Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion

This thread https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... has staff saying reviews content is now being returned via email, that goodreads never deleted any shelves based on context ( or the books on a shelf), never deleted any P2P shelves, etc.

A lot of see the"FAQ" thread attempts; but, some staff response.

For a poster on that thread, does anyone have a link to where staff said "Due to Author" shelf is now allowed? Or is that just something goodreads was saying via email just to those individuals affected?

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

The email I got saying they were returning my "content" (which by and large didn't exist) didn't say anything about shelves or their names.

At least that means the email wasn't 100% pasted.

*sigh* it's all so clear and trustworthy — I hope whatever decisions everyone makes about their presence on goodreads that they are keeping good data backups ("My books" "import/export" "export" to csv file). Just in case.

I can no longer tell when staff is doing something to delete content or mess with my book catalog and when a site bug is doing so. I think most of the migrating to amazon cloudfront has been done so hopefully less glitches. I don't know anymore (except that I do know the bugs and database issues caused by moving from gr-asset content servers to amazon cloudfront were in no way booklikes' fault).

I would call this a total "backtrack." GR was not prepared for the backlash, and retreated (though not a full retreat). First shelves were being deleted because of the books on them (this was called "context" - i.e., GR could read everyone's minds), now they're not.

It's better than nothing. At least now we can name shelves horrible, hideous names to indicate horrible, hideous authors.

I still wonder if "author is a pedophile" is an allowed shelf name. Because obviously some authors are or were.

I didn't see that from a staff post; just that "Questionable Authors" was now an allowed shelf. And then some members were rejoicing that they could put back bba shelves without staff actually saying so.

Would not surprise me to find most authors would actually prefer to be on bba shelf to their books being given ★☆☆☆☆.

And the usual "email support if unsure about using a shelf name" -- like that's ever been a good way to keep or manage a catalog/database. Yup, if I have a box of dozens of books, I want to pause in my data entry to email staff then wait for response ...

Ugh, it's just disgusting when "keeping everyone in the dark" (by requiring everyone to email support individually instead of just clarifying something openly) is an official company policy. NOT helpful. Also ridiculously inefficient.

I just read through the linked deleted review thread and did not see where "bba" was an allowed shelf name. I double checked the so-called FAQs and they still say that badly behaving author shelf names are not allowed.

The way support puts out these tidbits of specific names allowed or not, maybe one of you has a link to still yet another thread or threads where staff say bba shelves now allowed?

The last I read from Emily still said shelf names were being evaluated on a case by case basis. The exact phrasing:

"We don’t have a specific list of shelves that are not allowed. We assess shelf names on a case-by-case basis. …"

How evaluating on a case by case basis (other than semantics) is different from considering the "context" of a shelf *headdesk*

Yes, there are lots of shelved named things that get left alone.

But those exact same shelf names -- when belonging to the targeted members or containing books by the more visible bba tantrum throwers -- did and are getting deleted.

Goodreads seems to be taking the stance that they don't have to respond on the megathread and instead keep steering to what they are calling the FAQs.

And that "FAQ's" thread still says that shelves named badly behaving authors are not allowed.

They're just not currently deleting a lot of them for whatever reason.

I don't understand why the deletions are so uneven or how they are deciding the case by case decision on whether your bba shelf would stay or would go.

I just did not want anyone to get the impression that a staff member anywhere on a thread I read said specifically that "bba" shelf names are now being allowed.

Then again, they're not even specifying what "six" shelf names were mistakenly deleted that are now perfectly okay to use (except for "due to author" if that was one of the six).

I'm not saying having a bba shelf means it will get deleted, deleted right away or left alone. I don't know.

The only sure way to keep any shelf name is to email support and get permission before using.

That makes me crabby. If there were only six shelf names that were mistakenly deleted -- is it really that bloody hard to add those six names to what they are calling their FAQs?

Maybe putting some Texas BBA books on the bba shelves might protect them? Or books that have BBA in the title?

Lobstergirl wrote: "I would call this a total "backtrack." GR was not prepared for the backlash, and retreated (though not a full retreat). First shelves were being deleted because of the books on them (this was called "context" - i.e., GR could read everyone's minds), now they're not."

What's funny about the "context" thing is that by saying "we know you're making a shelf about asshole authors because of the books on it," they're basically saying "we know these authors are assholes."

I'm putting all new adds into "read." I figure they'll leave that one alone. The actual useful filing (and my real "currently reading" list) is going on at BL.

Well, everything dumps to read if an exclusive shelf gets deleted.

I dumped all mine to to-read for a bit (site bugs, not shelf deletions were deleting books at random, adding random books, adding random ratings) because I was durn sure that was one shelf name that would not get deleted. Lots of members were seeing two star ratings put on their reviews. I noticed because I had not used any star ratings at all uet here were some mysteriously showing up.

Later after I calmed down, it occured to me that goodreads might like that. Because to-read stats are heavily marketed to people who don't get the difference between to-read = to-be-read-already-have and wishlist = interested so might buy.

I batch edited everything over to "read" except for currently reading. Then decided "shelved" made more sense. I've a few more reviews to move over and statuses/comments to grab from my A-E book titles — then I don't care what happens to my books/shelves.

I have booklikes sync turned on so my friends here know I am active. About once a week or so, I'll clean out the reviews, books and/or shelves that sync adds.

Sophie wrote: "What's funny about the "context" thing is that by saying "we know you're making a shelf about asshole authors because of the books on it," they're basically saying "we know these authors are assholes." ..."

Painfully funny.

Sophie wrote: "What's funny about the "context" thing is that by saying "we know you're making a shelf about asshole authors because of the books on it," they're basically saying "we know these authors are assholes." "

You always put things so succinctly. :-)

willaful wrote: "You always put things so succinctly. :-)"

Aw, thank you. :)