Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion

I know y'all are excited about BookLikes, but I can't help noticing that when you search for a book or click Read More under a book's title, you land on Amazon. By moving to BookLikes aren't you just feeding the beast even more, given that most of you will still have a presence on GR? (I'm not anti-Amazon, just asking the question.)

I've been watching the whole GR->BL situation evolve and I dunno, I just don't think it's the truly independent site I'm looking for. Plus all the bugs you guys seem to be working through...hoo boy, I just don't have that kind of time.

Booklikes appears to get their revenue from affiliate programs. It's either that or ads or subscriptions.

Yeah, I'm not too thrilled about that. But they want to make a buck, and I suppose if you buy a book from Ammie you might as well do it from a Booklikes link. They are not (yet) affiliated with Amazon, which I guess is the plus here. You can also change which database you search, so at least you can choose the devil you deal with. It might be only a matter of time before BL is bought out, especially now that there's such an influx of new users, but I guess I'm just hoping they handle it better.

As someone elsewhere pointed out, LibraryThing is not affiliated with Amazon, despite the widespread belief otherwise.

I don't know. I'm taking my reviews off Goodreads, slowly; I don't adore Booklikes, but I'm sickened by Goodreads, so...

You can search with other sellers. B&N, Powell's, etc.

This (along with a lot of other things I'm reading here in the Booklikes topic) is why I'm not going to be using Booklikes either. Goodreads successfully created and then killed the whole online readers/reviewers community, and I'm giving up on it.

I don't mean to be an apologist, but any content provider like Booklikes has to have some sort of revenue in order to operate.

Susanna wrote: "You can search with other sellers. B&N, Powell's, etc."

There is a way to set your book vendor. I added Kobo, Book Depository (yah, I know, it's Amazon), and Chapters Indigo.

Jane wrote: "By moving to BookLikes aren't you just feeding the beast even more, given that most of you will still have a presence on GR? (I'm not anti-Amazon, just asking the question..."

Getting revenue from being an affiliate does not mean you are in the pocket of Amazon! Also and this is very important

If you have an affiliate number for ANY of the book companies, you can input it into BookLikes and any books clicked on from your pages, you and not BookLikes will get the commission.

1. Susanna wrote: "You can search with other sellers. B&N, Powell's, etc."

What she said.You can also set your own preferences. So if you set your search to your preferred store it will always go to that store. Unless you change it.

2. My problem isn't with Amazon. It's with Goodreads.

Bunny wrote: "2. My problem isn't with Amazon. It's with Goodreads...."

But Goodreads is Amazon.

Elizabeth wrote: "Goodreads's management are the ones who so badly managed their TOS. If Amazon's lawyers has been anywhere near Kara before she sent her first message to feedback they would have physically restrain..."

I agree entirely.

I have separate issues with Amazon. But my issues with Goodreads are specific to this site, and they predate the purchase. They've been getting worse, much worse since the purchase, but they existed before.

The Friday dump and run existed before, the refusal to admit that the flagging system is not working existed before, the endless list of glitches and bugs that don't get fixed or even acknowledged, the drive toward standardization, the increasing pressure to play nice and not offend anyone by having god forbid, opinions, it was all here before.

Jane wrote: "I know y'all are excited about BookLikes, but I can't help noticing that when you search for a book or click Read More under a book's title, you land on Amazon. By moving to BookLikes aren't you ju..."

Nope. If you click the amazon logo you are seeing, you get a choice of other bookseller sites to use. For example, on the search bar you can instead search your own shelves, Barnes and Noble, Powells, and all the presets. Or put in your own choices.

Except for apparently the search-your-own-shelves option, you'll see the last option chosen the next time you enter booklikes.

Amazon is just what shows to new members (and amazon has a nasty little condition in their data feed that says to get to other vendors you have to click, that other vendors not allowed on same search or other pages as amazon).

Or I'll be deleting my account on booklikes if any business relationship with amazon other than purchase link kickback like most booksellers offer.

Interesting responses, and thanks Debbie for explaining about the search bar. I'm hanging back waiting to see how things work out before deciding whether to get serious about BL. I made such a big commitment to GR that I'm now wary about a new commitment...

Debbie R. - site-wide announcement of new policy+FAQs needed no matter how few members effected - wrote: "Jane wrote: "I know y'all are excited about BookLikes, but I can't help noticing that when you search for a book or click Read More under a book's title, you land on Amazon. By moving to BookLikes ..."

Debbie, how do you put in your own choices to search, ones that are not part of the drop down? Thanks

Elizabeth wrote: "Goodreads's management are the ones who so badly managed their TOS. If Amazon's lawyers has been anywhere near Kara before she sent her first message to feedback they would have physically restrain..."

