Seriously, is this article a joke? Because if it isn’t, we have to say that we no longer feel disappointed in you. Instead, we just feel embarrassed for you and we’ll tell you why.
What are we talking about? In this comment, we were tipped off to a Salon article written by Laura Miller called, How Amazon and Goodreads Could Lose Their Best Readers:
Just by reading the title, you can already see where this article is going. It is a perfect example of poorly researched journalism, because guess who Laura considers to be Goodreads’ best readers?
*nod* That’s right. *eyeroll*
As is revealed in the screenshots below, Laura has been in contact with the GR bullies and is now mindlessly regurgitating the twisted information they have fed her:
We want to stop right here for a second and draw your attention to this. Attacking a Goodreads moderator’s “dismal inner life”? Claiming a dead author participated in orgies with moomintrolls? Are you serious, Laura? Tell us, this kind of behavior — these “protestors’” (i.e. the GR bullies’) reaction to the policy change — this doesn’t raise any major red flags for you? Not at all? Not even just a little bit?
Obviously not since you seem to be laboring under the assumption that this is acceptable and it’s not. You see, this is why we are embarrassed for you now. Do you really not see how bad this article makes you look as a journalist?
And if you continue to read the article, it gets even worse:
Only real resource? Is that what they told you? The fact is, these people are not a resource, let alone the “only real resource” Goodreads has. They are a liability because they jeopardize the integrity (with false ratings and reviews) of the database that Amazon and Goodreads uses to market books.
Also, most members of Goodreads have either not noticed the change on GR or are happy to see these “best readers” go. These people are abusive and they turn what could otherwise be a really great site and resource for authors and readers into a hostile cesspit of flame wars and poo-flinging. This is why GR changed its policy and this is why they want these people off their site.
As Randall, a guest blogger on The Passive Voice said:
Throughout this entire article, Laura fails to mention the fact that is on most people’s minds when they hear about the Goodreads policy change and that is the abuse that lead to the change in the first place. Abuse that has been exhaustingly documented on our website for over a year now. Fortunately, the people who read and commented on the article weren’t fooled:
“Bullying by both readers and some authors.” Yes, that is exactly right, and that is why we started our blog. We are just happy now to see that our efforts, along with the efforts of all those who joined in, have had this positive influence on GR.
I think those commentators say it best. I’m so sorry to see how Salon has been misled.
What? Another National Enquirer is born? Sounds like the GR feedback forum are seeking ways to get back at GR.
Bravo, commenter Vardaman.
What a bunch of pussies these reviewers (oh sorry, should that be ‘citizen reviewers’ Ceridwen, you pretentious git?) are, who think they can be ‘fractious, personal and combative’ as much as they choose but scream Help! Help! I’m being attacked! if an author so much as dares ask a question on a thread. And yeah, they’re just ordinary readers, who seem to throw around terms like ARC like an ordinary reader would know what that was.
Salon isn’t a reliable source. Journalism is going down the drain.
Isn’t it convenient how she advertises her book and her website at the end of the article? That isn’t transparent at all.
I know whose book I WON’T be buying. Not that I’ve ever heard of her before.
LOL! This could be one of those reviews! You know the kind: I’ve never heard of this author, but they are now on my do-not-buy list!
Haha, true! The difference is that I’m saying that privately, and not going through 1-starring everything she’s ever written publicly.
I really feel sorry for her.
“As a fan of Mystery Science Theater…”
Oh, please. These ‘protester’s’ relationship to books and authors is nothing like what the creators of MST3K did with certain films and filmmakers. The MSTies didn’t pick fights or spew vitriol at the filmmakers then scream about it if they dared defend their works, and you could hardly accuse them of not watching the films either. They had fun with what they did and a lot of the time genuinely enjoyed the movies they featured, and even though a book can be a far more personal endeavour than a film, I do think there is room for the MST sentiment in the Goodreads and book-blogging community. But that’s not what’s being banned from Goodreads.
