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

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:23 PM UTC

cwp wrote: post #280

fsckboy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway. That's where my pet antitrust solution succeeds where others fail: ban all M&A. Companies only engage in mergers to consolidate market share, but their market share consolidation (i.e. monopolization) not only decreases competition, but also comes at the expense of employees and customers of the acq…

It doesn't come at the expense of the employees of the acquired business. They often get rich, or at least land a well-paying and career-enhancing gig at the acquiring company. This is important, because it means that new companies that compete with the monopolies have many paths to success. If the only possible outcomes are "beat Amazon" and "fail hard", you won't get many attempts; it's better to get an entry-level…

Post by yankput » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:24 PM UTC

teamspirit wrote: post #22

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…

Unfortunately that's exactly why so many startups get bought. Not to become part of the parent company's business, no, just not to become a competitor later. Would stronger (and enforced) anti trust laws be a solution? I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway.

Post by Retric » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:25 PM UTC

CSMastermind wrote: post #269

ohlookcake wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the average book should have a 2.5 Disagree on this. This assumes that people read books completely at random. In reality, people read blurbs/summaries or get a recommendation and the typical book you read is likely to be better than the midpoint between the worst book you've read and the best book you've read (I'm assuming a linear scale mental model).

> This assumes that people read books completely at random. I'm not sure it implies that. I think that if: 1. Book quality follows a normal distribution. and 2. People are capable of accurately assessing the quality of books relative to other books. then you'd end up with an average rating of 2.5. It doesn't matter if people are disproportionately reading the better books and rating them highly because an increasing…

Post by MrVandemar » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:27 PM UTC

TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #133

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 just give you two books that you've read and you tell me which is better. I can't wait to compare The Pickwick Papers against The Unfolding of Language .

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 03, 2023, 11:29 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #171

fsckboy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe businesses would just lie and say they are going to be part of the business but then just bury them anyway. That's where my pet antitrust solution succeeds where others fail: ban all M&A. Companies only engage in mergers to consolidate market share, but their market share consolidation (i.e. monopolization) not only decreases competition, but also comes at the expense of employees and customers of the acq…

> ban all M&A That makes about as much sense as banning marriage. M&A is fundamental and important.