♥!The Young Adult Book Club!♥ discussion

Hey everyone!

Since GoodReads has decided that they evidently don't need to make an announcement to members about their new, 180 policy change, I thought I'd post the thread here in case anyone hasn't heard about what's going on.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

GR is now banning/deleting-without-warning all shelves/reviews/lists that focus on author behavior. Also, if your shelf isn't related to author behavior, but GR looks at the books on our shelves that decides the shelf is about author behavior, then that shelf will get the ax, too. Because GR can read your mind.

I'm personally frustrated with this new policy, but I'll leave everyone to determine how they feel on their own. Best of luck!

Agreed! As an author, I'm totally against this change, especially the way GRs has gone about it. Reviewers should be free to manage their reviews and shelves the way they want to. Just my opinion

Agreed! You could speak up in the thread if you'd like--I know everyone is always happy to see an author against the new policy. (:

Cool thanks!! Great idea :)

People have a right to post negative reviews. It is a shame that many can't take it -- it is part of being an author - not everyone will love your book.

Exactly! Id be huddled in a corner crying right now if i didnt have thick skin!

Not a fan of this. It totally undermines what Goodreads is all about; a free place to express all thoughts/opinions on books (and those who write them). Who is to say they won't start removing negative reviews next too? Or anything that they deem is against the "spirit of Goodreads"?
Also, I've always felt that Goodreads is a place for readers and reviewers, not authors. If they don't like what we say, then they should suck it up and move on. They put their books on here to see people's opinions of their work so they should be able to take any criticism that reviewers make. Come on. It feels a little like a kid tattling to mommy and daddy.
I'm curious: what about authors who berate readers for their bad reviews? Any rules against them?
And as for deleting shelves without warning? Bitch, please. Someone hold my earrings. Do you steal books from a bookworm's library? Hell NO!

On another note, anyone know other good places like Goodreads? I'm seriously considering jumping ship.

A, many people are moving to BookLikes. That's where I'm headed. The staff is SO nice and they are ready to implement any and all suggestions us refugees have. (:

Authors now have pop ups when they click on negative reviews of their book telling them it's not a good idea to comment. That's it. >< Meanwhile, GR is deleting shelves with certain authors no matter WHAT the shelf is called. Because they're "confident the shelf is being used to review author behavior". Ugh.

You are far from alone in jumping ship. Many top reviewers are leaving and my account is pretty much stripped.

Booklikes is really nice, it looks a lot like tumblr.

It's frustrating because I don't think anyone really wants to "jump ship", because we've invested so much time here, getting our shelves the way we like them, reviewing books, etc. I'm staying and seeing how things go. Hopefully they'll realize their mistake and stop doing things like this!

I think it's important to differentiate between author behavior and author's work, and same goes for the difference between reviewer behavior and reviewer's review of the work. I think it's important for Goodreads to stop people from both sides from using abusive and bad language. That's just plain good manners that we all adhere to. Although I think authors should be banned from making comments on reviews of their books now. Maybe Goodreads will implement this once they delete all shelves and reviews that have foul language.

GR shouldn't delete shelves or reviews without the "owner's" permission. In all honesty, I would be really annoyed if something like that happened to me because it's so hard to keep track of books since there's way too many of them to keep track of. Besides, the probable reason why other reviewers include the author's behavior is because it actually affects his/her work/s as well.

If GR pursues this, can I request to at least have a notification before deletion? That way I know what's going and what isn't.

Explain what you guys mean by Author behavior I'm a bit behind.

If a review is written on the basis of "author behavior" rather than the book, it will be deleted. In other words , they can't say they don't like the author because he/she was a jerk to them. Same goes for shelves. They can't say things like "mean authors" or things like that. But it's very subjective! I'm completely against it!

Danielle, most users with "badly behaving author" shelves or author behavior shelves in general use them to keep track of authors who have come out against negative review to attack the reviewer--a lot of the "biggest offenders" are more than willing to find a user's personal information and post it on various websites to "out the bully". Users have been called at home, has their bosses emailed to get them fired, had their addresses and photos of family and children posted online. This is the kind of behavior we're attempting to protect ourselves and others from--but GR won't allow us that defense.

Gina wrote: "Booklikes is really nice, it looks a lot like tumblr."

I have done some research you stand to lose groups, friends and lots of other perks.

Maddison, BL adds new features every week and have alreadu begun a list of things the GR refugees have been asking for, including groups. (:

Sabine wrote: "I think it's important to differentiate between author behavior and author's work, and same goes for the difference between reviewer behavior and reviewer's review of the work. I think it's importa..."