And I speak as a fan of MST3K, of course.
Thank you for this. I’m a fan of MST3K too. The people behind MST3K actually watched the film they were making fun of.
There is a whole list of things that these non-reviewers on Goodreads do that MST3K never did. MST3K never attacked films before they were released; they never attacked actors or filmmakers with false claims of being despicable human beings (although I remember them giving actor Joe Don Baker a hard time over his weight in the “Mitchell” episode); and above all they never claimed this double standard where MST3K could say whatever the hell they wanted, true or false, and their targets weren’t allowed to say anything in response.
And Best Brains never kept a list of “badly behaved filmmakers” on the pretext that people might want to avoid their films, not because of the lack of quality in the films, but based on the nebulous charge of “bad behavior.”
In this day and age of social media when authors are EXPECTED to interact with readers via Twitter, Facebook, GR, and the like, then it should be expected that an author will CONTINUE to interact with readers who writing scathing reviews, if just to set the record straight (from their POV). It’s unfair to tell authors they must spend valuable time every day interacting with readers, but then shut up if someone writes negative (or potentially defamatory) things about their books that could destroy their sales and livelihood. We can’t have it both ways. If we want authors to interact, then we can’t pick and choose HOW they’re supposed to interact to suit reader’s tastes.
This could call into question the whole idea of social media as a way to sell books. Does it really accomplish anything?
Yes it does. Social media allows indi authors to get in front of the public without needing a large advertising budget. Some of the sites with high traffic charge a thousand or more for premium space. Most just can’t afford that.
I’ve been tracking some books which popped up as sponsored books on Goodreads when I signed in, checking Novelrank to see how much they sold. The result: 0. One of them sold 3 copies in one month.
I’m not talking about a paid ad. Also paid ads on Good Reads is very deceiving. You may be seeing that ad but you have to realize it doesn’t come up for everyone. Each time the add appears it costs the writer $–they put a set amount in their account and tell GoodReads how many times a day they want the ad to pop up. 20 bucks, if you tell it to pop up 50 times in a day, can be gone in 24 hours depending on what you pay. So the pay per click ads are not helpful. What is helpful is getting out and socializing with readers. By participating in chats, talks, or just being out there and gaining interest in what you post on forums or blogs or Facebook/twitter, will get you far more readers. This is much harder than an ad. In my experience, ads only work for established authors. As for checking on sales–another inaccurate count. When my top book was selling 1000 copies a month, and I looked up my “sales” report, I got a big fat 0 too. The money in my bank account proved otherwise.
That’s different to using social media as a marketing tool. I’ve done both. Buying advertising on Goodreads, Facebook, and even Google created no difference in my sales, but interracting with communities on Goodreads and Facebook generated a huge jump in revenue.
“By contrast, selling editorial services, a publishing platform and marketing to wannabe authors is a cash cow. The same person who turns up his nose at spending more than 10 bucks for a new book will fork over much, much more in pursuit of the dream of publishing a book of his own. Media coverage of a handful of self-published authors who have gotten rich from selling e-books have further stoked their bonanza fantasies. (The fact that most self-published authors are fortunate if they sell books in the low three figures is reported far less often.)”
I’m surprised this part isn’t getting more attention. When you tell people that Goodreads makes its money from authors, they’re likely to answer that authors make their money from readers, so it’s readers who should have the last word. But they’re overlooking all these self-published authors who probably will end up spending much, much more on advertising, editorial services etc. than they’ll ever make from book sales. I’ve met people who claimed to have spent thousands of dollars on editing. They could probably go on indefinitely, spending money to pursue their dream, if they weren’t also getting attacked in the process. If Goodreads really does put a stop to the abuse, it’ll be because these authors are being scared away and their bottom line is affected.
No claim about it. I HAVE spent thousands of dollars on editing, and that was after my editor gave me a generous discount. You’re looking at $2000 – $4000 USD to properly, professionally edit a full length novel.
