Authors vs. Goodreads

by Zoe Desh

If you are an Independent author, or even a published author thinking about joining Goodreads, I hope you will take a look at my free booklet and closely examine your motives before giving Goodreads, and thus Amazon, a bunch of free information that they will then own and control. If you believe that Goodreads 'Review' system is fair, you need to read about troll review attacks that are also documented widely on the Internet. And let me warn you about a number of broken features on the website that may affect your sales. The main thing you must understand, though, is that you are on the bottom of the food chain at Goodreads. You are the income that keeps the server farm humming but you are entering into an adversarial relationship, not only with the pampered readers but the overworked staff that doesn't even know their own rules when they punish you because there are so damned many rules and the documentation is broken, outdated chaos.


The booklet is short and free. It provides a lot of links to information on the Internet that you should know and links to the documentation at Goodreads. If nothing else, at least read the first page and heed the warnings in the links provided.

Genres: Nonfiction, Humor

26 pages, ebook

First published December 28, 2014

Reviews

[karen]

i assume this book was written solely to get a reaction out of people; to prove some sort of point about how naughty goodreaders will gang up and troll-attack a problematic book with "nonreviews" and "abuse," and it certainly has had caused a stir. however, there is just so much misinformation in this book, and it is so insulting to goodreaders - to people who have long used this place as a little booknerd refuge where they can make friends and talk books and do their own thing without bullshit, that i feel obligated to address some of the accusations and assumptions not as a "pampered reader," as desh claims we are, but purely as someone confronted with inaccurate information setting the facts straight for anyone foolish enough to consider this book in any way a fair assessment of what goodreads is and how it functions.

here's some stuff about me: i do not work for goodreads, but i have been an active member since 2007 when goodreads launched. i write reviews, i am a goodreads librarian, and i have had many interactions on here with authors, 99% of which have been positive. i have seen goodreads go through many waves. i have seen bad behavior from authors and reviewers alike. i have generally opted to stay out of the fray when it occurs because i just don't have time for conflict, but i have certainly observed it from the sidelines. and yet somehow i made the stgr bullies page because of a single one-star review i wrote that pissed someone off. considering i have 3562 ratings, and written 1850 reviews, where only 19 of them have been one-star reviews, giving me an average rating of 3.79, it's pretty clear that i am not a bully or a troll; i am just a person who didn't like a book. but i don't hold goodreads responsible. they aren't to blame for one person being a dick. and they aren't responsible for many of the conflicts that have occurred on here. i'm not stating all this to pat myself on the back for being such a good person, just to illustrate that sometimes, shit just happens. and you deal with it. this book reads like someone who had a negative experience on goodreads and decided to go off on an uninformed tear about something they don't quite understand, fueled by emotional outrage and wounded pride. and that's fine - that is one way to respond to life's setbacks, but arguments are weakened by specious claims, and that's where i come in.

since i am permitted by the book itself to use brief quotations embodied in critical reviews, i will take advantage of this. "brief" is a matter of opinion.

this booklet makes a lot of broad statements that may be accurate in terms of the author's own experiences here, of which i do not know the specifics, but they are certainly not representative of the general climate of goodreads that i have witnessed firsthand for years. for example:

All authors should realize their relationship with Goodreads is adversarial.

this is one of those provocative statements of which desh is so fond but do not hold up under any kind of scrutiny. many authors have used goodreads to develop positive relationships with their readers. i know this for a fact because some of those relationships have been with me.

Every published author should understand their works will end up in the Goodreads database whether they want them there or not. Once in the database, Goodreads members can 'review' them along with a rating, or without, or rate them without a review; there is no requirement to touch the book.

yes. this is true. your book will end up on goodreads if you write it and offer it publicly for people to read - for sale or for free. goodreads is a social cataloging website and the objects it catalogs are books. the other part is trickier. yes, people can "review" a book before they have read it, which has caused uproar in many corners, not just from authors. some people use that space to express excitement that a book is coming out that they are looking forward to. or to put a link to a professional review or a booklist that the book is on as a note-to-self about why they were interested in it. or for whatever purpose they choose, within the goodreads TOS: https://www.goodreads.com/review/guid..., most specifically:

Some of the best reviews on Goodreads use the book as inspiration for a personal essay or other piece of creative writing. As long as they don't go against our guidelines in other ways, these reviews are welcome and encouraged!

no one is getting paid to write reviews on goodreads. members have historically thought of the review space as "theirs" to decorate any way they see fit. but there have been plenty of review-deletions - sometimes appropriately and sometimes overzealously. desh seems to think that the review space is this inviolable place where reviewers go to ruin lives, and that's just not true.

they will create a Book Description page with whatever you wrote as the book description at the outlet where they found it. They will not make any attempt to contact you.

yes. because that's what a book cataloging site does. it catalogs books. why on earth would they contact every author for every book they add? shakespeare doesn't have the time to answer emails every time a new edition of Hamlet is published. desh also has a tendency to refer to librarians as "they," as though librarians are working in tandem or have any idea what other librarians are doing at any time. this not entirely accurate. i am a librarian, but i never go to the librarian group or have any contact with other librarians. if i see something that needs fixing, i fix it. there's not some secret cabal where librarians gang up to screw over indie authors. that i know of.

desh cites a single example of a librarian error:

…for some unfathomable reason they chose to place Mr. Cox's erotica on the book list of Brian Cox, particle physicist and university professor who is apparently rather famous in England. He has a gargantuan following on Twitter. He is author or co-author of more than a dozen scientific books, has appeared on radio and TV in the United Kingdom and is a musician. So, out of all of the authors on Goodreads with the name Brian Cox, they chose this particular Brian Cox to add an erotica genre book onto his list? Why didn't they put it under on a new author page? If I was a betting person, I'd say there's some payback going on.

i will take you up on that bet. and i will win. if a book is incorrectly attributed to an author, it is the work of one individual, and it is easy enough to fix (and apparently has been fixed in this case). there's no agenda there - it's an accident. it happens.

It's obvious Brian Cox, physicist, doesn't monitor his Goodreads page. I wonder if he even knows he has one? He has no Goodreads 'friends' and you can't contact him through Goodreads. All you can do is become a fan. My guess is his publisher put up the page without telling him and barely maintains it

every author has an author page. it's so you can see all of the works by the author in one place, and get some brief autobiographical information about them. it does not have to be set up by a publisher or maintained by an author. brian cox does have an author page. so does herman melville. so does mary shelley. and i guarantee you, they do not know. there is a difference between an author page and a goodreads author page. goodreads authors maintain their own pages. authors without the goodreads author badge do not.

the author is very paranoid about amazon, and this leads to even more incorrect assertions. it's no secret that i work for barnes and noble, so there's no love lost between me and amazon, but there is some real tinfoil hat talk here. desh warns against giving too much information on your author page here on goodreads because

You are feeding Amazon's insatiable quest for book information and domination as a book seller.

but if your book isn't available on amazon, as this author's is not, what possible sinister purpose can they achieve by having the information? and even if it is available on amazon - what's the harm of their having information that you yourself control? this is how publishing works for a self-pubbed author: you write a book. you choose a cover. you write up the book description. you try to sell it - on amazon, on barnes and noble, on smashwords. wherever. what you write in the description is what potential readers see, and what the site selling your book see. amazon and other retail outlets offer the book for sale, hoping to make money. goodreads adds the book to their database for readers to discover. there's nothing diabolical here, and even though i know amazon has not always treated its authors carefully, there is nothing dangerous to them having the very basic information you have supplied. they cannot sell something you have not made available to sell.

