It's a pretty significant issue in fanfic circles that people add fanfic to GoodReads without writers' consent, sometimes attaching fandom handles to actual professionally published books that author wrote and muddying their public facing persona. Authors need to be able to approve/disapprove and take stuff down for everyone's sake.
unpopular counter point. What stops an author from simply removing a poor or problematic work from their profile if they have ultimate control? I agree that a work needs to be confirmed to be an actual piece of work of that author and not a "poop tweet" or April Fools prank or some such. This would stop things like Fanfic from being attributed to authors. However I think there needs to be measures in place to stop the abuse of removal to maintain a higher profile rating or attempts to bury a problematic work. While I don't think what they did was correct I can see why the system is set up this way.
@@plata_draconic Sure but how often does it happen that an author is so embarrassed of their work that they try to erase it's existance. I can't think of an example except for maybe tiny authors in which case meh.
@@rasmus7493 I don't think that type of thing is common but I can see why a review site may want to limit the ability for an author to do such a thing. GoodReads may be attempting to present a position of honesty and transparency by essentially forcing authors to take credit for their works and ensuring all of an authors works are attributed to them for good or for ill. Stopping an exploit before it happens type of situation.
@@plata_draconic No. Honesty and transparency isn't in any way more common with author input or not. What Daniel and op is talking about happens far more often than authors taking their own works down(?). Transparency is much more expected from public authors, who would probably get a load of backlash for hiding their works(if they don't get backlash it really isn't a big deal as no one would even notice). Than an anonymous Goodreads librarian who can do whatever they wish in the shadows (misattribute fanfic, upload leaks as real books even get the year wrong). Authors have reason to care, volunteers do not.
Daniel's relationship with Goodreads is like a marriage that started on a bad foot and they both wanted to make it work, and then it fell off the deep end after the honeymoon. And I'm all here for it.
The biggest red flag is the fact that most of the “employees” are volunteers. Why would a company as big as amazon start a new company under them and not give them enough funding to be able to pay people for the general upkeep of the platform?
They didn’t start the company. They bought it. Back when Goodreads first started, there were two major library management web sites, LibraryThing and Goodreads. LT (which still exists) is far more about your personal book collection while GR has had more social features. So, Amazon bought GR and has done nothing with it. It hasn’t changed since before they were bought. I'm one of the volunteer librarians, but I only really started because I was trying to clean up my book collection on GR. There were some hodgepodge of series names so it wasn’t clear that book 2 in one series was part of the same series as book 1. So, I went in and cleaned those up. But, I have never added a book that doesn’t actually exist, yet. I have only added books I actually own either physically or digitally.
@@DWPF17 You're welcome. Goodreads has been owned by Amazon for so long that a lot of people don't know about its history. The same thing applies to IMDB. It started as a community thing relying a lot on volunteers. Sadly, it got bought by Amazon too.
@@tjl9458 In all honesty I only got back into reading in general in late 2019. So I'm pretty unaware of most things in book culture. Bookdom if you will.
@@tjl9458 The Wikimedia Foundation has experience managing volunteer-driven reference sites, and they're fiercely independent and have hundreds of millions in money. Y'all should reach out and see if you can move in with them instead of putting up with Amazon.
If Daniels next tweet is an announcement of his third book, "GoodReads Sucks", and a description of the book, which mostly just describes what's wrong with the site, I would specifically make an account there to rate his newly claimed book 5 stars
@Tobias Nordbye Ok then, how about this? The mental image of Dan riding into battle against goodreads makes me giggle a bit. There we go, removed the hyperbole just for you, now have a lovely day my good sir!
@@LightsOnTrees Why, but even Kept In Doubt will only be released in 7.568 years (and still has a 5 Star rating on Goodreads, mind you). To create a 20 Book fantasy series would take 151.360 years, since an acclaimed author such as Fuck Off takes 7.568 years per book, pondering over every word, and drinking a smoothie every time he finishes a sentence. Some say that authors G.R.R. Martin and Patrick Rothfuss have taken inspiration from his technique. Of course, we intellectuals know that nobody can replicate the technique of a master like Fuck Off.
It's absolutely insane to me that an Author can be generating reviews (both positive and negative) on a *potential* project. It's literally completely antithetical to the purpose of the platform as a whole. I've had plenty of issues with Goodreads with past books as well and the general attitude is just "I dunno, check with one of our librarians. It is what it is." Just pathetic
Something that annoys me which isn't the same because it's for books about to be published, is goodreads awards where a book can get to the finals without being released. Obama's book is probably very interesting but it had no place being nominated in 2020 when it was released the day final round started.
@@bluegreen5377 Yeah, Stormlight 4 was already in the top Fantasy ranking before it even came out. Love Sanderson but that's takin the limelight away from other authors.
Yes! I love that future books are on there so that I can see the future of a series/author's work, but reviewing being open before arcs are even out is bonkers!
This reminds me The King killer chronicles book 3, where everyone left reviews and comments and ratings for a nonexistent book. Patrick Rothfuss responded in a rather humorous comment, but that was 7 years ago. The reviews are still happening and still there. This nonexistent book has a 3.61 with 4175 ratings and a total of 187200 community ratings and reviews. I find the situational comical, but for an official social media site for books owned by AMAZON this is a joke. The book was never taken down (and thus was over 7 years ago now) nor ratings/reviews sponged and it's still on his author profile. You can say what you want about how long it's taken or him as an author, but for a site this is just unprofessional. For authors this should be the LinkedIn for books or at LEAST the Twitter (very very low bar) and it manages to feel like a poop website maintained solely by a 12 year old kid (all offense to Amazon, none to workers dealing with Amazon's crap).
I know the pain, my book is STILL on another authors profile and I've sent a bunch of emails and support requests, and the weirdest part is my book is a dark fantasy and the other author writes non fiction civil rights books and I'm like how can that mistake even happen?????????
All you have to do is join the Librarians Group on Goodreads and ask them to move the book to your profile. It's that simple. You don't need to send any emails or "support requests." A volunteer librarian will move the book for you.
@@joralemonvirgincreche It shouldn't happen to begin with, genius. It's a pretty simple thing to avoid happening. Goodreads just sucks and doesn't care.
@@LethalByChoice Clearly you know nothing about how it works. Books are imported automatically from databases like Ingram or Amazon. Multiple authors have the same name, so their works are grouped under that name. If they're books by different authors, then the author profiles need to be disambiguated. If there are 300 authors named John Smith, they can't all be called that because then they'd all be under the same profile. So one is John A Smith, one is John G. Smith, etc. Someone has to notice and make the correction. It's simple to correct, but it's not simple to avoid from happening.
Someone added my SHOCKING Wattpad fanfictions to Goodreads that were not meant for serious reviews. I'll forever be scarred by the fact my Little Mix / Mamma Mia musical fanfiction does not have the prose of Margaret Atwood 🥲
I asked about the half stars once, they directed me to a user research they did over 10 years ago that said people didn't want half stars. I just gave up on that point, but I actually work in user research and there was so many things wrong with that 🤦🏼♀️
I get frustrated when I can't give half stars. Like there's a huge difference between star ratings for me. 1 means I hated it, 2 means I merely disliked it, 3 means I liked it, but it was just okay, 4 means it was very good, but there were things I didn't love about it, and 5 is near perfect. There is so much that falls between those!