I think this is the basis of the issue. And even if I personally didn't like an author's behavior, I don't think that is appropriate in my review. The review is about the book.

Thanks everyone. I was thinking that one of my reviews might have fallen under that category but now I'm thinking not.
My example is that I read the vampire diaries and I got up to the one where it's a collaboration between LJ (well not really a collab...but best word for it) and the ghost writers who took over the series when the publishers or whoever fired her. I refuse to read any of the books that the ghost writers have written for the simple fact that the characters feel flat, they just suck, and I feel like that no one can replicate the world in which LJ created for TVD. Those ghost writers can not compare, and I think it was very lame for them to do that to LJ ugh. Anyways thanks for clearing that up.

http://mashable.com/2013/09/25/goodre... <-- Very interesting. Take a look.

I really think the solution is that authors should not be allowed to comment on reviews of their own books. Authors can report an abusive review., but not directly be able to comment on it. Now that amazon has taken over goodreads, I think we will see a lot of changes, especially in this area.

Two thoughts:

* I'm really concerned that now nobody is going to be able to report things like plagiarism. Or, you know, crazy people who are stalking people in their real lives for giving critical reviews.

* I don't like BookLikes. It's just like Tumblr, but perhaps even harder to navigate. There're no chances for social interaction on that site. I don't know what I want to do. :( :(

Terri wrote: "I think this is the basis of the issue. And even if I personally didn't like an author's behavior, I don't think that is appropriate in my review. The review is about the book. "

That should be the case. However, lines blur. For example, when it was recently discovered that someone had plagiarised Easy by Tammara Webber, and it was discovered this person had set up dozens and dozens of fake accounts with fake reviews. That's bad author behaviour on behalf of the plagiarist, but now we're not allowed to discuss it on here.

How about the STGRB site, which publishes personal details of reviewers and encourages authors to stalk them? We should be allowed to talk about that on here, but nope, not anymore.

Reviews stopped being just about the books when self-publishing took off (I love a lot of SP books and authors, though!) and crazy people started publishing anything and everything...

Oh, and final post (I promise!), as one reviewer famously proved the other day, you can't really talk about some books without mentioning the author. For example: Mein Kampf!

I agree with everything you said!

In my humble opinion, I think I would like it better if the policy was "we'll make you change your review to a more appropriate version if you attack the author..." or something like that. O_o

I'm not sure about booklikes though... I think I'm good with Tumblr crossposting, lol.

Sophia wrote: "In my humble opinion, I think I would like it better if the policy was "we'll make you change your review to a more appropriate version if you attack the author..." or something like that. O_o"

That used to be the policy. :/ Reviews that were mostly about the author would get hidden from the book page, so the user had access to it, and could change it if they wanted it un-hidden. But now they're deleting reviews without warning the user (now they've said they'll send warnings, but ONLY if the shelf was created BEFORE Sept. 21--no warning if the shelf is created after), deleting reviews that have explanations in the comments (even when they're just shelved with no rating or review), deleting shelves they are "confident" refers to author behavior, even if the shelf is named "fluffy bunnies" or "taa".

It's ridiculous. I'm really, really upset about the whole thing. :/

Thalia (Against GR Censorship) wrote: "Sophia wrote: "In my humble opinion, I think I would like it better if the policy was "we'll make you change your review to a more appropriate version if you attack the author..." or something like..."

I think I'm safe to say "owned" is not about authors... nor is "reviewed on blog" O_o

No, those should be okay. But it's scary since "taa" really was a shelf that was deleted, and just because it had certain authors on it, GR deleted it.

Thalia (Against GR Censorship) wrote: "No, those should be okay. But it's scary since "taa" really was a shelf that was deleted, and just because it had certain authors on it, GR deleted it."

Oh. I guess I'm safe then. I'm still trying to decide whether or not I should try out Booklikes. I did get asked to join in a beta... but I declined it. O_o

I think it's nice. The staff are super helpful and responsive and they work on implementing one new feature every week--and are currently working on implementing things us "GR refugees" have been asking for, so we can feel more at home. I definitely recommend trying it out.

I've joined the bandwagon, lol. O_o
Now to figure out how to go about things... lol

I don't agree with this change. I feel that we should be able to openly express our thoughts on a book (s) how will people know if a book is a good book or not if your only allowed to post positive and no negative. news flash nothing and nobody is perfect

I haven't seen anyone agree with this yet - authors or reviewers. And since GR was even afraid to notify members about it, I wonder who really thought it was a good policy to adopt.
I have nothing to hide as an author, but as a reader, I want to know what reviewers have to say - all of what they have to say!