21st Century Literature discussion

This group has a lot of awesome and amazing people. If you are bothering to read this post, there is a good chance that you are one of them. Unfortunately, when it comes to voting in the book polls, there are a lot of less than awesome and amazing people participating.

Despite repeated admonitions that voting in the polls means a commitment to read your choice of book if it wins, there are still a lot of people who vote and then are never heard from again. We’re not talking about the occasional and understandable situation where someone intends to participate and then life backhands them and they just can’t. We’re talking about serial voters whose only participation is voting for books they apparently have no intention of discussing. In some cases, those votes are resulting in a choice of book that would not have been the choice of the people who actually engage in discussions, which is unfair.

So, what idea do people have for dealing with this? Some of the ideas the mods have tossed around have been:

- Only announce polls with a link from the nomination thread. This would at least select for people who bother to read posts.

- Put people who vote and don’t participate on the banned list. Participation doesn’t have to be anything special, even a short post or private message to a mod saying “I voted for this book, but unfortunately I had a lot of stuff come up and can’t participate” would count as participation.

- After the poll is closed, the mods go through the voters list for the winning book and eliminate the repeat offenders from the final count. If a different book wins as a result, same process.

So what do other people think? This is your group, so please share your opinions. Do you have a different take on the problem, or think there isn’t a problem at all? Have an idea for a solution? Simply not care? Please, sound off!

One question came to my mind... Do you only consider it participation if someone comments during the timeframe that the book is current? I know at times I will read and comment on a book after it's on the shelf so to speak. Is there an expectation that the book should be read during the month it's being discussed or before, so you're prepared to discuss come day 1?

Speaking for myself, we would like people to vote for the book they want to read because they want to read it with us that month.

I think we do have members though, who participate very quietly. I've noticed people who do not ever comment but add the books to their list and rate them. So, I suspect they are reading and get something out of the conversation.

I, and again, I'm speaking for myself, not the other moderators, feel frustrated with people who seem to stop by to click buttons. And they seem to click by name recognition, rather than consideration. That frightens me. It means that instead of discovering something wonderful, we're hitting the highlights of the best seller list and we could do that in many of the clubs on Goodreads. And many of those clubs are wonderful places to read. But they are filling this niche. We're hoping to hit someplace less represented.

But Angie, if you're present enough to participate in this conversation, I find it unlikely that you are in that above group. If you are participating, you are welcome to vote. Please vote for something you intend to read soon if not in the coming month.

I apologize. I think I rambled a little here. I had a lot to say and only a few minute to say it all.

Me, I like option one. Anyone who sees the poll in the nomination thread, or takes time to find the poll on the polls page on their own, isn't just clicking buttons.

Angie wrote: "One question came to my mind... Do you only consider it participation if someone comments during the timeframe that the book is current? I know at times I will read and comment on a book after it'..."

Even though I understand your point, Angie, I have been a part of enough book groups, f2f and online over the years, that I think it is fair for it to "count" as "participation" only if input is made during the period of active discussion. Otherwise, why vote and tie others into a discussion at a particular point in time? (We experience this problem occasionally in our f2f group and sometimes remind our members not to advocate a book if they already know they have vacation plans that month! And, sure, things inevitably change! But usually not always and repeatedly.)

I do think it is wonderful to have past discussions available online and that people do return later and add discussion. But, for online groups, I happen to see that as a privilege and a benefit, not as a "right to vote" or, more accurately, as a commitment to participate -- which is more the issue here. (And I do understand the "online logic" -- I'll vote for that 'cause I really do want to read that; I think its a good read for the community; I'm in the middle of something else right now, but at least when I get to it, the discussion will be there. At that point, perhaps one has to wrestle a bit between community and self interests -- and the trade-offs may be arguable multiple ways.)

Sorry -- I'll get off the soap box. I am not interested in losing anyone who participates. If voting and lack of participation for a particular book becomes a disciplinary choice here, I certainly think it should be moderated by consideration of overall participation.

Angie, another group of moderators on another board just went through similar soul searching. As they did that, I learned one can see member participation in a group by selecting "Members" and ordering by participation. You may find that of interest here. (I'm going to go take a look.)