It doesn’t even need an email. All they need to do is give an approve or edit button within the author profile. If it doesn’t get approved it doesn’t get posted. That incentivizes authors to manage their own profiles and interact with the platform and also ensures that information is correct.
If Goodreads can't even organize their own website properly, there's no way they could organize an army to defeat all 280,000 goblins in our clan in war
I really hope competitors like The StroyGraph can grow in popularity more so that goodreads has some incentive to improve their platform (and, ya know, make it functional) Like seriously, not to sound like a shill, but i've had in general a MUCH better user experience on storygraph because they have so many features that goodreads is missing for no reason (half and quarter stars, a functional reading challenges feature, better recommendations) I don't know what it's like from an author perspective, but at the very least it's trying harder than goodreads
Please. Make. Sure. Whereever. You. Go. Uses. Copyleft. Licenses. The nice thing about Wikipedia (and the other WMF projects) is that everything on it is basically under Creative Commons/GFDL. So even if it goes under or they make dumb policy choices, it's not all bad because anyone can take all the data and make their own version. If that had been the case with GoodReads from the start, you probably wouldn't be having these problems for so long.
I will pimp out The Story Graph forever. It's fairly new though and it might be more reader friendly? I haven't see any feedback on author experience but if you wanna look it up the team behind it are very nice and supportive :)
I want to love StoryGraph but it has its own kind of problems and until they're fixed I'm going to use both goodreads and storygraph. It's a shame because I was hoping to leave goodreads for good this year.
@@seraphina2690 From the top of my head, a lot of editions are missing, when they are there too often some info is missing (number of pages, is it digital, physical, audio etc.). Different editions are not always connected to the original version but are added as a different book. In one instance when I was browsing editions of a specific book in the series, alternate editions were actually completely different books from that series. When I want to switch edition I have to first go to the exact edition I clicked I wanted to read. Adding books by ISBN is useless or at least it is if when I try to add them in my language. It'd be nice if they just added a disclaimer that unless they are from USA/UK/Canada and whatever else place they have access to, adding by ISBN won't work. They had a good start, their additional functions are amazing but I find them lacking in the basic stuff. In the end with as many books as there are, they rely on librarians and regular users a ton just like goodreads (and just like on goodreads anyone who has an account can add a book so people criticising goodreads for it should know storygraph is not different in this aspect though they will delete it if the author asks so they have that going for them).
@@bluegreen5377 have you forwarded these concerns to the devs? I see them on twitter all the time, they're very responsive. They seem to be interested in improving the layout for ease of use :)
As someone who uses Goodreads only to keep up with all the books I’m reading, I completely agree with everything even though I have no idea what this is all about.
Hey Daniel! Another self-pub author here. This is also kind of a problem due to the fact that the "volunteers" aren't necessarily people who are filtered or cleared to be volunteers. They're like Wikipedia editors. They're just random people on the internet. So as long as your tweet is still public and it's still attached to you, people will keep going in and reseting it to you. Sorry to hear that you're struggling with this though. I can't even imagine how frustrating this is.
I’m a GR librarian. I signed up when I was 16 specifically to add a bunch of my grandparents ancient books that weren’t on there, then never used it again. But if I wanted, whenever, I could just go add 30 books to an author. That’s also why there’s a million versions of every book on there, because they don’t know how to add different covers or languages under the same banner
Funny that. Wikipedia actually has very robust policies, processes, and community culture in place that keep stuff mostly accurate and legitimate. They have staff, admins, developers- They even have an arbitration noticeboard that functions as a kind of court system, and they hold democratic elections for positions of power. Vandals get discouraged quickly and don't last long, and the decentralized bureaucracy does a pretty good job catching and fixing any mistakes from the rest of us. It's not random people- It's random people who like reading pages full of writing policies and digging through old articles and papers just to find a source for a mundane fact, and it's (in the long-term) the consensus of what all those nerds with diverse backgrounds can agree upon. And on top of that, everything on Wikipedia is under copyleft licenses. If they piss off the community, the community's literally free to copy the entire site and every article and image on it, and start their own Wikipedia. So basically I'm saying is: It sounds to me like if GoodReads were *more* like Wikipedia, then this probably wouldn't be such a problem.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 thank you! I took a screenshot of this comment because Wikipedia gets unfairly dragged by academia as "unreliable." For a profession that is all about factual accuracy, you would think that they would take the time to research Wikipedia's policies, processes, etc. It's much more reliable than academic leadership thinks.
@@j.g.9045 Yes, but in academic terms, 'reliable' means having a non-volatile chain of provenance and review that will allow that same specific source to be re-examined later. Being able to show sources is only half the equation; the other important part is having those still be available to someone else, maybe ten years down the track, who is trying to trace the working you did in your own paper that is citing that source. 'You can trawl through ten years' worth of edit history, if the server still exists and has those records' is not the same thing as 'the relevant publication's archives will have a copy, and the institutions who published papers citing the source may have obtained copies for themselves as well, for the convenience of the relevant department's research' No, it's not a perfect system, but there is a reason for it being the way it is. And if this were communicated a little more clearly, maybe people wouldn't keep getting so confused over what is and is not considered to be an appropriate source for their bibliographies. For what it's worth, when I was at university there was a debate ongoing as to whether sites like Wikipedia could be used as references in a bibliography, and what format that would need to take. From what I remember, the fact that a page would need a time-stamp in order to establish which exact version of the page was being viewed, and the fact that this did not take into account the potentially complex nature of website content (which is an understatement; having multiple HTML frames was enough of an issue and that was web 1.0 stuff) ultimately were not huge points in its favour. I think we ended up being able to cite simple-text HTML documents, provided they had a time and date stamp and were archived somewhere that could reproduce the content shown at that time and date with reasonable accuracy.
A simple thing like ISBN-or whatever the equivalent is for eBook-only publications-requirement for books to be added and attributed to authors would probably cure a lot of a headache. But, it’s Amazon so we all know they don’t care.
Him: *ranting about Goodreads* Me: *looking at how pretty the books on his shelves are and trying to read the titles to add to my Goodreads list* 👁️👄👁️
The StoryGraph is a great alternative to Goodreads. They actually listen to their users and make adjustments. If you aren’t aware, Goodreads doesn’t care, hasn’t cared and won’t care in the future. It’s time to move on.
