Comments: 14
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
Me, too. I get really fed up with aggressive marketing strategies and with the ones that pretend they are not marketing strategies as if we are too stupid to realize it.
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one. :)
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
Worse are the morons on social media who are outraged that the marketing is unwanted on the basis that they put in their time pretending to just be social and how dare followers/friends/group-members/fans later block them or mark their posts as spam? They played the game, stayed in stealth mode, now folks who played FarmVille with them have to be their marketing targets and unpaid promoters sharing out all their marketing ... the spam taggers are the evil ones for not cooperating ...
Sounds reasonable to me.
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
I'm glad you think so. :)
Olga Godim 3 months ago
It happens; you're not alone. I also feel different, out of whack with most of the others. Example: recently, my short story was accepted into an anthology called Hero Lost. Everyone else - 11 stories out of the total 12 - wrote about their heroes being lost metaphorically. My story was the only one where the hero was lost physically: nobody could find him I didn't even think about the other meaning when I wrote that story. And that repeats itself in every area of my life. I think differently, see the world differently than most people I know. I just accept this as a fact and try not to feel excluded. Maybe most of us here feel that way? Maybe that's why we are looking for friends on BL, and not on Facebook, like the majority.
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
Thinking differently is good. Even thinking differently from other writers and book lovers. If everything was exactly the same, it would be too boring to read. And yes, that's why I love Booklikes so much (and Litsy - I really need to get back to Litsy, people are so nice there). Maybe we should even have a chat room here on Booklikes to connect more?
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
LOL, of course people are nice on Litsy -- it's even required in their original terms of use. They even prohibited "bullying books" and required all content be positive (even if one starring a book Litsy required no negativity, positive only) when first launched (no provisions against bullying authors, publishers, editors, readers, bloggers, or fellow Litsy members but no book bullying aka do not relentlessly harass books to cause the books psychological trauma and how dare anyone suggest a book/author was bad enough others should boycott the thing).
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
I didn't know that. So you're saying they're only pretending to be nice to me?
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
No, I'm saying they launched prohibiting anything else. They've since relaxed and even reworded some TOS things that made people leery of joining (even removed the actual phrase "book bullying" and put in the expected guidelines like not harassing other members) but still insist on positive only content. Not positive only ratings, they aren't one of those horrible "want book reviewers but only if 4-/5-starring a book" type of sites. But, you can get your account deleted for not being nice.
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
Wow. I had no idea. Interesting.
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
Nothing against being nice, of course. And I'm sure there are -- like most book sites -- lots of genuinely nice people there. I just am uncomfortable with the idea of who gets to judge what is "nice"/positive. Their phrasing equating the suffering of people who are bullied with the "bullying books" suffer has really stuck with me even after they removed it.

It's a fun app and I'm glad to see them help sponsor things like Dewey's Readathon.

I'm a bit oversensitive because I think saying a book can be bullied undermines bully prevention efforts and mocks bully victims. There is such a thing as a consumer boycott of a product. Last time I was accused of not being nice and actually of bullying people brought me to booklikes (after investigating lots of book sites) -- that accusation by some really angry authors wgot my book catalog destroyed and odd things marked as read all because I shelved my P2P (peer to peer) cloud computing nonfiction books as "P2P" on goodreads. Which made me a bully because everyone with a P2P shelf was deemed a bully violating site TOS prohibit personal attacks (mindboggling that shelving/tagging/key-wording a book titled "P2P Computer Networking" as "P2P" ... first thing I do on new book sites is to make un-nice shelves and post a couple of negative reviews as a test despite thinking myself a nice person and generally abandoning books I don't like too soon to review them where my review average on Amazon averaged 4.98 stars and 3.98 on goodreads ... but "P2P" was judged ... *ack* ... )
Bookloving writer 3 months ago
I can understand that you're a bit oversensitive (or at least sensitive) after having that experience on that other book site. Fortunately, nothing like that's ever happened to me (but I found out pretty soon that G+ wasn't for me - not that my Google account was book related). Mostly, people tend not to notice me online, which is another reason why I've enjoyed Booklikes (and Litsy) so much. People do seem to be genunitely nice.
Debbie's Spurts 3 months ago
Absolutely. I'd say 99% of my interaction with people on book sites has been positive; otherwise why would they bother joining even if marketing? Just a tiny few trolls/bullies that are everywhere online that want to spoil things who are easily blocked/ignored (unless allowed by site staff to damage your book cataloging or censor your reviews and discussions) -- plus on booklikes they aren't even seen unless you follow them.