Live data from Hacker News

Goodreads has no incentive to be good

countercraft.substack.com

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#191
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey now, we're not all men

Sorry about that, I’ve amended it. I was actually referring to the old man yells at cloud meme ( https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/old-man-yells-at-cloud ) but I recognise that I can be more inclusive in my putdowns.

My implication was merely that I too am old and yelling at clouds. :) No actual offense taken.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#192

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.

I’ve been wary of the group since I read this: > "I really thought long about this, and I haven't slept in two days due to ongoing harassments of 4chan," cookiengineer claimed in a post to the Tenacity GitHub Issues page some 13 hours ago. "As the first people were literally arriving at my place of living, where they knocked on my doors and windows to scare us, I am hereby officially stepping down as a maintainer of…

>wary of the group

There is no "group" - 4chan is not a monolith, and many of boards have members that do not mix at all. /tg/ - the traditional games board (TTRPGS and the like) - might as well be an entirely different website than, say, /pol/ or /g/. 4chan in general is also extremely tame as compared to 10 or 15 years ago.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#193
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem to be usable without log in: can't search books, reviews, can't do anything, so not very similar at all with Goodreads

Just because you have to sign in to use it doesn't mean it's not similar.

But it does mean that it's far less likely they will have any users. Particularly without any federated login.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#194

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.

This is exactly why my wife, our friends and I use Goodreads as well. It's fun to see what everyone is reading, and to comment on a book or ask what they thought about a book they just finished. We also enjoy comparing our year-in-review infographic that Goodreads creates each year.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#195

I anything actually good anymore? - Goodreads: Broken recommendation system, meh UI, review wars - Google Search: Pointless - Reddit: Overtly user-hostile, poor UX, tiktokified - YouTube: Mainstream, ad-riddled, tiktokified - Yelp: Cluttered-UI, favors jerks, hostile to businesses - Gmail: Oh yeah we're gonna delete your emails if you don't log in after a while - Netflix: Shrinking catalogue, worse quality shows - In…

I find that grilling out with friends and family is good. Books are really good, lots of interesting stuff to learn on the non-fiction side (and I honestly think the new AI stuff is making it even easier to learn things!), still more interesting fiction that I haven't read yet than I could ever read in a lifetime, not to mention re-reading books I already love. Similar thing with movies and tv; just finished the new…

[dead]

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#196

People need to stop hoping for good crowd sourced reviews and ratings. Even if the platform would have the best interests it can't be done. Two simple reasons: 1. Ratings: you can not compress information down to 1 byte without losing almost all of it. I've been a professional game reviewer in another life. I used to give ratings because I was forced to by the site format. When I retired from that I looked back at te…

Here's a free idea for you budding entrepreneurs: allow the user of a review site to apply their own custom weights to reviewers. If you discover a reviewer with good taste, weight their reviews more highly. And also be able to incorporate their weightings of other reviewers into your own -- if A thinks highly of B, then that raises your default weighting of B.

This is a decent idea, but not sure how it could work. I'm no mathematician, but it seems like you're dealing with an extremely large set of infinite fractions, that might take some time to compute.

For example, if I leave a 5 star review and there is one other review, 1 star, it would be 3 stars if we had the same weight.

But if someone votes me 76% "taste score", and THEY have 50% weight, and I voted THEM 37% "taste score", then both of our votes affect each other. And this would happen for an cycle of reviewers reviewing other reviewers.

Unless you meant only personal settings, in which case I think it would only work for niche audiences. There's a good chance that there's zero overlap between sets of reviewers on many products on Amazon except perhaps people who are chronically online, reviewing products. IMO those people's reviews are not as helpful as a person who leaves an occasional review, because in the latter case, the product stood out for some reason.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RateYourMusic is a pretty nice site for finding movies and music. I wish that Goodreads was more similar to RYM.

For movies or tv series I am using https://trakt.tv .

I started using this about 6 months ago after a recommendation here and would recommend it to others.

It particularly helps if you have access to multiple streaming services.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#198
Up until recently if you accidentally touched (NOT click/press) the star rating while scrolling through Goodreads a modal would slide up covering 3/4th of the screen asking ( more like holding at gunpoint) you to rate the book.

I don't understand how can a PM/web developer actually be this hostile. They absolutely knew it was a dark pattern and now have gone back to normal.

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#199
post #81

I anything actually good anymore? - Goodreads: Broken recommendation system, meh UI, review wars - Google Search: Pointless - Reddit: Overtly user-hostile, poor UX, tiktokified - YouTube: Mainstream, ad-riddled, tiktokified - Yelp: Cluttered-UI, favors jerks, hostile to businesses - Gmail: Oh yeah we're gonna delete your emails if you don't log in after a while - Netflix: Shrinking catalogue, worse quality shows - In…

Absolutely. May I add one more? - Hacker News: filled with old ~men~ people shouting at clouds, reminiscing about how things were better in the good old days.

I knew there was a reason I spend so much time here

Re: Goodreads has no incentive to be good

#200
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.

Oh I'm sure I can't recall a bunch of (details of) books I've read.

On the flip side, I have a firm belief that every book worth reading changes you at least a little, so even if I don't remember it consciously, it has had an impact on me.

I did try writing notes at some point, and stopped after the first attempt. That was several years ago and I never read those notes :)

Post reply on HN