I don't trust GoodReads

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Ahhhh... the old "A billionaire owns them" argument. It was only a matter of time, I guess. That's like punching the stock boy because the local well-to-do grocer doesn't carry your favorite brand of pickles.

That's false analogy because Goodreads is a marketing tool of Amazon. It's owned and used by Amazon to generate proftit for Amazon, so spending money earned by Goodreads ON Goodreads would not be unreasonable. It might even benefit Amazon by increasing Goodreads-derived earnings

[DiapDealer]

No. It's not a false analogy. It's just one that you don't like. Bezos being the world's richest man has exactly nothing to do with the fact that the volunteers providing the oversight at Goodreads can't catch everything. They do not have Jeff's ear, nor do they have a direct line to his pocketbook. What Bezos COULD do for Goodreads with more of his money has no bearing on what the volunteers at Goodreads CAN do without it.

It's not the stockboy's fault his rich boss doesn't run the grocery the way you think it should be run. Punch Bezos, not the volunteers at Goodreads.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. It's not a false analogy. It's just one that you don't like. Bezos being the world's richest man has exactly nothing to do with the fact that the volunteers providing the oversight at Goodreads can't catch everything. They do not have Jeff's ear, nor do they have a direct line to his pocketbook. What Bezos COULD do for Goodreads with more of his money has no bearing on what the volunteers at Goodreads CAN do without it.

It's not the stockboy's fault his rich boss doesn't run the grocery the way you think it should be run. Punch Bezos, not the volunteers at Goodreads.

NO ONE has blamed the volunteers - no one is "punching the stockboy". NO ONE has said it's their fault that Amazon is owns Goodreads, profits from Goodreads, and could, if it chose to, enhance the Goodreads experience by fixing problems like this.

And I say all that as a disinterested observer who deleted my GR account 5 years ago

[DiapDealer]

So I'm imagining all the complaints (basically this entire thread) about the lack of Goodreads' oversight (performed by volunteers) that results in unpublished books getting reviews and ratings?

And this exchange didn't happen?

Originally Posted by tomsem

Everybody wants to blame Goodreads for lack of oversight. But Goodreads doesn't have staff to do this. This is the domain of Goodreads Librarians (volunteers). This is where you can request changes and corrections to the catalog.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

They are also owned by the richest man on the planet and are used for profit. Goodreads isn't integrated with Nook or Kobo, you know.

If that's not SOME ONE suggesting "it's their fault that Amazon is owns Goodreads, profits from Goodreads, and could, if it chose to, enhance the Goodreads experience by fixing problems like this", then I don't know what is.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If that's not SOME ONE suggesting "it's their fault that Amazon is owns Goodreads, profits from Goodreads, and could, if it chose to, enhance the Goodreads experience by fixing problems like this", then I don't know what is.

The exchange happened, you just seemingly don't know how to read it.

Goodreads has stinky data. Why? Because the volunteers can't cover everything.

The point of my comment is: why is Goodreads, a site owned by one of the world's most successful companies and used for marketing/money-making purposes, powered by volunteers?

[DiapDealer]

Why is not relevant. IS is relevant.

The opposite also holds true. Why do people who use Goodreads free service expect Amazon to sink more money into it simply because they have money to spend? And why do people who don't use Goodreads free service even care?

And please edit your post for language so I don't have to. You've been here long enough to know what's appropriate.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why do people who use Goodreads free service expect Amazon to sink more money into it simply because they have money to spend?

Because Amazon is using it at least as marketing/an advantage of their Kindle ecosystem.

And why do people who don't use Goodreads free service even care?

Why do you reply questioning why others do?

I don't care much about Goodreads either way. But when I saw the mention they were relying on volunteers to maintain data integrity, I didn't feel like I should avoid making a comment.

And please edit your post for language so I don't have to. You've been here long enough to know what's appropriate.

Actually, I never knew what the policy for language was. I didn't seen clear guidance in the guidelines. But I'll go edit.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by Karellen

So... how and why do unwritten and unpublished books get a rating and so many reviews on GoodReads?
Talk about misleading... here it is.

If the author has expressed interest in writing them, and has started work on them (As in this case), then I don't see a problem with them being added.

Personally it helps me to keep up with series for the future, as I add them to my to-read list and forget about them. I would love for them not to be ratable before the release date though.

Are these generated by bot??

Nope, just rabid fans.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...

And please edit your post for language so I don't have to. You've been here long enough to know what's appropriate.

What language (of Zodwollop) is inappropriate?

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So I'm imagining all the complaints (basically this entire thread) about the lack of Goodreads' oversight (performed by volunteers) that results in unpublished books getting reviews and ratings?

And this exchange didn't happen?





If that's not SOME ONE suggesting "it's their fault that Amazon is owns Goodreads, profits from Goodreads, and could, if it chose to, enhance the Goodreads experience by fixing problems like this", then I don't know what is.

You have good to great debating skills. Thank you for the entertainment.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why is not relevant. IS is relevant.

Is Amazon making full use of goodreads?

Clearly not because user frustration results in people not trusting the site.

Is Goodreads as it currently is run effective and efficient?

No. Aside from the issue raised in this thread, different editions of a book can be added without being linked to the existing entry for the book. The suggestion feature lumps YA in with adult (and assume the reverse is true) with no way to filter them.

Is Goodreads at fault for this?

No and no one has said they were. People are allowed, and should be encouraged, to complain about a service not being up to their expectations (especially when those expectations are directly in line with the stated purpose of the service) without being chastised for hitting the stock boy.


Again I’m not blaming the volunteers who try to resolve those issues. They are not at fault for not having the resources and/or access necessary to rectify the issue. Amazon however very much does have the resources and the access necessary to rectify the issue. However much money Bezos has is largely irrelevant, he owns Amazon and Amazon owns Goodreads. Thus the cries for change should be (and are in this thread) directed at Amazon/Jeff.


Stop chasing the white whale here, it’s not in this thread.

[DiapDealer]

Your assumption that there's a lot of frustration among the Goodreads user base is unsubstantiated. The hundreds (or even thousands) of squeaky wheels may not be very representative of the millions of users who just use it.

No white whale chase, here. Just a few noisy minnows.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Thus the cries for change should be (and are in this thread) directed at Amazon/Jeff. .

Should be, yes. But I don't think the thread title, nor the vast majority of posts before I joined in, quite jives with your "(and are in this thread)" claim.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by John F

What language (of Zodwollop) is inappropriate?

Perhaps you missed the part where he agreed to edit the post (thanks by the way, Zod)?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Should be, yes. But I don't think the thread title, nor the vast majority of posts before I joined in, quite jives with your "(and are in this thread)" claim.

The only targets of ire have been the service (amazon owned) and the staff which the volunteers wouldn’t fall under as they have no power and I believe Jon (who was the only one to mention the staff) would agree blaming people who can’t make a change for not making that change is futile. Thus staff should be understood as those who can affect the change desired.

You, on the other hand, came to the thread as if those posts were calling for the heads of the volunteers. When clearly no one had stated any such demand.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

You, on the other hand, came to the thread as if those posts were calling for the heads of the volunteers. When clearly no one had stated any such demand.

That's the great thing about opinions. We're all free to share them. *shrug*