Part of the difficulty of this group in particular is that all of the books voted on are relatively new and, therefore, expensive to buy. As most are also relatively popular in my area, that often means the library wait list is long. I have participated in the past, but I also table books for later if I have a particularly hectic schedule or if I can't get the book in time.

I actually stopped voting because my life is too crazy to guarantee anything. If I am interested in the winner, then I decide whether to participate or not.

I would say to stop sending messages to vote and only announce in the threads. How many repeat fly-by voters are there? If there are a few that stand out as repeatedly doing this, maybe send them a personal message asking them to stop? Maybe people will change their behavior if they get a personal message calling them out on it, rather than a general request in the voting message.

Julie wrote: "I actually stopped voting because my life is too crazy to guarantee anything. If I am interested in the winner, then I decide whether to participate or not.

I would say to stop sending messages to..."

I think I will do the same, Julie. I have at times been unable to get to the book that I voted for, or have started only to find I did not want to continue on with it.

Guys- we are not trying to chastise you. We really don't want to discourage you from voting. Please don't stop voting unless you intend to NOT read. We're asking for your help to figure out what to do about those people whose ONLY participation is a button click each month.

Bethany wrote: "Part of the difficulty of this group in particular is that all of the books voted on are relatively new and, therefore, expensive to buy. As most are also relatively popular in my area, that often means the library wait list is long...."

Good points -- very different than on some other boards in which I participate where books are often even beyond copyright protection and available online or inexpensively, as well as in library copies. Does it make any sense to vote two months ahead instead of one? Close enough to have some sense of where one's life is going, far enough to allow getting a book in time to read it?

Julie -- thanks! Very considerate. It is nice to have enough votes to have a sense of the broad interests of the community. But as Deborah says, this particular group is more about attempting to find the undiscovered gem. Part of that does happen in the nomination process as much as in voting. (Last month I nominated, but did not vote, saying at the time I might not.)

Deborah wrote: "Guys- we are not trying to chastise you. We really don't want to discourage you from voting. Please don't stop voting unless you intend to NOT read. We're asking for your help to figure out what to..."

I intend to have no idea until I actually pick up the book lol.
I stopped voting on most polls in most of my groups because I felt bad for being one of those people that doesn't read it half the time....it's not even specific to this group.

What Deb said. The problem is people who seem to enjoy voting for the sake of voting. There are a few people who belong to multiple groups, and their only participation in any of them is voting. As I said, if you're reading this, you are probably not the problem.

Julie, I've considered the personal message thing. But I don't want to get in the inevitable bitchy flame war with someone ("this is an open group and I have as much right to vote as anyone blah blah blah"). The added admonitions on the polls that if you win you participate were supposed to be that notification, if people are completely ignoring that they just don't care. The alternative is adding a "people who repeatedly don't participate in books they voted for will be banned from the group", or "will have future votes discounted". And, yes, overall participation would be considered. Also, a comment like “I hated this book and couldn’t get past page 6” counts as participation.

Bethany, you make a good point abut the added difficulty of obtaining more recent books. Increasing the time available to obtain and read a book would be a good topic for a future thread.

I'd like to throw in my two cents worth, from the standpoint of leading discussions. Leading a discussion is obviously more fun if you have more people making comments. Some people feel funny commenting, but they are reading and following along. If a person doing that makes one comment to the effect of "I'm reading with you and enjoying the discussion," it makes me feel less like I am wasting my time. Most discussion leaders do put in a fair amount of time deciding how to structure a discussion, and how to ask thought-provoking questions about a book. If it's a book I love, and only two or three people comment (usually other mods), I still enjoy the discussion. But if it is a book in which I have no interest, and the book I'm rooting for comes in second to a book that got votes from fifteen people I have never heard of and who have never commented on anything in this group's discussions, then I get unhappy about having to read a book I don't care about and trying to organize a discussion where no one shows up. If this happened occasionally, well, these things happen. But here it happens repeatedly. Over a period of several months, (around the time the group read "the Circle"), several moderators checked who voted for what and which book "would have won" if only the votes of regular participants were counted. For several of the months we checked, the "wrong" book won, i.e., a particular book that lost, such as "the Son," had the vote of many people who comment most of the time, lost to a book like "the Circle," which drew a lot of votes from people who never comment. Often even the people who nominate the winning book never show up to discuss them. We want for this to be an open group and not a private club, but sometimes I feel like the discussion is being hijacked by people who do nothing here but vote.