Oddly, there is no reference on the Goodreads web site to this business relationship that I can find.

well, except for HERE, in the goodreads feedback group:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

yes, amazon bought goodreads in 2013. they also own audible, shelfari, toby press, zappo, etc etc etc. they have a lot of fingers in a lot of pies. but they haven't taken over the site, they way many people feared back when the announcement was made. the goodreads staff is still its own thing, apart from the monster staff of amazon. but that is lost on him as he rants about goodreads and amazon as though they are the same beast.

What's ironic is that sometimes features are fixed, then changed and broken again.

i turn that back on the author - what IS ironic about this?? i take the subway train to work every day. and frequently, something is fixed and then - you know what?? it breaks again. this is not ironic, it is just the price of living in the world.



Rather odd considering Goodreads is an Amazon company and Amazon's computer infrastructure is renowned.

the goodreads staff can be found here: https://www.goodreads.com/about/team

there are 87 of 'em. and there are thirty million members. you do the math. sometimes things are going to be bumpy.

the paranoia continues.

All members at Goodreads are equal, but some are More Equal. (Apologies to George Orwell.) Goodreads is primarily a site for readers to flock together and network with one another and talk books. Goodreads emphasizes it is a service for readers and puts their needs first. Authors should always keep this foremost in their minds, the readers come first.

yes. this site was set up as a site for readers. their "about us:"

Goodreads is the world’s largest site for readers and book recommendations. Our mission is to help people find and share books they love.

author involvement can be a nice perk, but this has always been first and foremost a haven for readers.

Goodreads needs authors to sign up and give them free information about their books that Amazon couldn't otherwise capture, and sell them on the notion that Goodreads is a great place to advertise and market their books.

free information?? why should goodreads pay authors for information about their books?? as an author you should be grateful for the FREE EXPOSURE goodreads offers. it gets your book in front of potentially thirty million readers. and again, if you aren't selling your book on amazon, why would they give a shit about your information? i have, just from living in the world, acquired a lot of free information about kim kardashian's butt. but i can't do anything with that information. i can't sell her butt because she has not made her butt available to me. you see?

…here is a quote from Otis Chandler, founder of Goodreads which distills the bottom line objective:

"We sell book launch packages to authors and publishers and really help accelerate, build that early buzz that a book needs to succeed when it paunches and accelerate that growth through ads on the site."

Rather straight forward profit motive. What's shocking though is that it's so author centric and not the reader centric public persona of the site.

how is that shocking? this is a service they offer to authors that readers who do not write have no use for. it's author-centric because it is a service for authors. it has no negative impact on a reader, so it doesn't go against the "public persona." it's just something else they do in addition to being a place for readers .

However, the truth of the matter is, authors are at the very bottom of the food chain and are treated with contempt, merely a necessary nuisance. There is even open hostility from many readers who would prefer if there were no authors on Goodreads. Some groups are openly hostile to authors, saying up front they would prefer authors not to join their group because the group is for readers only. As if authors weren't readers too.

this is not necessarily contempt. it might just be caution. some people aren't comfortable writing about books with the author peering over their shoulder and i don't think that's a bad thing. it's difficult to speak freely when you have to worry that an author will get their feelings hurt if someone didn't like the book. and some authors get aggressive or passive-aggressive, which is worse, and it's just a headache some people want to avoid. an unwillingness to invite conflict shouldn't be interpreted as hostile. i have had many authors comment on my reviews and it has nearly always been pleasant, but others have not been so fortunate.

desh keeps going on about how bad the goodreads librarians are. this author clearly had a negative experience with a single librarian, and has translated this experience into some sort of site-wide phenomenon blown all out of proportion.

…there is one particular volunteer above all other volunteers that wields enormous power on the Goodreads web site, the Librarian. As an author, you must understand the power of the Librarian.

well, this oughtta be good. i would love to know what kind of power i have. incidentally, the goodreads librarian group is not some hidden elite portal. it can be visited by any member, even if they are not themselves a librarian:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

here is the hierarchy at Goodreads: Librarian, readers, then authors, most of whom are beneath contempt.

this is a touch hyperbolic. also, i would venture that paid staff trumps librarians. again, i need to emphasize that nearly all of my dealings with authors have been positive. like attracts like: if you behave like an asshole, you will be treated like an asshole. i have had way more bullshit from other users than from authors.

but back to librarians.

librarians have absolute, dictatorial control over each of your Book Description pages and a direct line to Goodreads personnel.

we DO? like a bat signal?? i'm pretty sure that every member of goodreads has access to the goodreads feedback group, or can email most of the staff members. and yes, edits can be made to the book description page, but i have never seen any evidence of librarians going buckwild, adding incorrect descriptions just for giggles. and if it does happen, you better believe some sour-faced librarian will correct it and administer a scolding. librarians don't mess around.

Next in the membership hierarchy are their readers. They are pampered because they are the engine that keeps Goodreads alive by writing reviews or merely rating a book. It is their review information Amazon wants to collect in order to find out what books are hot and why. They are given authority to write reviews that are not reviews and abuse authors in almost any manner they see fit. You are never to question their reviews, or non-reviews that appear to be reviews, or the laughable, useless ratings they may deign to put on your book.

incorrect on a number of levels.

again, it must be stressed that amazon only acquired goodreads in 2013. the mission statement that the site is for readers predates that arrangement. and reviewers have reviews removed ALL THE TIME. you gotta visit that feedback group more, friend, read some complaints from reviewers. reviewers are always complaining about being treated unfairly. perspective - it's all about where you're standing.

At the bottom of the food chain are authors. They are only to be tolerated in the hopes they will give Amazon copious amounts of information about their books, perhaps even a heads up about a new book, along with purchasing a launch package. They will also be urged to shower copious amounts of fundage on Goodreads for advertisements, and participate in other promotional adventures, especially ones that will give their books away free making it easier for Amazon trolls to pounce on

again, if your books aren't for sale on amazon, which you have previously stated, they can't profit from your information, so why fret? and what benefit does amazon receive from trolls?? because your wording makes it sound like the reason they offer free books is so trolls can have them. and GASP - goodreads offers advertising space in return for money?? THOSE MONSTERS!!

again - this is how the world works. you think highway billboards are free?

As an author, it's imperative you understand what you are handing over to Goodreads when you create an Author Profile and load your book information on Goodreads. When loading your profile, give Goodreads and Goodreads' trolls the minimum amount of information possible. Remember, Goodreads allows readers to make their profile private, so you are not on an even footing from the get-go. This fact alone should raise your suspicion. If a reader is allowed to exclude their information from you, you best make as little information about yourself available to them because author profiles are always public.

this is called internet safety 101. there is no incentive to readers in giving out personal information. a goodreads author is able to tailor their profile page in a way that will let potential readers know who they are, and a sort of glimpse into what they can expect from their work. it's basically more advertising space - to attract readers. regular users aren't selling anything, so they don't have to share any personal information.

It is surprising how many readers only give their name and country or make their profile private. That should cause you to carefully consider what information about yourself you provide to Goodreads. Less is better.

is it surprising?? that people don't want strangers pawing through their information?? privacy settings are pretty standard, no matter what site you're talking about. not everyone wants to let stranger-danger in. this is just sensible practice. there are so many different reasons people use goodreads, and not all of them involve socializing. goodreads is an excellent resource to find books, and to track your own reading. and no one needs to know about you if you're only here for your own private archiving. there are about 50 valid reasons for making your profile private or limiting the amount of information you give out, as a reader. for an author, who is essentially selling themselves, providing personal background is useful, and in traditional publishing situations, is one to which an entire department is assigned.

ran out of space. review continued here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Khanh, first of her name, mother of bunnies · Rating 1 out of 5]

I suppose this would be one of those "troll reviews."

Because...

[Emily May]

I was torn between rating this 1 star because it is ridiculous, and 5 stars because it is possibly the most I've laughed in months. And yeah, I actually downloaded it from smashwords and read it because I am a masochist like that. Truly side-splitting stuff.

