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

181–190 of 245 posts

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#181

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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.

I have lists of books I want to read. And books I'm "reading", which actually means have them on hand and ready to go and or actually reading them.

As a natural feature of clearing out those lists when I finish a book, you create a book read list. I don't have much use for this but it is interesting to review the stats on say author nationality.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#182

Post by derstander »

senko wrote: post #171
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.

Why would you need a list at all? If it's worth remembering, you'll remember you've read it, and if you want to refresh your memory what better than to reread?

> Why would you need a list at all? > If it's worth remembering, you'll remember you've read it, and if you want to refresh your memory what better than to reread?

If it’s not worth remembering, you won’t remember if you read it or not — so you could waste time rereading a forgettable book until you realize. ;)

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#183

Post by anytime5704 »

senko wrote: post #171
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.

Why would you need a list at all? If it's worth remembering, you'll remember you've read it, and if you want to refresh your memory what better than to reread?

Your memory must be better than mine.

Having a couple notes about the things that stood out to me at the time is a great way to remind myself how I felt about books I’ve long since stopped thinking about.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#184

Post by SxC97 »

matricaria wrote: post #155
SxC97 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree with YouTube. Yes, theres a lot of garbage on there, but I've managed to curate a collection of subscriptions that make _extremely_ high quality videos. Even the reccomendation system thats so often criticised here has regularly served me new channels that are right up my ally. I get more value from YT than most other sites on the net (with the exception of HN, obviously)

While I also think YouTube has great content, their war on adblockers annoys me very much. Also, YouTube Short was not a great addition. It entices garbage content in my opinion. There is a reason I’m on YouTube and not on TikTok.

I’ve come around on shorts. Many of my favorite creators take weeks or even months to create a single video, vsauce comes to mind. Shorts allow them to create shorter form content that’s still interesting more frequently, without affecting their algorithmic ranking for main videos.

I also think it works as a marketing tool. At this point, YT knows what I want and shorts act as a sort of teaser for new channels. 60 seconds of their most interesting content to see if I want to subscribe or not. It’s less commitment than watching a full (often 20 min +) video.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#185

Post by bmlzootown »

anytime5704 wrote: post #183
senko wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need a list at all? If it's worth remembering, you'll remember you've read it, and if you want to refresh your memory what better than to reread?

Your memory must be better than mine. Having a couple notes about the things that stood out to me at the time is a great way to remind myself how I felt about books I’ve long since stopped thinking about.

Yeah, I've read the same book multiple times before, years apart, without realizing it. Only when I went back to Goodreads later to mark it as read did I realize that... well, I had already read it.

On the flip side, I can enjoy a book more than once. This is a definite plus.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#186

Post by AlbertCory »

scrum-treats wrote: post #176
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.

> AFAIK Amazon acquisition didn't ruin Zappos. As someone who used Zappos a lot before Amazon acquisition, IMO the quality and selection decreased after Amazon takeover. Today, given the authentication issues across all Amazon services, I just don't go to Zappos anymore because I don't trust the products. Because Amazon. Additionally the UI is dated. Such a bummer.

ok, that's why I said AFAIK. I've only used it a couple times, but no issues.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#187

Post by squirtlebonflow »

hinkley wrote: post #154
larperdoodle wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don't just track books you've read, you also track books you want to read, which is much harder to remember. I also tag them to indicate if I already own them and in what format (physical, epub, audio). Saves me from purchasing duplicates when I'm at the used book store.

> you also track books you want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundoku I know exactly what books I want to read.

[dead]

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#188

Post by creer »

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.

To keep track of authors and series I follow, over many years. To collect quick notes. Both for myself and ready for recommendations to others. To avoid trying again authors I dismissed ages ago (but whose book covers and blurbs still tempt me.) To keep several lists/queues to things to read (theme-based lists most of them). A few years ago I added date marks for when I read or re-read each item. I general these lists have made my reading more systematic and I can now always, but always instantly pick something that I wanted to read AND is on the shelf at the library.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#189

Post by pdntspa »

bluGill wrote: post #158
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 a good social network so long as you limit it to friend you personally know only. Block marketplace and all groups. Use it to keep up on those distant friends and family that you are not ready to leave out of your life completely even though you don't get together often (that is they live far away from you so you can't visit in person often)

Agreed. I do not engage with groups all that much and the snippets/suggestions it shows me for some are just downright nauseating. On that note it has been useful for figuring out which of my friends are secretly assholes and which of them just like to shitpost.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#190

Post by Shugarl »

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.

Personal satisfaction. "Ooga booga, number get bigger" kind of thing
Post reply on HN