Terminalcoffee discussion

You know what? I'm just going to come out and say it.

The goodreads "liked" and comment functions for book reviews and creative writing are a joke.

I know some people would say I should go complain to those goodreads feedback people, but they make the entire goddamn process sound like APA or something, and I think I want to cut to the chase.

I think people vote for book reviews and creative writing to be nice to their friends more often than not. That's ok, but it's not always a vote for the quality of the work. It's more of a "good try". To be fair, there might be various reasons to vote for a piece of writing/book review, e.g. it reminds you of something, you liked the book too, etc.

I wish there was a special section of GR where people could go for more quality criticism.

I wish I could say I didn't like a review/piece of writing.

I wish there was a way to indicate you wanted different types of comments, e.g. more critical comments rather than just a blank "liked it".

I guess it's what you expect from it...GR wasn't set up to be a place for creative writers to come and get feedback on their writing, first and foremost, so it's secondary, and I can accept that, usually. But I worry there are some writers out there who are not improving even though they want to improve because they think their writing is good when actually everybody knows it sucks and sucks bad.

Comments? And...you?

I wish I could say I didn't like a review/piece of writing.

I don't agree with this because I think people would cast "dislike" votes for the same reason many of them cast "like" votes (i.e., how they feel about the reviewer). I have too many enemies on GR to allow others to quantify their loathing for my often rambling, off-topic, self-indulgent reviews. I'm as fragile as a brittle autumn leaf and can't endure such numerical animosity.

And of course you CAN say you dislike a review by posting a comment to that effect, right?

I think that, by and large, the system is pretty serviceable as-is. The problem is (and it's not really a "problem," I guess) that the "voters" don't all share the same idea about what a vote means.

Interesting. What's a vote mean to people?

Exactly how many enemies do you think you have, David? And is that why you've fortified your residence and wear a pith helmet in your living room?

(yes, my binoculars are strong)

Enemies are everywhere, RA... Lurking... Lying in wait...

I did have a hard time finding room in the bushes outside your house...crowded in there. People had set up spaceheaters and lawn chairs.

Everything GoodReads is a popularity contest. Just like everything in life. Accept it. I think if somebody wants honest feedback, s/he probably has to ask for it.

And what you said in msg 1 about writers not improving is an honest-to-goodness possibility. Scary even.

all of this is true, and yet...I think writers do improve. They want to be better book reviewers, they want more votes, they take more time trying to achieve this--not everyone of course, but still...
If something seems not worthy to me, I simply don't add my vote. Of course there is so much on GR I don't get a chance to see, so my not voting is not an intended criticism. Not that I have that kind of power anyway...

I don't like voting at all. I don't think it really means anything---like, not like, whatever. In reality, we're not a writing workshop here; there's very little discussion of forms and techniques in our comments. Zoe's right: we're mainly here humping our personae, which is great---it's fun, and I've made great friends and met people I admire greatly (Erik, this means you---among many others). But this ain't literary criticism ... and it shouldn't be. Books are our excuse to socialize. Otherwise, this would feel like school, in which case RA and I would be off smokin' in the boys room.

I'm definitely not here for lit crit, though some of that is enjoyable from time to time. I'm here to socialize. And as for my reviews, when they do happen, they are rarely even about the subject matter of the book or about its literary qualities or lack thereof. A lot of my reviews are just stories about my life and the role a particular book played in it. I AM that self-absorbed, but that is also just how much books mean to me. I would also probably never post any of my "serious" writing here. Most of y'all would never offer any real criticism, but there are lots of people on here who would, and I totally can't handle that.

Amanda wrote: "Everything GoodReads is a popularity contest. Just like everything in life. Accept it. I think if somebody wants honest feedback, s/he probably has to ask for it.

..."

I don't know about that. I'm extremely popular but don't get many votes on my reviews.

*removes tongue from cheek*

I sort of thought the voting was like Amazon's "was this review helpful to you?" If a review makes me decide one way or the other about whether I should read the book, it's worth a vote.

