Saw this posted:
Mostly I liked reading the comments:
Well, this is a shame to read. Goodreads was long a site for me to catalog my books, keep track of my likes and dislikes and to interact with other readers. As in, readers discussing books--which books were worth spending time and money on.
This is very much a cultural shift I can do without. I want to talk to readers, not ‘engage authors’ or use a site that is now ‘a place for authors and their fans’. Um no, it was a place for readers, and at least up until a day or so ago that was still even part of the official language for the site.
No thanks to being turned into a product to be marketed to authors or publishers or vendors of any kind. Also, I suspect that Goodreads will no longer have quite the enthusiastic services of their volunteer librarians who do so much of the work in cataloging and managing the book information. You know, the unpaid READERS who built the site. For each other.
Oh well, change has occurred and unfortunately Goodreads is no longer the place it was. Too bad, and too bad the TOS were modified so drastically (yet using otherwise mild sounding language), and not via any kind of site-wide announcement.
I had to dig around the feedback forum to find out that Goodreads will now feel free to modify (censor) my content because my opinions are not in keeping with the new focus, or because they can ‘tell what is meant’ when naming a shelfs. (Like the one where I keep the books I don’t want to buy--for whatever reason-- innocuously named but GR ‘can tell’ what I mean?? Ouch, thought police much? And yes, deletions are getting done).
Good luck Goodreads in getting the same kind of free content from your users, I mean, marketing tools. Perhaps the new endeavor will be successful, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s all the same, but nicer.