I pit the whiners on Goodreads

[Skypist]

Exciting News About Goodreads: We're Joining the Amazon Family!

Goodreads, a social book review site, yesterday announced that they will be partnering with Amazon. On that same announcement page are hundreds of whining posts complaining about how unfair it is that they will be shut out because they have a Nook (from Barnes & Noble), or afraid that Amazon will “take over” Goodreads and “force” them to write only positive reviews, and that they are leaving now - goodbye! Door slam

I am probably biased because I have a Kindle and love it, so I don’t really see it as a bad thing unless Amazon starts micromanaging the site. However, the deal hasn’t actually gone through yet and we don’t even know how it will affect Goodreads at this point. Maybe all the whiners could shut up and stop complaining about a FREE WEBSITE that is free to them to use and will still be free to them to use. They’re acting so entitled about a FREE SITE, posting long screeds about how betrayed they are and they’re never coming back!!!1111 :smack:

[Claverhouse]

No opinion, but maybe they are aware of what was fated for jumptheshark - com once it was sold to a TV Guide controlled by corporate masters.

[Darth_Sensitive]

I know, there are negative reviews on Amazon.

[artemis]

I suspect Amazon micromanaging the site is exactly what those board members fear will happen. A “free” website that is corporate controlled isn’t really free.

[Skypist]

I still think they’re way overreacting. If they think something bad is going to happen, they should just leave. If they leave in great enough numbers, it will make a difference. If not, it won’t. Whining for 30+ pages about how much they love books and nailing themselves to their crosses so they can bleed for Goodreads is a little overdone IMO. They even accused me of working for Amazon after I posted my opinion about the sale. If I don’t have the same opinion as they have, then the only possibility in their tiny little minds is that I must work for Amazon. You either work for Amazon or you hate Amazon, one or the other, no in between.

[artemis]

Complaining and leaving aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. By complaining first, those disgruntled community members are doing Goodreads the courtesy of telling the site exactly why they’ve decided not to participate any longer. That’s actually more likely to result in a positive change than merely drifting away silently.

And to me, those disgruntled site members’ suspicious about what’s coming up are well justified. Amazon isn’t partnering up with Goodreads simply to promote the love of reading; they are planning to make money off the deal in some way. They’ve no interest in growing the community purely for the community’s sake. Having seen one site (LiveJournal) badly damaged after attempts were made to monetize it, I share those readers’ wariness.

[MsWhatsit]

When large media corporations buy out well-loved independent sites/organizations like this, the results are typically not good. I’m not a heavy Goodreads user, so I’m not that invested in this, but I sincerely doubt that Goodreads will remain as it is in its present form.

[RandMcnally]

I’m not up in arms about the sale, but I’m definitely not happy with it. The last thing I want is another website doing targeted marketing on me constantly. One of the reasons I didn’t get a Kindle Fire is I didn’t want to have “customers also bought” constantly in my face (yes, I know I could have paid $15 to have it turned off).

Like i said, I’m not going to get all angry nor do I blame the owners for selling, but I won’t be surprised if I end up leaving.

But who knows, Amazon didn’t screw up Woot.com last I checked.

[Skypist]

@artemis

Complaining and leaving aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. By complaining first, those disgruntled community members are doing Goodreads the courtesy of telling the site exactly why they’ve decided not to participate any longer. That’s actually more likely to result in a positive change than merely drifting away silently.

And to me, those disgruntled site members’ suspicious about what’s coming up are well justified. Amazon isn’t partnering up with Goodreads simply to promote the love of reading; they are planning to make money off the deal in some way. They’ve no interest in growing the community purely for the community’s sake. Having seen one site (LiveJournal) badly damaged after attempts were made to monetize it, I share those readers’ wariness.

I don’t see what good the complaining does if it’s mostly composed of “I’m leaving” and deleting their account. They didn’t tell Goodreads specifically what they didn’t like. They just flounced out. They would have to leave in droves, complaint or no, for it to make a dent. They also didn’t wait to see what the changes are and then make more specific comments about what they don’t like.

The buyout could be a bad thing. Or it might not. I just think all the drama is ridiculous and really doesn’t help anything. I do realize Amazon is out to make a profit, not promote the love of reading.

[kiz]

@Skypist

I don’t see what good the complaining does if it’s mostly composed of “I’m leaving” and deleting their account. They didn’t tell Goodreads specifically what they didn’t like. They just flounced out. They would have to leave in droves, complaint or no, for it to make a dent. They also didn’t wait to see what the changes are and then make more specific comments about what they don’t like.

It’s not any different from any other free website that either changes hands or wants to monetize: The longtime Teeming Millions will loudly complain then flounce the hell out of there. Heck, it happened here on the Dope when the whole “Charter Member” thing first came out, IIRC. It still happens on Live Journal every time a major change is announced. You see it on Facebook every time something is tweaked.

It just gets tiring after while. We humans are creatures of habit. When something otherwise insignificant-in-the-greater-sense (meaning that it doesn’t directly affect your RL) gets switched around, it’s easier to complain and leave rather than listen and reconfigure yourself with the changes. It also brings out the drama llama just by the nature of what’s happening.

