Marquise > Status Update

Yes and it's so sad...

Elena Rodríguez wrote: "Yes and it's very sad..."

Plenty of people prefer to discuss certain aspects of a book in private, to avoid trolling and confrontation. Other times, you want to say personal things that you can't make public. What now?

I imagine they're doing this to limit spamming and harassment via DMs. I know I get both nasty DMs from users for my reviews, and I also get spammed by authors who simply drop a link or a book on me without asking. But surely there's a better way to address this that doesn't punish the saints with the sinners?

There is a lot of spammers out there at the moment.. all asking for you to go on what’s app or telegram yeah right.. Im going to give my email to stay in touch with my friends

I must have missed this, but given the enshittification of the site, not surprising

I think we’re being penalised for scam artists are trolls. Instead of finding and banning the culprits they’re taking it out on us. It’s disgraceful.

Kelly wrote: "I think we’re being penalised for scam artists are trolls. Instead of finding and banning the culprits they’re taking it out on us. It’s disgraceful."

Yes! There are better ways to address this.

I can't give my email to all and sundry, either. That's worse. I can give it (and have) to a few trusted friends, but I can't give it to everyone. And this also makes it less likely that you develop closer friendships here, all relations online need a private space, not everything can or should be public for everyone not involved to see.

Socraticgadfly wrote: "I must have missed this, but given the enshittification of the site, not surprising"

It's not even a good "enshittification." :( Twitter has features this site would kill for, such as the close circle feature. Can you imagine having a little circle of trusted friends you can discuss a book with away from the rest of your friends & followers? Or private shelves?

Oh, but they never gave us anything we truly wanted.

iain wrote: "There is a lot of spammers out there at the moment.. all asking for you to go on what’s app or telegram yeah right.."

Yeah, that's also why they disabled links in comments.

I was so sad when I saw that!

Katja wrote: "I was so sad when I saw that!"

There's already protests flaring site-wide. I've seen a petition to sign and request the admins to not implement these changes, but I'm not optimistic about their chances of success. :'(

That's kind of sad :/ But also not surprising. GR has made some...weird decisions recently. Guess it's a good way to slowly start exiting stage left. We'll see.

Why??!!! Terrible!!

Mariella wrote: "That's kind of sad :/ But also not surprising. GR has made some...weird decisions recently. Guess it's a good way to slowly start exiting stage left. We'll see."

Ugh, just next day after I launch my own project. :'(

Or maybe a sign from the gods that it's time to leave? This month is 15 years since I joined GR... And let me tell you, the desire to leave (which was momentarily quenched by the inauguration of my site's section) is back and stronger. :(

Karen wrote: "Why??!!! Terrible!!"

Fight spam, officially. Unofficially? We all know why.

Praying this is just a PR student. Or I will bring inconceivable harm to Bezos.

I think it has more to do with server space. If they eliminate messages, they don't have to host them, and they can make room for much more important things, like advertising.

If this is real, they'll follow through, regardless of user backlash.

I KNEW this was going to happen. Just knew it. Does anyone know when this takes effect? I assume January 1.

Marquise wrote: "I imagine they're doing this to limit spamming and harassment via DMs. I know I get both nasty DMs from users for my reviews, and I also get spammed by authors who simply drop a link or a book on me without asking. But surely there's a better way to address this that doesn't punish the saints with the sinners?"

I commented on this in Rod's status, so I'll just cut and paste to save time: It's a soft-shutdown move, not something to deter spam and romance scammers. Sorry to be cynical, but we're losing features in a consistent trickle; it's a tactic. As I've said many times before in various threads, save your reviews somewhere.

It's true they have a skeleton crew and likely can't manage the onslaught, in recent years, of romance scammers (that's impossible even for much larger sites, so people need to just educate themselves so they know the signs). If you look at this in the context of all we've lost, it's part of GR's movement toward stripping the site down to bare bones. We'll lose the ability to post status updates and then commenting on reviews next, in that order.

I'm at LibraryThing and The Story Graph too. LT offers PMing (FOR NOW); TSG doesn't at the moment, and it's unclear whether that will be added at some point.

Marquise wrote: "Socraticgadfly wrote: "I must have missed this, but given the enshittification of the site, not surprising"

It's not even a good "enshittification." :( Twitter has features this site would kill fo..."

Exactly. For all people mock Shitter, it does have things like circles; it also has a variety of conversation controls, like muting or exiting a conversation, or muting rather than blocking a person.

Caroline wrote: "It's true they have a skeleton crew and likely can't manage..."

This is true. I used to moderate and administer a writer's site during the early days of the internet. This is what happened; features were stripped away until the writing workshop and forums were no more.

