Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Agreed. Spammer Authors are the worse. MR has to deal with them too.

On another note: GR has apologized to the 21 users who were originally effected by the new guidelines and now say they will notify people before deleting so I think this solves the issue on the new guidelines. 21 users are very small percentage when you think how many users there are at GR. I think this was blown way out proportion. I applaud GR for responding so quickly to clarify everything and making an effort to notify anyone in the future who violates the new terms.

Also those who are confused on the shelves rules. This is what GR has said.

Blossom, I've read the GR answer... and that's not a guideline but a mind reading.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The article is distorting the facts. It linked to what it described as a good wrapup of the Howard saga but presented the story differently.

The story started because of ratings of interest. GR allows (allowed?) people to rate a yet unpublished story to show interest. In this case a member showed lack of interest by giving the book a 2-star rating. The author proceed to ask about it. I don't know what language she used for the question, but she 4 1-star ratings from people who didn't like it and 75 5-star ratings from people showing their support. Well actually two of the 75 5-star ratings were from herself one on an old account and one on the new account.

Yeah, I remember wading through that mess when it was still fresh. God knows what prompted me to do it. I don't think there were a huge number of 1 star reviews, but it was inside the reviews in the comments section where everything was happening.

She queried, there was a retaliation, she tried to back down, someone threw in the "special snowflake" comment and the author got offended and it seemed to devolve from there. It was all pretty embarrassing, but apparently you can find this in several places at GR if you know where to look. I usually only find out about them here, and if I feel like watching a car crash for any reason, I can always go over and have a peek.

I don't think it was a case of a GR author bullying people, it looked more like someone who had let herself get cornered lashing out. I could almost see the distressed look on her face as I read some of her posts at the time.

But some of her retractions felt like she was trying to reinvent history so that she could just make it all go away. I do feel kind of sorry for her - it was a bit of a baptism of fire for a book that hadn't really been fully launched yet. And now, if the recent decisions are really related to that case, she's in a worse predicament. The whole situation has become immortalised and replayed. It must be her worst nightmare coming true.

Before, there was a relatively small swarm ready to blank her on the site - if she becomes the poster child of people's shelves getting deleted etc.. I think she should probably pick out a new nom de plume if she still wants to write. Painful lessons.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Blossom, I've read the GR answer... and that's not a guideline but a mind reading.

It's what GR responded to after they posted the new terms. It's their apology that every is demanding they give. I'm not sure what you mean by mind reading. What more can GR do? They've been more than clear with us since this started. It's all there in that post. Not many other sites would have disclosed as much as they have.

[Terisa de morgan]

We don’t comment publicly on individual cases, but in general, what we do is look at a shelf and see how it is used in context. In any case where we have decided to remove that shelf, we are confident that the shelf was being used in a way to review author behavior.

The first point is not a guideline, but saying: "We inspect any shelf we like and we decide". The second point is mind reading: How are they sure the shelf has been used with that point in mind?

That's what I said and Goodreads's appologies? We have an Spanish said that I think goes to the point now: "Perdona pero aguanta". Sorry but you keep the pain (they can't undelete...)

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

The first point is not a guideline, but saying: "We inspect any shelf we like and we decide". The second point is mind reading: How are they sure the shelf has been used with that point in mind?

That's what I said and Goodreads's appologies? We have an Spanish said that I think goes to the point now: "Perdona pero aguanta". Sorry but you keep the pain (they can't undelete...)

More than likely they check the name of the shelf first. I am sure that is what brought it to their attention then if they are unsure they check the content. This seems logical to me. It doesn't need to be a guideline it's a method they used and they reveal it which I wouldn't have because then people can find a work around it.

I don't want them to undelete most of those shelves were mean and hateful. The worst of the worst. I don't think they should have apologized just said they would notify users from now on to give them time. They have gone beyond what is expecting of any site of this type. Does Facebook notify you before they delete your photos? No they removed it then give a warning. Three warnings and you're are banned. Goodreads is being way nicer to it's users. Facebook changes its guidelines all the time without letting anyone know till its done or some news media picks it up.

[Prestidigitweeze]

I once wrote a book that a fair number of people on Goodreads didn't like, but that same book also won an award. I concluded I'd had decent luck with the book and left the Goodreads reviewers alone.

If I needed to be liked, I could write another book tailored to that end. If the strategy didn't work, then I'd walk away. Why invite people to associate my name with self-importance and stalking that results in infamy?

If you read a review of your book which you conclude was written either by an idiot or someone with a vested interest in hating you, then that's one more reason not to try to engage them.

I've always favored Epictetus's response to criticism: "He must not know me well, or else he wouldn't have complained of those faults alone."

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I've always favored Epictetus's response to criticism: "He must not know me well, or else he wouldn't have complained of those faults alone."

Lovely quote; thanks for that!

[BearMountainBooks]

Love that quote!!!

[Terisa de morgan]

Great quota!

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I once wrote a book that a fair number of people on Goodreads didn't like, but that same book also won an award. I concluded I'd had decent luck with the book and left the Goodreads reviewers alone.

If I needed to be liked, I could write another book tailored to that end. If the strategy didn't work, then I'd walk away. Why invite people to associate my name with self-importance and stalking that results in infamy?

If you read a review of your book which you conclude was written either by an idiot or someone with a vested interest in hating you, then that's one more reason not to try to engage them.

I've always favored Epictetus's response to criticism: "He must not know me well, or else he wouldn't have complained of those faults alone."

Absolutely. Great post.

I do understand that an artist might feel hurt as a first reaction to seeing negative remarks and reviewers are not always moderate in criticism. And although I could easily revert to the many flavours of "suck it up", I still empathise. But one thing I learned in business applies everywhere.

Type out your response if it's therapeutic in some way, but then pause, re-read, delete, rewrite, pause, take a break, come back and repeat the process until you're absolutely happy that you've got it out of your system. Then delete the message without sending and move on.

I have ended up developing much stronger and productive relationships in my work life by not letting that need to react, that emotional response, dominate my interactions. And I don't feel submissive or whipped - I actually feel more in control of the situation.

Mind you, it's a lesson I had to learn the hard way.

[samhy]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

No, friend requests. 1000 friends and 2 books

Sorry, I had friend request in mind but couldn't remember the wording
In the new guidelines, it's written

**Make it easier for anyone who feels concerned about content on Goodreads to get help from Goodreads staff. We have now improved the visibility of our flag button, and have added the ability to flag inappropriate friend requests.

I've had some authors who were borderline spammers. Now I know that if it's going too far I can notify someone.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by samhy

Sorry, I had friend request in mind but couldn't remember the wording
In the new guidelines, it's written

I've had some authors who were borderline spammers. Now I know that if it's going too far I can notify someone.

Two days ago the button wasn't there.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

Two days ago the button wasn't there.

I see a block this member, but I don't see a flag. But then, GR has always worked hard to hide buttons from me. It took me over a year to find the private notes section and even then I had to ask.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I see a block this member, but I don't see a flag. But then, GR has always worked hard to hide buttons from me. It took me over a year to find the private notes section and even then I had to ask.

Same here. We'll see the next time. If it isn't I'm going to feel it like a "non truth".

[samhy]

Same for me too. The GUI could need some improvement.
Regarding the ability to flag friend requests, I don't have one right now so I can't check.