Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 493 posts

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#91

Post by [deleted] »

fourmajor wrote: post #28
fastball wrote: post #12

Eh, Goodreads has always suffered from the same problem that plagues every other review system which uses "score out of X" ranking. Humans just aren't very good at ranking things on a normal distribution, so you invariably end up with every item (books in this case) being ranked somewhere in the 3.5-4.5 range (since Goodreads is out of 5). For IMDB the rankings all hover around 8ish. When in reality the average book…

I disagree that stars should be evenly distributed between 1 to 5 stars. I think it's quite possible that most books that people choose to read end up being a 3 (good with some flaws) or 4 (good but not all-time great). It's kind of like the same thing with pizza. I'd give most pizza a 3 or 4. Very few 1s and 5s to be sure. 1 doesn't have to mean bottom 20% of pizzas. It can mean "awful, couldn't finish," where very…

[deleted]

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#92

Post by dageshi »

SoftTalker wrote: post #65
tivert wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think that Amazon is concerned that a database is enough to threaten their business? Didn't the GP already answer the question you asked of them? >> It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else from acquiring or partnering with Goodreads, because their database of books and reviews could be used to instantly start competing with Amazon's book business. Amazon snuffed out that threat of competiti…

Weirdly I've rarely bought a book based on reviews on the selling site. I don't go to Amazon and browse for books, reading reviews. I go to Amazon when I've already determined from other sources which book(s) I want to buy. Maybe I'm in the minority.

Amazon's carousel of books related to the book being viewed is fairly decent at finding books in the same genre you might like in my experience.

I have found and read a fair few from that method.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#93

Post by mg »

For me, it was always more important to discover authors than to discover books.

When I find a author whose thoughts and theories I am interested in, I usually read everything from this author. Usually their most popular book is the best one.

How is this for everybody else here? Any examples of books you discovered on GoodReads where the book itself was the important discovery and not the author?

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#95

Post by manuelmoreale »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #78
manuelmoreale wrote: post #30

Potentially good alternative is https://literal.club/ Not affiliated, just a happy user of the site.

I don’t think GoodReads has any real alternative. Amazon knew that. That’s why they bought it.

It’s been 10 years since Amazon bought it. Maybe it’s time for alternatives to go online.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#96

Post by JohnFen »

pessimizer wrote: post #74
lkbm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider it censorship when Amazon removes fake reviews from their products? This is something most people are in favor of. You can write what you want about books elsewhere. On Amazon, product reviews and ratings should be from people who have used the product. On Goodreads, reviews should be by people who have read the book.

> Do you consider it censorship when Amazon removes fake reviews from their products? This is something most people are in favor of. This isn't about fake reviews, this is 1) partially about reviews from people who haven't read the book, but object to the subject matter or something else about the book, and 2) about "review-bombing," a phrase that is used a lot in this article without an argument being made as to exa…

> partially about reviews from people who haven't read the book, but object to the subject matter or something else about the book

Which is a fake review in my view. Or, at least, an irrelevant review. A review is supposed to be about the particulars of that book, not about whether or not the reader thinks the subject matter is objectionable. Presumably, people who dislike the subject matter won't be reading the book anyway, so such a review is worthless.

If you haven't read the book, you cannot possibly write a legitimate review of it.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#98

Post by yurishimo »

tecleandor wrote: post #45
fastball wrote: post #12

Eh, Goodreads has always suffered from the same problem that plagues every other review system which uses "score out of X" ranking. Humans just aren't very good at ranking things on a normal distribution, so you invariably end up with every item (books in this case) being ranked somewhere in the 3.5-4.5 range (since Goodreads is out of 5). For IMDB the rankings all hover around 8ish. When in reality the average book…

Seems like this is culturally different for some things. And corporations can influence too. I have a friend who has four restaurants in Tokyo, and I've been several times there. If you keep attention to the restaurant reviews in Google Maps, Japanese people is very hard. They'd go like "The food is great, incredible service, surprising flavors, very good experience, best Spanish food I've had in a long time..." and…

100% it's cultural. In the Netherlands, companies brag about a 7 or 8 out of ten as proof of their amazing customer service. When I lived in America, it seemed the consensus of anything under a 9 is killing puppies.

Coincidentally, NPS is entirely based on this fact. 8+ is required for a "happy customer". 7 is given a little wiggle room to win them back and under 6 is a lost cause.

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#99

Post by abc_lisper »

crazygringo wrote: post #6

Goodreads wasn't "the future of book reviews", it was a good review site that might have innovated great new things or might not have at all. But regardless, Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire it -- it was incredibly anti-competitive. Amazon never wanted to do anything with Goodreads at all -- as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything. It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else…

Can this not be reversed. Force amazon to spin it out?

Re: Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it

#100

Post by phillipcarter »

As a certifiably "normie" book reader, I find Goodreads useless. Whenever I look at a book's reviews to figure out if it's worth it to buy, the reviews are filled with book enthusiasts (and often enthusiasts of that author). It makes sense, since they're probably the most likely to write a review of a book online in the first place.
Post reply on HN