Not really. I checked it out and its the same just with better management. The reviews are all the same you would expect. Like Throne of Glass has "This book is amazing 5/5" sorry but thats like saying Twilight is a great book
@@ninjablack4347 I think the reviews being the same could largely be a result of importing your old goodreads data. I have to admit, that my taste in books and the way I rate them has drasticly changed over the years but I haven't gone back and changed my ratings on most of them, since there are too many. And since I imported my goodreads data they can be found there too. What I realy like about the StoryGraph is that they are very receptive when it comes to user feedback and as a big mood reader their search filters are incredibly helpful as well as the statistics of your own reading habits
I believe this even happened with Sarah J Maas. She was surprised that people knew about a project (because it was in her goodreads bibliography) that she hadn't publicly mentioned to anyone. It stayed up there for years. I'm not sure if it was even taken down but edited into an eventually published novel. I could be wrong about that last part though. This isn't just a problem for self published authors this is a problem for even the biggest authors. Goodreads needs serious meaningful change and a bigger budget.
"I am already the biggest and don't even pay people who help curate my content. No I am not going to spend any money on any further development." -Amazon Probably
The walking rant is the kind of energy I needed this morning 🙌🏻 Also Good Reads has been broken for such a long time, I truly wish another platform rises up to overthrow them.
Hey Daniel, since I can’t remember which episodes of your show were sponsored by Indie Competitors of Goodreads, any chance of a video about alternatives to Goodreads that we can support?
@@MolotovBg It was mentioned in the comments few times, but Storygraph is a good replacement, It's the new platform, so It's not perfect, but still better than Goodreads^^
True, or have goblin mascot characters. Like a clan of goblin characters, or making it meta, use them in reviews. And fanarts exist, and artists. He needs a goblin fanart mascot(youtube needs a goblin or at least troll emote)
I was today years old when I learned Goodreads is owned by Amazon That just makes all this so much worse because you KNOW they have the resources if you check up the management.
I feel your pain but MY GOD, my eyes kept sliding to the upper right corner of your room, to the MAGNIFICENT Wheel of Time series with the dragon on the spines and I kept quietly dying inside with envy. Also... wanting to re-read the series again even though I finished it for the fourth time two months ago.
I've been on Goodreads for almost 10 years, there honestly hasn't been many changes since I've joined. Only once did they change how the user home screen looked, and being able to add reread dates was big, but overall it's the same. I also get what Daniel means, there have been plenty of times when I would look into a series where half the books are rated 3-4 stars and are each called "Untitled"
Being a librarian I was gonna fix the book title to untitled and delete the synopsis but it seems to be fixed now. I cant delete the book for you since only super librarians can, but I can ask it to be removed if you want...
I stopped using Goodreads awhile ago. I didn't know at the time that they were owned by Amazon, only that they were not supporting the authors that are the entire reason for their site. I'm part of a FB group that is Fans of Urban Fantasy and there are a lot of authors in the genre that post things there. Last year, I learned from an author post that they'd been contacted by someone who tried to extort money from them in return for not posting a bad review on Goodreads. The author did not pay anything, and a bad review was put on the book. When she contacted Goodreads to tell them, they refused to assist the author in any way with this problem. On the same FB post, other authors started saying they'd also been contacted with similar threats, but that Goodreads would do nothing about it. So I'd already quit Goodreads before learning that they're owned by Amazon, one of the largest, wealthiest corporations in the world, and that they don't pay their site librarians. I wished I could quit twice.
Wow! That's nuts. You'd think if Goodreads saw the messages they'd be able to fix it. But I can also understand why they'd be hesitant to remove bad reviews at the author's request...
@@dragonfireink139 - From what I can tell, Goodreads seemed really unconcerned about their site being used to extort money. I don't know what the solution could be from their end, but there's not even a motivation to try and come up with one. It makes sense if their people really aren't paid. How saintly (or foolish) does a person have to be to do volunteer work for the richest man in the world.
TheStoryGraph rise up! I've switched to it from Goodreads and it's been a DREAM. (Even just the one feature they have of content warnings.) Curious to see how it is for authors though.
I'm not an author but I saw some inaccuracies on a book listing, contacted StoryGraph and within a day they had checked to be sure I was right, and corrected the information.
Honestly, never knew the Goodreads was owned by Amazon. For some reason that makes it both wildly unacceptable that Goodreads is as shitty as it is, but also makes more sense to me, because Amazon's interface and app tends to drive me crazy as well.
I love this rant so much. That's so crazy, what happened to you! GR is a waste of Internet space. They effed up almost all my books and I can't fix anything. I just ignore it. Thank you for voicing my frustration. Subscribed to your very entertaining channel!
There is a book assigned to me on Goodreads that appeared one day that I'm not an author for. I tried removing myself from the book but get an error each time. At this point I've given up because I don't want to invest the time into fixing this issue.
not going to lie, I was very skeptical about any criticism of Goodreads given that it is one of my favorite sites, but you brought up some very inciteful points! How are people allowed to review a book that an author hasn't even finished writing based on an unofficial synopsis that the author has not approved?
Come on Goodreads let's see some progress here !!!!!! Your book Daniel is an appetizer, loved it . We can wait for your next ... The pressure must be awful. IGNORE IT. Do your thing.
We all have a complicated relationship with Goodreads. I tried to use the site again at the beginning of the year to keep track of my reading challenge, then got annoyed again and quit.
As a self published author I am 100% behind you here. I contacted Goodreads a while ago about removing some of my books that are no longer in publication, so I can trim down my bibliography and have it as accurate representation of my work that is available. Goodreads said no, that it wasn’t possible and did not elaborate further.
DANIEL! You need to give THE STORYGRAPH a chance! Why you ask? It´s goodreads, but better. You get better info about what you read. With graphs! Yes, GRAPHS! (You can also easily import your goodreads data).
@@nectanbo it´s still in beta version. You have to go to their website and you´ll be able to find a version to download there :) I have android so it´s possible
@@nectanbo they do. you can't find it in app stores, but there's instructions how to get it on their website. After "installing" it, it behaves like a nomal app.
@@anneth7154 To be fair, making DNF shelf on goodreads takes less than a minute. I tried StoryGraph because everyone seems to love it but so many books I've read lack editions I have or basic information like number of pages. For some going into different editions of the book shows me different books from the series. They're still new so I'm hopeful it gets better but for now I'm personally sticking mainly with goodreads. Sure, giving 0,25* and setting different challenges is fun and graphs are interesting but if I have to add books/editions to their database to get correct analysis of my reading habits it's not worth it.
As someone that's worked for Amazon for five years now, I think you may vastly overestimate that company's ability to get their shit straight. And that's in any level I've been in. It's the typical corporate "Unless it's costing us money or is 100% broken to the point people won't/can't use it at all, it ain't really broken" mentality.
I switched to Storygraph this year which is so much better than Goodreads. Would highly recommend for anyone who wants an app to find books and track reading.
@@ChristmasLore I have a notebook as well to keep track but I find using an app very convenient. Plus the stats options on Storygraph have been enlightening.
Damn you... I just found your channel and have found myself going on a book-buying binge. I never had a desire to read Wheel of Time - I bought it - I never wanted to restart the Malazan series - I bought them - I also jumped onto Red Sister and the the Stormlight Archive.... Damn you... :)
Oh hell, I have to get that hard cover WoT series you have on your shelf at eye level. What gorgeous bindings. ($948.70 with tax?????) It would be cheaper just to have you move in.
