Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Well, it's officially a shitstorm regardless. This, cobbled together from a couple of recent posts:

I'm not sure what the official shitstorm criteria are, but it's kind of heartwarming that in one weekend this thread has accumulated nearly as many posts as the entire Amazon announcement thread. "

But more important, as of right now 3.7x as many views. Over a much, much, much shorter period of time.

Bahahaha! Let the rampant flagging commence! Perfect, perfect resolution to the problem of GR censorship of all things frowny-faced:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I am flagging your post because it contains sarcasm and negativity.

Whitney wrote: "I am flagging your post because it contains sarcasm and negativity."

Bring on the Immaculate Cupcake Brigade!

Did someone say "cupcake"?

Some excellent reviews popping up lately, which coincidentally centre around the theme of censorship:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

And an excellent plan:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Has anyone here had any reviews or lists disappear? Do you get any sort of notification that your review has been removed or it just gone?

Whitney wrote: "Has anyone here had any reviews or lists disappear? Do you get any sort of notification that your review has been removed or it just gone?"

I believe the first lot of deletions were done without notification. I'm not sure if the latest ones have come with a notification or not. The current belief (well, as of 12 hours ago when I last looked) seems to be that they're still not notifying, so back up anything you think might get deleted. I haven't had anything deleted, I've just seen screen shots of stuff that has now gone.

Haven't had anything deleted yet (to my knowledge), but I've been considering deleting some of my content myself. Maybe it's a little passive-aggressive and in the vein of "You can't fire me, I quit!", but whatever. I'm undecided.

From the last official update I saw on the giant thread (which of course was DAYS ago and incredibly vague) seemed to imply that they would be notifying people who's reviews existed before the new policy was implemented (not that it's been announced in any widespread capacity!), but everything else would be deleted without notice. And oh yeah, nothing is backed up and it's impossible for them to reinstate any reviews that were deleted even if they weren't in violation.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter right now.

Whoa, since when is there any option to make commenting ability friends-only? I just tried to comment on Bird Brian's review (linked above) and couldn't because we're not friends. Weeeeird.

Riona wrote: "Whoa, since when is there any option to make commenting ability friends-only? I just tried to comment on Bird Brian's review (linked above) and couldn't because we're not friends. Weeeeird."

That is weird. I've been having little glitches pop up over the last 24 hours though. I just flagged something as being inappropriate (I highly recommend flagging Manny's review of The Destruction of Dresden if you want to do something to make you feel better - http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... ) and the next thing I knew GR was over capacity. Last night I had to post every edit to my review twice to make it stick, too.

Riona wrote: "Whoa, since when is there any option to make commenting ability friends-only? I just tried to comment on Bird Brian's review (linked above) and couldn't because we're not friends. Weeeeird."

Just fyi, there is a new setting that you can check that can lock your reviews to only comments by friends. (Log into My Account, and toggle over to Setting. There's a checkbox for "allow non-friends to comment on my reviews") I presume this is what he has done, and it's not so much a bug as a feature. People who get trolled a lot tend to go in for this setting.

I can't say I "know" anyone who's lost a review or a shelf. Even a few of my more outspoken friends who say they've lost shelves can't say with certainty that it happened in the last couple of weeks. They just noticed them missing after the shit hit the fan.

Ceridwen would be the expert on that, since she's been collecting screen shots and emails (_some_ people have definitely been emailed by GR, but iirc only _after_ the fact.)

But if you can get a shelf deleted for just saying "taa" (OK, I'm not naive: I assume it was an acronym � but GR can't KNOW), but GR employees can have far worse-sounding shelf names, I'd have to say that you shouldn't just be backing up what you think might get deleted: you should be backing up everything.

I'm crunching the numbers now, and it's bad. Most of these "reviews" had neither ratings nor content. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ has caved to the lunatic STRGB finge is what it looks like from this data. Frankly, and I never thought I'd say this, it makes me want to delete my account.

Ceridwen wrote: "I'm crunching the numbers now, and it's bad. Most of these "reviews" had neither ratings nor content. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ has caved to the lunatic STRGB finge is what it looks like from this data. Frankly, a..."

Sorry, Ceridwen - I'm not sure I understood the bit about the "reviews" without ratings or content? Can you please explain?

Civil Disobedience: Carol has posted a really good summary of what different people have done, and what you can do too, should you wish:
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...

Yeah, sorry. According to the people who had their reviews deleted, some of the so called "reviews" had a) no rating and b) no content. In one instance, at least, the shelf designation was "never-to-read" which the GRer used to shelve, and I know this is surprising, books she didn't want to read. Some were there because of author behavior, and some were there just because the book sounded shitty.

If that's still confusing, Ruby, technically a book has a review as soon as you shelve it, even if the review has no text and no rating.

Thanks for that, guys. I'm with you now.

I was just trying to understand why it was worse for an unstarred/reviewed book review to be deleted than one with content. If they're deleting reviews based purely on their shelving though, that's obviously much, much worse.

I'm assuming these reviews only appeared on that one shelf, so now the shelf's gone, the reviews have gone with them. What a nightmare.