[Skypist]

@kiz

It’s not any different from any other free website that either changes hands or wants to monetize: The longtime Teeming Millions will loudly complain then flounce the hell out of there. Heck, it happened here on the Dope when the whole “Charter Member” thing first came out, IIRC. It still happens on Live Journal every time a major change is announced. You see it on Facebook every time something is tweaked.

It just gets tiring after while. We humans are creatures of habit. When something otherwise insignificant-in-the-greater-sense (meaning that it doesn’t directly affect your RL) gets switched around, it’s easier to complain and leave rather than listen and reconfigure yourself with the changes. It also brings out the drama llama just by the nature of what’s happening.

Thanks for understanding. You said what I wanted to say better than I did!

The member that accused me of lying/secretly working for Amazon flamed out by wishing that the founders of Goodreads would get cancer and die in their mansion, then deleted his account. What a nice guy.

[bup]

Elizabeth’s hawt.

[artemis]

@Skypist

I don’t see what good the complaining does if it’s mostly composed of “I’m leaving” and deleting their account. They didn’t tell Goodreads specifically what they didn’t like.

Oh, yes they did. I’ve read the entire 36 pages of that thread, and over and over the disgruntled users of the site have been very specific in their complaints:

They object to an independent book discussion site, which to date has never favored any one reading platform over another, being sold to a company which has a vested interest in promoting one particular reading device (the Kindle), which ultimately aims to monopolize the bookselling market, which has actively discriminated against certain categories of books and authors in the past, and which can reasonably be anticipated to engage in data-mining their accounts.

How is that not a specific objection?

The buyout could be a bad thing. Or it might not. I just think all the drama is ridiculous and really doesn’t help anything. I do realize Amazon is out to make a profit, not promote the love of reading.

To anyone who values independently-run, community-centered websites, the buyout is unquestionably a bad thing. That is absolutely without question.

If you woke up one morning to discover that your town’s mayor, acting on his own with no input whatsoever from the townspeople, had arranged a deal with Walt Disney Corporation and sold the local parks, the community center, the public library, the public schools, the town hall etc., to Disney and that you were now effectively living in Celebration, would you be OK with this? Would you be OK with being told “just move if you don’t like it,” as if selling your house and leaving behind the community you had dwelt in for years was a trivial thing and posed no difficulties whatsoever? Would you be OK with being told that your complaints about the mayor’s actions were “whining”?

Or would you think that the fact that your town could effectively be sold out from under its residents without their consent was a problem?

Of course, the mayor of your town CAN’T unilaterally sell community owned town property; here in meatspace we have laws preventing that. Unfortunately, the same does not hold true in cyberspace. Cyberspace has yet to work out a way to create truly public spaces, and that is a genuine problem. Many, many community run websites have been sold out from under their userbase and subsequently destroyed by private interests intent on monetizing social interactions. Why shouldn’t the users of Goodreads who fear that this is what’s just happened to their site complain about it?

Frankly, I find their attitude a lot easier to understand than yours.

[wonky]

I’m concerned about the future of Goodreads and I DO use a Kindle. I can imagine what it would be like if I didn’t.

Goodreads has been neutral, and I like neutral. Amazon isn’t neutral. That’s what people are afraid of, for good reason.

[choie]

Yeah, as an author I’m a bit concerned about this situation as well. They claim there won’t be any changes, but how long will Amazon allow links to B&N and other retailers? I’m dubious. I don’t see any other DVD retailers featured on IMDB, that’s for sure.

From this article courtesy of Digital Book World:

Neither Amazon nor Goodreads has yet responded to request for comment. In an interview with paidContent, when asked specifically about the Barnes & Noble buy buttons, Chandler said, “It’s incredibly important to us that Goodreads remain a platform for all kinds of readers to use, whether they’re reading paper or on their Nook or Kindle or whatever. We always want Goodreads to be a place for people to share and talk about books…As for specific design of [the links], we’ll see, but we really think about it from the user perspective. If users really want those links [to other retailers], then those links will probably still be there.”

Yeah. Those links will probably still be there. :dubious:

I’m not surprised at GR for selling, as I imagine they just made a fuckton of money. But I completely understand the complaints and concerns. If the GR community members want to voice their worries, where and when else should they do it?

I’m sorry the OP got attacked by suspicious types. It’s easy to get upset when your community changes and emotions can run high. Heck, here at the SDMB we got a multi-page thread when TPTB just added the extra social bookmarks at the end of each post! Which was ridiculous, of course; nevertheless, discussion overall is a positive thing.

[kiz]

@artemis

They object to an independent book discussion site, which to date has never favored any one reading platform over another, being sold to a company which has a vested interest in promoting one particular reading device (the Kindle), which ultimately aims to monopolize the bookselling market, which has actively discriminated against certain categories of books and authors in the past, and which can reasonably be anticipated to engage in data-mining their accounts.

How is that not a specific objection?

I have many indie writer friends – people who have self-published for the most part – whose only sure outside-of-their-own-circle promoting is through Goodreads. They’re petrified that once Amazon reconfigures everything, their genre will cease to exist there because it’s not a monetizing genre (italics mine). What then?