Just one of my favourite quotes:

“...if it is for a very tiny country, it doesn't take much to be the #1 reviewer and best reviewer in your country. Especially a country where the majority of the population can ill afford books, computer equipment and eReaders in order to be a member of Goodreads.”

Oh, you pesky third-worlders thinking you're the big #1 when most of your country can't even read. Stop being so insensitive and start feeling sorry for the authors who get put on “wouldnt-pee-on-it-if-it-was-on-fire," shelves.



I can't even.

[Eda** · Rating 1 out of 5]

Something peculiar that I noticed soon after putting up my first book on Goodreads was the number of FOREIGNERS who put my book on their to-read shelf and others even started reading it. All of my stories are in the erotica genre and they're short, a novella at most. Strangely, these foreigners were from countries whose governments would probably frown on smut. And strangely, nobody ever finished a book, even after months of reading it. Most of the profiles were only name and country and almost all of them had at least one other classic literature book on their bookshelf or were reading it. Something like Moby Dick. After signing up at Goodreads, there was never any recent activity and they didn't join groups.

I wasn't gonna lash out, but THAT DOES IT!

Now you listen to me, lady.

I am one of those "foreigners" you've slammed for no reason at all in your pathetic little attempt of a book. I live in Turkey and people that live in here are mostly Muslim. Yeah, most of them would never touch an erotica book, you've got that right.

Now lemme introduce myself to you a little bit. I am a 23-year-old Medical School student and I've been having all my classes in English since the age of 8. I started reading books, heavily, when I was 11 years old, the day I first discovered the Harry Potter series and never stopped after that. I've been reading Erotica and ONLY Erotica for the last 5 years. You can freely go check out my booklists.

I log on to Goodreads EVERY FREAKIN' DAY. I read books by authors of ALL nationalities EVERY FREAKIN' DAY. I write reviews in a pretty perfect level of English EVERY FREAKIN' DAY.

Who the hell do you think you are, trying to underestimate me because I'm not American? I frankly don't give a rats a** about how b*tthurt you are because some Goodreads reviewer one-starred your book and hurt your tiny winey feelings. You can't just write down racist blubbers and proudly try to spread them around, calling it a book.

Take my advice and GROW THE F*CK UP.

USA is not the only country in the world.

[Alienor ✘ French Frowner ✘ · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thank you so much to the author of that article for teaching me how to write a non-review. I'm a good pupil.

I hope so, anyway.

For you, dumb reviewers, here's how to do an outstanding non-review :

# 1 - A good non-review is put on a "wouldnt-pee-on-it-if-it-was-on-fire," shelf with a rating of 1*" ☑

# 2 - A good non-review has a gif in it, because "sometimes reviewers don't make a rating, they just want to make a statement about the book, almost 100% of the time a negative or derogatory statement with a cutesy full motion .gif." ☑



What? I do love cats, duh.

# 3 - A good non-review reviewer wants more than most that "all of [his] friends can stroke [his] ego by pressing the like button". Of course. Why do you think I'm here? To read? Pfff. ☑

# 4 - Now I'm off to "gossip" with my friends about my "outstanding review" in the "comment section" ☑

# 5 - But no worries, because I come from a little country so my opinion doesn't count (even if what a little country is in your opinion isn't really clear. Help, anyone?)

I hope my non-review review has been a great help for you.

PS : I only read one page, hey,I have actual books to read. I let the rest to review^^

PS 2 : Oh, and also, this week a big bunch of reviewers started something really great to promote other reviewers than themselves in order to make the statement that GR wasn't about popularity. I guess that contradicts all that right? No?

PS 3 : "Goodreads sucks", really? REALLY? I mean, for real?

[Rose · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quick review for a very quick read.

Never in the five years I've been a member on this site have I read such a prejudiced, ignorant narrative on the Goodreads community and being a part of it. It's interesting, because I just read an article in "Writer's Digest" talking about marketing on the Goodreads community for this past month (January), and one of the things they were talking about for aspiring authors is using your presence as a reader chiefly on the community.

Because that's what this community is: a reader community - to discuss books and opinions about books. As well, it's a book cataloguing site - meant for members to keep track of their personal shelves, books they have interests in and even those they do not.

I don't know who Zoe Desh is (and the term is pseudonymous, not anonymous in the author's case), but the only thing I have to say is that if she feels the need to paint the entire reading community of Goodreads with a wide brush without so much of a thought to the colorful opinions and expansive range of readers that are members of this community, then she's the one missing out.

Two cents, and none further.

[Carmen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Desh is very upset because she got some bad reviews and does not feel like the world has appreciated her masterpiece(s). She feels persecuted. Everyone is out to get her. It is not that her book was bad, and people didn't enjoy it, it is that Goodreads is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, full of corrupt faceless suits who run it, and bitchy out-to-get-you GR librarians who are corrupt and unfair. I feel sympathy for her - I really do. It is hard to accept that perhaps your writing craft does need work and that people don't instantly worship you and your creation. I'm not even being sarcastic, it really is hard, and I really am sorry that she got her feelings so hurt.

But I think Desh is a little confused about life. And Goodreads. When you publish your work, some people aren't going to like it. Desh seems to think that one-star reviews are not indicative of someone not liking her work, but instead a form of bullying or persecution. She assumes that people who didn't like her book didn't read it. Or are trying to "skew their stats" or something. She advises authors to "fight back!" by PMing her and she will instantly give them a five star review without even reading their book. Hmmmmm. Fighting fire with fire?

Desh also wants this to stop being a social media site (for readers - she is fine with and even encourages authors to "meet," network, and chat through GR). She hates that a "like" button exists on reviews, and she thinks the comments section underneath reviews should be eliminated. She calls it "gossip," and sneers at it because her experiences with the comments section have been very negative. She also hates gifs, and seems to see them as some sort of abomination - probably because they are often used to capture a reviewer's feelings about a book (not always negatively, but in her experience, yes, always negatively).

She is obviously not a fan of honesty - but instead favors the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" view of "we are fellow authors - unite!" reviewing. So she is not giving anyone negative reviews, but instead, boosting her fellow authors with her automatic 5-stars. Somehow she believes this "Everyone will get 4 and 5 star reviews on everything!" will somehow make GR a better place. (Not a very honest or effective one, though.)

Life (and Goodreads) is not always kind. You are not owed anything! Especially not by readers who paid money for your work. I know Desh put hard work, sweat, tears, and blood into whatever it is that she wrote. I'm sorry that the world was brutal in its response, but... that's life sometimes. Being an author is very difficult. I would advise her to keep working on and improving her writing. Or, if she really thinks she deserves only praise and gentleness, to perhaps only sell/give books to friends and family. You can be quite the little celebrity in your own circle! Don't let GR get you down, Desh. Life has so much more to offer.

http://goodreadsucks.com/AVG.pdf - This is the link to the pdf if anyone cares.

[Baba · Rating 1 out of 5]

0 stars. I read it. I rated it. #sorryamnotsorryatall. Review posted January 21, 2015





So, here is my very authentic review and no, I don't consider it as harassment.



*whiny voice* Where's my fucking cookie? I deserve one and some brain bleach to top it all off. And, when the author can mention numerous times "wouldn't-pee-on-it-if-it-was-on-fire" shelf and all those derogatory dancing gifs, then I must categorically insist that Charlie would not be amused being called derogatory. BTW, he doesn't dance in those gifs. *makes frowny face*

Whoa. I'd say someone did the independent authors, known as Indie authors, a huge disservice. And, established authors would be well advised to give this piece of rubbish a very wide berth.

Did you know that Christopher Hitchens said:

Everybody does have a book in them, but in most cases that's where it should stay.

Yep, best known as the darkest recesses of the mind.

