Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion

Hi everyone,

Some people connected me with concerns that maybe the group should be turned private considering it's content.

(view spoiler)[ I think you can all guess the reasons to that with sites that well... (hide spoiler)]

So I want to know what you think, as I originally opened the so more and more members would join and be able to contact their friends on another book site as well.

Well, I'm sure GR can probably see the group anyways so if they want to delete it, they'll be able to.

Now as to make it private, that will stop people from finding the group. So I think you should keep it as is and just make it so the mods have to approve people?

I think there are different options in the privacy settings, so that other GR members can find the group, but to keep the discussions private? I have seen comments you-know-where that makes it clear they're aware of this group and will be following members to booklikes. Let's not make it easy for them.

Private group - visible on member profiles, but MODS have to approve new members. Threads are not visible to non-members.

Secret - not visible on member profiles, and MODS have to invite new members. Group is not visible and cannot be found in search.

The PTB at GR can see everything. It's the outside GR sites that are the concern, it seems.

Thank you for your comments and the clarification Sandra.

Please, keep on spreading the words around and invite people on your friend list

for now, I'll wait for more opinions as it seems that if the group is private only mods can invite new members.

I think it should stay public. Eyeballs belonging to those banned from GR now have so many new rebels to choose from (especially in the Feedback group) that they don't know what to do with themselves, except create new socks and rehash old grudges.

For now I leave it public. :)

Linda wrote: "I can assure you from personal first-hand experience that GR does indeed monitor private and secret groups both. "

They do?! I have no idea why I thought the super private groups would be... private. I've put a lot of personal information into one, and that's icky to know.

Yep GR has the ability to monitor every group. Personally, I see no reason to have it be anything but public, if only people can easily access their friends' BL accounts.

Like most people already said, GR can probably monitor whatever they want anyway. I think it's better to keep it public so more people can have access.

Yep GR has the ability to monitor every group. Personally, I see no reason to have it be anything but public, if only people can easily access their friends' BL accounts.

Taken from the privacy settings page of one of my groups:

This group is restricted.

New members must verify they own an email with one of the listed domains. Anyone can see the group information, but only members can see the discussion board.

Next level:

This group is private.

New members must be approved by the group moderators. Anyone can see the group information, but only members can see the polls and discussion board. Only Moderators can invite new members.

Oops, sorry for double post. :(

I vote for public. Need to get the word out.

Public is better. Appearing as some kind of private club would be a mistake. The message should be: All are welcome.

All of the above: public.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Public is better. Appearing as some kind of private club would be a mistake. The message should be: All are welcome."

"... AND we're not the ones who have anything to hide here!"

Thanks for leaving it public. I'm having a hard time getting started over at BL because I'm extremely low tech and easily intimidated by the new (to me) way things are done over there. I'm grateful for all the links for customization and tips.
I'm so happy when I accidentally stumble upon gr friends there so I can add them. I'm truly lost and this group is very helpful.

So, thanks!

Linda wrote: "I can assure you from personal first-hand experience that GR does indeed monitor private and secret groups both...."

This

Public gets my vote, too.

Public please - because we would be sending mixed messages to GR and the freaks if we self-censored,

Public. We have nothing to hide. We haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know why the question was ever asked. I'm not scurrying for cover. I'm not abandoning Goodreads either. It is useful. But it is not fun. Fun is BookLikes.

Petra smells something fishy round here wrote: "I don't know why the question was ever asked. I'm not scurrying for cover. I'm not abandoning Goodreads either. It is useful. But it is not fun. Fun is BookLikes."

Exactly, we have not ditched GR.

Maybe they will begin to want us here again and show us a little appreciation. Because our reviews are honest, our friends believe us when we rave about a book and that increases book sales. At the same time, IF we are honest, not every book is going to get a favorable review.

I don't care if they want us or not. They have forfeited my trust with their actions. At this point I need more than appreciation. I need new policies and a means for ensuring that they are enforced. I'm not reviewing on a site which censors and hides their censorship.

