Good Lifestyle

You expect there to be dramatic stories of intrigue and deception on GoodDreads, a social media site that allows users to record the books they have read and leave criticism. However, the biggest drama linked to the site cannot be found in the pages of one of the countless books discussed there. Instead, the controversy comes from how people use the site, especially in the case of the so-called "examination bombing".

Recently, a scandal emerged which revealed the darkest side of GoodeDeds and has many people - readers and authors - by supporting themselves if the former popular platform has finally had a negative impact on the book community. Read the rest to find out how GODREADS works, what is the bombardment of the review and how it has an impact on the authors, and what the site does to discourage trolls.

In relation: I read 365 pounds this year and these are my 10 favorites .

What is GOODREADES?

GOODREADS was founded in January 2007 by Otis Chandler And Elizabeth Khuri Chandler , a programmer and a journalist, respectively. They met at the University of Stanford and created the social cataloging site as a way to help people discover new books.

Although it started small, GOODREADES quickly took off, and In 2012, he had 11 million members which had recorded 395 million collective pounds. In addition to the initial capacity of a logbook and to leave criticism, GOODREADS added recommendation engines that help direct users to similar books that they could appreciate according to their tastes.

In 2013, Amazon - already a major and quasi -monopolistic giant in the space of the book - led Goodreads. The site had 16 million members at the time .

Now, GOODREADES A more than 150 million members , and it is the dominant source of books of books and recommendations on the Internet. This is because the site is so influential that the way some have become an important problem in the world of publishing.

In relation: 16 ways to create a comfortable reading corner .

How does Goodreads work?

GOODREADS is free, although you had to create an account to make the most of it. Once connected, users can record newspapers by creating "shelves". You can create books of books that you have read, books that you read today and books you want to read. (You can always browse GoodDreads without account.)

When you record a book you have read, you can leave a criticism on a scale of one to five stars, and you can write a written criticism to accompany it. Leaving starry or written criticism is optional, because it is possible to simply mark that you have read a book without adding additional comments.

There are also other features. GOODREADS will recommend books similar to those you have recorded and loved, and you can extend your network by following the authors, by connecting to other users and joining groups that will explain more to new books than you might enjoy . Users can also browse extracts and books from books, read exclusive interviews with authors and participate in challenges and reading competitions.

You cannot really read books "on" GOODREADS, although thanks in part to the acquisition of Amazon, the site tends to Make it easy to buy them . For many books, you can read an overview, then click on a link that will take you to Amazon, where you can easily buy a Kindle (or Physical) version of the book.

A group of volunteers called GOODREADS librarians is responsible for adding books to the database. They are also responsible for ensuring that books have the number of correct pages, artistic coverage and various all represented editions.

GOODREADS can be used in a browser, although there are also versions of mobile application.

What is the bombing of the review?

The examination bombardment is not exclusive to Goodreads, but it is a problem on the site for some time. It is the practice of leaving very negative criticisms - generally a star, in the case of GOODREADS - in an attempt to lower the average note of a book. The reasons why people do this varies. Sometimes it's because they don't like the policy of a book; Other times, these are reprisals against an author. Books of non -white authors and / or those who deal with LGBTQ + themes are frequent targets of review bombers .

Whatever reason, the review of review can have real and tangible consequences. Because GOODREADS is so widely used and so influential, it can ruin the chances of success of a book if the potential readers are looking for it on the site to find that it has a horrible average note. This can be devastating for the authors, especially because the revision bombers often slam the books they have not read and may not even be released, which can make a book sell wrong. In short, GOODREADS BRIBARDING REVIEW .

"It can be incredibly hurtful, and it is frustrating that people are allowed to review the books in this way if they have not read them", author Roxane Gay said The New York Times Last year. "Worse, they are allowed to review books that have not even been written. I have books that I haven't finished it yet."

Often, revision bombers have several accounts so that they can leave several negative opinions to lead to the average. Sometimes, the journal bombs will be coordinated, so many people with the same ugly objective can leave negative mass criticism. At no time should a criticism, Goodreds users should prove that they have really read the book in question.

