What's the Name of That Book??? discussion

Someone seems to be being very hasty about locking posts in the One Specific Book folder. I know posts need to meet the content requirements, but it seems like 24-48 hours after the reminder is not unreasonable. If you do lock a post you could at least leave a courteous and/or encouraging message. There's no benefit to making new posters feel unwelcome or snubbed.

Seems like a good idea to me, but what do I know. There was one post where I immediately knew the answer, but couldn't post it because the thread was already locked.

If the post is going to be locked, I wish it didn't show up for anyone other than the op and a mod. Stop wasting my time.

Bargle wrote: "Seems like a good idea to me, but what do I know. There was one post where I immediately knew the answer, but couldn't post it because the thread was already locked."

And now you can't help with the bumping (which i tend to forget and appreciated your help).

Sorry Jaye but I disagree with that one. :(

I hate when someone other than the op bumps a post. If the op isn't invested enough to check on it then I don't want to be bothered. I've seen users bump posts the op hasn't updated for years. Why bother? Stop putting these to the top of the list. Instead they should move automatically to abandoned after the op hasn't updated in a certain amount of time.

Juels wrote: "Sorry Jaye but I disagree with that one. :(

I hate when someone other than the op bumps a post. If the op isn't invested enough to check on it then I don't want to be bothered. I've seen users bu..."

I have bumped threads I did not open sometimes, I don't see what's wrong with it: I was intrigued by the book even though I was not the OP and I wanted to find the title.

Juels wrote: "Sorry Jaye but I disagree with that one. :(

I hate when someone other than the op bumps a post. If the op isn't invested enough to check on it then I don't want to be bothered. I've seen users bu..."

There is much interest in finding the book Bargle helps me bump.
Resulting in other people being intrigued and commenting. I see no reason to take them out of the equation just because my ADHD brain wanders away from bumping time.
I can use all the remindering help i can get.

I've noticed people commenting on abandoned threads and wish I could exclude them from my group notifications. Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to set notifications for only certain sections of the group. If someone knows a way, I'd appreciate the info.

Juels wrote: "I've seen users bump posts the op hasn't updated for years. Why bother?"

Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it.

Bargle wrote: "Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it."

I have a similar situation. Someone posted about a book that I know I've read but can't recall. I tried asking if they had further info but they haven't responded. I'm not going to keep their post alive for them. Instead, I've made my own post and if I get further info, I'll let them know as a courtesy. This way, I can actively pursue the post that belongs to me.

I understand you have your reasons but I'd still prefer not to see updates on abandoned posts. If the op comes back, it can be resurrected into solved/unsolved.

You don't have to post "follow" when you want to follow a thread. You can just click on "Notify me when people comment" and you'll get notifications.

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "@Juels,

There is a why to set what notifications you do and don't get for threads. Click on the "Notify me when people comment" button and it lists all sorts of ways you can be notified of a thre..."

I never use the notify me when people comment button. I use notifications for the group. It does not allow you to pick and choose sections within the group. I use the notifications to see new threads and updates on active threads. I'm not satisfied with how notifications are set up and I still do not want to see comments for abandoned or locked posts. It would be nice to exclude abandoned/locked posts and suggestions. At the very least, it would be nice to have some sort of indicator before you click it. If I could see it was abandoned/locked or a suggestion, I would ignore them.

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "As for my two cents worth, it is a bit... Flopsy? how one moderator quickly locks one thread while another moderator doesn't. There should be some consistency.

Also, someone new to the group could..."

Any new comment on a thread is equivalent to a bump. It pushes that thread up to the top and the rest of us think there is new information but it is just you following. It not very courteous to the other members. With such a large group, if everyone did that, it would be useless to have notifications at all.

Kristy wrote: "You don't have to post "follow" when you want to follow a thread. You can just click on "Notify me when people comment" and you'll get notifications."

I know. That isn't what I meant. What I meant was, if I want to find a thread which I'm following, I can't, because I'd have made no comment in that thread. And notifications expire eventually. At least it does for me. So with no notification, and with no comment to indicate I'm following a thread, how am I supposed to find a followed thread again?