Always keep in mind, you may need to know some of this information if you come under attack by the review trolls on Goodreads. They run in packs and they are as vicious as any wolf pack.



Even Goodreads is getting one's comeuppance…several times, by the way. Here is one little excerpt:

The corporate structure of Goodreads appears to be lean and mean. Probably should be since Goodreads is little more than a giant server farm. All they need is some IT personnel , a few marketing folks and a few faceless office personnel to handle the email and act as the final arbiters of disputes. Blah blah blah

Did you know that Goodreads pampers readers?

They are given authority to write reviews that are not reviews and abuse authors in almost any manner they see fit. You are never to question their reviews, or non-reviews that appear to be reviews, or the laughable, useless ratings they may deign to put on your book.

Flawed Review System. Who knew?

The Goodreads review system is the most flawed book review system on the planet. Baba: Maybe we should start searching for alternatives in the outer space, then. It is nothing more than a beauty pageant that invites abuse.

I know that Goodreads isn't the perfect site and I especially dislike the concept of rating unpublished books. But otherwise I do enjoy being a member of GR, reviewing and chatting books with fellow book lovers.

Or, you always have the option to "review" your own book, which I always thought was kind of goofy. Until I was trolled. Give yourself a 5* rating and PM me. I will 'like' your review and add your book to my 'Love To Read This Obviously Excellent Book' shelf with a 5* rating. Saves me buying your book. If you want increased sales though, do it my way.

Maybe if this happened a few times, Goodreads would get the hint that their vaunted 'Review' system is an utter farce that invites abuse. (…)



Anyone proven to have put Read Book or DNF, when they didn't read the book should have all of their reviews removed.

Ouch. How many DNFs did I have last year? *scratches head* Objection, Your Honor! That will never do! Sustained. You may keep on reviewing books that you've abandoned, Baba.

I swear I ain't even mad. After all, I got some good laughs out of it…but wait a second. The following bull gave me real whiplash:

Something peculiar that I noticed soon after putting up my first book on Goodreads was the number of foreigners who put my book on their to-read shelf and others even started reading it. All of my stories are in the erotica genre and they're short, a novella at most. Strangely, these foreigners were from countries whose governments would probably frown on smut. And strangely, nobody ever finished a book, even after months of reading it. Most of the profiles were only name and country and almost all of them had at least one other classic literature book on their bookshelf or were reading it. Something like Moby Dick. After signing up at Goodreads, there was never any recent activity and they didn't join groups.

Judgmental, much?



You know I'm actually living in a progressive and democratic country. Yet I'm not sure if my government wouldn't frown upon smut. So what?? I'm sure everybody--even those who've been called derogatorily "foreigners"--have seen a dick already.



Mosh pit of members…
(…) and the front office gestapos don't know the rule. Only the Librarians know the rule and if they tell the gestapo you broke the rule and should be excommunicated, you're toast.

Uh-huh. Isn't that derogatory? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The comments appear to be there for stroking the ego of the reviewer and their myriad of 'friends'.

Since I read and reviewed this insightful worthless booklet and invested a huge amount of my fucking time, I want you to stroke my ego. It's the least anyone can do and I fucking deserve it! Thank you. BTW, I enjoyed using filthy language. That's another form of stroking my ego. *purrs*

Goodreads should remove the troll reviews with a warning to the perps. If they continue doing that sort of thing, put a permanent red star on their profile, so other members know what kind of people they are.

Oh dear, I'm glad it's not a swastika.



Just so you know, I have never been more proud to be a member of the allegedly foul GR swamp! *nods head*

As an afterthought…

If anyone would actually put this booklet on fire I wouldn't for the life of me attempt to resuscitate it.



Over and out.

[s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all] · Rating 1 out of 5]

Woah. This was really hurtful and mean and everything wrong with the world. I've spent five years on this website and mostly only seen a positive image of companionship and goodwill. There are people like Garima, Mike Puma, Ian, Samadrita, Praj, Manny, MJ, Miriam, Mariel, Nathan N.R. Gaddis, M., Dolores, Proustitute, Steve, Stephen (and all the variations of our awesome name), Finnuala, Karen, Renato, Annie, Kenny, the list is too long to complete without insult and I'm only stopping here because I'm drunk on insult and booze and want to get back to my point, and these are people whom I trust to give me honest opinions about books. These are people that direct my 'buy now' clicking. These are people who have shown more academia in their reviews that my time spent in college classrooms. Goodreads is a wealth of knowledge and if you disagree then you are probably looking in the wrong places. If my giving 5 stars to Proust was trolling than goddammit I better give up reading. But seriously, Zoe, stop protecting authors just because they are authors and start protecting language and integrity. If the authors you are defending were worth a damn, then people probably wouldn't write negative reviews about them. Let's face it, not everyone gets to be a genius. I'd love to be a respected author but that isn't in the cards for me and we shouldn't sugarcoat reviews of every book that sees print. David Foster Wallace warned against such things, saying we should write for ourselves and not for the critics. I hate to say it, but some books are terrible. It happens. And it can be a great learning experience. I've been told I suck at writing plenty of times, but I keep at it because it is important to me. I just read an essay by Charles Simic in which he talked about all the times he was told his writing was terrible, but he didn't cry or dismiss his critics as unworthy trolls but went back home with their criticism in his heart and tried again. Come back when we goodreaders insult the Ulysses of the modern day and I'll apologize on behalf of humanity. Until then, fuck you. Stop trolling the internet with your garbage.

[Emma Sea]

TLDR: “Suggestions To Fix The Flawed Review System”

“Completely abolish the rating only system.”

“Remove the Comments section [from reviews] along with the like button”

“Anyone proven¹ to have put Read Book or DNF, when they didn't read the book should have all of their reviews removed. ”






¹ How we would do this, I have no clue. Random drive bys where authors administer quizzes in which you prove your familiarity with the book's content??

[Shelby *trains flying monkeys* · Rating 1 out of 5]

I forgot to add a dancing gif..but I like this one better for this book.

[Geri Reads · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an excerpt of the author's second bullet point on How To Fix The Flawed Review System

* For any rating only, if they are kept, or review, add three buttons that always appear: Read Book, DNF (Did Not Finish) or Didn't Read Book. Anyone proven to have put Read Book or DNF, when they didn't read the book should have all of their reviews removed.



* Remove the Comments section along with the like button from reviews. If Goodreads is going to treat the 'Review' as a literary work worthy of its own review, there should have been a Dislike button.



Another reason the Comments section should be abolished is because it is only there for the people who 'like' the review, especially considering the author dare not say anything to a reviewer. The comments appear to be there for stroking the ego of the reviewer and posting gossip between the reviewer and their myriad of 'friends'.



Yes, I actually took the time to read this. I shit you not.

[Lyn *GLITTER VIKING* · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh this pampered reader's feelings are hurt! *rings bell* bring me comfort food, servants!

[Petra X · Rating 5 out of 5]

Update Zoe Desh is a man with a grudge (and a couple of aliases)! He has a wonderful website Goodreads Sucks grown out of his obsessive hatred of the good ship Goodreads and all who sail in her (us!).(The link won't trigger his applause-o-meter and leave your tracks).

_____

5 stars, 5 large stars made of carefully-moulded and stinking ordure for achieving the ultimate orgasmic zenith of a troll, provoking such a reaction from so many people. For getting so much publicity for a book that very few have any desire to read even if they have reviewed it, for making *herself completely vulnerable to the 'slings and arrows' of outraged readers. Gee, the *author must be creaming her knickers right now.