Chrissie wrote: "Maybe they will begin to want us here again and show us a little appreciation. Because our reviews are honest ..."

I doubt it. There are enough reviews on this site and being added daily even by those who grumble at the new regime that GR won't care. As far as honesty goes, they only care about that unless there is a conflict of interest. Their interest is in keeping authors happy and selling books. Honesty might be a big conflict with those goals!

Petra smells something fishy round here wrote: "Chrissie wrote: "Maybe they will begin to want us here again and show us a little appreciation. Because our reviews are honest ..."

I doubt it. There are enough reviews on this site and being adde..."

I try to be optimistic, but I guess I am just fooling myself. Anyhow I love the atmosphere at BL.

Chrissie wrote: "I love the atmosphere at BL..."

Me too.

Because I just had friends with goodreads accounts banned or deleted; I say please stay public.

That way, if anyone (including myself) ever gets kicked off, They/I can still read group posts without logging into goodreads.

are they still removing people? i would really like to see what kind of posts they are removing. it is a strange endeavor to me, since free speech is guaranteed by our constitution, and authors can write what they please; so why should anyone else be restricted, unless it is hate speech or akin to yelling fire in a crowded room? lately, hate speech can be applied to the dislike of an inanimate object, i think! we may have gone too far in trying to be politically correct.

thewanderingjew wrote: "are they still removing people? i would really like to see what kind of posts they are removing. it is a strange endeavor to me, since free speech is guaranteed by our constitution, and authors can..."

Well, one of the most recently accounts removed that I know of had only made star ratings, no comments or reviews. And the email they got did not really specify why beyond saying "...potentially abusive behavior...."

Well, one of the most recently removed had only made star ratings, no comments or reviews.

I saw that as well. I thought GR staff mentioned somewhere in feedback that star ratings could be used anyway members chose?

Linda wrote: "...Free speech in a private venue such as GoodReads is not guaranteed by the Constitution, which only states the government shall not prohibit free expression. ..."

Technically, since a U.S.-based company and with TOS stating U.S. laws apply, there are a few FTC regulations that apply to any sites that are (or even appear to be) posting customer/consumer/reader product/book opinions/reviews.

Likely the most applicable of FTC issues would just be:

- that any restrictions/conditions on a review (other than "honest" and having to fall within site TOS) must be disclosed (some of the blogger and indie review circle sites that will not post anything less than 3-star reviews are in violation of FTC regs if not disclaiming in an acceptable manner -- not pointing any fingers or trying to get anyone in trouble; any site not allowing consumers to give negative reviews or ratings and not disclaiming in readily viewable form on the review pages ...). Sites, bloggers and individuals can do so and review at will; but, if they want to be considered consumer/customer/reader reviews, they have to disclaim any odd conditions.

- that anything received for a review must be disclosed including but not limited to actual fees, exchange of services, free for review, or even review exchange circles must be disclosed in a review (no, I don't think the FTC is actively gunning for someone who got a free book and reviewed but forgot to add the disclaimer unless there was some condition other than "free for an honest review" or if no complaints were filed); anything like that should be flagged or emailed to goodreads' attention (particularly those sneaky fivver paid reviewer accounts and all the author review circles that keep "accidentally" leaving off the disclaimer). Books offered free to anyone on the internet require no disclaimer unless only free in return for a review. If you downloaded a free kindle book from Amazon.com that any other customer could you don't have to disclaim anything. If you received from author or downloaded from any site with the condition it was only "free for review" -- you do have to disclaim.

- any material connection to product/book being reviewed. Goodreads authors reviewing their own books (or using their review space to give more info or author notes on a book) don't have to disclaim because goodreads marks those as "from the author" for them. Mom, spouse, any relationship with author or other persons profiting from book, publisher, editor, other authors, or basically anyone in the book's publishing progress, all have to disclaim that fact. But it is perfectly okay for them to review.