But I worry there are some writers out there who are not improving even though they want to improve because they think their writing is good when actually everybody knows it sucks and sucks bad.

I wonder what that percentage truly is. How many here strive to achieve a level of artistic skill, vs. just exercising their thoughts in a public forum.

I plead to being one of the latter. I know I can't hope to rival the best of the book reviews I've found here on Goodreads (and there are so many), and I personally can't stand to repeat what's already been said by those better equipped to say it.

So anymore the "reviews" I do give are more public notes on private thoughts or observations about the book. Someone may gain something from them, or not.

The same goes for any of my creative writing efforts. I love when people enjoy my work. But I try not to expect those little votes from anyone because I know sometimes what I have to say just doesn't resonate with people. It doesn't really keep me from saying it though.

I prefer to smoke behind the bleachers, Kirk. It's easier for my dealer to find me there.

Are you sure I can hump your persona, z? It ain't pretty....

Even the big poodles do that?!

Leg humping takes a lot of acumen, Donald.

I like the feature that allows you compare your books and ratings with others'. I wish there was a way to find the people whose tastes are most like yours without having to click through each profile individually. If I could do that, I would pay more attention to their reviews.

That compare books thing doesn't work so well for me b/c I have so many books that I've never read that I own and then so many more on my neverending to-read list. I always end up having a tiny percentage in common with anyone else.

In this case, yes. Only because I use the reviews to search for books that I might like and might purchase. If I were looking for critical reviews and insight, then I would pay more attention to reviews of different viewpoints. However, as others have pointed out here, this site is not geared toward those type of reviews. They are out there, but they are outnumbered by "personal" reflections (e.g. "I like this book because reminds me about my dog.").

Mindy, it's that reason that I tend to hesitate to add books to GR that I haven't read yet. There are some 200+ on my shelves waiting to be read, but I always hesitate to put them on my shelves. The closest I get are the books that I'm planning on reading sooner than others.

"I like this book because reminds me about my dog."

That's a good one!

Oh, no, Logan. Filing all these books stacked all over my house on GR was three weeks of OCD-sorting HEAVEN!!!!

Some of my reviews are descriptions and critiques of the books, but more are personal reflections masked as reviews. It depends on the book, and what is in my brain about it when I sit down to review it.

I prefer that kind of record, for myself--even if nobody read them. Pre-GR, I used to journal about my books by hand, and I just sort of transferred that process here.

I actually prefer that kind of review from my friends, as well. If a character/story made them see themselves differently (or just changed their schema), I'm interested in that. That sort of reaction is more important to me.

I like that you mention schema, Tawmbo.

I find these conversations about people's reviews disconcerting. Once upon a time I joined GoodReads as a way to virtually categorize and record all the books I've read. I never imagined other people would read, much less care what I have to say. If someone likes what I've written about a book, that's nice, but I'm not writing reviews as a way to garner "like this review?" clicks.

Are we all supposed to be in practice for The New York Times book review section?

Are we all supposed to be in practice for The New York Times book review section?

No. You're supposed to be doing whatever the hell you want to do here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks, Lar-bo-bear. That Valium must be treating you nicely.

Very. Very.

I just think that if suddenly goodreads became impersonal and only had actual reviews, it would be a much less interesting place for me. I can see how that wouldn't be the case for everybody.

There does seem to be a subculture here of people who really care about the reviews. I'm not part of that subculture, but those people seem to see an art to them that I guess I can respect. I'm not a big reader of book reviews outside of GR, so I maybe don't have that gene or something. I like finding out about new books through GR, though, but I can usually get all I need from the book description and a couple lines of most reviews.

We could all just cut and paste Wikipedia passages of our favorite books.




Naw, that would just feel like school.

Oh, my, gawd.

The amount of blatant Wikipedia plagiarism out there is disgusting. I never knew! I used to be a defender of Wikipedia, the information of the masses, etc. etc. But the little studientos just love to cut and paste!!!

