Comments: 18
Maybe they finally listened to what people were saying and want to make it right, better is probably a more accurate term. A lot of the frustration was how things were "implemented" and took off without any announcement and actually initially no notification and then no feedback. It is actually possible that gr realizes it made a big goof and wants to make it as good as it can. Virginia there is a Santa Claus...
bookaneer 8 years ago
I'm not mollified. Since she started by denying the facts of the case, then played the "mistake" and "confusion" game when confronted with evidence, why should I trust what she says now? What is to prevent more "mistakes" from being made?
Plus, when they delete your review, it appears that you lose all the meta--all the comments, all the likes, all the shelves. And those aspects aren't returned to you. I also don't like being played. Do they really think that after everything else, this slim non-concession will win us all back?
Marianna 8 years ago
I agree. It no longer feels safe to be on Goodreads.
Why would we want to be on a site that judges our organization choices and censors our opinions of books and authors? What in the world are they thinking?

Even if they had informed everyone and gave warning before removing those reviews it is still a crap idea.
Debbie's Spurts 8 years ago
If you swallow the koolaid that it was a mistake they won't repeat—it still doesn't explain why it took three months to return the first "mistakenly" deleted review content. Or why there is still not sitewide anniuncement, TOS change, real FAQs readily accessible or why what they are calling the FAQs are not being updated with new information that's now spread out on so many threads.
Debbie's Spurts 8 years ago
If mistakes take three months to correct ...
Ceridwen 8 years ago
The fact that they deleted P2p shelves is not misinformation.
bookaneer 8 years ago
Ceridwen, you've been one of the main fact-collectors on all this. Do you have evidence--a screenshot or similar--of the P2P thing? I tried looking around and couldn't find anything other than Katiebabs saying that all the books deleted from her were on a P2P shelf (but the P2P shelf isn't on her list of deleted shelves).
Ceridwen 8 years ago
Well, no, I don't have screenshots of shelves that were deleted without warning, no. I pretty much have the word of the people who had their shelves deleted - and the content of those shelves, somewhat painstakingly reconstructed - to put up against the word of Goodreads. Which, I would like to point out, is suspect as shit. A whole boatload of reviews of p2p "reviews" were deleted in the purge, which you can see if you go through the database.

What I'm hearing from the people who have had their reviews returned is that it's scattershot - not everything is being returned - and still, many of of the "reviews" were conversations occurring in the comment threads. That's what I've got. I recognize that this isn't proof, in the hardcore legal sense, but I also think that people should be suspect of this PR bullshit being spun three months after the fact. It's also extremely precious that Goodreads is running this spin in the middle of the Christmas season, which is a perfect way to bury something because everyone is too damn busy breathing into a bag over their in-laws to deal with whatever corporate bullshit right now.

I'll leave you with the link to the database, because that's what I've got:

https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?Bsrc=Share&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&resid=36CE06E5F5107064!116&cid=36ce06e5f5107064&app=Excel&wdo=2&authkey=!AtBYDdneqNLgi_M

Textwall out.
bookaneer 8 years ago
Ceridwen, thanks--to be clear, I'm not doubting anything the reviewers are saying were deleted, and it's clear that P2P reviews were targeted. I just was seeing if we could confront Emily with evidence of this particular incident, which she continues to claim is "misinformation." I don't like revisionist history.
Batgrl: Bookish Hooha 8 years ago
I figured you were thinking evidence to point to for GR's benefit - that's actually what's so nice about this situation because multiple folk are trying to document this for the same reason, they figure they'll need to confront GR with evidence. Because the company has been working SO hard at not acknowledging the problem.
Ceridwen 8 years ago
Someone could talk to Katie, because she's the one who was targeted most clearly for her P2P shelf. I don't remember the name of the shelf though.
bookaneer 8 years ago
Yeah, she listed the books and shelf deleted here: http://katiebabs.booklikes.com/post/501501/my-reviews-deleted-and-shelf-from-goodreads.
As far as I understand it, GR deleted almost every review *on* her P2P shelf, but didn't delete the P2P shelf. Which doesn't undermine anything about GR targeting comments about P2P books--it just doesn't seem to provide a counterexample to Emily's claim of "misinformation." I guess there's no point anyway--even if such a case is found, she'd merely claim it was a "mistake" or "confusion" again.
Batgrl: Bookish Hooha 8 years ago
I remember multiple people saying/writing that P2P shelves were deleted. To really get into proof you'd have to show screenshots and/or csv files before and after, I guess. But frankly after seeing some of the things they admit to deleting - shelves named Hormel, TAA, and Icey-Hex - I totally believe P2P would go. I sort of assumed someone thought it meant peer to peer filesharing and that it was somehow about stealing books, because that's what hyper "treat your users as pirates" people think. And everything about this screams "rule with a heavy hand" rather than treat your users as adults.

What's important to me is that the apology is still hidden, tucked away on the Feedback pages, despite that it did get posted in various news and book sites online. GR is still keeping this quiet - if you don't read Feedback forum, you'd never know any of it. Because actually putting information where people can find it - in help files or in TOS, or at least linking FAQ in a file at the page bottom - so users could actually know the guidelines, is somehow not important. *facepalm*
Debbie's Spurts 8 years ago
I have P2P books that are "peer to peer"; never occurred to me until this mess that anyone would interpret that otherwise. I also never dealt with fanfiction (even when goodreads librarian I left stuff I was less familiar with or that had conflicting staff policies to others more familiar with that part of database). Honestly, I barely knew what fanfiction was much less terms associated with it.
The question I'd like to ask her, or any of GR's staff, is why I can't post or edit comments. They all have private profiles these days, so I can't PM them, and I can't post reporting it, because I can't post!
Batgrl: Bookish Hooha 8 years ago
Wow, that really makes no sense! Apparently GR is fine with muting users entirely?!
That was a weird Friday "gift," even for them.
Jamie's Book Blog 8 years ago
PR damage control is what it is. They probably don't care but at least someone is responding. Probably too little too late but a response is still better than continually ignoring people. Of course it would have still been better not to delete peoples reviews without notice or ignore people in the first place.

I'm so glad all I ever did was put reviews up. I was on Amazon yesterday and saw that my latest review never made it up even though I fondly remember submitting it. I'm still thinking it was this line that got it denied: HolyFreakingAmazingBatManBalls. Sigh, that was my favorite line in the whole review. I had to change it to BatmanBlast. I know right? That makes no sense like BatmanBalls did, grrrr.