I doubt if Kara is more than a mouthpiece for the committee that decided on this new policy and how to carry it out. These sort of decisions are going to be made by policy-makers. I don't really think it's fair to put any of this on her.

Sandi - Protester wrote: "Debbie R. - site-wide announcement of new policy+FAQs needed no matter how few members effected - wrote: "Jane wrote: "I know y'all are excited about BookLikes, but I can't help noticing that when..."

At the bottom of the drop down is "manage", and there are a lot more choices there. You can deselect Amazon entirely (I am not sure if this affects a book that was already added directly from Amazon however).

I am going to ask BL when I get home tonight what info they need to add more, because we have an excellent national library catalog here in Sweden, and a couple of other book stores I'd like to see available.

Krazykiwi. wrote: "I am going to ask BL when I get home tonight what info they need to add more, because we have an excellent national library catalog here in Sweden, and a couple of other book stores I'd like to see available."

Yes, I was thinking the same thing for Germany.

Maybe all of us could chip in with our respective countries?

If you look at the wide variety they offer for Poland (where BookLikes is hosted/originates from), you clearly see that they WANT to give their users as wide a choice of options as possible. Given the role that Amazon data feeds have been playing in the GR debacle (in hindsight, it's clear last year's brouhaha about that was one of the major triggers in the development we've been seeing since April), I think this is a wise choice -- and one that should be supported as best we can.

Debbie R. - site-wide announcement of any new policy+FAQs needed no matter how few members effected - wrote: "Jane wrote: "I know y'all are excited about BookLikes, but I can't help noticing that when you search for a book or click Read More under a book's title, you land on Amazon. By moving to BookLikes ..."

Of course, Amazon's argument could be that the book stores are displayed in alphabetical order.

AH wrote: "Of course, Amazon's argument could be that the book stores are displayed in alphabetical order. "

Haha. Well, there's still time for an online bookstore to appear, called ABooks. :)

Alfaniel wrote: "AH wrote: "Of course, Amazon's argument could be that the book stores are displayed in alphabetical order. "

Haha. Well, there's still time for an online bookstore to appear, called ABooks. :)"

Actually, there is an Abe Books but I think it is partially owned by - guess who? - Amazon.

Abebooks is 100% owned by Amazon. Alibris however is not!

Petra X wrote: "Abebooks is 100% owned by Amazon. Alibris however is not!"

Way to go, Amazon. Buy all the bookstores in alphabetical order.

LOL!

Petra X wrote: "Abebooks is 100% owned by Amazon. Alibris however is not!"

Yet.
By the way, isn't there any issue of monopoly here? Since Amazon owns Shefari (I think I read that), and GR, and OTOH it's a bookstore, AND got into publishing too. (please infirm if this is incorrect)
Their catalog sites send users to Amazon first (GR does that by default, I think).

Just askin'.
Reducing the tight integration of their own product by default, because of monopoly issues, has partially worked for Microsoft.

I don't know anything about the law to do with monopoly. There are still a very large number of independent bookshops, publishing houses, distributors and online marketplaces. It is true that this very large number is nothing like as big as it was, but the business model has changed to eBooks and audio. Ebooks are very profitable for Amazon indeed, all costs born by the author - no warehousing, shelving, staff other than IT, or any other costs. And yet the prices are still comparable to print books in a lot of cases.

GR was acquired for Kindle (and data), and over time their push will be towards authors only creating ebooks which only they are allowed to publish and to rent out (you can't own an Amazon ebook and dispose of it as you wish). No one before has ever had or wanted a monopoly on a title, they have been happy for everyone to sell it and happy for everyone to dispose of it as they wish whether by giving it to a charity shop, keeping it on their shelves or using it to wipe their bottom.

So the model has changed and the industry must adapt and how long indies like me last I don't know. I have to sell toys now :-( Boring. I like buying books not toys.

Petra X wrote: "I don't know anything about the law to do with monopoly. There are still a very large number of independent bookshops, publishing houses, distributors and online marketplaces. It is true that this..."

Petra, Can I ask, what's your site? I try to buy from an independent or publisher whenever available before Amazon. Please PM me with site if you don't want to post here. Thanks

Petra has a brick and mortar bookstore. Not sure if she also has a site.

Bunny wrote: "Petra has a brick and mortar bookstore. Not sure if she also has a site."

Well, shoot. Thanks Bunny

I have a site but I don't sell online because I am not in the US and the postage from here would be prohibitive, even if you were prepared to wait three weeks or so for books. I don't need to sell online on the island because it is so teeny that if you can't get to my shop in half an hour you must have run off the end of the road into the ocean. Anyway we don't have such refined first world things as mail delivery here.

Petra X wrote: "I have a site but I don't sell online because I am not in the US and the postage from here would be prohibitive, even if you were prepared to wait three weeks or so for books. I don't need to sell ..."

