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

Goodreads has no incentive to be good

countercraft.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 245 posts

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#161

Post by bluGill »

wlesieutre wrote: post #141
pdntspa wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is overly cynical. Facebook is still the best social network for certain age groups. Instagram (and Facebook) engagement is dropping but it's (they're) still one of the best mediums for getting the word out about events (for me anyway). Reddit is fine as long as old-reddit still works, though with losing API access the mobile story is about to suck.

> Facebook is still the best social network for certain age groups It's a great place to hang out for 65+ retirees posting crackpot conspiracy theories, that was the main reason I left. While I'm yelling at clouds, Facebook was better when it was more profile and people focused instead of turning the newsfeed into a twitter copy and optimizing for engagement bait content.

> Facebook was better when it was more profile and people focused instead of turning the newsfeed into a twitter copy and optimizing for engagement bait content.

Which is why I tell everyone to block every single group. If someone shares something (that is it isn't a photo they personally took, or a thought they personally wrote) hit the "block all from [whatever group it was shared from]" button. Leave all groups and market place. I did that almost a year ago and Facebook became a useful place again!

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#162

Post by mypastself »

matricaria wrote: post #156
Paul_S wrote: post #10

Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. The recommendation system is a joke and is obviously used to promote nonsense instead of giving you personalised recommendations.

> Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. Why would you need a service to keep track on what you read? I have a text file with a list of book and some notes about every book. Works perfectly for me.

Same reasons to use a service instead of text file for anything else: ease of use (e.g. you can connect your Kindle to automatically add a book to the list on completion), metrics, challenges, etc.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#163

Post by dimaor »

Loughla wrote: post #159
matricaria wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. Why would you need a service to keep track on what you read? I have a text file with a list of book and some notes about every book. Works perfectly for me.

I'm learning now that this is even something that people keep track of. This next section isn't meant to be shitty: but what's the purpose of even keeping track of that? I've read hundreds, maybe thousands of books over my life and don't have a list of them anywhere, nor can I see a use for that.

personally, having a list of books helps me keep up the reading habit. usually I have months of reading, followed by months of not touching a book.

having a list in notion reminds me to continue.

in addition having a list of books I want to read (ghost library in japanese?) reminds of the things I don't know yet or haven't read which in turn helps keeping the reading habits.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#164

Post by dimaor »

AlbertCory wrote: post #160

> Goodreads Cares about Engagement It's not working for me. I have two books of my own, and still, I never go there. AFAIK Amazon acquisition didn't ruin Zappos. IMDb is more garbage than it was before, but I still use it. But Goodreads: nope, it was too close to what they already did on book selling, so they killed it. Slowly.

lol, I am only using GR for the title + image which is downloaded when you post the URL into notion.

never even considered being influenced by random people from the internet, unless this is someone I know.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#165

Post by Loughla »

dimaor wrote: post #163
Loughla wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm learning now that this is even something that people keep track of. This next section isn't meant to be shitty: but what's the purpose of even keeping track of that? I've read hundreds, maybe thousands of books over my life and don't have a list of them anywhere, nor can I see a use for that.

personally, having a list of books helps me keep up the reading habit. usually I have months of reading, followed by months of not touching a book. having a list in notion reminds me to continue. in addition having a list of books I want to read (ghost library in japanese?) reminds of the things I don't know yet or haven't read which in turn helps keeping the reading habits.

Thank you for the response. A list of prospective books to read is something I believe everyone should have.

It was the list of books already read that didn't make sense. I hadn't considered it as a motivator to pick back up the habit.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#166

Post by joenot443 »

matricaria wrote: post #156
Paul_S wrote: post #10

Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. The recommendation system is a joke and is obviously used to promote nonsense instead of giving you personalised recommendations.

> Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. Why would you need a service to keep track on what you read? I have a text file with a list of book and some notes about every book. Works perfectly for me.

For myself, it’s much less about keeping track of what _I_ read, and much more more about seeing what my friends read. Perhaps it’s trite or mundane, but there are people from high school I haven’t seen in years whose reviews I look forward to because it brings me joy to read their voice again.

I’ve always seen GoodReads as more of a social network than just a list of what one’s read because you’re right, the latter is well replaced by a document.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#167

Post by joenot443 »

manojlds wrote: post #56
hospitalJail wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people like it so much. My aunt-in-law is high pressuring me to use it. I have my library listing all the books I checked out. I have a pdf/epub reader that has a history of the books I read(although a new phone will probably wipe that out). For a while, I was merely writing down my books in a dedicated notebook, but I realized that it didn't really matter, if a book was important, I remembered it. I…

It's social media for book readers. I user it to primarily see what my friends read and what they think about those books and about the books I read. It's not just place to keep note of books you read.

Couldn’t agree more. There seems to be some confusion in this thread about the product’s value preposition - it’s a social network, not an archiving system. Using GoodReads alone strikes me like using Facebook alone, there’s just not much value there without other users.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#168

Post by [deleted] »

thissitesucks__ wrote: post #99
TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #74

4chan /lit/ is a highly highly underrated online 'book club'. It's almost nothing like the other boards and filled with students in literature majors. Some of my favorite books ever were recommended from there, and the 'natural flow' nature of 4chan makes it more entertaining and less mob like.

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#169

Post by tasuki »

stared wrote: post #52

> Few people read reviews whether it is Amazon, Yelp, or anywhere else. I do. IMHO, star ratings are close to pointless. They are deeply flawed even without spam, advertising, or moral outrage votes. And especially for goods that depend on a subjective reception - such as books. First, grading patterns are various. Many use either 1 or 5. For others, 4 is already a failing grade. Second, I don't care what the average…

When there are ratings with 1-5 stars, I filter to only read the 3 star and 2 star reviews. The 5 star and 1 star reviews are meaningless, the 4 star reviews are a minor gripe, 2 star reviews often contain valid criticism (though sometimes it's just "I hated it but there's this one thing I liked"), and 3 star reviews offer a nuanced point of view.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#170

Post by m_0x »

matricaria wrote: post #156
Paul_S wrote: post #10

Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. The recommendation system is a joke and is obviously used to promote nonsense instead of giving you personalised recommendations.

> Goodreads is only good (eh, decent?) as a database of books you've read. All the other functionality is pointless and or broken. Why would you need a service to keep track on what you read? I have a text file with a list of book and some notes about every book. Works perfectly for me.

Because it's prettier than a text file.

Because I can see what my connections (close and not-at-all-close friends) are reading.

Because I like it and have been using it pretty much since 2013.

Goodreads works perfectly for me as it was intended to be used: a nice book database

Post reply on HN