GoodReads losing readers over Amazon rules

[Brian G Turner]

How Amazon and Goodreads could lose their best readers - Salon.com

 

[WickedWords]

Thanks that was interesting and not really surprising considering the market that Amazon has

 

[Boneman]

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I looked at Goodreads once and that was enough. There are reviewers whose comments were banal, irrelevant, unconnected to the english language on occasions, and downright stupid. When you give an open forum to the masses, don't be surprised when some of those masses begin to get a sense of self-importance that has nothing to do with merit or achievement, but purely based on the fact that they've posted 'lots' of reviews, so must know what they're talking about and will flame anyone who says different.

Y'all know I won't buy from Amazon unless I absolutely have to, because I want to keep my local waterstones open, and I don't want to go into my bookshop to find it crowded with hundreds, nay thousands, of reviewers shouting each other down and giving me their opinion about the books I want to read. I will look at a book if someone I trust has reviewed it, and I don't trust Goodreads to do the job. Especially now Amazon owns it...

 

[jastius]

what surprised me was that even though this is a business make-up consisting of volunteer donations of professional quality work, that it could be sold as if these were actual employees providing a guaranteed output or contribution.. isn't requiring someone to give something without remuneration .. umm .. not good? i mean you cannot rely upon conscripted output as a business model, surely?
at least i don't think it has worked out legally since the american civil war. (what did they call that? the emancipation proclamation...)

but amazon has always been a scorched earth sort of venture.. in any head to head clashes of any business they make inroads of, it really doesn't matter whats left standing at the end of it to them as long as the money keeps rolling in.

 

[Ursa major]

As you might know, I'm very much against the piracy of copyright material, but even I would find it hard to feel sympathy for someone complaining that they're missing out when their work on a social media site stays on that same site after the site has been purchased from its original owner (even for a large sum of money).

I can think of only two ways where something similar (but not the same) as what has happened here might infringe a content writer's rights:

1. if the site's original owner had promised payment, which the new owner is now refusing to pay;
2. if the content writer is obliged to provide more material for free.

As far as I can see - but tell me if I'm wrong - neither of these things has happened here.

Putting one's words on a social media site is akin to an author giving their work away for free (as some authors do, for various reasons). One has published it for zero remuneration in the full knowledge that one is not going to be paid for it. Finding out later that one is still not going to be paid for it should not come as a shock.

 

[Nerds_feather]

As a result of this uproar, Goodreads, which had previously observed a largely hands-off policy on moderating user-generated content, announced that from now on it would delete any “reviews that were created primarily to talk about author behavior” from the site. The reviewers involved in the flame war were outraged, arguing that they had been harassed by authors who objected to negative reviews.

I see a big difference between complaining about an author's behavior outside the scope of a book and complaining about a book's faults. I mean, (A):

This is a crap book because the plot is contrived, the grammar is poor and the characters are almost identical to ones found in the Battlestar Galactica remake. So don't buy this book.

...is kind of different from (B):

Author X sucks because s/he is a jerk. So don't buy this book.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Goodreads trying to limit (B) not (A)? The complaint seems to imply that they are also trying to limit (A).

 

[Foxbat]

As you might know, I'm very much against the piracy of copyright material, but even I would find it hard to feel sympathy for someone complaining that they're missing out when their work on a social media site stays on that same site after the site has been purchased from its original owner (even for a large sum of money).

I agree. I remember when Brian bought another SF&F forum and merged it with this one. To me, this is much the same situation with Goodreads. Some of us wondered how the Chrons would change but that was about it. Surely Goodreads users should be thinking the same rather than 'how can I line my pockets'.

For the record, the only difference I noticed after the merger here was that I had more people to argue with

 

[Phyrebrat]

Y'all know I won't buy from Amazon unless I absolutely have to, because I want to keep my local waterstones open, and I don't want to go into my bookshop to find it crowded with hundreds, nay thousands, of reviewers shouting each other down and giving me their opinion about the books I want to read. I will look at a book if someone I trust has reviewed it, and I don't trust Goodreads to do the job. Especially now Amazon owns it...

I agree. I use ABEbooks co uk because it ensures my money goes to independent booksellers with actual shops (and it's incredibly cheap). It's nice to have a pre owned book, do my bit for independents, and - perhaps - do my bit for the planet re recycling.

pH

 

[Boneman]

Thanks Phyrebrat, never knew of them! Will divide my business between them and Waterstones now.

 

[Ursa major]

I see a big difference between complaining about an author's behavior outside the scope of a book and complaining about a book's faults. I mean, (A):

This is a crap book because the plot is contrived, the grammar is poor and the characters are almost identical to ones found in the Battlestar Galactica remake. So don't buy this book.

