselves as having read them. At that time, members of her Patreon had access to ~1,000 words of snippets, A couple of years later, about 6 months prior to the release of Harbingers ARC and eARC editions, the number of reviews had increased and the number of people who claimed to have read the book had been fruitful and multiplied.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by ps67

No. I don't do it. I already spend too much time formatting books, changing metadata, etc. I want to have some time left over for reading!

We sound like opposites. I don't care much about formatting as long as it's readable, and I am very flexible on that, and metadata doesn't mean anything for me. But I do meticulously track my reading data in Google Sheets.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Yes, there are errors. The Storygraph has some also.

But on Storygraph, if you put in a request, it will eventually get fixed. Not always so on GR.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I don't know about Storygraph but the staff at GoodReads seem almost actively hostile towards removing anything. Five years ago, I complained about the number of reviews of Wen Spencer's books that had not been published and yet over 200 people had listed themselves as having read them. At that time, members of her Patreon had access to ~1,000 words of snippets, A couple of years later, about 6 months prior to the release of Harbingers ARC and eARC editions, the number of reviews had increased and the number of people who claimed to have read the book had been fruitful and multiplied.

I really do find that disgusting. That means these entries for those books are almost useless. Too may junk reviews and too many junk ratings.

[issybird]

Goodreads' philosophy is that users can make of the interface what they will and I like that attitude. It's nothing to me if someone for their own purposes marks an unpublished book as read. LOL! I note that one of my nephews has marked The Winds of Winter as read as of June, 2017. I'm sure he had his reasons.

As I noted above, my own beef is people who think they're going to read over 10,000 books in what remains to them of their lives. That plays more havoc with how I use the site than how people class unpublished books. Because if it hasn't been published, what's it to me?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

We sound like opposites. I don't care much about formatting as long as it's readable, and I am very flexible on that, and metadata doesn't mean anything for me. But I do meticulously track my reading data in Google Sheets.

Heh, yeah. I too am exceedingly fussy about formatting and metadata, editing both in detail, but care nothing about reading stats beyond marking a book as read in calibre. I don't enter any dates when I read or re-read a book, not even the year. It's just not important to me. OTOH, I never, ever read a book until I've edited both the formatting and the metadata.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But on Storygraph, if you put in a request, it will eventually get fixed. Not always so on GR.

You can become a librarian on GR and correct the errors.

Btw, The Storygraph also has The Winds of Winter entry with hundreds of reviews/ratings.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Fbone

You can become a librarian on GR and correct the errors.

But he cannot change the rules, that's what he would like to do