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

31–40 of 493 posts

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

#31

Post by nextos »

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…

There's also TrueSkill, by Microsoft Research, which turns Elo into a proper generative model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill

It'd be definitely interesting to see a book review site like this. In the meantime, for math books, I trust curated rankings by MAA: https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews

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

#32

Post by BowBun »

I think we're seeing increased scrutiny towards any social network remaining after Reddit and Twitter have been anti-consumer in their monetization practices.

Personally, I've taken a great interest in ultimate-guitar.com, which I consider the equivalent of Goodreads for guitar and other music tabs. Networks like UG and Goodreads are the juiciest targets for corporate takeovers, and both those sites were entirely started on the contributions of non-employees. It doesn't matter if they have now started to produce the content themselves, they wouldn't have had the chance to without the work put in by others already.

I encourage you, reader, to look into the social networks you use and to think about how you can archive the data submitted by the public. UG caught my attention because I refuse to allow them to steal their users' content after the fact just because they added some lines to their ToS. I don't know that that's their plan, but based on everything I've seen it seem inevitable.

I hope someone else is looking to download all of Goodreads' data to make it available to future hobbyists and grassroots websites.

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

#33

Post by pessimizer »

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've always been so for this in situations where the users also have a database of their own history on the site, like Goodreads or Boardgamegeek.com, for example. Just throw up modals every once and a while comparing two books that you know the user knows, and make it easy to opt out of. I probably wouldn't opt out, because it would appeal to my ego and feel like a game.

> 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 should have a 2.5. If you don't rate like this then you just end up with garbage.

Just normalize the users against themselves. I wouldn't be giving a 4-star review, I'd be giving a pessimizer(4-star review).

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

#34

Post by berkes »

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.

Even if they'd lie, that's still a lot more effort and a lot more risk than not having to lie in the first place.

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

#35

Post by batch12 »

garciansmith wrote: post #10
CaptainZapp wrote: post #7

> By joining Amazon, Goodreads has accelerated their mission to delight customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology. Seriously, reading the diarrhea vomited out by corporate PR shills nowadays seriously makes my teeth hurt. Do those people actually believe the bullshit they're spouting to the general public?

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive comment on the matter."

I suspect it's a case of one hand washing another. They publish the fluff so they can be on the list of publications that get early dibs on 'news' that will drive engagement.

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by prox »

AlbertCory wrote: post #29

> But Goodreads allows any user, not just those who’ve received advance copies, to leave ratings months before books are released. Authors who’ve become targets of review-bombing campaigns say there’s little moderation or recourse to report the harassment. Writers dealing with stalkers have pointed to the same problem. "Problem": chicken-and-egg problem. Until it's actually published, there's little or no way for a r…

There is also a problem with quotes; you have these nobody self-help book writers adding hundreds (?) of quotes that are very poor, and gamed with upvotes. So you some see some nobody authors quote next to Plato.

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

#39

Post by deanCommie »

garciansmith wrote: post #10
CaptainZapp wrote: post #7

> By joining Amazon, Goodreads has accelerated their mission to delight customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology. Seriously, reading the diarrhea vomited out by corporate PR shills nowadays seriously makes my teeth hurt. Do those people actually believe the bullshit they're spouting to the general public?

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive comment on the matter."

I wish people also learned some critical reading:

Amazon spokesperson Ashely Vanicek said that ""

Is journalistically neutral. Amazon was asked about what we wrote. Here's what they said. You decide if you believe us, or Amazon.

I see nothing wrong with this, unless the headline of this story was "Goodreads' accelerated mission in delighting customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology.”

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

#40

Post by TheRealPomax »

AlbertCory wrote: post #16
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…

I think this is correct. The acquisition was anti-competitive, and Lina Khan's FTC would probably challenge it.

Why? The FTC has shown time and again it has no interest in enforcing the rules, whether that's under Pai, Khan, or going back every administration since the Microsoft anti-competition days.
Post reply on HN