Goodreads Goes for Censorship

[Connallmac]

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

[soulfuldog]

Sounds like something that needed done at Goodreads. Don't think deleting people's shelves was necessary though, was it?

[jersysman]

Personally, I think it was the right thing to do. There was a lot of negativity starting to rear its ugly head on Goodreads and some users, myself included, stayed away because of the vitriol on that site going both ways between some reviewers and some authors. This behavior was ruining what once was a good site for the majority. With hindsight being 20/20 the implementation could have been handled better. But, in the long run, I support the changes that are being made. It's a review site first and foremost and not a war zone between pissed off users and/or authors.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

and their guidelines silence anyone talking about author behavior. Which can play a HUGE part in people's choice of whether to read/support a specific author.

My "author behaving badly" shelf has been deleted. How is that in ANY way right?

It's a book review site.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's a book review site.

Exactly. Maybe now it can actually be one.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's a book review site.

Actually they describe themselves on their blog as:

Goodreads is the world’s largest site for readers and book recommendations. Our mission is to help people find and share books they love.

and on Twitter as:

The largest site for readers and book recommendations. Find new books, recommend books, track your reading, join book clubs, win advanced copies, and much more!

[faithbw]

I totally support the changes. They're reasonable. I never understood why some users were hell bent on punishing authors because of a book they hated. I dislike plenty of books and give them one star reviews but I keep the review to the book. I don't know the authors of the books I read so how can I say anything bad about them? Plus, whether or not an author is likeable, it has no bearing on how good or bad her book is.

If there are authors who hold views I find abhorrent then I simply don't read their books or list them on GR. Why go through the effort of putting all their books on shelves like "I hate this author" or "don't buy from this author because they suck"? It seems stupid, immature and not productive. Plus it doesn't help other readers to find good books or know if a book is good or bad.

[athenat]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I totally support the changes. They're reasonable. I never understood why some users were hell bent on punishing authors because of a book they hated. I dislike plenty of books and give them one star reviews but I keep the review to the book. I don't know the authors of the books I read so how can I say anything bad about them? Plus, whether or not an author is likeable, it has no bearing on how good or bad her book is.

If there are authors who hold views I find abhorrent then I simply don't read their books or list them on GR. Why go through the effort of putting all their books on shelves like "I hate this author" or "don't buy from this author because they suck"? It seems stupid, immature and not productive. Plus it doesn't help other readers to find good books or know if a book is good or bad.

Exactly my thoughts and thank you....you saved me from writing all of this...

[auspex]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

and their guidelines silence anyone talking about author behavior. Which can play a HUGE part in people's choice of whether to read/support a specific author.

My "author behaving badly" shelf has been deleted. How is that in ANY way right?

Maybe it's not. On the other hand, it's not hard to recreate it. If mine disappears, I will recreate it - it's a couple of clicks in Calibre.

But the guidelines don't silence anybody talking about author behaviour, in fact they've gone overboard to explain in exactly what circumstances that's fair. The review has to be about the book. If the author behaves badly, that may be relevant, as long as you talk about the book and not just the author.

[taming]

The end point for GoodReads has to be something that brings value to Amazon. They can't force people to like a book, but they can assure that people will not stay away from a book when all that has been done is pronounce a negative judgment on the author.

Originally Posted by meeera

Nitpicking on a side point here, but no: User Content is explicitly _not_ Goodreads' property, according to their TOS (emphasis is mine):



That doesn't mean GR are obliged to publish it; but it's not their property and users don't sign over their IP rights by publishing content at GR.

I phrased myself poorly. Your review is not, of course, the property of GoodReads - when you publish it, however, it becomes part of the site, and they can do with their site whatever they please. You are always free to cross-post your reviews to your own website. GoodReads behaves as a simple hosting medium for reviews, and they have the right to choose which reviews they host. My apologies for the confusion!

(Anyway, I'll slip into lurking mode henceforth - this topic is already going around in circles, so this clarification is really the only new thing I have to say on the topic! )

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by faithbw

I never understood why some users were hell bent on punishing authors because of a book they hated. I dislike plenty of books and give them one star reviews but I keep the review to the book. I don't know the authors of the books I read so how can I say anything bad about them? Plus, whether or not an author is likeable, it has no bearing on how good or bad her book is.

The problem is that people on the internet often reward one another for thinking alike. This can create the illusion that any sort of consensus is right.

Most of us understand that a physical lynch mob is a bad thing. What some of us do not understand is that banding together to hound a person we dislike until they become unemployed or unhinged is merely another kind of lynch mob.