Ruby [Stop GR Censorship] wrote: "Civil Disobedience: Carol has posted a really good summary of what different people have done, and what you can do too, should you wish:
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3..."

Some good ideas, and a great review, Ruby. And thank you for the post script re: why people complaining about GR policies are not the same as people complaining about Facebook policies.

I'm planning to flag any reviews I find talking about what a great person an author is since, you know, that's irrelevant to the content of the book. Especially if it's one GR author gushing about another one.

Whitney wrote: "Ruby [Stop GR Censorship] wrote: "Civil Disobedience: Carol has posted a really good summary of what different people have done, and what you can do too, should you wish:
http://www.goodreads.com/..."

That's an excellent idea! I think I might join you. Maybe Carol can add that one to the list? Thanks for the feedback too - I was up until 3am doing that stuff, so I can barely even remember what I wrote. :)

[edit] I wish I'd explained it the way you just did actually (FB vs GR)

OK, now I'm lost. What "post script re: why people complaining about GR policies are not the same as people complaining about Facebook policies." I can't find it on the referenced review, or Ruby's review that was referenced there, or here. So, I'll just argue what I think is the opposite. In a very real way, people complaining about FB policies are complaining about the same thing we are: a unilateral change to the terms of use. Except that FB actually publishes those changes in the terms. Yes, the censorship aspect makes our situation arguably worse, but really most of this shitstorm would never have happened if they'd clued us in before taking action. The major difference imo is that Facebook is big enough that the media forced them to back down on the worst of their changes. The media is totally ignoring Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, so they'll get away with it.

Derek (GR: TELL your users about the censorship policy!) wrote: "OK, now I'm lost. What "post script re: why people complaining about GR policies are not the same as people complaining about Facebook policies." I can't find it on the referenced review, or Ruby's..."

Scroll down: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

You really will argue with anything (or nothing), huh? :)

Ruby [Stop GR Censorship] wrote: "Scroll down."

I did that. There wasn't any mention, anywhere of Facebook.

So, my comment stands. Yes, you're absolutely right that for the work we've done providing content for GR, they owe us something. But so did Facebook, and then, yes, they backed down. But that's because there was a media storm, and we don't have, and won't get, that.

Derek (GR: TELL your users about the censorship policy!) wrote: "Ruby [Stop GR Censorship] wrote: "Scroll down."

I did that. There wasn't any mention, anywhere of Facebook.

So, my comment stands. Yes, you're absolutely right that for the work we've done provid..."

Sorry, my fault confusing things. Ruby didn't mention Facebook, I did. I was basing that on her point that GR didn't START as a commercial endeavor. It started as a site for readers, and a lot of people put a lot of unpaid effort into it. Effort in administration and function, not just adding content by posting and liking. FB has always been a commercial venture, and articles like the one in the Washington Post make the now tiresome comment that people who complain don't understand that they are commodities and not clients. Sadly, I think that's now true for members of GR as well, but it didn't start that way and that wasn't the original mandate. People were mislead, and they have every right to protest.

You don't think Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ started as a commercial venture? I wasn't here when it started, but I certainly got the impression that it was always intended to be commercial. Tiresome as it is, most of the people who complain, _don't_ know they're commodities. It doesn't help those of us who do, though, to make that point. Commodities or not, we're the ones who make the content, and GR is cutting off its nose to spite its face, as my mother likes to say.

MUST READ: Ceridwen's analysis of the data pertaining to deleted reviews. This is great if people want to know the specifics of what GR has been doing.


I wasn't aware of the implications of some of GR's recent actions before reading this piece. For example: since many of the reviews GR deleted weren't actual "reviews" (ie there was nothing in the "review" field, and no star rating) what GR is actually censoring is the comments thread below the reviews. Which is absolutely disgusting AND makes a lie of GR's stated intentions. Anyway, I digress.

Please. Read. This.

Ruby [Doesn't Like Being Censored] wrote: "MUST READ: Ceridwen's analysis of the data pertaining to deleted reviews. This is great if people want to know the specifics of what GR has been doing.
..."

Ah! I had not actually thought through to the implications about the comment threads.

Derek (GR: TELL your users about the censorship policy!) wrote: "Ruby [Doesn't Like Being Censored] wrote: "MUST READ: Ceridwen's analysis of the data pertaining to deleted reviews. This is great if people want to know the specifics of what GR has been doing.
h..."

Same. It's good to see a piece that explains it all, as well as providing some concrete facts.

Ruby [Doesn't Like Being Censored] wrote: "MUST READ: Ceridwen's analysis of the data pertaining to deleted reviews. This is great if people want to know the specifics of what GR has been doing.
..."

YES. I've been waiting for the breakdown of the data she's been collecting.

Mark wrote: "Not sure if this fits entirely here but this discussion by best selling authors about best sellers is very interesting.

Jennifer Byrne Presents"

Ugh. I can just about tolerate J Byrne for the once a month Book Club show, but barely. I always feel like she's missing the points the panelists are making. And her taste level is really suspect.