That is what I meant. But thank you regardless for trying to help.

Juels wrote: "☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "As for my two cents worth, it is a bit... Flopsy? how one moderator quickly locks one thread while another moderator doesn't. There should be..."

Well. Excuse me then.

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "Juels wrote: "☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "As for my two cents worth, it is a bit... Flopsy? how one moderator quickly locks one thread while another moderator doesn't. T..."

I don't know if they'll do anything about it but I added a suggestion for a Following section in My Profile. If we had this, you'd be able to find those followed posts more easily. Fingers crossed.

https://help.goodreads.com/s/suggesti...

(And, of course, I have a typo in it. lol)

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "What I meant was, if I want to find a thread which I'm following, I can't, because I'd have made no comment in that thread. And notifications expire eventually."

You can create a Word document (or a spreadsheet) with a list of links.

Juels wrote: "Bargle wrote: "Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it."

I have a similar situation. Someone posted about a book that I know I've read but can't ..."

Juels can you explain how you did this? I asked specifically about doing this and was told (by a mod?) to only open a new thread if I specifically was the one who read the book. I wasn't the one who read it yet was still interested in finding it after it had been abandoned.
I was advised to instead open a thread on the 'suggest me a book' discussion, which isn't really the same thing so I didn't bother.

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "And notifications expire eventually.."

How do they expire for you?
My notifications are emails and how I handle that is up to me, I do only delete manually after reading and/or acting on them, like looking for a book.
Now this is not a solution for you, as you say, the notifications are gone. But I cannot give you a solution for finding the thread, sorry.

If you find it, you might want to handle notifications differently.

Simi wrote: "Juels wrote: "Bargle wrote: "Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it."

I have a similar situation. Someone posted about a book that I know I've r..."

I have read the book and I do want to find it again. It's driving me nuts that I can't remember it and haven't had any luck searching. There isn't a rule against looking for a book that you have read and want to find again. It doesn't matter that someone else may be looking for that specific book as well. I linked the other thread as a courtesy. There is also a very slim chance that the book I'm searching for is not the same as that other op. Based on description, I'm pretty sure they are the same but you never know.

I'm guessing they pointed you to suggestions because you won't know if that book is specifically found without the other op responding. In suggestions, you may be given several books that could be a match to that other post and it may satisfy your needs. I'd still continue to follow the other thread in case of new suggestions or if the op responds.

Juels wrote: "Simi wrote: "Juels wrote: "Bargle wrote: "Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it."

I have a similar situation. Someone posted about a book that ..."

That makes sense, thank you.

Simi wrote: "Juels wrote: "Simi wrote: "Juels wrote: "Bargle wrote: "Because the book sounds interesting to us and we want to know what it is so we can read it."

I have a similar situation. Someone posted abou..."

You're welcome. Have a nice weekend!

☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "I know. That isn't what I meant. What I meant was, if I want to find a thread which I'm following, I can't, because I'd have made no comment in that thread.."

Every thread you have ever subscribed to notifications for is listed, go to Account Settings > Emails tab, scroll to the bottom and click on "See all discussions I'm following" and search through the list

You might also be able to just click this link
https://www.goodreads.com/user/user_s...

Wow, thanks, even though I am not the OP. Saved that and will help others when possible. Still learning new things.
This topic popped up before, without that solution.

Aerulan wrote: "☯ DαякєηRнαℓ ❛ ᶜʳᵒᵘᶜʰᶤᶰᵍ ʰᵘᵐᵃᶰ ; ʰᶤᵈᵈᵉᶰ ᵗᶤᵗᵃᶰ ❜ wrote: "I know. That isn't what I meant. What I meant was, if I want to find a thread which I'm following, I can't, because I'd have made no comment ..."

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that was there either. Though it is still pretty buried. It would help if they made it more easily accessible. Also (I might be doing something wrong), when I click on those links, it brings me to the group and not to the actual thread.

Juels wrote: "Also (I might be doing something wrong), when I click on those links, it brings me to the group and not to the actual thread.
..."

There's two links in each line, the group as the first part where it says the group name and the thread links from the thread title.

