More on the GoodReads meltdown

I apologize for the reblogs, but this has to be one of the greatest posts on types of reviews that I’ve ever read. Big difference between rating for review and rating for recommendation.

MishaBurnett's avatarmishaburnett

After reading quite a bit about GoodReads, both from the site itself and that which has been written about it, I have come to the conclusion that the current problems which have come to light are an outgrowth of a fatal flaw in the structure of the site itself, and unless that flaw is addressed, things are just going to get worse.

Much has been said about the behavior of both reviewers and authors, and there is certainly much to criticize regarding how the users of the site have chosen to escalate their conflicts.  I, however, am more interested in the genesis of those conflicts.

I believe that the essential problem that GoodReads faces lies in the confusion between rating for review and rating for recommendation, and that the structure of the site encourages such confusion.

To take a counter-example, let’s look at Netflix–one of my favorite…

View original post 728 more words

Unknown's avatar

About Charles Yallowitz

Charles E. Yallowitz was born, raised, and educated in New York. Then he spent a few years in Florida, realized his fear of alligators, and moved back to the Empire State. When he isn't working hard on his epic fantasy stories, Charles can be found cooking or going on whatever adventure his son has planned for the day. 'Legends of Windemere' is his first series, but it certainly won't be his last.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to More on the GoodReads meltdown

  1. He makes a fantastic point. Goodreads was supposed to be a method of pulling out of the masses books you like based on your reading history, just like Netflix. That’s how Goodreads started out for me.

    Like

Leave a comment