(www.thebookseller.com)

97 points healsdata | 2 comments | 25 Jun 25 11:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

NelsonMinar ◴[25 Jun 25 13:13 UTC] No.44376945[source]▶

Goodreads is a case study in the natural monopoly of social networks. The product has been terrible for years now, with Amazon investing the bare minimum to keep it online and one slight design change every few years. But competitors like TheStoryGraph can't get traction because all the people are still on Goodreads.

replies(3): >>44377256 #>>44377291 #>>44378425 #

1. mslansn ◴[25 Jun 25 13:42 UTC] No.44377256[source]▶

>>44376945 #

I keep reading complaints about how bad it is and I just don’t see it. The last redesign is tremendously slow though.

replies(1): >>44380012 #

2. NelsonMinar ◴[25 Jun 25 17:51 UTC] No.44380012[source]▶

>>44377256 (TP) #

Well, start here with the article being discussed. They made a product decision to allow fake reviewers to trash books before they are even released.

↑

Authors hit by bad reviews on Goodreads before review copies are even circulated