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

BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

wedistribute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#61

Post by input_sh »

ainzzorl wrote: post #58
input_sh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- It sucks at recommending books. You may stumble upon some book in the home feed, but its recommendation is as good as if it didn't exist. - Lists suck. For example, it never anticipates even something as simple as abandoning a book (though you can create that). - There's like a whole industry of faking ratings and nobody cares about it enough to do anything about it. - It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically did…

> Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago. This is what I love about it. When something works for me (and Goodreads does), I don't want it to change.

It's not a good thing when there are glaring issues that remain unfixed, like books receiving 1 star reviews while they're still being written.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#62

Post by vosper »

avnigo wrote: post #53
mathnmusic wrote: post #26

GoodReads is all but dead for many. A few months ago, they deprecated their API keys (without notice). I started building a GoodReads-equivalent but realized that many people care more about learning from multiple media formats (blogs, videos, research papers, interactive explorables, podcasts, courses etc) rather than simply reading books. Because there are too many projects attempting to build a new GoodReads, I en…

I recently came across the API issue too; from their page on APIs [0] > Goodreads no longer issues new developer keys for our public developer API and plans to retire the current version of these tools. I generally find that I trust their book ratings more than any other sites, though, seeing as they are user-generated, and also given the amount of users being in the 10s of millions. BookWyrm seems pretty fantastic a…

> I generally find that I trust their book ratings more than any other sites, though, seeing as they are user-generated

There are far too many reviews for advanced copies seeded by publishers, though, and there’s no consistent disclosure or way to filter these out.

That, and the rating system is far too simplistic. When you’re optimizing for engagement then having users spend a lot of time reading reviews is probably good. It’s not optimized for time spent to find a good book to read, though.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#63

Post by avnigo »

vosper wrote: post #62
avnigo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently came across the API issue too; from their page on APIs [0] > Goodreads no longer issues new developer keys for our public developer API and plans to retire the current version of these tools. I generally find that I trust their book ratings more than any other sites, though, seeing as they are user-generated, and also given the amount of users being in the 10s of millions. BookWyrm seems pretty fantastic a…

> I generally find that I trust their book ratings more than any other sites, though, seeing as they are user-generated There are far too many reviews for advanced copies seeded by publishers, though, and there’s no consistent disclosure or way to filter these out. That, and the rating system is far too simplistic. When you’re optimizing for engagement then having users spend a lot of time reading reviews is probably…

Agreed. I was more so referring to the law of large numbers, hoping that from their large user base it's more likely to get a more representative rating than a site with a smaller user base maybe suffering from some sampling bias.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#64

Post by rapnie »

mdoms wrote: post #14
personjerry wrote: post #10

It really feels like "federated" is to tech geeks (i.e. HN people) what "blockchain" is to a lot of non-tech people. What does federated do for me at all in solving this problem?

None of this federated stuff will ever gain mainstream acceptance. I would bet my house on it. It adds multiple layers of complexity and a ton of UX trade-off, and doesn't solve any problems for a typical user.

> doesn't solve any problems for a typical user.

Mentioning "Federation" as a feature will not be very appealing to the average user, indeed. It is more of a technical concept. But there are features that derive from an app being federated.

Ever heard people complain they were suddenly banned for no apparent reason, and have no means to get it fixed? In a federated service you may just go to another instance (and in future migrating / controlling your own content will be easy).

A big centralized platform has a single ToS, and algorithms throw random people from the entire userbase at you. In a federated system you can choose a server with rules / ToS that appeals to you. An individual server is like a community with own culture and topics of interest.

