Comments: 8
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
I think I'm almost at that point too -- spending less time online. A lot of the joy is gone.

Not giving up completely; will checkout new site (I doubt someone involved with blog community or tours will come up with something to beat the other sites I've looked into and/or joined). BookRabbit I'm convinced is dead or else no one is participating there. I have no interest on any site owned by amazon or other booksellers (except maybe kobo; I rather liked their book community features except that books not on kobo weren't a part of it), publishers, authors, etc. Or with privacy and copyright policies I object to. Or that just want to recommend my next book or let authors directly promote to me without my fanning them. Otherwise, I'm open. Heck, I'm even open to a traditionally published books only siteso long as not directly run by a publisher.

I'm on several sites and fully convinced that with a larger, more active membership and a few more features they might suit. Someone this year or next year should emerge as the place for the Shelfari and goodreads refugees. I don't have the heart or the energy to participate much anywhere online; yes, the asshats drowning out reader voices are "winning" a battle while I take comfort knowing they are losing the war because not getting book sales or a non-fellow-authors-or-paid-reviewers reviewing positively unless blog tour restrictions require. Amazon is destroying any part of goodreads include book database that doesn't contain their or their third party seller's product pages and isn't directly book promotional so kiss the shelves and book data at goodreads goodbye soon.

Leafmarks I am trying to be very active on because there is a promise of a site that knows what did work and did not work on goodreads plus what readers requested but never got; like all new sites seeking members they are very responsive—the site speed is still too slow on tablets and they have a ways to go with group and other features. The librarian work is currently discouraging because so many mass edits on the industry data feeds are needed that goodreads just had scripts auto-handling. But, I know that goodreads was grown by its readers and not by goodreads; I have faith that any site getting a large number of Shelfari and goodreads refugees that permit us to grow and maintain the book data and gives us the social/group options will succeed.

Maybe in a few months I'll have my mojo back. And one site could emerge ahead of the pack. Who knows what holiday buying season plans amazon has for goodreads; it's starting to be that time of year again so I'm thinking goodreads won't be goodreads at all soon which should grow some of the other sites.
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
Part of me thinks the FTC or someone needs to step in and stop all the shit that's flooding what are supposed to be sites for consumers with posts/ratings/reviews from consumers.
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
Glancing at that link, it sounds an awful lot like Leafmarks was advertising (and a bit like that odd literati site that still to my knowledge has never gotten out of beta and certainly has never answered my question about TOS , privacy or copyrights where I could beta test ...)

It's not for me. One of the links under that one goes to a blog post that says they will allow down-voted reviews/content to be hidden from easy view or completely.

I'm not sure I'd consider the biggest reason for not using the amazon API would be not displaying on mobile devices; I think a better reason is that by TOS you had to feature amazon and amazon only on the book pages (a link to see other booksellers was "permissible" if they were not shown on same screen as amazon--see fictfact as an example of that).
Olga Godim 10 years ago
I subscribe to Ashley's blog so I saw this post. Not sure if I want to participate though, to learn another site, to find another group of friends, etc. I'm on two book blogs currently, and it's all I can handle at the moment, time-wise. Both serve their purposes well enough for me to stick to them.
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
It sounds like they have a good handle on goodreads wishlist (seriously, I never believed goodreads when they announced the launch of the most requested feature ever and I t was kindle fire, years newer than goodreads and already running the site and the app, integration--no way was that the most requested feature) and what people are liking about some of the other sites or new sites that goodreads refused to do. And if they raise the funds they could have a technically better site in terms of response time, site speeds, search, etc. stuff.

The up/down voting kills it for me. The wording where they allow the possibility that—if not violating TOS by containing a personal attack or harassment—a rating, cataloging or review of a commercial product might be bullying so goodreads may have been justified ... that means I won't even try them. Just hit so e personal buttons for me.

I don't really believe any site (not picking on Litrate or any other site) will be fraud and sockpuppet free. You just don't have to encourage them by letting them and their voting campaigns be the ones to decide if a review gets hidden. I would so rather leave that in the hands of site support even if they could handle in such a fashion (for example, only removing the non-book promotional content) I might leave the site completely.
Abandoned by user 10 years ago
I saw the conversation that you were talking about - and maybe I didn't completely read it, but it didn't look to me like down-voting was a set in stone thing. I'll have to go read it again.

Downvoting has basically no legitimate use. On amazon it is universally used as a way to manipulate the rank of other users.
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
I agree. And any site seen as readers-paid-attention-to or might-sell-your-product/book reviews will attract all kinds of people trying to game the system; with or without downvoting. How that gets handled, the attitude towards those who attempt versus the "real" readers trying to use the site ... that all will matter.

Downvoting is just, to me, an outright invitation to mis-use a reader community and interfere with reader opinions. And I don't think that amazon's mollifying too-vocal-on-blogosphere authors who behaved badly enough to be banned from goodreads by deleting goodreads content (in eerily similar order as listed) from the reviewers listed on authors' public hate lists was "may be" justified or not. By saying that, I'm going to need to a whole lot of convincing they will be a readers first site and a good hime for goodreads refugees. It's been a couple of years since amazon changed goodreads (and while negotiating buyout goodreads already was ignoring reader needs ) to be book promotion over book lovers community. New sites need to do more to prove they will not have goodreads attitudes of author over reader and have more to offer than just a checklist of unfulfilled goodreads feedback group suggestions proving to be popular on existing sites.

I'll maybe get over Litrate saying goodreads may have been justified a year or so after I get over goodreads doing all they did. Then I'll see what sort of book community they are. They probably should adjust their goodreads comments to instead talk about how they don't allow personal attacks but do allow honest reviewing (unlike goodreads review guidelines which prohibit saying things like "this book is awful" or this author "can't write a lick"); any suspicious activity or offensive content will be addressed by staff (versus voted up/down.).

They were appealing to me with their "no-content deleted even if hidden from public view" spiel. Then not outright being against goodreads' actions and the downvoting ... *ugh*
Debbie's Spurts 10 years ago
Oh good grief — I didn't mean to hijack this post with so many comments. My booklikes is still wonky and I'm seeing all my conversations from

No offense taken and feel free to delete or more concisely paraphrase all of my comments.