Yeah, there are some feedback threads that offered up dozens of way more common meanings. Not that staff commented at the time or restored the P2P content.

And a very odd recent response on one of the threads where staff swears they never had any issues with "P2P" and never took any actions. It's really bizarre what's being said over there. I guess they are just hoping to sweep it all under the rug by pretending that, no, it did not happen (or for things too well documented or seen/commented by too many members and sites that "oops" we reconsidered and have now completely restored to those members affected" type of comments).

They are really counting on our lack of participation or just trying really hard to defuse the sheer amount of bad will evident everywhere at least long enough to capture post holiday sales and lure new kindle owners in.

I do get why the fanfiction community would automatically think "pulled to publish" as much as the healthcare workers, counselors, and tech nerds think "peer to peer"; but, even if "pulled to publish" was meant that so is not automatically an attack on an author. It's ridiculous that goodreads was removing content with "P2P" while leaving content that said "fuck you" "enjoy all the trouble my fans are going to give you" "you are an idiot" "you are a racist idiot who cannot read" "you'll get your bitch""I'll get you banned off goodreads" "I'm going to sue you for..." and such like content.

Exactly. I was very confused too.
Essentially they co-opted the term.

The term wasn't really co-opted. It's an acronym just like peer to peer. P2P as pulled to publish grew on its own in the same way P2P as peer to peer grew. A lot of the people who are aware of P2P FF are not aware of peer to peer - the same way a lot of P2P (peer to peer) users are not aware of pulled to publish fanfiction.

That author wasn't writing genre or age group I'd even browse so I didn't track. I never used to try to track bba. She was mentioned (unless staff have since deleted) in feedback threads on the P2P stuff, the megathread (and I think on a P2P explanation in SOS group and some others I used to belong to, some of which went private, it's all a blur I was reading so many threads trying to keep my book catalog going...) -- which is where I heard about p2p, fanfiction, etc.

No; I didn't lose that or any other shelf. I was told to rename it by a good friend who had had P2P content screwed up (actually, once I saw friend's content going away and it became clear what a mess of book catalogs the September non-announcement was making I temporarily just numbered my shelves and kept an index offline). I did not have any indie authors on the newly renamed "Category 15" shelf that should have drawn attention to it.

On my shelves with P2P actually in title, mysteriously ratings (for some strange reason a lot of 2-stars showed up well after I had removed all star ratings) and books were added and removed by "bugs" support were unable to fix; I also didn't shelve that much of my nonfiction reads (I felt no urge to catalog books I had read on COBOL, ArcNet, etc.) so lazily used friends shelves, reviews and lists as if my own except for currently reading.

What I thought logically would be interpreted as author behavior (by the time I even knew what a bba was it was way easier to just keep track of other reviewer shelves, listopias and group lists than make my own) shelf names, weren't actually ones I had before renaming--except that I did have an "author spammed me or group" shelf and a questionable "not age group genre or whatever" shelf. The spam one I deleted all the books on, then ditched the shelf myself (goodreads did not delete the shelf). By renaming category # I figured my content was pretty safe.

I had just by habit been keeping csv backups so had reviews safe. So, I deleted all my reviews and ratings.

With no reviews, no ratings, no questionable shelf names, no bba books' knowingly shelved reviewed or rated (even before deleting ratings/reviews I hesitated to give bba books any attention as shelving or rating moved their book up on shelf, search, and genre features) -- I really thought my book catalog was safe.

Hah!

It got so "bug" damaged even after I deleted books and reimported good csv data back a couple of times that I finally just dumped all my books to currently reading or "shelved for one reason or another" and moved on to importing csv file on other booksites.

I don't even have snotty or threatening support emails to share; the worst I got were in response to bug reports that were being very vague or asking dozens of technical jargon questions that goodreads staff would know that just a reader using their site could not answer.

I do have to acknowledge that after one staff member asked me if I was sure I wasn't accidentally giving books two stars myself, possibly because that meant "book was okay" so maybe like most members when I could not clearly remember books I read I was two-starring myself -- the random star ratings stopped. The answer I gave support was "I don't star rate or review books on goodreads anymore and have had all previously reviews/ratings deleted for months. So when 'My Books' or my updates say I rated a book any number of stars -- no way."

I do wish I had kept lists of bba now that so many are gone that I used to use.

When I had reviews on goodreads, I almost never read or reviewed indie authors. I almost never had any bad author interactions. When I did, I simply flagged to support, waited a few weeks to let support get to, deleted all of their pm's or comments and blocked 'em. I had no reason to track or document because goodreads favored reader vs. author and just handled for me. Why make drama or give them any attention including shelving books. Or wasting time documenting and screenshottng .... Live and learn. I now shelve and shout out bba stuff (and document).

I'll try to find the thread naming her again next time I allow myself back on goodreads. It really stuck in my head because the first thought I had when reading all the posts about how irate she was at having book shelved as pulled to publish was "was it pulled to publish"? Plus I had learned something new (never really was around fanfiction stuff).

Maybe someone who was reviewing or shelving P2P and had content deleted because of would remember.

Yeah, no other explanation makes any sense, really. But that they were so certain that they understood what all the user shelf names meant to each user still boggles me. None of their warnings or advice would have made it obvious that those shelves were problems.

"When I had reviews on goodreads, I almost never read or reviewed indie authors."

When I started getting into the more social aspect of GR I downloaded some samples - and was mostly just amazed at how terrible some of the writing was for the authors that were getting bad reviews and huffing about them. And I've taught college where every now and then you have a student that somehow has managed to get that far and not been able to write (as in, below high school level). I thought about actually reviewing one or two - and then I saw how the authors were acting - and then I started to keep BBA lists, because I don't need that kind of crazy hopping into my comments sections. Which is why I'm always really grateful when people post the BBA alerts.

This is true - and I'm always having to remind myself that it's the minority of indie authors acting like this. But it's getting to the point where I almost think all indie authors should be told they now need to reassure all their potential readers up front (on all their webpages/blogs) that they are NOT BBAs, and are in fact sane, won't pester reviewers, have never spammed, etc. Because at this point it's the loud BBAs that are making the whole indie population look bad.

Yeah that's new for me too. Someone must not realize that the BBAs are making some folks make a "I won't buy any indie authors" vow, and frankly I think that's something all indies should worry about and try to change. Otherwise the loud minority seem like they represent the whole. I've seen some indie authors posting about this (in a "don't be a bba, here's now" way) and it makes me think better of them.

After all, all I'm asking is that if an author disagrees with me on a review, just ignore me. The way the professional authors have always ignored bad reviews in the past.

Plus if a review is nasty, attacking, ranting about author rather than book ... readers will judge it as such. They'll ignore and move on to the next review which might have useful to them or chord-striking bits. And likely be way more sympathetic to author complaints when there really is an attack reviews in place despite TOS preventing.

That's something I have yet to see on all the bba tantrums -- screen captures of or links to the supposed attacks by reviewers. (I have seen attacking reviews that I have flagged; but, on goodreads they always get quickly removed -- admittedly my idea of attacking review and a bba's idea of what is a bullying review or the dreaded bullying star rating or P2P shelf obviously are very different; I doubt I've flagged more than a dozen things on goodreads.)

Uhm...better make that search for "cease and decist" as some of the posters do not spell well.

A more graphic view: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241138 that includes some links I do not know if safe or not