In a press release, Goodreads said The New York Times that it "takes responsibility to maintain the authenticity and integrity of notes very seriously and the protection of our community of readers and authors". The site also said they were working to improve the means for users to report fraudulent opinions. However, the review of review is still widespread.

GOODREADS controversy: explained

Despite its apparently simple and harmless objective, GoodeDeds has become controversial for a certain number of reasons (its role by contributing to the domination of Amazon on the sales of books by being one), but the last revolutionary controversy, perhaps revolutionary, occurred at the end of last year.

At the end of 2023, several science fiction and fantasy books (most written by non-white authors) was flooded a star exam On GoodDeads. The intrigue of revision bombing was thickened because almost all the accounts that had left criticism to a star on these books had also left five -star criticisms on Crown of stars light , author CRIRAIN CIR First fantastic novel that was planned for an outing in early 2024. AE0FCC31AE342FD3A1346EBB1F342FCB

Science fiction XIRAN JAY ZHAO was perhaps the first to spot the connection, and She subtruted Corrain , writing: "If you as an author of the first lists with these same accounts." A few days later, Zhao explained the situation More explicitly in a tiktok , And the scandal worked the book Twitter and Booktok in a fur.

Corraine initially attempted to claim that One of his friends was responsible for the bombing of the review, but this friend did not exist. Finally, she admitted that she had left negative criticism to hurt the books she perceived as a "competition" for her first novel.

Corrain has published apologies , writing that she "was fighting against a lost battle against depression, alcoholism and drug addiction" and had a "psychological depression". She admitted that she had made six false accounts that left criticism forcing her to a book still inacroped and others.

"I felt no bad will towards any of them," says the apology. "It was just my fear of how my book was missing."

In the wake of the scandal, the publisher and agent of Corrain abandoned it, and Crown of stars light has not been released .

In relation: How the color of your eye affects your reading capacity, the new study reveals .

How can you use GoodDreads in a productive way

This controversy, although full of twists and turns and scandalous details, is just a very publicized case of some of the problems that afflict Goodreds. There have been other scandals, including an author who Users found and harassed which gave him negative networks.

Cnn ,, The new statesman , The Guardian, and the New York Times are only some of the outlets that have published articles on the myriads of site numbers, all concluding that this resource formerly loved for book lovers has evolved in something that is potentially bad for books, people who read them and the people who write them.

So what can you do to use GoodDreds in a productive way? It's simple, in fact: simply use the service because it was initially intended to be used. If everyone has used Good Adreads to record the books they have read, add the versions to come, they are excited at their library "to read" and to leave honest (but constructive!) Critics for the books they have read (and only books they read), it would solve a lot of problems. GOODEDS would always hold a place of importance and oversized influence in the world of publishing, but at least it would be honest.

Unfortunately, the problems are systemic at this stage. Most individuals use the service with good intentions, but as long as there are bad players who use Good Adreds to continue their agendas and review bombs books that have not even been released yet, there will be results negative.

In an opinion article for The New York Times , book criticism Maris Kreizman Offered some suggestions on how to " Livestock lovers of this online hell . ""

"GOODREADS desperately needs more human moderation to monitor events," wrote Kreizman. She suggested that the company hires some of the volunteer goadreds librarians to act as official and remunerated employees who could prevent books that have not yet been published after being put on the site, making them vulnerable to bombing revision in pre-liberation.

In short, it is on GoodeDeds (and Amazon) to improve Good Adreds. Gretchen Felker-Martin , a trans horror author whose books were bombed, told The New York Times that she doubts that the company takes measures, having not obtained an answer when it has contacted GoodDreads about criticism.

"I don’t think GOODREADES is an economic incentive to be better," Felker-Martin told the newspaper. "It would only be a gargantusen work to considerably monitor the types of abuse that are piled up on people every day, but there is certainly an common ground between you break your back trying to face all this And not to face it. "

It should be noted that there are alternatives to GOODREADS, including The storygraph And Italic type , although neither is even a fraction as it is widely used. The size of GOODREADES - and the number of people who use it - is always the greatest strength of the service, even if this scale is responsible for some of the problems that turn it. If you are going to use GoodDreds, the best you can do as a person can do is not aggravate by examining bad faith.