...is kind of different from (B):

Author X sucks because s/he is a jerk. So don't buy this book.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Goodreads trying to limit (B) not (A)? The complaint seems to imply that they are also trying to limit (A).

That's what it looks like.

What the article doesn't say is whether the new Goodreads policy also removes those things the reviewers are complaining about (e.g. adverse author responses to reviews they don't like, and author spamming). If that is also being tackled, this looks like a storm in a teacup. After all, if one is complaining, by way of ad hominem attacks, because one has been attacked for one's review, the best solution is for the original attack to be reported** to the Goodreads moderators, who would remove them (if they are really attacks***), not to demand the right of retaliation.



** - I'm assuming that there's a mechanism for reporting (as opposed to having to send an email, PM, whatever), as there is on the Chrons (the red triangle containing what may be a vertical line or exclamation mark).

*** - I find it hard to believe that only authors are being touchy: some people can be touchy about what they write, and it doesn't matter whether their writing is a book or a review.

 

[Anne Spackman]

Thanks, Brian. I had no idea that Amazon had bought Goodreads.

Interesting article, and I'm not surprised that there were some protests against the new rules. I understand why some people avoid buying from Amazon, but Amazon does provide a good way for authors to self-publish for kindle without requiring any investment from them. I don't always like Amazon's policies, but it does make self-publishing easy. I agree with Boneman in one way: you can get any kind of review on Goodreads, or on Amazon for that matter. It is the same with Barnes and Noble. I don't think that there's any way of keeping inane or mean reviews being made about your book or story. On Barnes and Noble's site you can at least report spam or profane reviews, however.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Amazon also bought Book Depository and IMDB, so that's three conflicts of interest / bad for consumer purchases.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

To me, this is much the same situation with Goodreads.

I don't think so. Chrons doesn't sell books and DVDs.

 

[Dave]

Amazon also bought Book Depository and IMDB, so that's three conflicts of interest / bad for consumer purchases.

I had no idea this had happened. It'll be Wikipedia and SFFChronicles next!

I don't think so. Chrons doesn't sell books and DVDs.

You'll have to ask Brian about his business plan.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

ask Brian about his business plan.

Sell to Amazon?

It'll be Wikipedia

Funny you should mention that,
My 3G connection on Kindle DXG:
1) Unlimited browsing of Amazon
2) 60 Mbyte a month other websites (about 10,000 less than cable broadband, or 1000 less than my own broadband)
3) Except Wikipedia access is ALSO unlimited

My home made kindle cover has large friendly pink letters:

DON'T
PANIC​

 

[Boneman]

Y'all know I won't buy from Amazon unless I absolutely have to, because I want to keep my local waterstones open, and I don't want to go into my bookshop to find it crowded with hundreds, nay thousands, of reviewers shouting each other down and giving me their opinion about the books I want to read. I will look at a book if someone I trust has reviewed it, and I don't trust Goodreads to do the job. Especially now Amazon owns it...

Even though I'm choosing to sell on Amazon, with TicketyBoo... I still will only buy from reviewers I trust...

 

[Connavar]

I dont really care about Goodreads reviews too much, overthink them. Goodreads greatness is about who are your GR friends. I read reviews only when its done by my well read friends who write reviews so much better than avreage banal,lame ones you see on Amazon.

Also my Goodread friends are very important to me because they have enriched my reading. I have only bought few second hand books from Amazon and that was like 7-8 years ago and unless they get in the way of me enjoying Goodreads like i have always done i dont care what they do. I Joined Goodreads 2008 and it is still the same to me and hope it doesnt change too much because of Amazon owns it.

 

[Vertigo]

I agree. I use ABEbooks co uk because it ensures my money goes to independent booksellers with actual shops (and it's incredibly cheap). It's nice to have a pre owned book, do my bit for independents, and - perhaps - do my bit for the planet re recycling.

pH

Thanks Phyrebrat, never knew of them! Will divide my business between them and Waterstones now.

I know this is an old thread but...
I too buy from Abe books quite regularly but you should do so with your eyes open; they are owned by Amazon. This is from their own page about themselves:

AbeBooks Inc. is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. AbeBooks, an online bookselling pioneer, was acquired in December 2008 and remains a stand-alone operation with headquarters in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and a European office in Dusseldorf, Germany.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Lack of regulation.
Is there no end to Amazon acquisition of competition?

 

[Vertigo]

It seems not. I sometimes feel I'm the only one horrified not by Amazon's actions but by the establishment/governments standing back and allowing them to develop a monopoly through price dumping and other 'interesting' tactics. It's reassuring to see other people with the same concerns.