That said, these people haven’t affected my bottom line no matter how hard they’ve tried (and believe me, they’ve tried).
Extremely biased article. She talks about the games the bullies are playing on Goodreads as if it were a form of ‘social protest’ rather than vandalism, and the bullying of authors as ‘well-placed cultural mockery’.
This is not journalism. It also was not written by someone wwith a decent set of values. I think it is very revealing; it says something about the author of this article that she supports this type of immature and abusive behavior.
RC posted Athena’s alleged home address and phone number. Whether or not the address is wrong, you might want to report abuse to Blogger,
He’s getting more dangerous.
His post:
On the BBA thread, he claimed to have aerial photographs of Pete Morin’s house. I think he plans to use them for carpet bombing ;o
Carpet bombs are one thing, but RC is one scary guy. I wouldn’t want to mess with him.
Don’t worry about it. This is a non-issue. GenX tried to scare me by posting the same address. It didn’t really get her anywhere. His picture was interesting though. Those are privately owned condos, btw, that sell for half a mil each because they overlook PB on one side and the bay on the other. My house isn’t in that complex. I’d have been really impressed if he’d posted an actual picture of it, but he missed it by a few hundred yards.
I don’t know if Rick is really worth bothering about. The guy was obviously crazy from the first moment he appeared on the scene.
Here’s what I find interesting. The author of this article Laura Miller has a published book. On Goodreads her book reviews have been favorable. On Amazon it appears that Laura’s book received some pretty scathing one and two star reviews, and if you read the comments under some of these one and two star reviews you can see that socks entered into the conversation, protesting the bad reviews!…hmmmm
That’s an interesting point, AnonPerson. I did have some questions about her connection to the ‘bullies’ since she backs them so thoroughly.
This Miller person doesn’t sound like she’s up to date with much that has been happening. She should be embarrassed.
Bingo. She needs to do a lot more research before she writes her articles.
That’s the problem with many of these mainstream publications. They aren’t familiar with what happens online, or how people who work online deal with bullies and trolls. All she really has to do is check out any Huff Post article and see how the comment threads go downhill on any topic. It’s very much like the bully behavior on goodreads.
Wow, Laura. Just WOW. I suppose she’s never had to do anything twice (or more) before learning how. http://www.salon.com/2010/11/02/nanowrimo/
Or maybe she never does anything at all for fear of failing. I really feel sorry for her now. God forbid she in a position to ever teach children anything because failure is obviously not an option in her book.
Wow, is right
Love the way she focuses on novels, as in: the world doesn’t need any more bad NOVELS. But the wrold apparently needs more rambling dissertations on other people’s novels:
Wow absolutely.
She just lost all credibility as someone who understands books and writers.
Laura is a glass half empty or an empty brain, especially for her comment about there are way too many books (novels) out there already, so don’t bother…something like that. What a crabby, crappy glass half empty…
I’ll stick to my list of most famous rejected books that ended up being loved and cherished by millions in the end
http://www.literaryrejections.com/best-sellers-initially-rejected/
Too bad she can’t have that same there’s “too much” attitude about bullshit.
But of course if she did, she’d be out of a job.
LMAO!
“It was yet another depressing sign that the cultural spaces once dedicated to the selfless art of reading are being taken over by the narcissistic commerce of writing.”
Sooooo, where do the books come from that these readers are reading if not from authors? These people amaze me.
I wonder if she feels the same way about Hollywood? There’s too many “bad” movies so, why bother?
While we’re at it, there’s too many kinds of coffee too, and so many different flavored potato chips, way too many fast food places. Why stop there Laura? Is there too many people in the world for you?
Why bother.
LOL, Carroll! Well said.
Honestly, I don’t know why you guys are killing your braincells reading ANY of her articles. I got about half a paragraph through the first one, then all I could see after that was “bullshit, bullshit, pretentious prattle, bullshit, bullshit…”
Spare yourselves the pain. Forget she even exists.