Check out the article, mentioning our own wonderful Ceridwen!
The first article by the same author got a lot wrong. This time, while I don't exactly agree with everything that's been said, I think it's a lot more balanced, which is really all that I expect from a journalist.
So, awesome that the article exists, but I'm confident that it isn't going to change Goodreads' policy changes (or ham-fisted implementation style).
Check out the article, mentioning our own wonderful Ceridwen!
The first article by the same author got a lot wrong. This time, while I don't exactly agree with everything that's been said, I think it's a lot more balanced, which is really all that I expect from a journalist.
So, awesome that the article exists, but I'm confident that it isn't going to change Goodreads' policy changes (or ham-fisted implementation style).
Check out the article, mentioning our own wonderful Ceridwen!
The first article by the same author got a lot wrong. This time, while I don't exactly agree with everything that's been said, I think it's a lot more balanced, which is really all that I expect from a journalist.
So, awesome that the article exists, but I'm confident that it isn't going to change Goodreads' policy changes (or ham-fisted implementation style).
Having read (large portions of) the infamous goodreads feedback thread, I feel qualified to say that I have read this book. I laughed. I cried. I opened an account on BookLikes.
Log in with Facebook 