[Not usually an issue with book reviews, but a direct competitor can be banned from reviewing and if allowed must disclaim they profit from that product's failure; almost never applies to books unless plagiarism charges which are a whole other ballgame--but amazon did have an extremely small number of authors who did rate other books negatively in order to manipulate the ratings which is against amazon and goodreads site TOS.]

To the best of my knowledge, those FTC things apply more so than free speech or freedom of expression. The FTC just happens to require sites that place restrictions on the free speech or freedom of expression in consumer reviews to say so in accordance with FTC placement and phrasing guidelines. The FTC's big issue with consumer reviews is basically just that they really be consumer reviews and anything not readily apparent to other consumers be disclaimed.

That is, bookbuyers/readers looking at book reviews on non-professional review sites are expecting to get unbiased, unconditional reviews by other bookbuyers/readers and anything else must be disclosed to them.

Or at least that's the way I understand it as explained by corporate legal folk (I just develop and maintain sites and data).

It rather defeats the point of this group - more than almost any other one - if it's private!

Or she resigned. Or she was gone along time ago and they were using her account to take the fall ...

Goodreads can see every group. Public, private, or secret. It's general members who are affected by groups' settings.

Randolph wrote: "No, taking this group private only defeats the purpose. You want gr to be able to see this thread...."

The group's purpose is to discuss everything and anything to do with BookLikes and now LeafMarks. If people on those two sites or wanting to know about them couldn't find us, what would be the point? Whether or not Goodreads and Booklikes look at it has nothing to do with anything. Goodreads is Amazon and since BL is an Amazon affiliate, they aren't losing business so they aren't going to care anyway.

Lisa - I think that I was once assured that GR could not see secret groups. But that is an important point and I think I will start a feedback thread on it.

Booklikes is not an amazon affiliate. Like hundreds of thousand of blogs and book sites they use affiliate purchase links which kick back a small fee if used to make purchases. Ditto for Barnes and Noble affiliate links, kobo links, etc.

Might as well say goodread is kobo or Barnes and Noble affiliate or owned by because those are in your green get a copy button--if you want to tag any site with the affiliate links as owned by the company selling the books via those links. Which is false since goodreads definitely amazon owned.

Heck,,some of best book bloggers for tracking bba behaviors use amazon and other affiliate links. I doubt they'd appreciate being called amazon owned or an amazon affiliate.

If all you see on booklikes is books from amazon, click the drop menu for search and select some other site or uncheck amazon in your settings so only other bookseller affiliates get used.

Sadly, by showing potential bookseller and book data sites alphabetically, booklikes does show amazon first a lot. And TOS for data use/mining on some bookseller sites (definitely amazon) often require that only one bookseller at a time display.

Another example of that TOS in action other than the booklikes search lightbox is fictfact's book pages where purchase links are under two choices "amazon" and "other"-- last I checked, fictfact was still independently owned and not an affiliate of amazon despite using affiliate purchase link kick backs to fund site.

Booklikes made an unfortunate word choice talking about "partner" and "affiliate" sites.

I wish instead of displaying booksellers alphabetically to new users so that amazon shows first that they had first time use search box set to "choose" or "your bookshelf" so that the first thing new to booklikes users saw was not the little amazon "a" logo on their top menu bar. It does send the wrong message.

Randolph wrote: "BTW I see that Kara Erickson got the axe from the jobs available notice. Director of Customer Care is vacant."

Oh, man. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at Goodreads these past few months.

Fairy Princess SockieP wrote: "Lisa - I think that I was once assured that GR could not see secret groups. But that is an important point and I think I will start a feedback thread on it."

GR can see everything on its site, including private & secret groups, private messages, everything. That doesn't mean they do. But if someone wanted to flag a group or thread, they'd come in to do it.

However, I'd think the PTB here might take a special interest in this group, and might assign someone to lurk and check things out every once in a while. Ditto for some other groups.