Tried and used Goodreads for years but (!) stopped using the platform because I personally believe they...tarnish...some authors' books. The StoryGraph is much, much, better and author friendly imo.
A issue I see here, which Goodreads would need to address if they allow more author controll though is that if authors can remove work attributed to them, who is to stop bad authors from removing their books if they get bad reviews only to re-add them in hopes of getting better reviews. While there probably are ways to prevent them, I fear that Goodreads wouldn't spent the extra amount of work there.
So I self-published my book Chest of the Tide through Amazon, which I assume is how I got on Goodreads. I never made an account with Goodreads beforehand. I have since made an account with them because my friend wanted to follow my book, but my new account is separate from my book. I have no idea how to claim my book on Goodreads. It is lost in the void I suppose.
I have a google docs document where I write Ooo, every time Daniel and Mike upload a video in roughly the same minute or after a few seconds. Eight ooos. Legitimately.
Here's a great alternative to GoodReads: The StoryGrap. You can import your GoodReads library and it basically has the same features. There are some fun extra ones though: the option to pit books in a 'did not finish' pile, various reading goals (not only number related) and STATISTICS ON WHAT YOU'VE READ! like page number, genre, mood etc. There's also this really precise filtering option for finding new books to read.
“My Goblin King rides from Potato Servers End to BadDesign Gaps, toward Tarmon Goodread’on. Will he ride alone? “ I know this was kind of forced but eh, I thought it was cool
This really isn't okay though. 😕 for authors who take their books seriously this is scary 😨 I'm really glad you're bringing attention to this and I hope they change things cuz this just isn't okay
You know, this is the first video I’ve seen of Daniel Greene and honestly, watching him vent about what’s happened and show so much passion and kindness is seriously charming. I don’t know who this person is, but I’m subscribing and going to be forever wishing we could have a meet cute
I work in a huge international company that does, like, only one specific thing, sort of like the Goodreads/Amazon dyad (as in publishing and selling books), and they basically only let the IT department to work on finance related systems. There are many, yes, and it's super important, I get it, but there's been multiple attempts at making our basic software usable for the people who use it, and no amount of enthusiasm from "below" managed to move this process anywhere. The management only cares about the enterprise stuff. It's embarrassing to let the clients see the interface, to deal with their very reasonable complaints while using it, but there's nothing we can do.
😂🤣 I can understand your frustration, it’d suck if you have an informal and clunky synopsis, but I find it 😂 hilarious that they just made a cover less, unreleased book and put your tweet as a synopsis. I am so sorry, this sucks. We shall avenge you goblin.
It's a pretty significant issue in fanfic circles that people add fanfic to GoodReads without writers' consent, sometimes attaching fandom handles to actual professionally published books that author wrote and muddying their public facing persona. Authors need to be able to approve/disapprove and take stuff down for everyone's sake.
Yes! I've had to remove fanfic from so many profiles!
unpopular counter point. What stops an author from simply removing a poor or problematic work from their profile if they have ultimate control? I agree that a work needs to be confirmed to be an actual piece of work of that author and not a "poop tweet" or April Fools prank or some such. This would stop things like Fanfic from being attributed to authors. However I think there needs to be measures in place to stop the abuse of removal to maintain a higher profile rating or attempts to bury a problematic work. While I don't think what they did was correct I can see why the system is set up this way.
@@plata_draconic Sure but how often does it happen that an author is so embarrassed of their work that they try to erase it's existance. I can't think of an example except for maybe tiny authors in which case meh.
@@rasmus7493 I don't think that type of thing is common but I can see why a review site may want to limit the ability for an author to do such a thing. GoodReads may be attempting to present a position of honesty and transparency by essentially forcing authors to take credit for their works and ensuring all of an authors works are attributed to them for good or for ill. Stopping an exploit before it happens type of situation.
@@plata_draconic No. Honesty and transparency isn't in any way more common with author input or not. What Daniel and op is talking about happens far more often than authors taking their own works down(?). Transparency is much more expected from public authors, who would probably get a load of backlash for hiding their works(if they don't get backlash it really isn't a big deal as no one would even notice). Than an anonymous Goodreads librarian who can do whatever they wish in the shadows (misattribute fanfic, upload leaks as real books even get the year wrong). Authors have reason to care, volunteers do not.
Daniel's relationship with Goodreads is like a marriage that started on a bad foot and they both wanted to make it work, and then it fell off the deep end after the honeymoon. And I'm all here for it.
Relateable
They thought a marriage would solve their problems and when that didn't work, they thought child would solve all their problems.
I think you mean Campfire.
The biggest red flag is the fact that most of the “employees” are volunteers. Why would a company as big as amazon start a new company under them and not give them enough funding to be able to pay people for the general upkeep of the platform?
They didn’t start the company. They bought it. Back when Goodreads first started, there were two major library management web sites, LibraryThing and Goodreads. LT (which still exists) is far more about your personal book collection while GR has had more social features. So, Amazon bought GR and has done nothing with it. It hasn’t changed since before they were bought.
I'm one of the volunteer librarians, but I only really started because I was trying to clean up my book collection on GR. There were some hodgepodge of series names so it wasn’t clear that book 2 in one series was part of the same series as book 1. So, I went in and cleaned those up. But, I have never added a book that doesn’t actually exist, yet. I have only added books I actually own either physically or digitally.
@@tjl9458 I didn't know that! Thank you for informing me as well as helping out on the site!
@@DWPF17 You're welcome. Goodreads has been owned by Amazon for so long that a lot of people don't know about its history.
The same thing applies to IMDB. It started as a community thing relying a lot on volunteers. Sadly, it got bought by Amazon too.
@@tjl9458 In all honesty I only got back into reading in general in late 2019. So I'm pretty unaware of most things in book culture. Bookdom if you will.
@@tjl9458 The Wikimedia Foundation has experience managing volunteer-driven reference sites, and they're fiercely independent and have hundreds of millions in money. Y'all should reach out and see if you can move in with them instead of putting up with Amazon.
My takeaway is Daniel confirming he used to code while drunk in his old job.
Ever heard of Ballmer Peak?
As someone who does small amounts of code, Heck that almost might work better...
@@carmeldavids8801 as someone who does large amounts of coke, I have no idea what's going on.
Wait, he used to code for a living?
I code for a living, yeah it's a thing. Lol.
If Daniels next tweet is an announcement of his third book, "GoodReads Sucks", and a description of the book, which mostly just describes what's wrong with the site, I would specifically make an account there to rate his newly claimed book 5 stars
The mental image of Dan just riding into battle against goodreads brings me endless joy
I'm sure there's a few windmills involved here. ;)
@Tobias Nordbye Ok then, how about this? The mental image of Dan riding into battle against goodreads makes me giggle a bit. There we go, removed the hyperbole just for you, now have a lovely day my good sir!
With his pants around his ankles and a banner of toilet paper! Goodreads does desperately need to fix their shit so the toilet paper is appropriate.