Unfortunately it's only 1 star for content, but let's not be ungenerous, let's reward genius when we see it. Zoe, dear, have you thought of writing PR releases for say, the Westboro Baptist Church or, come to think of it, quite a lot of politicians? I do believe you have the provoking let's-ignore-the-truth qualities they seek and they think as you do, all publicity is good publicity. You might make a lot of money at it too, because as far as credibility writing books is concerned, I think you've just shot yourself in the foot.

*I say 'her' because Zoe is a female name, but the author, knowing that writing this book is likely to harm their career and might even realise it is a bit shameful maybe be a man doing anything to protect their anonymity. That is a three line sentence. I could sum it up in one word:

Cowardice
or
frightened to put their money where their mouth is

[Manny]

[People can talk of nothing else! (Charlie Hebdo is so last week). While discussing these weighty matters with Nandakishore, Traveller and others earlier today, I believe I came across a complete and effective solution to the urgent problems described by Mr. Desh. Fearful that my penetrating insights may languish forever unnoticed in Nandakishore's thread, I take the liberty of reproducing them here. I began by expressing my deepest sympathy with Mr. Desh's position.]

I feel the author's pain! Why, only the other day, a person well known on this site, whose name starts with an A, went and one-starred all my books. I am virtually sure he hasn't read them - well, not cover to cover anyway. But how to prove it?

Naturally, I have done what I could. The people at Lulu, CSLI Press and Cambridge University Press were very helpful about linking recent sales to credit card numbers, and it seems that someone in Egypt did indeed buy all four books. It can't be a coincidence. But has he read them? Carefully? I have made up questionnaires for each book and asked the publishers to forward them to Mr A. If he does not answer within fifteen working days, he will no longer be allowed to shop on their sites. I asked if they could bring criminal proceedings against him, but apparently that's not possible. I don't quite understand why. I am not satisfied, no, not by any means.

[Nandakishore suggested that anyone who wished to post a review or rating should answer a similar questionnaire, and I enthusiastically agreed.]

It's the only solution. I think as few as 50 multiple-choice questions would be enough to weed out the impostors.

But... wait. These people are so devilishly cunning. They'll probably share the answers between themselves, and then be able to pose as having read the book when in fact they've done nothing of the kind. Multiple choice won't work. The only solution is for every reviewer to write a lengthy essay about the book (we need a technical term here, but I can't think of a good one - anyway, never mind). They will post their essay where the author can mark it and decide if they have understood the book or not. People who have not understood it will not be allowed to post, and will be expelled from the site if they repeat the offense.

This seems fair, don't you think?

[Nandakishore thought one could solve the technical problems by generating multiple versions of the questionnaire.]

Hm... that might be enough. But how can the author be sure that the multiple choice examples are tough enough, if they constantly keep changing? The rogue reviewers will keep generating them until they get an easy one, and then, zap! More review chaos.

I tell you, you have to learn to think like them. They are fiendishly ingenious.

[Nandakishore, displaying his characteristic engineering common sense, thought that reviewers might only be allowed three attempts at the questionnaire.]

Three strikes and you're out. I like it.

Maybe the second and third attempts can be done on a pay-per-view basis. I mean, if you're bidding to review someone's book and you've already cast doubt over your credentials by failing the test, it's only fair to ask you to show good faith. $10 would be enough. It could be split evenly between Goodreads and the author.

[I believed for a moment that we were done, but immediately found an obvious bug.]

Oh, but wait! We're so naive. They'll just open a new account and get in that way.

We need to restrict creation of new accounts. You have to give passport and bank account details, plus three witnesses who are already members and can be held legally responsible if the information turns out to be incorrect. I mean, it's fraud and it should be treated as such. Right?

[Clouds, joining the discussion, pointed out another problem: even if the reviewers passed the test, they might still post off-topic reviews out of sheer perversity. But by now I knew we were on the home stretch.]

Okay, here's another try. When you've passed the test and written your review, you also have to post a $1000 bond as a guarantee that the review is serious and accurate. I mean, if you've passed, that shows you're able to do it, and if you haven't then you're just messing around. The author is allowed to complain about reviews that are not up to standard, and if the reviewer disagrees it goes to a mediation panel which is half authors and half reviewers. And again, if the review is found wanting then half the bond goes to Goodreads and half to the author. If no one posts a complaint within thirty days, you get your bond back and the review is permanently greenlighted.

It may seem a bit complicated, but I feel that after a while people would see the merits of the system. Don't you agree?

[I admit it: there are still some niggling questions left to resolve. Cecily, for example, has pointed out several. But we must act now and sort out the details later. We cannot afford to wait any longer.]

[Steph Sinclair]

...Actually a dystopian novel.

[Nataliya · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hey, this "booklet" did exactly what I assumed it was supposed to do. Everyone took the bait and read it, and gave it more attention than any laughable tantrum-in-print would ever deserve.

It is unintentionally hilarious, however, in the 'Wah wah!' pointing-fingers-on-the-playground woe-is-me wallowing in self-pity way. After all, how can you not feel so bad about a poor wannabe underappreciated crusader taking on a 'noble' quest against those vicious readers who dare to have opinions instead of just being an obedient herd ready to be marketed at and ready to obediently sing dithyrambs to any half-baked 'creative' effort that is given to them to 'consume'! It's a conspiracy, I say! Conspiracy!

Not to forget the apparently all-menacing shadowy figure of 'the Librarian' that 'bullies' our poor crusader. Makes me think of Terry Pratchett's badass Librarian of the Unseen University, who won't let anyone get away with any bullshit.

Since apparently Goodreads is ruled by the power of the Librarian, I assume it essentially makes it the equivalent of the library. So I will quote Sir Terry Pratchett (since it's pointless to quote this... ahem... 'booklet'):

"People were stupid, sometimes. They thought the Library was a dangerous place because of all the magical books, which was true enough, but what made it really one of the most dangerous places there could ever be was the simple fact that it was a library."

The Librarian is watching you.
You'll do well by behaving well in the readers' space.
Or else.
Ook.

[Jane · Rating 1 out of 5]

Where I got the book: free download from a retail platform.

This odd little document came across my radar, and I downloaded it hoping it might be a cogent roundup of the author side of the current, very regrettable polarization of the reading world. I should have known better. It is, alas, a sad little rant, with enough baiting of Goodreads reviewers to ensure it’ll earn its day in the spotlight. If you’re an author looking for information about how to thrive on Goodreads, I would advise you to steer clear of this mess of misinformation and grudges and keep looking—there are a couple of more serious attempts out there at guiding authors around the Goodreads site.

The key to this booklet can be found at the end, where the Author’s Notes reveal that

This non-fiction booklet is written under a pseudonym because I was excommunicated from Goodreads after getting uppity with a Librarian while trying to get around a broken feature on the Goodreads website that affected sales of my smut. What's so ironic is that they also excommunicated my non-fiction tech-pub author page also.

And there you have it. An ejected porn author (male, by the way, in case you’re wondering about the pronoun) has figured out a way to get back on Goodreads and work out his resentment at the same time. The huge irony of this grudge-fest is that the author claims to not want to be on Goodreads at all: Every published author should understand their work(s) will end up in the Goodreads database whether they want them there or not. Not if they publish, say, via a pdf that they sell on their own website. But then the author would miss out on his chance to have a go at the Goodreads community and get the attention he clearly so desperately wants.

I’m not going to bother refuting the tired old tales about Goodreads bullies, which are scattered with a few links to other grudge-bearers and a discredited anti-Goodreads site. Authors wondering about Goodreads would be well advised to spend a few months on the site as readers, and judge for themselves, looking at the whole context.

This author’s “valid reasons for wanting to be on Goodreads” are:

I want to network with other authors who write in my genre or write in a genre I'm thinking about trying.
I'll meet authors that can give me their perspective on finding a publisher.
I'll meet authors that use publication outlets other than Amazon and learn how to use them.
Other authors can provide leads on editing services and beta readers.
Other authors can give me hints on what marketing techniques work for them.
Other authors can advise me about dealing with Goodreads trolls and review bullies.

