←back to thread

97 points healsdata | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
nkrisc ◴[] No.44376422[source]
> Long-time romance author Milly Johnson said: “I had a one-star rating for a book that hadn’t even been seen by my copy editor. When I raised it with Goodreads they wouldn’t interfere as they said the reviewer had a perfect right to predict if they’d enjoy it or not. I’m afraid at that point I washed my hands of them as a serious review site that should have some code of conduct. We all get bad reviews but at least we should expect any review to be fair."

Is Goodreads not a review site but just a soapbox for readers? What kind of serious review site would allow reviews where the reviewer simply speculates whether they would like something or not? Seems strange Goodreads would allow these kinds of reviews, it completely undermines any credibility their ratings might have.

Does anyone take Amazon review scores seriously?

replies(5): >>44376459 #>>44376539 #>>44376561 #>>44376568 #>>44377290 #
nemomarx ◴[] No.44376459[source]
I think technically good reads is a social platform micro blog site now, so soapbox is about right.
replies(2): >>44376612 #>>44386805 #
1. mingus88 ◴[] No.44376612[source]
Goodreads was a useful tool to track the books I’d read to my kids every night. Nice to have a log book of what I’d already read backed by a real database of ISBNs

Feels similar to calorie tracking apps now. Having a database of food UPCs with nutritional data is actually useful. Then capitalism comes along and juices it for social media engagement until the site is riddled with junk features and paywalls

I guess there will always be market for a hobbies to make their own trackers.