I'm really excited for Kept in Doubt, by Fuck Off
A literary masterpiece. Unique storytelling by the esteemed Fuck Off. What a nice guy too.
@@Severian1 Oh yes truly.
The real goal now is to set up the Fuck Off epic fantasy. A massive 20 book series...
@@LightsOnTrees Why, but even Kept In Doubt will only be released in 7.568 years (and still has a 5 Star rating on Goodreads, mind you). To create a 20 Book fantasy series would take 151.360 years, since an acclaimed author such as Fuck Off takes 7.568 years per book, pondering over every word, and drinking a smoothie every time he finishes a sentence. Some say that authors G.R.R. Martin and Patrick Rothfuss have taken inspiration from his technique. Of course, we intellectuals know that nobody can replicate the technique of a master like Fuck Off.
Utterly a master piece.
It's absolutely insane to me that an Author can be generating reviews (both positive and negative) on a *potential* project. It's literally completely antithetical to the purpose of the platform as a whole. I've had plenty of issues with Goodreads with past books as well and the general attitude is just "I dunno, check with one of our librarians. It is what it is." Just pathetic
Something that annoys me which isn't the same because it's for books about to be published, is goodreads awards where a book can get to the finals without being released. Obama's book is probably very interesting but it had no place being nominated in 2020 when it was released the day final round started.
@@bluegreen5377 Yeah, Stormlight 4 was already in the top Fantasy ranking before it even came out. Love Sanderson but that's takin the limelight away from other authors.
Yes! I love that future books are on there so that I can see the future of a series/author's work, but reviewing being open before arcs are even out is bonkers!
Things that antithetically exist are the bane of existence.
This reminds me The King killer chronicles book 3, where everyone left reviews and comments and ratings for a nonexistent book. Patrick Rothfuss responded in a rather humorous comment, but that was 7 years ago. The reviews are still happening and still there. This nonexistent book has a 3.61 with 4175 ratings and a total of 187200 community ratings and reviews. I find the situational comical, but for an official social media site for books owned by AMAZON this is a joke. The book was never taken down (and thus was over 7 years ago now) nor ratings/reviews sponged and it's still on his author profile. You can say what you want about how long it's taken or him as an author, but for a site this is just unprofessional. For authors this should be the LinkedIn for books or at LEAST the Twitter (very very low bar) and it manages to feel like a poop website maintained solely by a 12 year old kid (all offense to Amazon, none to workers dealing with Amazon's crap).
I know the pain, my book is STILL on another authors profile and I've sent a bunch of emails and support requests, and the weirdest part is my book is a dark fantasy and the other author writes non fiction civil rights books and I'm like how can that mistake even happen?????????
What’s your books name? I’d love to check it out!
Have you written to the other author, if you can find their contact info?
All you have to do is join the Librarians Group on Goodreads and ask them to move the book to your profile. It's that simple. You don't need to send any emails or "support requests." A volunteer librarian will move the book for you.
@@joralemonvirgincreche It shouldn't happen to begin with, genius. It's a pretty simple thing to avoid happening. Goodreads just sucks and doesn't care.
@@LethalByChoice Clearly you know nothing about how it works. Books are imported automatically from databases like Ingram or Amazon. Multiple authors have the same name, so their works are grouped under that name. If they're books by different authors, then the author profiles need to be disambiguated. If there are 300 authors named John Smith, they can't all be called that because then they'd all be under the same profile. So one is John A Smith, one is John G. Smith, etc. Someone has to notice and make the correction. It's simple to correct, but it's not simple to avoid from happening.
Goodreads, more like....Badreads
What a savage
This is now one of my favourite comments.
So simple but I love it
Bugreads
Yeah! You told them.
Someone added my SHOCKING Wattpad fanfictions to Goodreads that were not meant for serious reviews. I'll forever be scarred by the fact my Little Mix / Mamma Mia musical fanfiction does not have the prose of Margaret Atwood 🥲
I'm sorry for you, but this is hilarious 😂😂😂
That honestly sucks but at the same time, why am I not surprised 😂
I'd honestly love to read a Little Mix / Mamma Mia musical fanfiction, if you have a link for it? That sounds amazing :D
I am beyond glad that my fanfics were written so long ago and on such an obscure platform that they were never added to Goodreads 😂
God I hope no one added my cringe marble hornets fanfiction from wattpad on goodreads
I just wish that Goodreads would have a ''sort editions by language'' already!
have you tried The Storygraph? It's relatively new, only officially launched in January, but they have a feature to filter editions by language
There are so many missing features on Goodreads
@@MsBlulucky THEY DO????
@@petra1995 They do!
@@MsBlulucky Thank you!!
I asked about the half stars once, they directed me to a user research they did over 10 years ago that said people didn't want half stars.
I just gave up on that point, but I actually work in user research and there was so many things wrong with that 🤦🏼♀️
have you tried Storygraph? They have quarter stars! and are better than goodreads in general.
@@MsBlulucky yes! I like it a lot! They have so many cool things!
@@MsBlulucky wow quarter stars?? That's amazing but I also feel like Goodreads has given me low standards 😂
I get frustrated when I can't give half stars. Like there's a huge difference between star ratings for me. 1 means I hated it, 2 means I merely disliked it, 3 means I liked it, but it was just okay, 4 means it was very good, but there were things I didn't love about it, and 5 is near perfect. There is so much that falls between those!
It doesn’t even need an email. All they need to do is give an approve or edit button within the author profile. If it doesn’t get approved it doesn’t get posted. That incentivizes authors to manage their own profiles and interact with the platform and also ensures that information is correct.
It shouldn't need an email*
But how the system currently exists, it does.
The e-mail would probably be much easier on a technical level, actually- Hence why I think it's the example he went to.
If Goodreads can't even organize their own website properly, there's no way they could organize an army to defeat all 280,000 goblins in our clan in war
We need to keep the furnaces burning day and night!
It's time to let loose the wolves of war.
Bring me an army worthy of Mordor?
I bet there's a Grima somewhere out there in Goodread's Management corrupting it from within
Daniel: are you having a good start into your week?
Me, on a thursday: ...??
Daniel comes from the Big Lebowski school of schedule making
Oddly, this actually worked for me because my vacation ended yesterday, so today is my Monday 😆
This works for me since my work week always begins on Thursday
Thursdays are the start of the week for me ☺️
Me: hmmm, I wonder why Daniel is upset with good reads...
Daniel: so, I was in the bathroom
😂
I wonder if his book will get stuck at number 2?
@@stephenneville4776 i tip my hat off to u ser that was well done
"Eh, it'll sort itself out." -Goodreads, probably
ur canadian lol
I know that I’m a child, but I laughed every time he said “poo tweet”
He said he can make a 'big stink' because of his large platform.
I thought he invented 'pweet', turns out he did not...
Round these parts we call it twumping.
Pweet you mean
I keep thinking about Slaughterhouse Five "The Bird Who Says “Poo-tee-weet?”"
maturity is highly overrated.