Have you ever posted any pictures of your island? I would love to see them.

Look in my photos, there are a few views from around my house.

Petra X wrote: "Look in my photos, there are a few views from around my house."

You are very lucky. It's beautiful.

It looks gorgeous.

It is beautiful. The 'garden' is quite a bit wilder since the pics were taken. Trees are more overgrown with vines, vines overgrown by other vines, that sort of thing.

Petra X wrote: "I doubt if Kara is more than a mouthpiece for the committee that decided on this new policy and how to carry it out. These sort of decisions are going to be made by policy-makers. I don't really think it's fair to put any of this on her."

I have NO doubt that this is true.

[Name Redacted By Goodreads Because Irrelevant to Review] wrote: "Goodreads successfully created and then killed the whole online readers/reviewers community"

I have to admit I don't truly trust any online site at this point. So I do understand your outlook.

This is how deeply we readers have been sold down the river. Look at GrAmazon's marketing promotions: http://www.slideshare.net/GoodreadsPr...

Our data is valuable $$, our reviews are valuable $$, us by books are valuable $$, but we, the individuals, the active members, the personalities behind the names that grew this site with Otis at the helm, we are less than important, we are quite disposable. They have enough reviews now to not care if everyone of us left. There are enough of the review writers who will modify whatever they have to, will ignore censorship of others that no matter how many leave it won't make the slightest difference.

How many of us would? For us to make any difference we'd have to pull hundreds of thousands of them and that's not going to happen. Despite protests from some people abou the situation, they are still appearing on the latest top lists.

Not that it matters at the macro level, but I did remove thousands of ratings and reviews. I killed my account and now just have a shell so I can keep track of Goodreads continuing not to notify all of its users about the TOS change. The problem with the "I don't see any of you leaving" threads is that the people who left...aren't here to say, "I did!"

I know many people who've outright left or removed all their books, but even if we all know many people, or have done it ourselves, unfortunately it's still a drop in the bucket. Their content might not be as valuable but I imagine many Amazon customers/Kindle customers will be joining up. Even if they only rate their Kindle edition books... Anyway, for whatever reason, we're no longer considered an important part of the site. The site might close, but there's money to be made, even then.

The way I feel about it is, I was once invested in this site. I did librarian work, I reviewed books, I participated and made suggestions in Feedback, I offered help and guidance to new members, because I wanted to make the site better for all of us. No more.

Now I don't care, and clearly neither do they. Maybe they did once when they were little and needed us to grow. But its completely apparent they don't give a damn about us users any more, we are just monetizable units. So since they changed the arrangement from their side I'm changing the arrangement from my side too.

I'm here to participate in a couple of groups and to stay in contact with my friends. I don't review, I don't update, I don't do librarian work, I've pulled down my shelves and reviews because I don't want to give them content, and I don't serve as an unpaid guide to the place. People need help, they can contact support (cue hysterical laughter).

Goodreads is now Facebook to me. I'm here because some of my friends haven't left.

If, at some point in the future they hire a new managing team who has some vestige of a clue, I will reconsider my level of engagement. For now, I give as little as possible just in order to stay in contact with some people who are still here. While actively searching for alternatives and encouraging those who do remain to control and back up their data and not assume good faith.

Bunny, Susan, others, you're good role models for me. I feel as you do but am wallowing in indecision. I'm definitely doing a LOT less, but even though I feel as you do, I haven't entirely removed myself and my participation. I'm getting there though.

Bunny wrote: "If, at some point in the future they hire a new managing team who has some vestige of a clue, I will reconsider my level of engagement...."

The new management team will go much further in shaping Goodreads into a much more profitable company. As long as the revenue goes up, it will be irrelevant what any of the members want. Goodreads was (once) about books, but now it is Amazon and Amazon was once about selling books but is now just about selling. Anything.

I agree with Petra, and if there isn't enough money to be made, they'll simply shut down Goodreads, after mining it (and us) for all it's worth.

Sure. That's the most likely outcome. In that event I will be glad I was already mostly disengaged from the site. I'm not holding my breath. I'm just saying that in the increasingly unlikely event that this place was to develop a desire to have and deserve a reputation as a reliable source for honest reviews and book talk, I would once again re evaluate.

Petra X wrote: "I don't know anything about the law to do with monopoly. There are still a very large number of independent bookshops, publishing houses, distributors and online marketplaces. It is true that this very large number is nothing like as big as it was, but the business model has changed to eBooks and audio. Ebooks are very profitable for Amazon indeed, all costs born by the author - no warehousing, shelving, staff other than IT, or any other costs. And yet the prices are still comparable to print books in a lot of cases.

GR was acquired for Kindle (and data), and over time their push will be towards authors only creating ebooks which only they are allowed to publish and to rent out (you can't own an Amazon ebook and dispose of it as you wish)."

