Goodreads itself gets a reckoning

https://archive.is/erSj0

Goodreads is broken. What began in 2007 as a promising tool for readers, authors, booksellers and publishers has become an unreliable, unmanageable, near-unnavigable morass of unreliable data and unfettered ill will. Of course, the internet offers no shortage of bad data and ill will but at its inception Goodreads promised something different: a gathering space where ardent readers could connect with writers and with one another, swapping impressions and sharing recommendations. It’s an idea that’s both obvious (the internet is great at helping like-minded people assemble) and essential (reading is a solitary activity but there is great joy in talking through a book afterward). In fact, Goodreads is still an essential idea — so much so that it’s worth fighting to fix it.

In an ideal world — one in which it wasn’t owned by Amazon — Goodreads would have the functionality of a site like Letterboxd, the social network for movie fans. Letterboxd has called itself “Goodreads for movies” but it has far surpassed that initial tag line, having figured out how to create a smooth and intuitive user experience, provide a pleasant and inviting community and earn revenue from both optional paid memberships and advertisers, including studios that produce the films being discussed.

Nice! Hadn’t heard of that one yet!

Currently Goodreads uses volunteer librarians who add new books to the site’s database in their free time. Hiring these people (and scores more like them) and paying them a living wage would empower Goodreads’s representatives to communicate with publishers, large and small, to facilitate posting books to the site when, and only when, a book has actually been written and edited and is ready to be shared with the world.

Given all of Goodreads’s issues, it might seem easy enough to encourage writers and readers simply to flock to another forum. Sites like The Storygraph and Italic Type have sprung up as promising alternatives, but they’re still far from reaching a critical mass of users. As a book critic and publishing professional, I’ve spent much of my career trying to encourage rousing conversations about the literary arts in whatever venues I could find, digital or analog. Maybe that’s why I’m still committed to the idea that Goodreads, or a place like it, must exist. As the usefulness of other social platforms deteriorates, this one is worth trying to save

2 Likes

fuck Goodreads man

Instead of just logging every version of a book under one entry they’ll have all kinds of bullshit translations and whatnot listened and any great book has like a top review that “I COULDN’T RELATE TO THE MAIN CHARACTERS AND IT DIDN’T MAKE SENSE”

let it die and burn

1 Like

I have no issues with Goodreads.

I thought books were added based on Amazon’s database.

Yeah Goodreads is terrible and the hivemind there is some of the worst on internet.

I like to use Goodreads to keep track of books I’ve read and want to read. But I deactivated all social functions, I just don’t like my friends to know what I’m reading. :sweat_smile:

Goodreads sucks. Could be so much more.

But I do use it to track books I want to read.

:see_no_evil:

1 Like

I used to be quite active on Goodreads, but now I just use it to record what I read and add to my to-list list and sometimes I write reviews. To be honest, I can’t say I’ve noticed the quality drop in the many years I’ve been using it, but I hardly use the social aspects of it anymore.

Never heard of Letterboxd. Would love to use a “Goodreads for movies”, so thanks for sharing!

4 Likes

The books are pulled automatically out of Amazon info. But readers are allowed to add books and edit book info on their own. Sometimes I’ve noticed incorrect information (total page numbers, duplicate authors) but those are not very common.

By the way my review on Norm Finkelstein 's book on Gaza–which I wrote in 2019–is getting a lot of likes now.

Did anyone notice Goodreads Choice Award winners this year?

There is no intelligent literary assessment it just seems like they went by some wild social media click algorithm or something.

Goodreads is a not even a reasonable reference for good literature fiction or nonfiction.

It still takes a lot of effort to find good references for good books and good literature.

ChatGPT or some other AI seems like the best alternative unfortunately.

1 Like