I really hope competitors like The StroyGraph can grow in popularity more so that goodreads has some incentive to improve their platform (and, ya know, make it functional)
Like seriously, not to sound like a shill, but i've had in general a MUCH better user experience on storygraph because they have so many features that goodreads is missing for no reason (half and quarter stars, a functional reading challenges feature, better recommendations) I don't know what it's like from an author perspective, but at the very least it's trying harder than goodreads
Everyone move to Storygraph! Let Goodreads go the way of Myspace.
I can’t find it in the Apple App Store :(
@@daniellelibertini6138 It's only online for now, but they're working on the app.
@@daniellelibertini6138 you can download the beta app off the website.
Please. Make. Sure. Whereever. You. Go. Uses. Copyleft. Licenses.
The nice thing about Wikipedia (and the other WMF projects) is that everything on it is basically under Creative Commons/GFDL. So even if it goes under or they make dumb policy choices, it's not all bad because anyone can take all the data and make their own version. If that had been the case with GoodReads from the start, you probably wouldn't be having these problems for so long.
This is like when Goodreads open their poll for the best books of the year and include several non published -but advertised- books
When Goodreads cared more about the color of the 2021 challenge than the basic improvements they could've done.
ikr, that was such a weird move 😂
Daniel after I have tried for months to enjoy Goodreads: "You could not live with your own failure. And where did that bring you? Back to me."
I cannot read that Thanos quote without hearing his voice saying it lol
I will pimp out The Story Graph forever. It's fairly new though and it might be more reader friendly? I haven't see any feedback on author experience but if you wanna look it up the team behind it are very nice and supportive :)
^^
I want to love StoryGraph but it has its own kind of problems and until they're fixed I'm going to use both goodreads and storygraph. It's a shame because I was hoping to leave goodreads for good this year.
@@bluegreen5377 can i ask what problems you are finding? from my perspective im loving it, just interested :)
@@seraphina2690 From the top of my head, a lot of editions are missing, when they are there too often some info is missing (number of pages, is it digital, physical, audio etc.). Different editions are not always connected to the original version but are added as a different book. In one instance when I was browsing editions of a specific book in the series, alternate editions were actually completely different books from that series. When I want to switch edition I have to first go to the exact edition I clicked I wanted to read. Adding books by ISBN is useless or at least it is if when I try to add them in my language. It'd be nice if they just added a disclaimer that unless they are from USA/UK/Canada and whatever else place they have access to, adding by ISBN won't work.
They had a good start, their additional functions are amazing but I find them lacking in the basic stuff. In the end with as many books as there are, they rely on librarians and regular users a ton just like goodreads (and just like on goodreads anyone who has an account can add a book so people criticising goodreads for it should know storygraph is not different in this aspect though they will delete it if the author asks so they have that going for them).
@@bluegreen5377 have you forwarded these concerns to the devs? I see them on twitter all the time, they're very responsive. They seem to be interested in improving the layout for ease of use :)
Daniel: You took everything from me!
Gooodreads: I don't even know who you are.
Daniel: Oh, you will.
So it begins
[Epic war against an app that doesn’t even know who you are intensifies]
Is this it? Is this all you can conjure Goodreads?
Daniel: Not my book!
Goodreads: Have you tried turning it off and back on again?
As someone who uses Goodreads only to keep up with all the books I’m reading, I completely agree with everything even though I have no idea what this is all about.
Hey Daniel! Another self-pub author here. This is also kind of a problem due to the fact that the "volunteers" aren't necessarily people who are filtered or cleared to be volunteers. They're like Wikipedia editors. They're just random people on the internet. So as long as your tweet is still public and it's still attached to you, people will keep going in and reseting it to you. Sorry to hear that you're struggling with this though. I can't even imagine how frustrating this is.
I’m a GR librarian. I signed up when I was 16 specifically to add a bunch of my grandparents ancient books that weren’t on there, then never used it again. But if I wanted, whenever, I could just go add 30 books to an author. That’s also why there’s a million versions of every book on there, because they don’t know how to add different covers or languages under the same banner
Funny that. Wikipedia actually has very robust policies, processes, and community culture in place that keep stuff mostly accurate and legitimate. They have staff, admins, developers- They even have an arbitration noticeboard that functions as a kind of court system, and they hold democratic elections for positions of power. Vandals get discouraged quickly and don't last long, and the decentralized bureaucracy does a pretty good job catching and fixing any mistakes from the rest of us. It's not random people- It's random people who like reading pages full of writing policies and digging through old articles and papers just to find a source for a mundane fact, and it's (in the long-term) the consensus of what all those nerds with diverse backgrounds can agree upon.
And on top of that, everything on Wikipedia is under copyleft licenses. If they piss off the community, the community's literally free to copy the entire site and every article and image on it, and start their own Wikipedia.
So basically I'm saying is: It sounds to me like if GoodReads were *more* like Wikipedia, then this probably wouldn't be such a problem.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 thank you! I took a screenshot of this comment because Wikipedia gets unfairly dragged by academia as "unreliable."
For a profession that is all about factual accuracy, you would think that they would take the time to research Wikipedia's policies, processes, etc. It's much more reliable than academic leadership thinks.
@@j.g.9045 Yes, but in academic terms, 'reliable' means having a non-volatile chain of provenance and review that will allow that same specific source to be re-examined later. Being able to show sources is only half the equation; the other important part is having those still be available to someone else, maybe ten years down the track, who is trying to trace the working you did in your own paper that is citing that source.
'You can trawl through ten years' worth of edit history, if the server still exists and has those records' is not the same thing as 'the relevant publication's archives will have a copy, and the institutions who published papers citing the source may have obtained copies for themselves as well, for the convenience of the relevant department's research'
No, it's not a perfect system, but there is a reason for it being the way it is. And if this were communicated a little more clearly, maybe people wouldn't keep getting so confused over what is and is not considered to be an appropriate source for their bibliographies. For what it's worth, when I was at university there was a debate ongoing as to whether sites like Wikipedia could be used as references in a bibliography, and what format that would need to take. From what I remember, the fact that a page would need a time-stamp in order to establish which exact version of the page was being viewed, and the fact that this did not take into account the potentially complex nature of website content (which is an understatement; having multiple HTML frames was enough of an issue and that was web 1.0 stuff) ultimately were not huge points in its favour. I think we ended up being able to cite simple-text HTML documents, provided they had a time and date stamp and were archived somewhere that could reproduce the content shown at that time and date with reasonable accuracy.
A simple thing like ISBN-or whatever the equivalent is for eBook-only publications-requirement for books to be added and attributed to authors would probably cure a lot of a headache. But, it’s Amazon so we all know they don’t care.
Lol, it’s almost as if libraries have solved some of the issues with cataloguing books in the past already 😂
Book was renamed into “Untitled” in less than 2 hours. I guess the guys working for Goodreads are too busy watching youtube to work on their platform.
What a hot mess. 🤦♀️ Thank you for the rant. I was not aware how deep down the rabbit hole THAT went.
Crazy to think Daniel started as just a fantasy reviewing goblin and now he's the most famous person in the world
Nay, the multiverse.