Sally my favorite Washlette,

Did you know that

In the academic world, plagiarism by students is a very serious offense that can result in punishments such as a failing grade on the particular assignment (typically at the high school level) or for the course (typically at the college or university level). For cases of repeated plagiarism, or for cases in which a student commits severe plagiarism (e.g., submitting a copied article as his or her own work), a student may be suspended or expelled. Many students feel pressured to complete papers well and quickly, and with the accessibility of new technology (the Internet) students can plagiarize by copying and pasting information from other sources. This is often easily detected by teachers, for several reasons. First, students' choice of sources are frequently unoriginal; instructors may receive the same passage copied from a popular source from several students. Second, it is often easy to tell whether a student used his or her own "voice." Third, students may choose sources which are inappropriate, off-topic, or contain incorrect information. Fourth, lecturers may insist that submitted work is first submitted to an online plagiarism detector.[1:]

In many universities, academic degrees or awards may be revoked as a penalty for plagiarism.

There is little academic research into the frequency of plagiarism in high schools. Much of the research investigated plagiarism at the post-secondary level.[2:] Of the forms of cheating (including plagiarism, inventing data, and cheating during an exam), students admit to plagiarism more than any other. However, this figure decreases considerably when students are asked about the frequency of "serious" plagiarism (such as copying most of an assignment or purchasing a complete paper from a website). Recent use of plagiarism detection software (see below) gives a more accurate picture of this activity's prevalence.

For professors and researchers, plagiarism is punished by sanctions ranging from suspension to termination, along with the loss of credibility and integrity. Charges of plagiarism against students and professors are typically heard by internal disciplinary committees, which students and professors have agreed to be bound by.

I think we should only talk to each other in Wikipediaspeak for an entire day, peepz.

As I'm sure you're all aware

The major points of criticism of wikipedia are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Specific criticisms include:

* exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism of its content
* attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles
* inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions in articles
* edit wars and other types of nonconstructive conflict among editors
* criticism of wikipedia taken as personal attacks upon it

Particularly noteworthy controversies about Wikipedia's content and editors have attracted wide and unfavorable media attention. Critics have used the Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents to call Wikipedia's reliability and usefulness as a reference into question. Wikipedia has also been the subject of parody and other humorous criticism.

But then again this post might contain obvious or subtle vandalism of its content.

I don't know if anyone else was listening to NPR the day McCain announced Palin as his running mate, but every morning until then they (NPR--and every other news source for that matter) would spend time on the subject of who McCain would pick. Would it be Romney? Lieberman? Blah, blah, blah. Well on that morning Steve Inskeep (sp) was interviewing some pundit about it and he asked the guy if he had seen Sarah Palin's wikipedia page b/c it said that SHE was chosen as McCain's running mate. Shortly after it was published, though, someone removed it. The pundit hadn't seen it, but assured Steve that it wasn't accurate and the two of them proceeded to have a good laugh about it.

That is so weird. Its like when Heath Ledger died and two days before the info was public there was that little tagline up top: "this article is about a person recently deceased" and then it was removed again because nobody really knew if it was for sure.
Little blips like that on the communal psyche kind of freak me out.

Wikipedia is haunted!

Apparently there is a subculture of "serious" book reviewers here and in the wider online world. I have seen a couple of spats on review comments where people talk about having their Amazon reviews plagiarized and whatnot. And I was just flabbergasted. Does Amazon pay or something? Or can any of this be used as "cred" for "real" writers? Can a GR or Amazon reviewer one day move up to NYT or something?

And I do use Wikipedia a lot for quick wanna-know things, but I would never use it for school papers. It's nice to have as a general knowledge starting place, but I would want to see a lot of independent verification of any serious stuff I was wanting to know about before I started "preaching" anything I learned on Wikipedia.

Yeah I've gone in and just made shit up to see what would happen.