This definitely is an issue a lot of groups are dealing with and i don't think anyone found the perfect solution.

I kind of like the idea of eliminating the votes of the frequent offenders. Starting to send personal notes might create a lot of tension and arguments that aren't fun for anyone.
For the sake of transparency, in the thread announcing the winning pick it could be mentioned a correction of x repeating offenders had been made.

As people mentioned above, I think we have to split two issues though. The first are voters who are never contributing and doing this more than once, versus when life gets in the way or when you just have nothing to add.
I had it once that i fully intended to join the discussion but life really got in the way (I think that was a mod pick though, so not really on topic). The other thing is that when you finish late in the month and you just feel that you don't have anything to add. The discussions in this book group are often at very high level, making me feel a bit silly to respond :)

Hanne, I recognize your name because you have made comments on multiple books. The people we are irked at are people who never comment. If you go to the home page and click on members, and sort by number of comments, for these people you will come up with "zero," because they have never once commented on anything, and yet they keep voting. Why they do this is a mystery. Probably some of them do look at discussion threads at times, and are just shy about saying anything, but I have trouble believing that is true for the number of people we see who vote repeatedly and never comment.

oh no argument here, there definitely are people who never comment and keep voting but never intend to read it and it's annoying - especially if it really impacts the final pick. i'm perfectly fine with putting them on a list and ignoring their votes. i would just be hesitant to make the criteria too strict. :)

i realize this would be a lot of additional work for the mods, but if it helps us getting to the right book picks i'd would be really good if someone were to take this on.

This discussion thread has really educated me on what you're looking for from members of the group. This particular issue does sound very frustrating.

I've had a look at the members comment list and it looks as though there are A LOT of members who've never commented at all... around 1,300 of the 1,600 members this group has. Given that, I'd recommend making a general annoucement to the group that all non-participating (non-comment) members will be eliminated. Give it a week and remove all members who've haven't commented in the last year. It sounds like a big task, but it should leave you with members who want to discuss the selections. I know many of the other groups here on GR have this sort of policy. As long as it's clearly expressed for new members, I don't believe it will continue to be a problem.

This is only my suggestion... Please know that I appreciate all the work the moderators do for the group. I personally want your experience with the group to be as satisfying as mine is.

Hi. I am someone who belongs to this group, enjoy it, check in often but I don't think I ever participated in a read only because "too many books, not enough time". I also don't think I ever voted in a poll or if I did, it was in very few. But, I have to say, if you stop sending personal messages to people to "vote in our next poll" and quit providing the link most people, the ones who only vote and don't participate, won't be bothered to visit this group, see what's new, find a poll and vote. When you provide the link in a message to their inboxes, it's just following an easy impulse to add a vote. People who actually care about what's going on in this group will be well aware when a new poll is up and will cast their vote if they're interested.

I've been following this discussion as this issue came up in another group I belong to, so I'm interested to see how this group deals with this frustrating problem.

I would also like to second Sandra's post - I follow this group's polls and which books are being selected, but I have not voted to date because of also having the "too many books, not enough time" syndrome. I've been on a classics kick lately, but I joined this group (in Jan of this year) to help me become more aware of and hopefully start reading some more recent publications. Anyway, I agree that not providing the link in the messages would hopefully eliminate some of the voters who never participate.

I agree with Sandra. I think it is too easy for people to vote on polls as though it were a Listopia list or other 'popular vote' device. The members who are interested in the discussions will be following the thread and looking under 'polls' regularly.

I understand your frustration...and I am hopeful that by not messaging members you'll find the issue resolves itself.

Hanne wrote: "...The other thing is that when you finish late in the month and you just feel that you don't have anything to add.

