Least popular on Goodreads

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't even care about tracking my read books. I'm pretty-much done with books after I've read them. I use Goodreads as a virtual TBR pile (I don't buy books before I'm ready to start reading them). Occasionally, I'll look at what people whose tastes are known to me are reading.

Well, I'm at the opposite end of the reading spectrum. I buy every book I'm even remotely likely to read in the future and store it in Calibre. Calibre is my TBR pile. I also re-read often. I don't keep any wishlists for books I want to read, but haven't bought yet. Because there are very few of those. If a newly released book I absolutely want to read is too expensive for me (which doesn't happen very often), I make a note about it for myself. But as I said, there are few such books.

In short, I'm your total opposite as far as reading habits go.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In short, I'm your total opposite as far as reading habits go.

No worries. I have a ton of total reading opposites.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Tbh, I don't see the point in using yet another website when I can do exactly the same thing in Calibre, where I do everything concerning my library. I don't want to see any "similar books" list or "readers also enjoyed" list or "more books from the author" list when I click on a title to read the synopsis. That's visual noise for me. in Calibre I can read the synopsis without any of that. And mark the book as read and rate it. No need for Goodreads at all.

I admit Goodreads is good for finding out series info. That's the only thing I use it for.

I do sometimes read the reviews and they can be of help to decide to read or not.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by issybird

My least popular of last year was a crowd-pleaser in comparison, with 21 other readers. I’m surprised, though; I have thought Churchill Goes to War: Winston's Wartime Journeys would have pulled in a lot more WWII buffs. (And it was quite an interesting book, too, with implications for Churchill’s conduct of the war.)

Perhaps war buffs aren't generally Goodreads types? That book can't be that unpopular. It might be worth checking other war books that aren't super popular on Goodreads to see if they had many readers there.

[Roos]

How do you list your read books with the number of reads/rating? No way i am going to work trough my read list one book at the time! There must be an easy way to show this?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Roos

How do you list your read books with the number of reads/rating? No way i am going to work trough my read list one book at the time! There must be an easy way to show this?

Yes, the link in the original post.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Perhaps war buffs aren't generally Goodreads types? That book can't be that unpopular. It might be worth checking other war books that aren't super popular on Goodreads to see if they had many readers there.

It is a fairly specialized book that deals with a slightly obscure subject, was published in 2007 and isn't available as an eBook. I wouldn't say unpopular so much as very much a niche book.

Goodreads does seem to attract a certain kind of reader.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I know some people tend to get hung up on the "social" aspect of Goodreads--and everyone's free to use or not use whatever they want--but the notion that Goodreads is anything like Facebook or Twitter is pretty far into left field. It's the equivalent of equating this forum with Facebook or Twitter. And who would do that?

I think being bought by Amazon has a lot to do with it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think being bought by Amazon has a lot to do with it.

In what way? Do you mean how people who don't really use it perceive it? Because Amazon didn't really "social it up" any more than it already was after they bought it. It remains primarily what it was.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In what way? Do you mean how people who don't really use it perceive it? Because Amazon didn't really "social it up" any more than it already was after they bought it. It remains primarily what it was.

The distrust about what is happening to their data when they give it to Goodreads.
I think that is the comparison to Facebook, etc...

[issybird]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The distrust about what is happening to their data when they give it to Goodreads.
I think that is the comparison to Facebook, etc...

People can choose or not to link their Amazon accounts with Goodreads. I don’t myself; it would lead to only more poor recommendations and Kindle isn’t my primary purveyor. But for those for whom it is, there are enhanced capabilities in terms of records and recommendations that can be quite attractive. My point is that it’s a choice, and Goodreads itself is no more intrusive in terms of data than it was pre-sale.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The distrust about what is happening to their data when they give it to Goodreads.
I think that is the comparison to Facebook, etc...

Sure. I understand (but don't share) that sentiment. I still don't really get what any of that has to do with people thinking Goodreads is "social-media" in the same sense that Facebook of Twitter is. Which is what I was referring to. Distrust/paranoia aside; my point was that comparing Goodreads to Facebook/Twitter RE making reading a "social" activity is a bit pointless. I have to go to Goodreads to to see the things a want to see; much like I do with this forum. Goodreads isn't binging and bonging everyone's latest reviews, or comments, or "look what I'm reading"s at me every 2 minutes, all day long (though I suppose one could setup notifications with a phone app that could do that if they want). It's a resource that I go to and use on my terms.

If people want to distrust Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter--whatever... that's no skin off my nose. But "Reading isn't a social activity for me" isn't a good reason to NOT use Goodreads (and no, I'm not at all intimating that everyone should be using Goodreads). Using Goodreads, for me, is the equivalent of using this forum. EReading and using/buying Ereading devices aren't social activities for me either, and yet .... here we are all are being socially interactive about them. Go figure. *shrug*

[ZodWallop]

My least popular so far this year is a western called Hard Rain Must Fall, with 1 other reader. Curiously the most popular book I've read so far is the Dragonslayer novelization, 410 readers.

Last year, it was another western with 8 readers. But I also reread For Whom The Bell Tolls, 268,306.

[astrangerhere]

My least rang in at 14 - Red Odyssey, a nonfiction book about Liverpool Football Club. Most popular was the Peavear and Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace (which was a re-read for me). But I think that they combine all editions for a title, so I suppose that 280k+ is for all editions of War and Peace, including the free ones.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Using last year stats, the lowest was Fire, Burn! by John Dickson Carr at 239. Considering it was published in 1957 that is very few reads.

It's a shame John Dickson Carr is so low. I read The Burning Court years ago and enjoyed it.