GR could definitely make that section more functional but I doubt they care much, I don't think it's changed at all in at least a decade, but it's better than nothing. As far as I know, that's the only place that info is available.

Glad it's helpful @Ingo!

Aerulan wrote: "Juels wrote: "Also (I might be doing something wrong), when I click on those links, it brings me to the group and not to the actual thread.
..."

There's two links in each line, the group as the f..."

Ah, I see. Thank you. I was clicking the first thinking it was all one link.

Can there be a rule or agreed upon policy about locking threads that the Moderators all agree to?

Right now, a moderator will come in for a short time (for example, 3 minutes), block three threads and put off these new members, and then not return for at least 12 hours or more, and not even resolve previous locks that have since been amended.

Last time this happened, a thread a moderator had locked 12 hours ago had been updated to show a full and correct header. The moderator did NOT seemingly notice the changes or unlock that thread, but locked three more new posts by other users and then left again.

The other problem is that it seems arbitrary: just 10 posts or so earlier, there were equally unacceptable subject headings that were completely ignored. I think members are feeling discriminated against, as there is no consistency.

It would be REALLY NICE if there was a Policy in place about locking threads that was accepted by all moderators and adhered to consistently.

If you see now, we have been (effectively) moderator-less since the 17th of February when Kris disappeared, and members are taking matters into their own hands and creating duplicate threads FOR other posters to get around these unresolved "roadblocks".

It simply doesn't make sense to lock a thread if it won't be monitored acutely for necessary changes. Some of these locked-but-now-appropriate threads are drifting unseen and unhelped onto page 3 or 4.

Actually, upon reflection, I can go one further:

This forum is a crucial part of the "brand" of Goodreads. It's one of its big draws, and is what it is famous for.

As such, I don't think it is too much to ask Goodreads to engineer a WEB FORM that must be completed in full in order to post a new missing book query (such as the one for Add a New Book to Goodreads).

If users are given a rigid form, even those with cognitive hinderances or those seniors who struggle with technology (I notice they are often Locked out, as is the case with one of the threads locked at time of writing) will have a structured framework to follow.

It'll also force the lazy, spoiled, and genuinely annoying posters to adhere to the rules. ;) And that, I'm sure, will come as a huge relief to users and Moderators alike!!!!

Could a moderator or the moderators as a quorum consider petitioning Goodreads to implement such a system? It would make such a difference!!!

Capn wrote: "As such, I don't think it is too much to ask Goodreads to engineer a WEB FORM that must be completed in full in order to post a new missing book query (such as the one for Add a New Book to Goodreads)."

This has been suggested before. Nothing became of it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. If the Mods are going to be fussy about titles, it's a good one.

Capn wrote: "As such, I don't think it is too much to ask Goodreads to engineer a WEB FORM that must be completed in full in order to post a new missing book query (such as the one for Add a New Book to Goodreads).."

A good start (for anyone) would be to post it as an idea on Goodreads Help; that way they would know that the readers would be interested in implementing the feature. If someone writes to Support about it, they would be told to do this, so I just wanted to put it out there if anyone is interested. (If a moderator wrote in they could escalate the request, but as a group member this is what I'd do first.)

https://help.goodreads.com/s/Ideas

Thanks, Emily. A good resource. Most appreciated!

100% agree with Capn re message 29-30 above :)

Capn wrote: "members are taking matters into their own hands and creating duplicate threads FOR other posters to get around these unresolved "roadblocks".

Members should NOT be doing this under any circumstances. This simply makes the group more cluttered and makes it more difficult for the moderators to do their jobs.

No member should take it upon themselves to create or recreate a thread for someone else in the group.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Capn wrote: "members are taking matters into their own hands and creating duplicate threads FOR other posters to get around these unresolved "roadblocks".

Members should NOT be doing this under an..."

But you understand WHY those members did it, right? :S I mean, I agree with you - I don't appreciate anarchy and further entropy in the universe. But surely you see why they thought it was helpful?

The system is a little prone to problems as it is.

What do you think of the Web Form idea, Lobstergirl? Yeay or nay? (Or maybe you think GR would never implement it?)

