Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion

I just saw a DA blog post that talks about a kickstarter project named "LitRate."

http://litrate.com/

They say they want to take on GR and outdo GR but that they need $15k a year just to get data access.

Would you support such a project? What do you think?

MrsJoseph wrote: "I just saw a DA blog post that talks about a kickstarter project named "LitRate."

http://litrate.com/

They say they want to take on GR and outdo GR but that they need $15k a year just to get data..."

I am somewhat cynical regarding such payed projects; if it becomes big enough, somebody would buy it eventually (Amazon being the primary suspect). At least with buyout of GR I did not spend my money to see them go to waste and empty promises.

I agree.

And I also have started to feel some kind of way about creating site content to make other people wealthy. I'm ok with Leafmarks (for now) but increasingly I prefer to just have 100% control of my content and my library details.

Right now I am LOVING book collectorz. Loving. It makes me feel secure.

I am fine with people becoming wealthy from what they created initially, but if they ignore what their users want in the process - this is what bothers me. A lot.

I think I'm still feeling burned. I used to do about 30+ hours a week of database cleanup - esp after the Amazon data pull - for GR.

So when everything started with the shelves and the purchase...I just don't feel... IDK.

Yup. I'm back on GR now--used to be Osho, now Stelleri. I'm not planning to get Librarian status again, and I'm not uploading my back library (which is at LT, LM and BL up to the start of this year, anyway).

As for startups, I'd rather see them operating for awhile so I know what they're going to do with 1) themselves, 2) my data. My urge to be a helpful early adopter has been severely curtailed by GR's actions last year.

I don't mind someone trying to get startup costs. The data feeds and such do cost money. I certainly would prefer a site to have a lot of data in place before coming on board and if not depending on volunteers you do have to spend money.

This particular one, well, I'll have to wait and see. They seem to be talking about things that Leafmarks, booklikes, various book bloggers and people have already discussed (not necessarily a bad thing because we all know we've discussed it to death). I'm not seeing anything "unique" to pull me there yet. Their mentioned upgrades when compared to goodreads are not unique in the book site community. Most are discussed in very public suggestion groups (doesn't kill it for me; of course if you are starting a competing site you will sift through all the suggestions/wants -- I somehow don't believe the post from goodreads saying that integration with kindle was the absolutely most requested feature ever suggested by goodreads members).

Their saying they would let readers up and down vote so that readers could choose to hide offensive/objectonable/unhelpful reviews versus their staff determining -- big red flag for me. Although as someone commented on one of the posts elsewhere that's not something set in stone. But it is a scary idea and all the up/down voting (and author's abilities to purchase/sockpuppet those or to outright get negative reviews removed as offensive) drove me off amazon.

I don't want a book site just like amazon. Or just like goodreads.

And while the kickstarter description certainly is geared to luring those dissatisfied with goodreads and even brings up some things that goodreads won't let us do (most of which, incidentally, all the other booksites do have like re-read options) -- under some of the links to blog posts (like the up/down voting) it also gets wimpy by saying things like they are not judging whether goodreads was right or wrong with all the stuff they started doing back in September.

That last kills it for me. I want them to say that goodreads was wrong to woo a handful of authors in a hate group site making too much noise during holiday buying season by removing content on just their books and by targeting reviewers on that hate group's hit list(in almost the exact same order as listed). Not wrong in determining what content was or was not against tos, was or wasn't offensive, was or wasn't "attacking" -- but wrong in the no notice and wrong in how most of it was clearly just mollifying some agitators ... if a shelf named kaldjfklaf is determined to be offensive or attacking then all shelves named kaldjfklaf need removing, not just the ones shelving the hate-group-members books -- when they re-word their policies and such to state that ... I'll check them out. Because they started with their current wordings, that will be well after the site gets underway (and to be honest, by that time I expect one of the other dozen sites I'm on to have stepped it up where all kinds of member suggestions get implemented).

I like Book Collectorz, Readerware, Calibre and dozens of book collection and spreadsheet apps and programs just fine for cataloging my books.

But, those are not "book communities" and I miss the social side. I really surprised myself how much I got into the "scene" here at goodreads and enjoyed before they started pulling all their crap.

I used goodreads in a way I never used amazon and other sites because it was reviews and book discussions with other readers. I just enjoyed. And I'm on several sites with goodreads refugees and it was just so refreshing getting that interaction back without fear of content being deleted; I missed people I now have on other sites that stopped (or were banned) here. I don't blog or follow book bloggers or maybe that would have given me my "community" fix.

Any booksite starting up no longer has to compete with existing sites like goodreads but also with sites already rapidly adding features to accommodate member requests and court dissatisfied goodreads members. I think they do need to hurry.

And they need to stomp on the idea of downvoting to hide reviews or any notion that goodreads was justified.

Looks like no longer a possibility (unless changed name where I can't find it).