Take it from me, this is terrible advice. The only reason an author should really want to be on Goodreads is that they love books and would like to discuss them with other readers. Many authors do this successfully and end up with Goodreads friends who may even become fans. Facebook and Twitter are far better places to network with other authors and ask questions of each other.

There are other chunks of misinformation designed to scare authors away from Goodreads and prove the odd claim that you essentially mortgage your soul and your firstborn to Goodreads when you agree to it. For example, that Goodreads has no right to display your book cover and description. Yes, they do. You put those things up yourself on a publishing platform and agree to their terms of service—which generally state they have the right to use the book information you put up there (but not the contents) as they wish. Or you don’t own the cover and book description at all, because you signed away your rights to your publisher. None of this has anything to do with Goodreads.

Or how about the scare tactic of posting Goodreads’ License Grant clause and claiming that gives Goodreads the rights to your book? Um, no. Goodreads grabs the rights to reviews, comments and any of your writing you might post directly onto the site, but it doesn’t assert any claim over books published on other platforms. Far from being “legalese gobbledygook” as the author claims, the Goodreads TOS is clearly written.

In the end, this book isn’t really about giving authors good advice. It’s a rather pathetic attempt to scare them away from Goodreads, and gives them absolutely nothing useful on either the positive or the negative side. Goodreads definitely isn’t a paradise for all authors and a well-balanced account of its negative sides would be a useful way of helping authors think through whether they really want to be active on the site, or focus their efforts elsewhere. Unfortunately, this rant is neither balanced nor informative, and is best ignored.

Tellingly, at the end the author invites you to his website “which will be updated as the drama unfolds.” I think we’ll see a few more pokes at the Goodreads community over the coming months, as authors figure out that this tactic gets their name all over Twitter for a day or two and hey, bad publicity’s still publicity, right? If you’re desperate, I suppose it might be.

[Anne · Rating 2 out of 5]

I won't rate something I haven't read.
So, I read this.
Click this LINK to the author's website, if you'd like to read this for yourself.

This pamphlet was written in response to the author getting excommunicated from Goodreads after "getting uppity with a Librarian while trying to get around a broken feature on the Goodreads website that affected sales of my smut."

At first, I thought this was written because of some sort of incident between the author and a pack of rabid reviewers. And it surely started out with plenty of warnings about the pitfalls for Indie authors here on Goodreads.

"New Indie authors should be aware that there are quite a number of readers on Goodreads who will not read any book by an Indie author. I was a bit surprised by this narrow minded attitude when I joined several groups. But some readers are quite adamant and vocal about it."
Hmmm. I'm guessing that may be because Indie authors can sometimes be a little more easily hurt by reviewers than the more insulated authors with a publishing house behind them. Some of those hurt authors can lash out at reviewers.
Or publish pamphlets saying things like this:
"Anyone proven to have put Read Book or DNF, when they didn't read the book should have all of their reviews removed. In many cases it would be easy to prove from the author's sales figures..."
WTF? Did I misunderstand something? Does this author honestly want Goodreads to turn into Scooby-Doo, and form some sort of Mystery Inc. to ferret out every person who claims to have read a book...but didn't?!
Oh no! I'll have to fess up to the fact that I skimmed the last part of Persuasion!
Luckily, Ms. Desh does have another idea for the 1 star troll.
"Goodreads should remove the troll reviews with a warning to the perps. If they continue doing that sort of thing, put a permanent red star on their profile, so other members know what kind of people they are."
I don't think trolling reviews or authors is a very nice thing to do.
However.
I'm pretty sure handing out stars isn't going to make the problem go away.

By the end though, it seems that Ms. Desh is just really angry and frustrated by whatever happened. It appears as though she had a horrible experience trying to navigate broken links and unclear rules. She also apparently wants to warn other Indie authors that Goodreads and Amazon are out to make a buck...at the author's expense. Reviewers are untouchable because they are customers, and Librarians are Gods because they are...well, free labor for Goodreads.
The majority of the vitriol seems to be aimed at Goodreads for failing her as an author, and acting like the money-grubbing subsidiary of Amazon that it is. I'm betting there's a grain of truth in what she's saying, even if it's only one side of the story. If you're an Indie author, it probably would be a good idea to read over the Rules of Engagement for this site. And it's always a good idea to make sure you're getting a good deal, so look into all the different ways to market your book before you settle on Amazon.
Sure, she sounded like she was spiteful and slightly unhinged, but since I've never tried to interact with Goodreads as an author, I have no idea if anything she's saying is true or not.

I know the author doesn't like GIF-filled reviews, but maybe this will make her smile?

[Sheziss · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is written by a man. No woman would piss on a fire.



In the end the only thing we have is time. We arrive on time, we are late, we don’t have time, we prefer doing this or that in our free time, you have cancer-how much time left I have?, I have to wait-how long will it take?, please don’t waste my time, oh my God it was about time!

And I’m sorry but we don’t have time for everything, we have to choose in which we invest our time.

Time time time time time.

Time is like bread, keep it for tomorrow.

You have no idea how much time I save since being in GR. My whole time is studying so I’d be a total loser if I wasted my free time on stupid things. I think everybody thinks that: “I don’t have the time, I have to work/study/take care of kids/blablabla”. No. We don’t like wasting our precious little time. Since I’ve been in GR my time has been multiplied. Or it’s better to say that I make the most of it. Oh yeah, I don’t read that much because I spend lots of time in GR but I don’t see it as a waste but as an investment, ‘cause you are too great to be considered other thing than being worth it.

But wasting time is an idiocy. And I hate it. Everybody hates it.

I learnt so much about GR with this gem! Things that took months of understanding were summarized in few pages. But then add tons of bitterness and prejudices and hate and you’ll have a different sort of omelette. I read it like some kind of study about the human intelligence. If you have the time (or choose to invest your time in this shit) then I advise you to enjoy it. It’s really interesting to hear about other people’s opinions.

You know? There was a place this author would consider heaven. It was Spanish and about the romance genre, so of course not as popular as this website is. The owners only showed long reviews that were filtered by themselves. You could only comment under them if you had read said book, so no gossip was possible. And publishing houses paid them in order to have their books rated with 4 or 5 stars. Of course, that meant not all of them did so. In the end, certain books were all 4-5 rated, with no exception. And in the forum “useless” comments or negative reviews about the books amongst the “clients” were erased. They even read your PM and if you ever talked about a website different to their own, you were automatically expelled. And you know what? That place sucked. We used to call them the Nazis.

I think that author would have loved that place with all his heart. Oh, I forgot, it used the Spanish language! And he says that countries that are small and can’t afford a computer are worthless. The government would frown upon me if I sent a letter to my president telling him I love reading M/M? Mmmm, yes, I think they would. Apparently that’s enough to discredit someone’s opinion. Yes, because in Spain we still paint bulls on our cave walls. Welcome to Altamira, my friends. I envy you so much, North Americans!

One thing the author is not aware of is that this place is made by and for readers. Of course readers rule here, that’s the reason of it all. We are not here to “stroke the author’s ego”. We are here to find good books, give our feedback as an exchange if we feel like it (not as an duty, because this is relax and diversion, not homework), or to just have fun with people with the same tastes (or not) that you would probably never get to know in real life (I wish!), and keep track of news and your book list (with those you read or want to read and even those we don’t want to but add anyway in order not to buy them because there are so many books out there we would end up nuts).

We are not professional reviewers. Well, most of us are not. We don’t serve authors, we are not slaves. We are real people with normal jobs and ordinary lives. I prefer trusting a person like me in these topics, people who have some kind of criteria. I prefer a person who is real and is not content with every shining thing that comes out of the oven and one from whom suddenly a 5-star review appears in my Home page, because that’s when I know I have to REALLY consider reading that book.