Most famous goblin*
"So it's war now.". . Goblins assemble
Heck yeah!
Goblins and foot soldiers unite!
What are our orders?
@@TulilaSalome Raid Goodreads HQ Battle of Pelennor style
Him: *ranting about Goodreads*
Me: *looking at how pretty the books on his shelves are and trying to read the titles to add to my Goodreads list* 👁️👄👁️
The StoryGraph is a great alternative to Goodreads. They actually listen to their users and make adjustments. If you aren’t aware, Goodreads doesn’t care, hasn’t cared and won’t care in the future. It’s time to move on.
Will check that out, thanks
Not really. I checked it out and its the same just with better management. The reviews are all the same you would expect. Like Throne of Glass has "This book is amazing 5/5" sorry but thats like saying Twilight is a great book
Hahaha I just commented the same. Definitely second this opinion! Use Storygraph!
+
@@ninjablack4347 I think the reviews being the same could largely be a result of importing your old goodreads data. I have to admit, that my taste in books and the way I rate them has drasticly changed over the years but I haven't gone back and changed my ratings on most of them, since there are too many. And since I imported my goodreads data they can be found there too.
What I realy like about the StoryGraph is that they are very receptive when it comes to user feedback and as a big mood reader their search filters are incredibly helpful as well as the statistics of your own reading habits
Are we roasting Goodreads? Are we praising it? Regardless, I'm gonna be here for Daniel's amazing delivery and sketches!
I believe this even happened with Sarah J Maas. She was surprised that people knew about a project (because it was in her goodreads bibliography) that she hadn't publicly mentioned to anyone. It stayed up there for years. I'm not sure if it was even taken down but edited into an eventually published novel. I could be wrong about that last part though. This isn't just a problem for self published authors this is a problem for even the biggest authors. Goodreads needs serious meaningful change and a bigger budget.
"I am already the biggest and don't even pay people who help curate my content. No I am not going to spend any money on any further development."
-Amazon Probably
Jeff Bezos 15,134th house isn’t gonna pay for itself
Lowkey probably their mindset with Amazon Prime Video. That UI though...
Of course Amazon wants to disenfranchise self-published authors, it means that they have to buy more amazon ads!
The walking rant is the kind of energy I needed this morning 🙌🏻
Also Good Reads has been broken for such a long time, I truly wish another platform rises up to overthrow them.
Hey Daniel, since I can’t remember which episodes of your show were sponsored by Indie Competitors of Goodreads, any chance of a video about alternatives to Goodreads that we can support?
Have you found any since the comment was written? I'm actively searching for replacements lol
@@MolotovBg It was mentioned in the comments few times, but Storygraph is a good replacement, It's the new platform, so It's not perfect, but still better than Goodreads^^
my dad and i use LibraryThing. its waaay less meme-y but its pretty good!
The goblin clan has gathered to assist Daniel in his war against the evils of goodreads ✊
If Daniel never writes a novella entirely about goblins he will miss a huge opportunity.
True, or have goblin mascot characters. Like a clan of goblin characters, or making it meta, use them in reviews. And fanarts exist, and artists. He needs a goblin fanart mascot(youtube needs a goblin or at least troll emote)
also not assigning "Goblin" as the author when goodreads asked for one was a missed opportunity.
He basically just moved and is doing daily uploads. The grind is unreal
I was today years old when I learned Goodreads is owned by Amazon
That just makes all this so much worse because you KNOW they have the resources if you check up the management.
I'm so grateful to the Story Graph. I made the switch, imported my goodreads data and never looked back. Fuck Amazon.
I feel your pain but MY GOD, my eyes kept sliding to the upper right corner of your room, to the MAGNIFICENT Wheel of Time series with the dragon on the spines and I kept quietly dying inside with envy. Also... wanting to re-read the series again even though I finished it for the fourth time two months ago.
I've been on Goodreads for almost 10 years, there honestly hasn't been many changes since I've joined. Only once did they change how the user home screen looked, and being able to add reread dates was big, but overall it's the same. I also get what Daniel means, there have been plenty of times when I would look into a series where half the books are rated 3-4 stars and are each called "Untitled"
Being a librarian I was gonna fix the book title to untitled and delete the synopsis but it seems to be fixed now. I cant delete the book for you since only super librarians can, but I can ask it to be removed if you want...
Fight fight fight fight fight, soon enough you’re gonna have to make a goodreads rant folder
Goodreads is really handy. But damn it has some strange decisions about what you can and can’t do on it.
I watched this shitstorm unfold on twitter as it was happening and I felt your anger. It's ridiculous.
I stopped using Goodreads awhile ago. I didn't know at the time that they were owned by Amazon, only that they were not supporting the authors that are the entire reason for their site. I'm part of a FB group that is Fans of Urban Fantasy and there are a lot of authors in the genre that post things there. Last year, I learned from an author post that they'd been contacted by someone who tried to extort money from them in return for not posting a bad review on Goodreads. The author did not pay anything, and a bad review was put on the book. When she contacted Goodreads to tell them, they refused to assist the author in any way with this problem. On the same FB post, other authors started saying they'd also been contacted with similar threats, but that Goodreads would do nothing about it. So I'd already quit Goodreads before learning that they're owned by Amazon, one of the largest, wealthiest corporations in the world, and that they don't pay their site librarians. I wished I could quit twice.
Wow! That's nuts. You'd think if Goodreads saw the messages they'd be able to fix it. But I can also understand why they'd be hesitant to remove bad reviews at the author's request...
@@dragonfireink139 - From what I can tell, Goodreads seemed really unconcerned about their site being used to extort money. I don't know what the solution could be from their end, but there's not even a motivation to try and come up with one. It makes sense if their people really aren't paid. How saintly (or foolish) does a person have to be to do volunteer work for the richest man in the world.
Daniel channeling some Coach from Letterkenny energy in this video, and I'm here for it.
TheStoryGraph rise up! I've switched to it from Goodreads and it's been a DREAM. (Even just the one feature they have of content warnings.) Curious to see how it is for authors though.
I'm not an author but I saw some inaccuracies on a book listing, contacted StoryGraph and within a day they had checked to be sure I was right, and corrected the information.
Honestly, never knew the Goodreads was owned by Amazon. For some reason that makes it both wildly unacceptable that Goodreads is as shitty as it is, but also makes more sense to me, because Amazon's interface and app tends to drive me crazy as well.
I love this rant so much. That's so crazy, what happened to you! GR is a waste of Internet space. They effed up almost all my books and I can't fix anything. I just ignore it. Thank you for voicing my frustration. Subscribed to your very entertaining channel!
😆 it would be so savage if you would have tweeted that the third book is officially called good read sucks.
There is a book assigned to me on Goodreads that appeared one day that I'm not an author for. I tried removing myself from the book but get an error each time. At this point I've given up because I don't want to invest the time into fixing this issue.
not going to lie, I was very skeptical about any criticism of Goodreads given that it is one of my favorite sites, but you brought up some very inciteful points! How are people allowed to review a book that an author hasn't even finished writing based on an unofficial synopsis that the author has not approved?