I'm always amazed at the people who rejoice on Yelp whenever a small business owner whose attitude they dislike goes under. If you don't care for a waiter or restaurant manager, then why not go elsewhere? Why try to destroy the livelihood of everyone involved with that restaurant because one of its employees annoyed you once? The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the crime.

It's the same with authors, isn't it? If they don't connect with you, why not find different authors and let that person who annoyed you connect with someone else? Why keep a public list of of the ones you hate, hoping to build a consensus? A well-written review which examines the work closely and finds it wanting is condemnation enough.

Of course, I can understand how anyone would be upset losing shelves they'd spent seven years building. The total erasure of anything seems sad. If only site moderators had the time to keep copies of the work they deleted massively.

[meeera]

This isn't just affecting people who complain about a certain group of badly behaving authors. It's also affecting, for example, queer users & book groups who discuss viciously homophobic authors and maintain their shelves accordingly. Shelves are often used a reminder for individuals in the future about who they might want or not want to pay/deal with/review. It is simply a reminder to themselves to "go elsewhere", as you say.

Goodreads has for a very, very long time maintained that shelves were for the individual to use however they see fit. So this is a sudden 180 in policy, dumped on a Friday night, with no notice at all, concurrent with mass deletions. What will happen, in practice, is that now users will find another way to remind themselves and to communicate; there will be a neverending chase of changing coded shelves, and users will very likely also use one-star ratings as reminders to themselves, instead of shelves. How exactly is that an improvement?

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The problem is that people on the internet often reward one another for thinking alike. This can create the illusion that any sort of consensus is right.

Most of us understand that a physical lynch mob is a bad thing. What some of us do not understand is that banding together to hound a person we dislike until they become unemployed or unhinged is merely another kind of lynch mob.

I'm always amazed at the people who rejoice on Yelp whenever a small business owner whose attitude they dislike goes under. If you don't care for a waiter or restaurant manager, then why not go elsewhere? Why try to destroy the livelihood of everyone involved with that restaurant because one of its employees annoyed you once? The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the crime.

It's the same with authors, isn't it? If they don't connect with you, why not find different authors and let that person who annoyed you connect with someone else? Why keep a public list of of the ones you hate, hoping to build a consensus? A well-written review which reads the work closely and finds it wanting is condemnation enough.

Of course, I can understand how anyone would be upset losing shelves they'd spent seven years building. The total erasure of anything seems sad. If only sites had the time to keep copies the work they deleted massively.

Hurrah! Love this post - so karma to you.

I don't actually agree 100% with the Goodreads action and I think it is a bit much to make a pretty drastic change in policy like this that has such an immediate impact on users' personal cataloguing (a primary purpose of the site - at least for me).

However, I agree completely with your point.

EDIT: Hmmm - must have given you karma recently because it's not letting me give you more. Oh well, it's the thought that counts.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The problem is that people on the internet often reward one another for thinking alike. This can create the illusion that any sort of consensus is right.

Most of us understand that a physical lynch mob is a bad thing. What some of us do not understand is that banding together to hound a person we dislike until they become unemployed or unhinged is merely another kind of lynch mob.

I'm always amazed at the people who rejoice on Yelp whenever a small business owner whose attitude they dislike goes under. If you don't care for a waiter or restaurant manager, then why not go elsewhere? Why try to destroy the livelihood of everyone involved with that restaurant because one of its employees annoyed you once? The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the crime.

It's the same with authors, isn't it? If they don't connect with you, why not find different authors and let that person who annoyed you connect with someone else? Why keep a public list of of the ones you hate, hoping to build a consensus? A well-written review which reads the work closely and finds it wanting is condemnation enough.

Of course, I can understand how anyone would be upset losing shelves they'd spent seven years building. The total erasure of anything seems sad. If only sites had the time to keep copies the work they deleted massively.

I guess we see the situation differently. You see this measure as a result of readers banding together to hound an author, but from the comments on Goodreads it seems to me like it was the other way around.

When some authors got a bad review they started to stalk reviewers. The reviewers made lists and now Goodreads is saying that they can't even warn each other.

Bieke {Istyria book blog} wrote: "Well, if it basically tells that the author should be raped or something, it's insulting. =/ I've seen those things here before. "

That never happened. And the author came back and said she was having a PMS fit.

But readers have been stalked and called at home. There's one author right now trying to find hackers to help him get reader personal information so he can put HITS on them. he's gone as far as to take out MULTIPLE ads in multiple places.

But that's not important. Some author who had "a PMS issue" and made a bunch of stuff up is much more important, right?