Sophie wrote: "Randolph wrote: "BTW I see that Kara Erickson got the axe from the jobs available notice. Director of Customer Care is vacant."

Oh, man. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at Goodreads the..."

She might have resigned, might have found a better job, left the city, found love and moved to Venice, got accepted into the astronaut programme or decided to be a stay at home mum. I don't think we are justified in saying she got the axe just because her job is being advertised. In fact, they would probably have someone lined up if they had fired her.

Lisa wrote: "However, I'd think the PTB here might take a special interest in this group, and might assign someone to lurk and check things out every once in a while. Ditto for some other groups."

As D.A. says, BookLikes is an Amazon affiliate and their search engines feature above all others, so Amazon aren't losing out.

I don't know how LeafMarks are going to get out of being Amazon affiliates and still make money. I hope they find a way. I know that people don't like two-tier sites of free and premium, but if they did that, I would be happy to pay for premium. People do on LibraryThing and don't have a problem.

Fairy Princess SockieP wrote: "As D.A. says, BookLikes is an Amazon affiliate and their search engines feature above all others, so Amazon aren't losing out. ."
..."

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!

D.A. said that Booklikes is ABSOLUTELY NOT AN AMAZON AFFILIATE.

Amazon offers anyone, any company, anywhere on the internet "affiliate purchase links." Which kick back a fee for purchases made via that link. Barnes and Noble and other booksellers do the same.

The booklikes search shows purchase link affiliates and data sources alphabetically from lists members can customize; if you don't want to ever use amazon, just uncheck it under "settings" "search" at http://booklikes.com/settings/search

The only possible way you can call booklikes an amazon affiliate is to call every author, blog, or other website using those purchase links "amazon affiliates."

I don't know of any company that is an affiliate of amazon, google play, kobo, Barnes and Noble, etc. (they may have some charities they all support or something of that nature but currently no business relationships intercept other than the fact they all sell books from authors, sellers and publishers).

It's not easy staying away from amazon data if also trying to catalog books by kindle-only authors. It does not make you an amazon affiliate.

Randolph wrote: "She got whacked. I don't believe in coincidence, only fate ..."

"fate" is unfair unless the whole thing was her idea, her idea only, and had no support from goodreads or amazon authorities. And if so, seriously, do you think it would take them months to get rid of her or her threads?

If whacked, I don't believe it's because the whole September non-announcement stuff was her idea and her fault and had zero to do with new amazon ownership. For all I know, Kara already left so her account was convenient to use to post all that stuff or was a totally made up persona to take the blame. (The last less likely because Kara seems to have been a real person from site inception.)

If at any time, Kara was saying stuff that goodreads or amazon bosses did not agree with it makes sense to me that they would have just either came on the various threads and said so or replaced her posts with a statement along the lines of the information that was here was not authorized by nor a part of our official site policies and we apologize for any misunderstandings.

It's actually unusual nowadays for employees to stay more than five years with a company without incentives. And unusual when a company gets new ownership for the old guard to all stay (quit or fired) without incentives. I have no clue what's gone on behind the scenes at amazon, goodreads or between the two or the details of the agreement that went into even the initial buyout.

I've asked Leafmarks to be a paid member site. I hope they do it as otherwise they'll have to be bought out by some org.

D.A. wrote: "Randolph wrote: "She got whacked. I don't believe in coincidence, only fate ..."

Unless you know her personally Randolph, you have no more idea than I do why she is no longer working for Goodreads, you can only surmise.

Lisa wrote: "I've asked Leafmarks to be a paid member site. I hope they do it as otherwise they'll have to be bought out by some org."

Certainly they should be putting up a donate button and/or purchase links. They are going to need a lot of resources for the amount of data and member activities, subscription to various data feeds, etc.

Although I can understand their reluctance to do so before the public launch gets well underway and they've tweaked, troubleshot, and added some stuff.