It honestly feels like a bit of a slap in the face. I do wonder about the real motivation behind it. Are they even still committed to keeping GR alive at this point?

I was surprised too. I wonder why they are doing it? Surely keeping DMs around isn't costing them that much. Hope it's not a sign of the beginning of the end for GR.

Mr. James wrote: "This is true. I used to moderate and administer a writer's site during the early days of the internet. This is what happened; features were stripped away until the writing workshop and forums were no more."

I think I've brought it up before, but Amazon shut down Shelfari and some fabric site it also owned long ago (I forget the name. Maybe fabrics.com...?). The difference was it shut down both with little warning. I assume it's stripping this site slowly because GR is much bigger.

I just hate to think of what's going to happen to LibraryThing next. Amazon partially owns it, and it's not nearly as popular or even as close to well-designed as GR is (which may be one big reason it's not as popular).

Hey Marquise, a GR member by the name of Manybooks has created a group in the event DMs are effectively shut down. I joined it, seeing that several friends on GR did too; here is the url if you want to consider this option!

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

P.E. wrote: "Hey Marquise, a GR member by the name of Manybooks has created a group in the event DMs are effectively shut down. I joined it, seeing that several friends on GR did too; here is the url if you wan..."

Thanks, P.E. Out of curiosity, how does the group replace PMing? I'm not trying to pick on you; I just don't see how it's different from any other group. PMing is for discussion you want to have specifically one-to-one.

Someone posted this further information on the decision in the group P.E. linked to, FYI:

Goodreads is removing the direct messaging (DM) feature primarily to combat spam, scams, and review-bombing issues on the platform. The feature is not tied to a specific date in December 2025, but the service has been gradually phasing out or limiting various social interaction features to address these problems.

The primary reasons for the changes are:
Spam prevention: The DM system was reportedly exploited by bots and fake accounts to send unsolicited advertising, malicious links, or promotional messages to members.

Security concerns: By limiting direct communication and restricting the use of images and external links in messages, Goodreads aims to protect members from potential phishing attempts or harmful websites.

Content moderation: The platform has faced ongoing issues with "review bombing" and harassment, and restricting private communications is likely part of a broader effort to better moderate content and user interactions.

Goodreads has previously changed the default settings for DMs (from "anyone" to "friends only") and removed the ability to use external links in certain areas, indicating a long-term trend of tightening the social aspects of the platform to improve user safety.
While individual DMs are no longer available, group moderators can still send broadcast messages, and users can access their past messages from their inbox.

***

I don't buy it, not completely, although I do think their small staff has been overwhelmed.

GR could have removed the option to have PMs open to all and made them open to friends only. The option exists now--I have mine set to this--but most don't tick that box, I think. The restriction wouldn't fully deter scammers and spammers, but it would help a great deal.

I still can't write off the feeling that part of it is to save server space for more important things like advertising and promotion campaigns.

Caroline, I agree with you: a group can't replace private messaging.

At least men can no longer slide into DMs

Ugh. One more loss! I really need to back up my reviews.

Chaging DMs to friends-only still didn't combat spam? Are they serious? Ha.

@Caroline: I don't see it replacing DM howsoever, merely as a means to reach out to one of my GR friends other than through the comments :) My apologies for the delay! I am at my workplace ;)

Caroline wrote: "Someone posted this further information on the decision in the group P.E. linked to, FYI:

Goodreads is removing the direct messaging (DM) feature primarily to combat spam, scams, and review-bombin..."

Please. Having seem massive review-bombing by political wingnuts for years, and having reported it 2-3 years ago with no action, I don't believe this.

Second, how does removing DMs stop review-bombing, anyway?

Stop lying, Goodreads.

P.E. wrote: "@Caroline: I don't see it replacing DM howsoever, merely as a means to reach out to one of my GR friends other than through the comments :) My apologies for the delay! I am at my workplace ;)"

Thanks for clarification, P.E.!




Socraticgadfly wrote: "Caroline wrote: "Someone posted this further information on the decision in the group P.E. linked to, FYI:

Goodreads is removing the direct messaging (DM) feature primarily to combat spam, scams, ..."

Yeah, it's the response that's least likely to get pushback because who doesn't want to get rid of those things? I've lost count of the spam and romance scammers that I've reported over the years. GR barely cared. They could have simply made PMing a friends-only thing, as I said upthread.

Amazon is most likely working to streamline things, and in a few years GR will consolidate with it to become something like "Amazon Book Reviews." At that point, I'll shift to one of my other accounts permanently. (Fingers crossed that The Story Graph adds lots of new, great features--including PMing!--because I like the look of its interface better than I do LibraryThing's.)