I prefer someone telling me crystal clear “This book is shit” than a fancy creature comparing Kafka and Spanish mysticism to the characters’ actions in a book I would never read. With all my respect to Kafka, Spanish mysticism and books I’d never read! Sorry, I’m very squared-headed, you can hardly take me out of romance, but as I said, I choose where to invest my time. And I respect where people choose to invest theirs. So if the author geniunely looks for a honest review, he’s going to find it here. We are humans at our best (or worst) here, like it or not. But if he wants his ego to be stroked, he’ll be utterly disappointed, unless he is a really good writer or he searches around very well and finds those people who rate 5 stars all the time. But it doesn’t sound like he found them.

No, I’m not naive enough to say GR is perfect. I’m not naive enough to say democracy is perfect, either. But it’s the best system we have right now. The time when a better system comes, you tell me. But going Nazi is not my definition of an improvement. So, your argument is invalid, dear author.

You think writing a book and making your way into the written word is hell? Get into the ballet world and you’ll know what real hell is.

Also, I looked my ratings and saw I have a Gaussian distribution. So don’t worry, you can take me seriously.

In conclusion: if you want awesome reviews, write an awesome book. You’ll see that formula is bulletproof. And even those get negative reviews. Face it, nothing is 100% success!

[Nati · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I could roll my eyes further up my head,I would.

[Sophie's Reading Corner · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seriously?! What is this?! I'm just stunned at how low a person can stoop. So, you obviously received hate from the goodreads community? You must be one of the behaving badly authors. My poor child.



So, you've been bullied by reviewers and that's your answer? Making a guidebook against goodreads and us reviewers. So that's how the 'bullied' author becomes the 'bully' author.

I don't have anything else to say. I just wonder how they allowed such a thing to be published.

[Miranda · Rating 1 out of 5]

[Val ⚓️ Shameless Handmaiden ⚓️]

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review first posted on 24th January, 2015

I read this today afternoon, and since it was quite an entertaining read, I decided to give it three stars.

I was quite shocked that GR was adding authors against their wishes, and getting their books reviewed by trolls and carpet-bombed with one-star ratings. To me, this is the intellectual equivalent of kidnap and gang-rape. To be honest, however, I could not for the life of me think of a way to prevent GR from adding a book to their database. Maybe there is a legal recourse against having an author page - or maybe having a disclaimer sort of thing "this author is here against his/ her wishes": I don't know. Serious legal minds have to debate on this issue.

Most of the author's arguments against the review system, however, is self-defeating. Removing the like buttons, the rating system and the comment thread will take all fun out of reviewing. Most of us readers are here for chatting with like-minded people on books, and getting that "ego-boost" (as Zoe Desh says)from seeing others appreciating us. But we can really think about the dislike button - I suspect many of my reviews will see a flurry of activity if that is implemented!

There are, of course, some bizarre suggestions which cannot be implemented. I quote two below:

Anyone proven to have selected Read Book or DNF, when they didn't read the book should have all of their reviews removed. In many cases, especially troll attacks, it would be easy to prove from the author's sales figures, except for those books purchased at Amazon that are immediately returned, which is a good reason not to market your titles through Amazon. (This is the primary reason I no longer market my titles on Amazon.)

I cannot for the life of me think of a way to find out whether a book has been read by a particular reviewer from the author's sales figures. I suspect there is some higher mathematics involved here, possibly involving partial differential equations and Laplace transforms.

Since it is Goodreads policy to add every newly published book to their database and thus profit from them, they should attempt to contact authors and inform them their book is on Goodreads. Until an author claims their author page, Goodreads should not allow reviews or ratings. If an author informs Goodreads they don't want their book listed, remove it, or at least do not allow reviews and ratings.

Even though this is a laudable suggestion, since books are many a time added by reviewers themselves, GR would have to employ virtually an army to check out what has been added and contact the authors. And suppose the author is from a third-world country - where most people don't read, according to Ms. Desh - consider what a nightmare this would be. This will effectively kill the site.

My personal feeling is that when one publishes a book, one should be brave enough to let it go out into the world by itself and survive. If it dies at the first whiff of adverse opinion, maybe it was not worth saving at all.

-------------------------------

Based on the excellent suggestions from the various erudite ladies and gentlemen on the comment thread, i hereby put forward a proposal to make the reviewing system on GR more honest.

1. Have the reviewer answer a set of questions on the book before writing the review. The questions shall be randomly chosen from a set prepared by the author him/ herself.

2. The reviewer has to attain a certain passing grade (say 70%) to be allowed to write a review.

3. In order to prevent countless multiple attempts, a maximum of three chances shall be provided. The second and third chance shall entail payment. If the reviewer misses out on the third chance, he/ she will not be allowed to review that book...ever.

4. In order to prevent multiple sock puppet accounts, henceforth all reviewers in GR will have to provide passport copies at the time of joining, and should be attested by three GR members of good standing.

5. If reviewer fails on answering the questions correctly for three books, his/ her account shall be suspended for a period of three months. If the offence is repeated, the account shall be frozen for a year. A third offence shall result in a life ban.

6. The above does not prevent the possibility of a troll reviewer reading a book and still providing a snarky review. To prevent this, an arbitration panel comprising of an equal number of reviewers and authors shall be set up. Each reviewer has to post a bond of 1000$ should his/ her review be challenged. If the challenge is held up, the money shall be forfeited and divided equally among the author and GR.

7. To ensure that the reviewer has sufficient capability for reviewing, he/ she shall have to pass an examination where three books of suitable complexity will be given for review (Finnegan's Wake and Trainspotting are examples which readily spring to mind). He/ she has to review the same and the review shall be analysed by an expert panel of judges, who will pronounce whether the reviewer is capable to review books on GR.

-------------------------------

The Terrible Librarian

The hierarchy at Goodreads is as follows: above all is the Librarian, queen bees in the hive. Under no circumstances ever challenge a Librarian. Never! They maintain absolute, dictatorial control over each of your Book Description pages, once you have submitted them and a direct line to the Goodreads gestapos in the front office...

...When you load book information into the Goodreads Book Description database, you grant control over the content of that information to the Goodreads Librarians. Look carefully at the form, especially the Book Description portion. All information on that form, once filled in, belongs to Goodreads and is controlled by Goodreads' Librarians, not you. Once you enter information, it cannot be changed without Librarian approval. You may believe that information about your book is yours, but it's not. If you end up on the wrong side of a Librarian, they will make it hell for you to modify information on the Book Description page, especially if you try to minimize it...

...The simple fact is, you can't be a Librarian until you publish at least 50 reviews of your own and apply and get accepted by the Librarian guild. Most Librarians that I was aware of were not authors, so I wondered why they were given authority over author data in the Book Description pages. Would have thought that was a Goodreads staff function. Except there is almost no Goodreads staff. And this is the reasoning they give for having Librarians: "So we created a new status that we bestow on those interested in helping keep things nice and tidy, which has worked out well." Unfortunately, I would argue that it is unethical to give power to readers over what is in an authors Book Description pages, when those readers can review authors and call on their trolls to harass an author that gets uppity with them...

No, the above is not a horror story: this is the truth at GR, according to the author... and who am I to dispute the firsthand experience of such an erudite person? To avoid this site from transforming into a police state in the control of these terrible creatures and their trolls, I make the following modest suggestions:

1. The 50 reviews that librarians have to publish as a minimum should be examined by the aforementioned panel of authors and readers. Only if their absolute impartiality is established beyond all doubt, should they be allowed to become librarians.

2. Once a reader becomes a librarian, he/ she should not be allowed to review books. We do not allow referees to play matches, do we?