Wanna escape ads, algorithmic driven UI? Choose any federated server (currently fediverse is ad-free). Server adds ads later on? Migrate to one that does not.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#65

Post by dewey »

input_sh wrote: post #44
tpoacher wrote: post #38

What exactly is wrong with Goodreads? I keep hearing a lot of hate about it, but the reasons seem never expanded on. I use Goodreads to maintain a public bookshelf of books I have read or want to read. It's also nice that I can check what my friends are reading. Occasionally it's nice to read other people's views on a book. I typically tend not to agree, but it's nice that these exist. That's it. Isn't that what Good…

- It sucks at recommending books. You may stumble upon some book in the home feed, but its recommendation is as good as if it didn't exist. - Lists suck. For example, it never anticipates even something as simple as abandoning a book (though you can create that). - There's like a whole industry of faking ratings and nobody cares about it enough to do anything about it. - It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically did…

> It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago.

This is a good thing. In the recent year they updated the design in subtle ways to make it nicer to use and less rough around the edges too which was a nice surprise.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#66

Post by leetrout »

personjerry wrote: post #36
mathnmusic wrote: post #26

GoodReads is all but dead for many. A few months ago, they deprecated their API keys (without notice). I started building a GoodReads-equivalent but realized that many people care more about learning from multiple media formats (blogs, videos, research papers, interactive explorables, podcasts, courses etc) rather than simply reading books. Because there are too many projects attempting to build a new GoodReads, I en…

GoodReads isn't about learning though. It's about books. I think there's value and potential in the niche you've chosen. I want to point out that the "learning" niche is very different than the "book review" niche and comes with its own set of very strong competitors.

This is all new to me. Who competes in this space? Or what are some good keywords to search with?

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#67

Post by leetrout »

mathnmusic wrote: post #26

GoodReads is all but dead for many. A few months ago, they deprecated their API keys (without notice). I started building a GoodReads-equivalent but realized that many people care more about learning from multiple media formats (blogs, videos, research papers, interactive explorables, podcasts, courses etc) rather than simply reading books. Because there are too many projects attempting to build a new GoodReads, I en…

Wow you've got a lot going on. Do you have any stats on usage you feel like sharing? I'm curious how people have discovered this and how it has grown since this seems outside any circles I am around except HN.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#69

Post by verylittlemeat »

input_sh wrote: post #44
tpoacher wrote: post #38

What exactly is wrong with Goodreads? I keep hearing a lot of hate about it, but the reasons seem never expanded on. I use Goodreads to maintain a public bookshelf of books I have read or want to read. It's also nice that I can check what my friends are reading. Occasionally it's nice to read other people's views on a book. I typically tend not to agree, but it's nice that these exist. That's it. Isn't that what Good…

- It sucks at recommending books. You may stumble upon some book in the home feed, but its recommendation is as good as if it didn't exist. - Lists suck. For example, it never anticipates even something as simple as abandoning a book (though you can create that). - There's like a whole industry of faking ratings and nobody cares about it enough to do anything about it. - It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically did…

Goodreads will always win simply because it's where all the users are.

Like reddit or any huge site its usefulness isn't in the presented top layer (recommendations/front page/popular list of x) it's the depth of millions of users.

If you read a relatively obscure book and look it up on goodreads then you read through the reviews to find users who gave a high quality write up and then look at that user's profile. This will lead you to other users and books that are actual quality.

You could create a smaller website with a higher quality surface level but it's going to be infected with the bias of a small "elite" userbase making it a basically useless echo chamber.

Re: BookWyrm is a federated Goodreads replacement

#70

Post by Brybry »

input_sh wrote: post #61
ainzzorl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago. This is what I love about it. When something works for me (and Goodreads does), I don't want it to change.

It's not a good thing when there are glaring issues that remain unfixed, like books receiving 1 star reviews while they're still being written.

Personally, as a Goodreads user I don't care about the review ratings.

I'm there for: a) making a list of things I want to read b) finding more books by authors (including upcoming) to add to that list c) release dates for books on that list (and sorting that list by date) d) seeing what other people are reading

All of those tasks were time consuming before Goodreads and I'm extremely happy that some let's-refactor-our-website-for-whatever-reason push hasn't broken my use case.

1 and 5 star ratings for unreleased books are dumb but humans are really bad at 5 star rating systems anyway.

I find there's far more value in the number of ratings, but in the end books are often about personal taste.

Post reply on HN