When I first joined this site, I felt like every one of my reviews had to be a straight up, Roger Ebert type affair (yeah, sad that I can't think of any book reviewers off of the top of my head). These reviews were pretty much wooden and sucky. The day that I finally noticed that the text box actually read "My Review/What this book meant to me" was very liberating, because I could then do my own thing.

I do believe that there is some cronyism going on with the voting, but I still get a rush whenever someone else actually reads and claims to like my hooting and monkey shines routine. One of the reasons that I love this site is because it is more of a positive environment than other social sites. That's why i'm leary of the "don't like" votes because i'm afraid that the site would quickly devolve into something along the lines of Digg, where vicious little 14 year olds (hell, they might be 38yo basement dwelling virgins for all we know...) go around voting down everyone who is not in their little group. Damn, if 1996 chatboard terrorizing tadpole where here right now, he would be disappointed with this sentimental old fool...

I do my best to write eloquent, engaging, thought-provoking reviews that are ready for publication in the New York Times Book Review. Then no one reads them, comments on them, or votes for them. But, hey, that helps keep things in perspective: it reminds me that, in the end, I just don't matter that much.

On the other hand, neither do any of you. So it's a win-win. Or something like that. Maybe a lose-lose?

Huh, now I'm nervous about writing up a book review, I didn't know there was such a criteria for it. I found GR because I wanted to read some reviews and opinions other than Amazon when I was deciding which book to read next. I like all types of reviews - the English Professor, The Intelligentsia, The Kid, The Mom, The Bloke, if someone is honest that's all I ask. They can be an emotional response, or a more intellectual monologue, just please don't give me a summary only! I just want to get a feel for what the book is - emotionally (oh this is really depressing? Hmm, can't do that right now), does the plot work, are there interesting characters, yeah that stuff.

I tend to review from an emotional standpoint - how a book made me feel, how attached I was to it, how long I think it will stay with me, if I didn't like it - why, that kind of stuff.

It wasn't until much later that I even noticed people could vote on reviews! I don't look at the votes either. Personally I don't want to spend alot of time crafting my reviews. I want to help others decide if they want to read a book the same way I look to reviews to decide whether a book is right for me at all, and whether it's a to-read-now-or-later.

Wow Lori that comment made me feel good 'cause it reminded me of my dog when I was a kid. :)

I say the elitist, perfectly intellectual review police should just stay the fuck away. Just stay the fuck away.

Hey I heard the 1996 chat board terrorizing tadpole got picked up for vagrancy the other day. So we don't really care what he thinks about us now, do we Tad?

38yo basement dwelling virgins

!!!!

(I didn't even know there were chatboards to terrorize in 1996. I was a late-bloomer on the internet.)

That tadpole sure can turn a phrase.

I didn't even know there were chatboards to terrorize in 1996.

Sure, but they were all run by ENIAC.

(Of course, I had to google ENIAC.)

Mindy, how could you not know that ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer,[1:][2:] was the first electronic, digital, general-purpose, programmable computer. It was the first Turing-complete, digital computer capable of being reprogrammed to solve a full range of computing problems,[3:] although earlier machines had been built with some of these properties. ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Dumb-dumb.

I lived a dumb-dumb life pre-1999, dear smart-smart. My motorcycle riding compatriots weren't much into any technology that didn't require motor oil.

Dang, David, I tried to fudge and you busted me. It was probably more like '98. And yes, I realize that makes it that much more sad that a 25 year old was getting into arguments with a 14 year old in AOL's Sassy Seniors chatroom and threatening to "skullfuk the lolz" out of him. Twenty-three year olds doing that is just damned cute and endearing, on the other hand. What can I say, it was a different time and I was bored...and probably impaired...:|

You know, this makes me think. I first learned about brb lol j/k and p3nd (?) back in 2004 when I was feverishly addicted to the (freaking awesome) gaming site iSketch.

I realized after about 2 months that I was spending the majority of my online time with 12 year olds, so I slowly weaned myself off of the site.


But man did I learn a lot of internet-speak.

Somehow I sensed that you were a l33t haX0r, Sally :)