I think someone mentioned (or maybe I imagined it) that the books tend to be announced soon before their discussions are supposed to start. By the time I've tracked down the book at a library, received it, and started reading it, it feels like everyone else is already done and, like Hanne said, I feel like I have nothing to say, usually because by the time I'm done reading, everyone's already talked about everything I thought about the book. (I notice this more for the books that are named the moderator's pick, rather than ones that are voted on, because we get less warning. With the voting ones--which is the topic of this whole discussion--I'll sometimes reserve a book before the poll even closes, just in case the one I want to read wins. Not as much in this group, but in other groups I'm in.)

The discussions in this book group are often at very high level, making me feel a bit silly to respond :) "

Me, too! :)

I wish I believed the problem would resolve itself so easily as not sending a message that a poll is up. It may make enough difference to be worth a try, but probably at the cost of losing votes of attentive members who can't or don't follow on a daily or even weekly basis. I guess the conservative and old fashioned side of me shows up every once in a while and I want to hope that people can be responsible in open and helpful conditions even if they could instead exploit them. Also, boards like this run the constant gauntlet between creating interest and problems like the one we are wrestling with here. Finally, I have been on boards where the "poll is up" mailing has not been used. Although I never studied those closely, my recollection is that it doesn't solve the problem of asking others to do what oneself has no intention of doing. Now, would it maybe help enough to be worth a try? It certainly takes away a helpful feature from those who follow a board and appreciate being given a heads up on an upcoming change, whether they vote or not.

Brainstorming for possibilities: Maybe the broadcast email should be instead to announce the results of a poll?

Lily wrote: "Although I never studied those closely, my recollection is that it doesn't solve the problem of asking others to do what oneself has no intention of doing...."

Lily, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, can you elaborate?

It looks like you have a lot of really good feedback here. I will admit that I have only participated in one discussion so far, and books I have voted for in the polls rarely win, although I may have been an absentee voter once or twice (sorry!). I just wanted to add that taking the polls and announcing their results earlier (2-3 months before beginning the group read) would definitely help me participate more often. Like Tiffany, I am a heavy library user, and it can be difficult to get my hands on a recent release, particularly if it's been well-received.

As a general aside, I would like to say that I really appreciate the focus of this group. It is exactly the type of reading I love most, and rare to find a group of such thoughtful people. I really enjoy following the discussions here, and will do my best to stop in more often!!

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, everyone! I'll leave the thread open for awhile, but I'm getting the idea that people think not sending a general announcement about the poll might largely eliminate the "must click on things" crowd. I'm inclined to start there. If it's STILL a problem, at least there will be much fewer votes to sort through to see if we still have a lot of voting non-paticipants. There would still be a link to the poll from the nominations thread, and the poll will still be on the homepage. And, Lily, there will still be a broadcast email to announce what books have been chosen. Anyone and everyone is always welcome and encouraged to join in the discussion, whether they voted or not.

Angie, I don't have a problem with non-participating members. If people want to be members of the group just to check in and see what we're reading, lurk in the discussions or what not, that's fine. I do that in a couple groups myself. As long as they're not spitting in the punch, they're welcome to join the party.

A couple other points have come up in this discussion. Let me again state that there is no animosity towards people who ended up having life get in the way and couldn't get to a book they intended to read. But, as I mentioned, even checking in and saying that you aren't going to get to the book would be appreciated. And if you feel you have nothing to add, a comment just to the effect of "enjoying the discussion" would also be appreciated. Unlike the other seasoned mods here, I haven't gotten stuck moderating a book I dislike. As Cesceil stated, moderating takes work, and if you're moderating you can't quit a book even though there are 1000 other things out there you'd rather be reading. So keep in mind that when you vote, you are committing someone else's time and energy to your choice.

Also, a few of you have commented that more time between the choice of books and the opening of the discussion would make it easier for them to participate. That seems like a pretty legitimate issue to me. I'll open a separate thread to discuss what sort of time frame might work better for people.

Whitney wrote: "Lily wrote: "Although I never studied those closely, my recollection is that it doesn't solve the problem of asking others to do what oneself has no intention of doing...."

Lily, I'm not sure what..."

You said it, in your post @24:

So keep in mind that when you vote, you are committing someone else's time and energy to your choice.

(That's every other participant, not "just" a moderator.)