How do you think would a web form help? I mean, you do need to fill out a sort of a form to start a new topic, and it's quite clear what the requirements are that the topic contain:

...(1. GENRE and PLOT DETAILS are mandatory in the header/ topic title. Do NOT create vague topic headers like "Romance" or "YA Fantasy" or "Looking for this book." Threads with vague headers will be CLOSED . . .
2. Tell us around what YEAR you read the book. A range of years is fine).

It's just people ignore the rules and just put "Help me find this book!!!" in the topic header.

I don't see how a web form will make any difference.

Consistent rules on when a thread should be closed would be really helpful though. For example,

For a thread whose original post is missing required elements:

1) Reply to the original post with a reminder about what's required.
2) Wait at least 48 hours.
3) If the original poster has not corrected the problems within that amount of time, the thread may be closed.

I've seen threads that were closed less than 12 hours after they were posted. Not everyone checks their email multiple times a day. Allowing posters at least two days to correct their post seems like just common courtesy. After all, this group exists for the people who are posting queries, not for our own entertainment or merely as a mechanism for enforcing rules.

SamSpayedPI wrote: "How do you think would a web form help? I mean, you do need to fill out a sort of a form to start a new topic, and it's quite clear what the requirements are that the topic contain: ...(1. GENRE an..."

It would help because you could set it up so that certain information was required. So for example, genre is required, so you could have a drop-down listing the most common genres, and the person wanting to post would have to choose one from the list. You could have a text box for "Plot details" and set it to require at least 100 characters. You could have a field for "When did you read this?" with either a drop down or a free text field. When the person clicks "Submit" if anything is missing it will say "missing required elements" and they won't be able to submit it.

It wouldn't be perfect and could still be 'gamed' but since people come here wanting help, they'd be likely to fill it out as completely as possible.

Honestly this group is so large it will quickly be overrun if the people who can't be bothered to follow simple and pretty obvious rules aren't kept in check. So I'm fine with locking rule breaking threads until they are fixed. Most other forums (like the reddit for finding books) will just delete them and make the poster try again.

That said, I think the message could be a little less abrupt and include more info, namely that the thread will be unlocked once the poster addresses the problems.

I also think a *new thread* to self report when they've done so, with a link in the locking comment might streamline the process a little.

Given it's basically a copy/paste comment anyway, adding a little more text to help guide posters on what to do next might help with compliance.

SamSpayedPI wrote: "How do you think would a web form help? I mean, you do need to fill out a sort of a form to start a new topic, and it's quite clear what the requirements are that the topic contain: ...(1. GENRE an..."

It's integrated enforcement from the beginning.

It's just like online shopping - you don't supply the requisite info, the transaction doesn't go through.

Further, there could be easier tracking for the Moderators - sometimes it is requested that users UNPRIVATE their accounts for the benefit of a Moderator. I don't think this is appropriate - people have reasons for keeping their Goodreads accounts private. Granting access solely TO a moderator would be fine, but to unprivate it for everyone - that's a big and potentially unnecessary ask!

If users were given a web form, that information can all be logged. A moderator could quickly see which threads were started by whom, and when, and it would probably be easier and less time consuming for the moderators to manage. This is not difficult for IT to script.

It would ALSO give the option to sort by genre, like on Reddit (tags used there). When a user didn't know a genre, it could be selected as UNKNOWN and be filed into that category. This would enable other users to browse headers based on genre, which would certainly be an improvement over the current system.

Additionally, if IT was so willing, there could be a further negative selection of genres that could be excluded. For example, you could deselect Romance or Horror, but leave Sci-Fi and Fantasy, adult and juvenile options.

It would ALSO enable moderators to BATCH old/abandoned posts. You could even script in limits - after X months or years, without activity, without user account activity, it could be flagged. Then moderators wouldn't have to dig through old posts and ask if people are still looking.

As everyone agrees, this group is monstrous. I think automation is a logical corollary.

Michele wrote: "SamSpayedPI wrote: "How do you think would a web form help? I mean, you do need to fill out a sort of a form to start a new topic, and it's quite clear what the requirements are that the topic cont..."

Good ideas!

