I have asked Goodreads to take down a couple of erroneous entries. They said the same thing—once it's up, it's up, that's our policy. It's a funny way to run a candy shop.
Lev, I do not believe comments to GoodReads Mgmt are taken seriously at all.
A child predator and convicted felon has an account there.
I know Peter's background very well because I once had him ejected from my poetry critique group.
Incredible that he once taught vulnerable teenage boys at Oxford.
Yes, he has served time in prison in Britain and the charges reported from his trial were daunting and horrifying. He refused to admit at his trial that grooming boys was wrong and neither was making and "collecting" (and selling) images of them, etc.
My information about Peter -- with ample links -- was not replied to.
Shortly after my report, his name was "suggested" to me as a GoodReads connection! WTF?
A bit more serious than reporting an incorrect Eliot quote ----- but the outcome was the same and there you have it.
I have seen a lot of alternative sites to Goodreads that have cropped up in the past few years, but I don't know if any of them will gain traction with readers.
Wish I had known this about Goodreads before posting my new book on the site. I got a "meh" review by someone who posted three weeks before the book was available. When I contacted Goodreads, they replied, saying, "We allow posts in anticipation of books." Whaat? Thank you for writing about this menace in the publishing world.
I stopped using Goodreads about the same time you did, Lev. I am not a huge fan of reading challenges and I just didn't find it useful, either as a reader or a writer.
I didn't find it useful either, and I remember when editors were urging their authors to "engage" with Goodreads. One advice column charted a writer's six-project of building relationships on GR. I thought it was nuts.
Yeah, the same thing was also happening with indies. Lots of recommendations to get reviewers on Goodreads. After a few attempts, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. If I got the reviews, they either weren't quality reviews or...if I got the reviews.
I've also never been big on keeping a list of the books I read. Considering I have easily gone through 300 books a year--yes, I'm one of *those* readers--chronicling my reads on Goodreads becomes a major chore and not at all worth it.
I've also never been into charting what I read. Sometimes it's five books a week, but if it's really gorgeous, like Call Me By Your Name, which I recently re-read, I savor it over days, even if it's short.
I have asked Goodreads to take down a couple of erroneous entries. They said the same thing—once it's up, it's up, that's our policy. It's a funny way to run a candy shop.
As the Brits like to say: "They're crap."
Lev, I do not believe comments to GoodReads Mgmt are taken seriously at all.
A child predator and convicted felon has an account there.
I know Peter's background very well because I once had him ejected from my poetry critique group.
Incredible that he once taught vulnerable teenage boys at Oxford.
Yes, he has served time in prison in Britain and the charges reported from his trial were daunting and horrifying. He refused to admit at his trial that grooming boys was wrong and neither was making and "collecting" (and selling) images of them, etc.
My information about Peter -- with ample links -- was not replied to.
Shortly after my report, his name was "suggested" to me as a GoodReads connection! WTF?
A bit more serious than reporting an incorrect Eliot quote ----- but the outcome was the same and there you have it.
Definitely a site to be avoided.
Once upon a time, it was a great (and useful) site. Everything went downhill quickly once Amazon acquired it.
Amazon has ruined a lot.
I have seen a lot of alternative sites to Goodreads that have cropped up in the past few years, but I don't know if any of them will gain traction with readers.
I think it may be the same with X/Twitter: deplorable as it may be, it's unlikely to be supplanted. :-(
You could be right about that.
Wish I had known this about Goodreads before posting my new book on the site. I got a "meh" review by someone who posted three weeks before the book was available. When I contacted Goodreads, they replied, saying, "We allow posts in anticipation of books." Whaat? Thank you for writing about this menace in the publishing world.
So sorry to hear about the bogus review. That site is irredeemably corrupt.
When I switched to StortGraph this January they had so many new accounts that they had shut down for a couple days. Anyway I haven’t missed GR.
I stopped using Goodreads about the same time you did, Lev. I am not a huge fan of reading challenges and I just didn't find it useful, either as a reader or a writer.
I didn't find it useful either, and I remember when editors were urging their authors to "engage" with Goodreads. One advice column charted a writer's six-project of building relationships on GR. I thought it was nuts.
Yeah, the same thing was also happening with indies. Lots of recommendations to get reviewers on Goodreads. After a few attempts, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. If I got the reviews, they either weren't quality reviews or...if I got the reviews.
I've also never been big on keeping a list of the books I read. Considering I have easily gone through 300 books a year--yes, I'm one of *those* readers--chronicling my reads on Goodreads becomes a major chore and not at all worth it.
I've also never been into charting what I read. Sometimes it's five books a week, but if it's really gorgeous, like Call Me By Your Name, which I recently re-read, I savor it over days, even if it's short.