I was also expressing skepticism that eliminating a "poll-up alert" adequately stems spurious votes, while losing votes from members who would vote and participate. I just ran an errand, and as I was driving, one possibility that occurred to me was an alert one or two days before nominations closed -- to encourage (deepen?) the generation of possibilities, to say a vote is coming up, but to still not support the click-through vote. Like all ideas, it has its pro and con aspects, which is part of why analysis processes usually suggest separating idea generation from idea evaluation. But that really isn't feasible in a media and format like this, so one just needs that balance between exploration and closure.

Another thing that did occur to me on that drive -- what really is our problem definition here -- voters who don't participate, how to get (more) members to participate (more often or even at all), why don't more members participate, how to get the best selections -- from the viewpoint of the moderators who carry a good deal of the load or from the viewpoint of the participants/members, what are "best selections", or ....? I think we have gotten clues and perspectives around all of those in this discussion and around other issues I'm overlooking here. Especially as a relatively new moderator, thx for leading us into the discussion, Whitney. But, just thanks, too.

Interesting idea about sending the announcement a few days in advance and not linking to the poll. Other's thoughts?

And, yes, you're right, there are a few issues that every group needs to address. This thread is pretty much for the first one, voters who don't participate. I'd rather have a small group of committed people (and a moderator) reading a book they wanted to read rather than a small group of committed people reading a book that may have been their second or third choice, or even no choice at all. I think if the committed people are more likely to have their book chosen, we may automatically see an increase in participation. And maybe more participation will attract the attention of other people who will participate. And maybe I'm a pie in the sky Pollyanna whose brain is clouded by wishful thinking.

@3Deborah wrote: "Speaking for myself, we would like people to vote for the book they want to read because they want to read it with us that month.

...We're hoping to hit someplace less represented...."

Deborah -- can you say a few more words about what you mean by "someplace less represented"? I think I have some sense of what you mean from previous discussions elsewhere on this board, but a few words might help this discussion, too. (I still struggle a bit when considering nominations and all this is part of why I play with prize nominees -- to find the less-hyped sleeper? Which is questionably a "sleeper" at that point.)

I am another one who doesn't vote but enjoys the discussions. I did read The Goldfinch so I could participate in that one, but also have "too many books to read" in order to participate on a regular basis. I have tons of research to do and never enough time. Casceil's and Sandra's ideas on the topic make sense to me.

Lily wrote: "@3Deborah wrote: "Speaking for myself, we would like people to vote for the book they want to read because they want to read it with us that month.

...We're hoping to hit someplace less represent..."

Again, this is my vision, and I hope one shared by the rest of the members of this group, but I realize that hoping does not make it so.

There are a lot of good books. And there are a lot of really good clubs on Good Reads. I don't think Good Reads needs another group to read Oprah's picks. (And mind you, Oprah has recommended some amazing books to me. And I think she prompted a lot of people who weren't reading to start. Oprah has been good for books. So that was not disparaging.) I don't think Good Reads needs another club reading the hot book of the day. And it doesn't need another club where you can go to read the classics.

That begs the question, what role do we play? Why are we here? And that's why I love when we read something lovely, I never heard of. That doesn't mean we should be reaching only for the esoteric, but I feel like with so many books and so many clubs in which to read them we should be searching for excellence over popularity. And when they converge I think we should be considering whether this is something we can or read in twelve other GR clubs within the same year.

Deborah wrote: "That begs the question, what role do we play? Why are we here? And that's why I love when we read something lovely, I never heard of. That doesn't mean we should be reaching only for the esoteric, but I feel like with so many books and so many clubs in which to read them we should be searching for excellence over popularity. And when they converge I think we should be considering whether this is something we can or read in twelve other GR clubs within the same year."

I try to keep my GR groups to a minimum so that I can fully participate in all of them. That said, what I'm personally looking for here is a place to read and discuss current popular literary fiction. I'd like to consider myself well-read in that area. The members here are a great source of deep discussions. That can't be said of every group on GR, even when the selection is discussion worthy.

Do I love the obscure? A gem is always a treat, but I feel that niche is really met here with the moderator's pick. I think it may be asking a lot for the monthly nominated and voted selection to fall into that category. More popular books will probably always be nominated and voted for.

That's probably a very valid point, Angie.