Cyberspace has yet to work out a way to create truly public spaces, and that is a genuine problem. Many, many community run websites have been sold out from under their userbase and subsequently destroyed by private interests intent on monetizing social interactions.

Live Journal being a case study in point :nodding: From what I understand, a good chunk of their Russian userbase is just as pissed off about this as the rest of us. The difference is that we have more choice in where to blog. They don’t because LJ is the only game in town there.

Frankly, I find their attitude a lot easier to understand than yours.

It’s upsetting, and I respect that. However, it’s not a life-and-death RL matter, and some people, according to the OP, are perceiving it as such. THAT’S the reason for this pitting.

[Skypist]

@artemis

Oh, yes they did. I’ve read the entire 36 pages of that thread, and over and over the disgruntled users of the site have been very specific in their complaints:

They object to an independent book discussion site, which to date has never favored any one reading platform over another, being sold to a company which has a vested interest in promoting one particular reading device (the Kindle), which ultimately aims to monopolize the bookselling market, which has actively discriminated against certain categories of books and authors in the past, and which can reasonably be anticipated to engage in data-mining their accounts.

How is that not a specific objection?

To anyone who values independently-run, community-centered websites, the buyout is unquestionably a bad thing. That is absolutely without question.

If you woke up one morning to discover that your town’s mayor, acting on his own with no input whatsoever from the townspeople, had arranged a deal with Walt Disney Corporation and sold the local parks, the community center, the public library, the public schools, the town hall etc., to Disney and that you were now effectively living in Celebration, would you be OK with this? Would you be OK with being told “just move if you don’t like it,” as if selling your house and leaving behind the community you had dwelt in for years was a trivial thing and posed no difficulties whatsoever? Would you be OK with being told that your complaints about the mayor’s actions were “whining”?

Or would you think that the fact that your town could effectively be sold out from under its residents without their consent was a problem?

Of course, the mayor of your town CAN’T unilaterally sell community owned town property; here in meatspace we have laws preventing that. Unfortunately, the same does not hold true in cyberspace. Cyberspace has yet to work out a way to create truly public spaces, and that is a genuine problem. Many, many community run websites have been sold out from under their userbase and subsequently destroyed by private interests intent on monetizing social interactions. Why shouldn’t the users of Goodreads who fear that this is what’s just happened to their site complain about it?

Frankly, I find their attitude a lot easier to understand than yours.

Yes, a lot are posting specific objections, but not all. I’ve seen more than a few “I’m leaving!” posts made by now-deleted users.

Using and becoming emotionally invested in an online community is not on the same level as living in a house. There are real concerns in the online community, but I don’t understand the extreme panic and flouncing or the concern that from now on only Kindle readers will be catered to on GR.

Online communities are their own kind of beast. Unless you personally are the owner, you don’t really have a say in what happens to the community down the road unless you own it yourself or you were promised something in a contract. No doubt it hurts to have contributed to something that may be changing for the worse, but there are never any guarantees. I was just surprised at the level of teeth gnashing that is going on before we’ve even seen what the changes are. Concern is one thing, but long impassioned railings are OTT IMO and are probably not going to be taken seriously by the founders or Amazon anyway.

[wonky]

@Skypist

I was just surprised at the level of teeth gnashing that is going on before we’ve even seen what the changes are. Concern is one thing, but long impassioned railings are OTT IMO and are probably not going to be taken seriously by the founders or Amazon anyway.

But from my perspective, you are reading their ranting, then coming on here and ranting about them. I’m assuming you’d say that you aren’t expecting your rant here to be productive, that it’s just a rant, so why can’t you view their rants as just rants, too?

Maybe they are frustrated and annoyed so they are participating in the GR version of a Pit thread.

[artemis]

@kiz

It’s upsetting, and I respect that. However, it’s not a life-and-death RL matter, and some people, according to the OP, are perceiving it as such. THAT’S the reason for this pitting.

“According to the OP” being the operative words. Go check out the thread the OP has linked to, and see if her description is accurate. I think you will find it isn’t. People over there don’t seem to be treating the matter as the end of the world. Many of them ARE treating it as the end of Goodreads, and they’re probably right (at least when it comes to Goodreads in its present form).

[artemis]

@Skypist

There are real concerns in the online community, but I don’t understand the extreme panic and flouncing or the concern that from now on only Kindle readers will be catered to on GR.

Explain how sales of eBooks to Nook readers nets Amazon money. Why would they continue to promote anything but their own e-reader service over the long term? Why would they allow links to competitors like B&N or Indiebound remain on the site in the long run? How is keeping the users of those places around on Goodreader going to benefit Amazon?

Online communities are their own kind of beast. Unless you personally are the owner, you don’t really have a say in what happens to the community down the road unless you own it yourself or you were promised something in a contract.

But what does it mean to say that a person or a company “owns” owns an online community? If Goodreads or the Straight Dope or Facebook had no content, what would they be worth to anyone? The content isn’t produced by the people who bought the server or the software bundle; they merely facilitated its production. They don’t “own” the community, in the end, and really have no power over it except that of destruction. And I see no reason why those being affected by said destruction should have to be silent about the harm being caused.