Agreed, people will still find loopholes. But then they will be SO MUCH QUICKER AND EASIER for Mods to spot, flag, delete.

This would also stop the current forms of spam seen.

And Sam - ABSOLUTELY the biggest and most irritating problem is LAZY PEOPLE.

Which is why I personally support making them jump through hoops. If they can't be bothered, well, ....! ;)

Also - there could just be a big red button for "paranormal romance / shifter / Omegaverse". Ha ha! jk However, these posts make me all the more certain that enabling segregation by genre is an improvement in both user-friendliness/accessibility and in overall efficiency.

I am optimistic that GR would consider implementing these changes (this is not a major or costly IT undertaking at all). After all, Amazon has acquired Goodreads. They probably expect some return on it, and to stay competitive and relevant, they have to offer a BETTER experience than what you can get on Reddit and elsewhere.

Aerulan wrote: "That said, I think the message could be a little less abrupt and include more info, namely that the thread will be unlocked once the poster addresses the problems.
...
Given it's basically a copy/paste comment anyway, adding a little more text to help guide posters on what to do next might help with compliance.
"

I agree! I see so many posters that just give up after their thread has been locked and it has to be moved to 'Now We'll Never Know', like this one:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Maybe mods feel that they're thinning out timewasters, but it's frustrating for both the person trying to find the book and those who want to help find books (especially if you know the answer and can't comment because it's been locked!). A more helpful comment with instructions on how to edit the header and assurance that it will be unlocked would be much better - and like you say, it's a copy-paste job anyway so it's not more work for the mod.

Capn wrote: "What do you think of the Web Form idea, Lobstergirl? Yeay or nay? (Or maybe you think GR would never implement it?)"

I think there's zero chance GR would create this. This isn't even an official GR group. GR does not prioritize or value groups at all - unless it's a group that monetizes Amazon products. GR exists now to support Amazon's bottom line, mostly by directing members toward kindle books and kindle products.

We just want people to read the Group Rules and do their best to follow them. That's all we want. We don't think we're aiming that high.

Capn wrote: "sometimes it is requested that users UNPRIVATE their accounts for the benefit of a Moderator. I don't think this is appropriate - people have reasons for keeping their Goodreads accounts private. Granting access solely TO a moderator would be fine, but to unprivate it for everyone - that's a big and potentially unnecessary ask!"

We don't like asking people to unprivate their accounts (for one thing, it's a time suck, if we didn't have these useless administrative tasks we would have more time to actually search for books). But because of the way the site is coded, it's the only way we can see the threads they've started. We wish GR could change the coding so that we wouldn't have to ask people to unprivate their accounts.

Michele wrote: "For a thread whose original post is missing required elements:

1) Reply to the original post with a reminder about what's required.
2) Wait at least 48 hours.
3) If the original poster has not corrected the problems within that amount of time, the thread may be closed."

We try to close the thread quickly so that people don't start posting suggestions in it.

I see. That isn't very encouraging. I think I was under the impression that the group was an official one. As far as I can see, it really ought to be - it's what GR is known for, after all.

I also agree it shouldn't be too much to ask of people. But as we saw with that autistic fellow who said he was struggling to follow and understand all the written rules, apparently it isn't readily accessible to the public at large.

I would have thought that if GR cared at all about its own operations, they would be all over making life easier for moderators (especially if they work on a volunteer basis!!! What a gift that is!) and potential new users alike.

So I have to ask, because now you've scared me - what do you then believe the future holds for GR?! :( If they aren't interested in supporting or improving the status quo, then....? Doomed? :S

It must cost something to run, data-storage wise.

Capn wrote: "... I think I was under the impression that the group was an official one. As far as I can see, it really ought to be - it's what GR is known for, after all..."

Sometimes it feels like we're an official Goodreads group. We've unintentionally taken on the Goodreads function of "Community Requests" it seems. They hide this old section on the site... perhaps because we, um, do a better job. :)

https://www.goodreads.com/recommendat...

Michele you're so right, they make you feel more than guilty and uncomfortable for posting anything on here.

Kris, you guys DO do a good job. :) It would be so nice to see GR acknowledge that by supporting you more.