Come on Goodreads let's see some progress here !!!!!! Your book Daniel is an appetizer, loved it . We can wait for your next ... The pressure must be awful. IGNORE IT. Do your thing.
The Disheveled Goblin shall not be go silently into the night! Beware, be afraid, the Diva Goblin awakes!
We all have a complicated relationship with Goodreads. I tried to use the site again at the beginning of the year to keep track of my reading challenge, then got annoyed again and quit.
This is sorely needed.
As a self published author I am 100% behind you here. I contacted Goodreads a while ago about removing some of my books that are no longer in publication, so I can trim down my bibliography and have it as accurate representation of my work that is available. Goodreads said no, that it wasn’t possible and did not elaborate further.
Me who only started reading since 2020 and never used Goodreads but is here for the RANT 👁👄👁
That's great!!! Just start using The Story Graph so you don't waste your precious time learning how to use Goodreads
Honestly one of the things I like about you is your honesty and bluntness when things are obviously sh*t.
Is it weird that I want to get back into writing so I can engage in this drama
Requiring an ISBN for a book would fix this...
I always enjoy when our goblins tech background comes shining though. "I could code it drunk in an afternoon, bc I did that!"
I’m upset they removed the most read authors button from our personal books read page.
Yes, that was ridiculous. What was the point?
DANIEL! You need to give THE STORYGRAPH a chance!
Why you ask? It´s goodreads, but better.
You get better info about what you read. With graphs! Yes, GRAPHS!
(You can also easily import your goodreads data).
Do they have an app for android?
I love Storygraph, mostly because there is a DNFed section lol.
@@nectanbo it´s still in beta version. You have to go to their website and you´ll be able to find a version to download there :) I have android so it´s possible
@@nectanbo they do. you can't find it in app stores, but there's instructions how to get it on their website. After "installing" it, it behaves like a nomal app.
@@anneth7154 To be fair, making DNF shelf on goodreads takes less than a minute.
I tried StoryGraph because everyone seems to love it but so many books I've read lack editions I have or basic information like number of pages. For some going into different editions of the book shows me different books from the series. They're still new so I'm hopeful it gets better but for now I'm personally sticking mainly with goodreads. Sure, giving 0,25* and setting different challenges is fun and graphs are interesting but if I have to add books/editions to their database to get correct analysis of my reading habits it's not worth it.
As someone that's worked for Amazon for five years now, I think you may vastly overestimate that company's ability to get their shit straight. And that's in any level I've been in. It's the typical corporate "Unless it's costing us money or is 100% broken to the point people won't/can't use it at all, it ain't really broken" mentality.
I switched to Storygraph this year which is so much better than Goodreads. Would highly recommend for anyone who wants an app to find books and track reading.
^^
I seriously never needed an app for that. A glance at my library suffices.
@@ChristmasLore I have a notebook as well to keep track but I find using an app very convenient. Plus the stats options on Storygraph have been enlightening.
Your videos are fantastic, and you’re hilarious. I’m also equally impressed and overwhelmed by your bookcases.
I got frustrated as a user with good reads- jumped ship to Story Graph. It's better for a reader and they seem really responsive/actively updating.
Damn you... I just found your channel and have found myself going on a book-buying binge. I never had a desire to read Wheel of Time - I bought it - I never wanted to restart the Malazan series - I bought them - I also jumped onto Red Sister and the the Stormlight Archive....
Damn you... :)
To think this could happen to even a massive celebrity like Daniel 😪
"Celebrity" lol
Oh hell, I have to get that hard cover WoT series you have on your shelf at eye level. What gorgeous bindings. ($948.70 with tax?????) It would be cheaper just to have you move in.
Rage of Dragons?! More like Rage of Goblins...
Maybe I'll go add that new book title "Rage of Goblins" in Goodreads to Evan Winter because it's simply that easy...
This is good to know. Appreciate the update
Tried and used Goodreads for years but (!) stopped using the platform because I personally believe they...tarnish...some authors' books. The StoryGraph is much, much, better and author friendly imo.
Really love this new setup!! Definitely gives me cozy library / study vibes. Reminds me of my grandpa’s old study.
I love me a good Goodreads rant 🙈This is why I switched to Storygraph the minute their website/app went up 😂
A issue I see here, which Goodreads would need to address if they allow more author controll though is that if authors can remove work attributed to them, who is to stop bad authors from removing their books if they get bad reviews only to re-add them in hopes of getting better reviews. While there probably are ways to prevent them, I fear that Goodreads wouldn't spent the extra amount of work there.
Been a long time since one of these I’m hyped
So I self-published my book Chest of the Tide through Amazon, which I assume is how I got on Goodreads. I never made an account with Goodreads beforehand. I have since made an account with them because my friend wanted to follow my book, but my new account is separate from my book. I have no idea how to claim my book on Goodreads. It is lost in the void I suppose.
I have a google docs document where I write Ooo, every time Daniel and Mike upload a video in roughly the same minute or after a few seconds. Eight ooos. Legitimately.
Mike?
Here's a great alternative to GoodReads: The StoryGrap. You can import your GoodReads library and it basically has the same features. There are some fun extra ones though: the option to pit books in a 'did not finish' pile, various reading goals (not only number related) and STATISTICS ON WHAT YOU'VE READ! like page number, genre, mood etc. There's also this really precise filtering option for finding new books to read.
Oh and you can easily switch between diffent editions of the book
+ you CAN rate half stares :)
“My Goblin King rides from Potato Servers End to BadDesign Gaps, toward Tarmon Goodread’on. Will he ride alone? “
I know this was kind of forced but eh, I thought it was cool
This really isn't okay though. 😕 for authors who take their books seriously this is scary 😨 I'm really glad you're bringing attention to this and I hope they change things cuz this just isn't okay
What is your opinion on thestorygraph?
^^
You know, this is the first video I’ve seen of Daniel Greene and honestly, watching him vent about what’s happened and show so much passion and kindness is seriously charming. I don’t know who this person is, but I’m subscribing and going to be forever wishing we could have a meet cute
I've been using StoryGraph for my book ratings and really enjoying it.
Unrelated to the video, but your Wheel of Time collection makes me envious
I saw this coming. I'm here for it.
I work in a huge international company that does, like, only one specific thing, sort of like the Goodreads/Amazon dyad (as in publishing and selling books), and they basically only let the IT department to work on finance related systems. There are many, yes, and it's super important, I get it, but there's been multiple attempts at making our basic software usable for the people who use it, and no amount of enthusiasm from "below" managed to move this process anywhere. The management only cares about the enterprise stuff. It's embarrassing to let the clients see the interface, to deal with their very reasonable complaints while using it, but there's nothing we can do.
😂🤣 I can understand your frustration, it’d suck if you have an informal and clunky synopsis, but I find it 😂 hilarious that they just made a cover less, unreleased book and put your tweet as a synopsis. I am so sorry, this sucks. We shall avenge you goblin.
'Fuck off' is now one of your official pen names. Can't wait to see this updated on Goodreads