Re: The last statement: That, to me, seems to be highly significant. The definition of "monopoly" and "market control" is not an absolute thing in antitrust/competition law. It's all about the way you define the relevant market in the first place. And I do think you can make a case that Amazon is a controlling player in the ebook market -- now, with the acquisition of Goodreads, more than ever. Remember when people first went after Microsoft, they didn't do it on generalized charges of Microsoft being an IT giant or some such, but on charges of Microsoft dominating and manipulating the browser market -- or even just a separate subset market of the larger browser market. The thing is, though, that not in all jurisdictions end customers have standing to sue for market manipulation (as they do in the U.S. IIRC). E.g., the big lawsuits against Microsoft before the European Commission were brought by competitors feeling disadvantaged. So in a jurisdiction where end customers don't have standing to sue, it would have to be another ebook seller (or several of them as a group) who'd have to bring a lawsuit to challenge what is going on ... I think this is bound to happen somewhere sooner or later, but unless and until it does, nothing is going to stop Amazon and Goodreads from proceeding further and further on the path they're on.

Petra X wrote: "The new management team will go much further in shaping Goodreads into a much more profitable company. As long as the revenue goes up, it will be irrelevant what any of the members want. Goodreads was (once) about books, but now it is Amazon and Amazon was once about selling books but is now just about selling. Anything."

Lisa wrote: "I agree with Petra, and if there isn't enough money to be made, they'll simply shut down Goodreads, after mining it (and us) for all it's worth."

Precisely. Like they've already done with Shelfari -- and in the non-book sector, I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't already set their eyes on places like Epinions as well.

They won't shut down Goodreads ever Lisa. It isn't a separate company anymore, it is part of Amazon, it is an integral part of Kindle.

It isn't a data-mining operation. Everyone sells data, that's how they get good money for advertising, the advertisers look for data that means that if they advertise to those people, they will like and buy what they put forward to us.

What has made people very cross is that right up until the present state, Otis was insisting this was a site for readers first and it is clearly now a site for readers last. No one likes being lied to, as in when Amazon bought Goodreads, "nothing will change" and the whole ethos of the site which had been going through changes of features to monetize it in more profitable ways anyway, absolutely changed.

The bottom line, profit or loss, is all that counts to Amazon. If every single librarian (and looking at the threads, most are still very active) withdrew their free labour and made GrAmazon pay to have data maintained, GrAmazon wouldn't care. If every single reviewer stopped reviewing (and the top lists this week are full of some people protesting loudly but still vote-hunting, lol, that's human nature) and every single member who knows about this censorship policy (maybe 2K people on Feedback) left. It wouldn't even cause a blip in the system. Not one. There are so many reviews here, and so many people reviewing for the first time tomorrow, there is no chance it would affect book sales.

So why do we debate all of this? We should face the truth, nothing we say will have any effect and we are doing it because we want to.

Petra X wrote: "They won't shut down Goodreads ever Lisa. It isn't a separate company anymore, it is part of Amazon, it is an integral part of Kindle."

Well, replace "shut down the site" with "destroy the community" and that's pretty much what they've already done repeatedly -- first on Amazon itself (which actually had a very closely-knit community of reviewers while Ammy, hard as it is to believe these days, still cared about such things), then on Shelfari, now here. And everywhere it happened when the focus shifted from being a forum for honest opinions to "sell like hell." (Even on Ammy itself; to a much less pronounced degree than here of course as the site was always a seller first, but there was a noticeable paradigm shift even there.) Today the name of the game is Kindle. I don't even want to think about what it is going to be next.

Petra, I agree what we do about not causing a blip in the system, but I'm not so sure of Goodreads surviving, at least as is. Yes, it's a part of Amazon. If it's not a successful, lucrative part, I assume Amazon will go another way. And, no, we are not valued here, and except for the information and support coming from fellow disgruntled members, we're all on our own with what we decide to do.

Themis-Athena (targeted by GR censors) wrote: "Well, replace "shut down the site" with "destroy the community" and that's pretty much what they've already done repeatedly -- first on Amazon itself..."

But they didn't care, it didn't affect their sales. You know about the Amazon community because you participated in it and were sorry it got wrecked. I knew nothing at about it and have continued my use of Amazon (mostly checking out books) as I always have. It's the same here, so they wreck the small community centred around the Feedback group, most people will no be aware of it. Even less will care.

Lisa is certainly right, we are not valued here. When our input to build up the site into multi-million saleability was needed, we were very valuable, but now, lol. There you go.

Either we move on - look at the top lists, look at the people hating on GR's actions a couple of weeks ago, look at them back to doing what they've always done, leave and go to LibraryThing, BookLikes or elsewhere, or we maintain a level of involvement here that we are comfortable with. At least for now.