ETA: Also, it's nuts that they haven't given us a date. Is PMing ending tomorrow? January 1? People may be exchanging email addresses with those they've PM'd with and would like to know how much time they have left to do that...

For me, the worst outcome would be if they eventually cut groups. My personal group, which only consists of one other person, is filled with personal writings, memories, links and images. It would be heartbreaking to lose all that; but that's on me for using a corporate platform.

Mr. James wrote: "For me, the worst outcome would be if they eventually cut groups. My personal group, which only consists of one other person, is filled with personal writings, memories, links and images. It would ..."

I'm sorry to hear that. :*[ Is there a way to export group content?

At least make sure your reviews are backed up.

Dreamcatcher (REVIEW BOMB AMAZON AND GR) wrote: "Praying this is just a PR student. Or I will bring inconceivable harm to Bezos."

Go ahead, the man is asking for it! :(

Mr. James wrote: "I think it has more to do with server space. If they eliminate messages, they don't have to host them, and they can make room for much more important things, like advertising..."

Oh, that's totally plausible. They've been slowly taking away the few useful features little by little, testing users' patience and endurance. And every time they do something, we protest and scream, but stay.

Until when? How much more can we take?

Caroline wrote: "I KNEW this was going to happen. Just knew it."

The holidays, the time when people are busier and less online, they drop these kinds of surprises on us. I should've guessed...

You can't export group content Caroline. Copying and pasting would be an impossible nightmare: there's too much. So if that day comes, I just have to let it go, and I will abandon Goodreads. My friend and I have built our own virtual world, but nothing lasts forever, especially when money is to be made.

Caroline wrote: "I commented on this in Rod's status, so I'll just cut and paste to save time: It's a soft-shutdown move, not something to deter spam and romance scammers. Sorry to be cynical, but we're losing features in a consistent trickle; it's a tactic. As I've said many times before in various threads, save your reviews somewhere."

Yeah, you've told me this several times across the years and during other site crises. I believe you, there's simply no other plausible explanation, not one that is as convincing to me.

Mai wrote: "At least men can no longer slide into DMs"

Hahaha! Oh, if only. But as long as humanity exists, pervs will slide into DMs one way or another. It's been like that since social media was invented.

Socraticgadfly wrote: "Exactly. For all people mock Shitter, it does have things like circles; it also has a variety of conversation controls, like muting or exiting a conversation, or muting rather than blocking a person."

I would so love some of Twitter's privacy features. I said that 'blocked' here on GR should mean blocked entirely, because in the beginning it merely meant the blocked user couldn't comment or DM you, but they could see you and you them. Then GR finally did some tweak on it, but only if the other user has blocked you too, and you can still see them on mutual friends' feeds.

It's all so poor quality and done with the feet on a keyboard. :'(

Thibault wrote: "Are they even still committed to keeping GR alive at this point?"

The answer is no: Goodreads isn't profitable to Amazon that I can see. Otherwise they'd be falling over themselves to work on the site to make more money.

Yun wrote: "Hope it's not a sign of the beginning of the end for GR."

The site has been dying a slow death over the years, my Yun. :'( At what moment the killing blow will be delivered? No idea, but it's being dismembered one piece at a time.

P.E. wrote: "Hey Marquise, a GR member by the name of Manybooks has created a group in the event DMs are effectively shut down. I joined it, seeing that several friends on GR did too; here is the url if you wan..."

Yeah, thank you, I got the invite from Gundula and joined. I don't think it'll make much of a difference to a regular group, and I honestly don't feel at home with several people in a 'private' space as I do one-to-one. :(

Mr. James wrote: "You can't export group content Caroline. Copying and pasting would be an impossible nightmare: there's too much. So if that day comes, I just have to let it go, and I will abandon Goodreads. My fri..."

How disappointing. :*[

Caroline wrote: "GR could have removed the option to have PMs open to all and made them open to friends only. The option exists now--I have mine set to this--but most don't tick that box, I think. The restriction wouldn't fully deter scammers and spammers, but it would help a great deal."

Yeah, I have mine set to friends only as well. The default should be no DMs unless enabled, not the other way round so people would have to manually turn them on instead of assuming they're open and not bothering to check or turn them off.

Mr. James wrote: "Caroline, I agree with you: a group can't replace private messages..."

Even stripped-down, limited character DMs are better than groups, if you ask me. Sometimes you only want to talk with one person or two, not a bunch.

Vanessa wrote: "Ugh. One more loss! I really need to back up my reviews."

If you leave and move them elsewhere, lemme know, darling. <3

Morphing_kashi wrote: "Chaging DMs to friends-only still didn't combat spam? Are they serious? Ha."

Ha! That's why their official explanation sounds so implausible.