3. All librarians should be forced to set their profile data to private and all their friends should be removed. They should not be allowed to participate in any public forum or discussion. This will effectively prevent them from calling upon their pet trolls.

These are the suggestions which I can think of right off the top of my head. Hopefully Manny et al. will build on it.

Added as suggested by Manny:

4. All librarians must agree to pledge vows of lifelong poverty, chastity, obedience and silence.

5. Any librarian defaulting on the vows of (4) will have their brain removed and placed in a vat, where it will continue to perform internet librarian functions through a suitable interface.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Edit to add:

The like button on a review should have five options:

1. I love this review; the reviewer is out of this world!
2. I like this review; the reviewer is very skilled.
3. This review is OK; the reviewer seems a decent enough chap.
4. This review is bad. The reviewer should be doing a more productive job (like cleaning toilets, for example)
5. This review is CRAP! The reviewer should banned for life from Goodreads!

Based on the number votes on each option, GR can take a decision on the reviewer.

[Jo ★The Book Sloth★ · Rating 1 out of 5]

Are you freaking kidding me??



Bitter loser much? You can just see the words "failure" oozing out of the pages of this travesty. I have no idea who this so-called author is because writing this shit under your real name would be a career suicide that of course this "courageous" author who wants to warn all the unsuspecting other authors and point out all our flaws, is not willing to make.



You know what is the one quality I admire most in an author miss "Zoe"?? Their ability to accept criticism! It is the one thing that can help a mediocre writer evolve into a great one. When you listen to readers and accept their opinions you can grow as an author. If you can't accept both positive and negative criticism just keep your freakin' book in your diary under your pillow where it's safe from all of us "bad" people in Goodreads.

And I thought I'd seen all the crazy authors had to offer... They just keep surprising me with how low they can go.

[Scarlet Cameo · Rating 1 out of 5]

English review at the bottom

Me pregunto que hemos hecho para ser tan malas personas, y digo somos refiriéndome a la comunidad de GR porque, de acuerdo con Zoe Desh la mayoría somos unos acosadores que, por deporte, invertimos tiempo en dar una calificación y una reseña los libros que no hemos leído.

La siguiente imagen muestra como nos ve el autor:


Vamos aclarando las cosas. Yo adoró GoodReads, es la única red social que utilizó y realmente me encanta compartir con toda la comunidad con la tengo contacto a través de esta plataforma. De vez en cuando podemos encontrarnos con usuarios, lectores o autores, que no son los más amables pero es el mínimo, mientras que Desh piensa que todos somo así.



Este libro lo considero un ensayo de la autora acerca de los peligros de poner tu libro en un lugar donde los lectores pueden dar su opinión. Claramente ningún autor, ninguna editorial ni ninguna librería quiere feedback gratuito cómo el que damos aquí. Y esto va en serio: reseña, buena o mala, debería servir al autor como un a retroalimentación para mejorar su trabajo posterior.

Realmente el autor es apasionado sobre los ataques (o más bien creo que son malas reseñas) que ha recibido en GR. Se nota que el tema le llega y le afecta, su opinión es tan valida como la de cualquiera de nosotros pero darla desde la desinformación y la manipulación de declaraciones claramente un problema. (para que lo descubran vean el sitio web donde está colgado este escrito y chequen los links que ofrece). Entiendo su frustración, todos queremos ver nuestro trabajo triunfar, pero no vale querer decir que GR es una dictadura enfocada en hacer que los pobres autores mueran de vergüenza y sean humillados por su trabajo.

En honor a este libro iré a buscar algunos amigos con los cuales iniciar un trabajo de mega pandillas troll para atacar libros que no hemos leído, con reseñas que tengan un .gif bailando, y darnos 10,000 likes entre nosotros convertiéndonos así en los más poderosos de GR (exceptuando a los bibliotecarios, obvio)

...
...esperen...
...
YO SOY BIBLIOTECARIO





Unas "joyas" de su escrito:

"the ratings should not contribute to the overall average"

Ok, aquí morí de risa. Me gustaría saber de donde saldrá el promedio si el rating no va a contar.

"Sometimes reviewers don't make a rating, they just want to make a statement about the book, almost 100% of the time a negative or derogatory statement with a cutesy full motion .gif."


"When a member creates an account, they are lead through a number of steps to set their new account up. The first step should present the Goodreads Review Guidelines which would include a statement that to review a book with a rating, the reader agrees that they have read the book.
Cuando terminemos de leer el libro, y antes de reseñar, GR nos aplicara un examen de comprensión de lectura...digo para comprobar que realmente lo leímos

Aclaración: MIENTRAS ESTUVO EN "CURRENTLY READING" MIS ESTADOS SIEMPRE MARCARON QUE ESTABA EN LA PAGINA 1 PORQUE LO LEÍ EN SU WEB, DONDE EL AUTOR AFIRMA ACTUALIZAR CONSTANTEMENTE LA INFORMACIÓN, así que no tenia idea de en que página andaba.
_______________________________________________

I wonder what we have done to be as bad people, and I say "we"referring to all GR community because, according to Zoe Desh most of us are stalkers that, for sport, invest time to give a rating and review to books we haven't read.

The following image shows how the author sees us:


Let's clarify things. I love Goodreads is the only social network that used and I really enjoy share with the entire community which I contact through this platform. Occasionally we can find users, readers or authors, who aren't the most friendly but is the minimum, while Desh think that we are all this way.



I consider this book an essay about the dangers of putting your book in a place where readers can give their opinion. Clearly no author, publisher or bookstore wants free feedback like the one we give here. And this is serious: review, good or bad, should serve the author as help to improve his later work.

The author is really passionate about the attacks (or bad reviews, i think) he has received in GR. It is noted that the issue reaches you and affects you, your opinion is as valid as any other, but give it from disinformation and manipulation of statements is clearly a problem. (To discover this you need check the website and check the links he offered). I understand his frustration, we all want to see our work succeed, but not worth mean that GR is a dictatorship focused on making the poor authors die of shame and be humiliated for their work.

In honor of this book I'll get some friends to start a superpowerfull troll work: we going to attack books we have not read, with reviews that have a really fun .gif, and give us 10,000 likes between us and become the most powerful people on GR (except for the librarians, obviously)

...
... Wait ...
...
I AM LIBRARIAN





A "jewels" of his writing:

"the ratings shouldn't contribute to the overall average"

LOL. I wonder how they will calculate the average if the rating is not going to count.

"Sometimes Reviewers do not make a rating, They just want to make a statement about the book, almost 100% of the time a negative or derogatory statement with a cutesy full motion .gif."


"When a member Creates an account, They are lead through a number of steps to set their new account up. The first step Should present the Goodreads Review Guidelines Which would include a statement That to review a book with a rating, the reader AGREES That They Have read the book.
When we finish reading the book, and before the review, GR aply us a reading comprehension test to check ... I mean you really read

Clarification: While in "CURRENTLY READING" MY STATES WAS ALWAYS MARKED I WAS ON PAGE 1 BECAUSE I READ IT IN THE WEB SITE, WHERE THE AUTHOR SAYS THAT INFORMATION IS CONSTANTLY UPDATING, so I had no idea in which page I was.

[Karlyflower *The Vampire Ninja, Luminescent Monster & Wendigo Nerd Goddess of Canada (according to The Hulk)* · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dear obnoxious author:

As a "pampered reader" I would just like to take a moment out of my apparently irrelevant schedule to give you a present:



Sincerely,

One of the "pampered readers" who pays authors to read their books....

Fucking snot!

[Jess-i-ca]

Here is my non-review review :)

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

To call this rant stupid would insult stupid people. Funny how the author is okay with not reading a book if she is the one doing it.

I cannot be the only who realizes any review is subjective?