My favourite part of the October Book Club show was after she rushed to say how lovely she thought the terribly, sickly sweet love story was, (after all of the panelists had slammed it), and Marieke Hardy dead-panned, "Quel surprise."

Serioulsy though, someone should start a thread for book show links. I'd like to see what other book shows are around right now in other places.

I will have a look at this link a bit later - sometime when it's not 3am, and i haven't just spent a hour cleaning up dead lizards and live ants. Stupid tropics. On the plus side, Swanky just "saved me from a rather realistic looking rubber & fur taratunala I was planning on making into a fascinator. Alerted me to danger, investigated & dragged me out of the room by force. Awesome guard cat.

Now delirious, sleep-deprived Ruby is off to nigh-nighs..

Bahaha! I'm just re-reading my sleep post from last night. It seems I've invented a new spider - the "tarantunala"! Part spider, part tuna. She'd love that!

Okay - I'll go watch that clip now..

This is a better piece on the issues from Salon:

Ruby [Says NO to GoodReads censorship] wrote: "This is a better piece on the issues from Salon: "

That is actually really good. So much better than her last piece, which was this breezy thing about the Lauren Pippa mess that was badly researched.

Ceridwen wrote: "That is actually really good. So much better than her last piece, which was this breezy thing about the Lauren Pippa mess that was badly researched. ..."

I agree. I think it could have touched on the censorship issues a little more, but it isn't a bad summary overall. It sounds like she heard our concerns about her first piece.

....and my review of Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship got deleted without prior warning. My review on censorship WAS actually censored. Nice work GoodReads.

Ceridwen - would you like me to send you the details for your data?

An interesting sidenote too - they send you a copy of the review they delete, but not the comments thread.

Ruby [Says NO to GoodReads censorship] wrote: "....and my review of Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship got deleted without prior warning. My review on censorship WAS actually censored. Nice work GoodReads.

Ceridwen - would you like me to sen..."

Fucking assholes.

Yes, please, send me your data. I guess I'll keep collecting as long as Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ keeps censoring.

Ruby [Says NO to GoodReads censorship] wrote: "....and my review of Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship got deleted without prior warning. My review on censorship WAS actually censored. Nice work GoodReads..."

And did they explain exactly how that violated terms of service, since it had nothing to do with an author's personal life?

Here's the text of their takedown notice (after it was already taken down):


Hi Ruby,

Your review of Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship was recently flagged by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ members as potentially off-topic. As the review is not about the book, it has been removed from the site. You can find the text of the review attached for your personal records.

To clarify, mentioning J.M. Coetzee's background in your review is within our guidelines. If you would like to write a review of this book that includes this information, you are welcome to.

Sincerely,
The Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Team


AND just so you can see, here's the text of the review. I'll tag it so it doesn't take up the whole page: (view spoiler)[
Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship, by J.M. Coetzee

Would GoodReads Censor A Review On A Book About Censorship? Let's find out, shall we...

I've been an active GoodReads contributor for a couple of years now. I review every book I read, I run a discussion group, I'm a GR Librarian. I spend countless hours every week, (well, they are probably countable but I can't be arsed), on this site creating content for GoodReads Amazon. I won't pretend I'm happy about that last bit.

When I first joined GoodReads, I spent a lot more countable-but-not-presently-counted hours up to my eyeballs in administrative tasks associated with the book data we all use. I stopped doing that when the mountains of data and content that I had created was sold to Amazon without my seeing a cent of the profits. Since Amazon have been here they've done some pretty shitty things, and they really don't seem to value the hard work I've done for them. They seem to be quite content making out that they are doing us all a favour, providing us with a free (albeit dripping-with-advertising) service - rather than acknowledging that they're making a fortune from our content and data.

Now it seems GoodReads has decided to go hard with a policy of deleting reviews and bookshelves* they don't like. I really can't be much more specific than that, because that's about as specific as GoodReads has been. From what little they have communicated to us, it seems to be "anything anyone working for GR thinks could offend anyone else or could potentially be perceived by anyone else as an insult to a writer". There is no way of knowing what that might be. We've been told that any posts or shelves focussing on the author's behaviour will be deleted. This includes authors who harass GoodReads users, and presumably precludes us from even discussing something likeMein Kampf. This is censorship, as if you need me to point that out, and that is a very slippery slope.

The author of this book, J.M. Coetzee is a famously reclusive, reportedly humourless bloke. Am I allowed to mention that anymore?

GoodReads made these policy changes sneakily: no emails to us, no warning or notification of any kind for the people having their reviews deleted, no response to our reasonable concerns. Reviews and shelves are quietly being deleted, and there have been plenty of screenshots around to prove it. So now I am not only outraged by the knowledge that our posts are actively being policed and censored, but I'm quite frankly creeped out by the whole thing. Who is making the decisions? What are their criteria? Why do they refuse to talk to us about it? Why are they doing it so stealthily? Why can't they notify someone who's about to have their content deleted?

Most importantly of all..... where will it end? That last question I CAN actually answer: A site where the bulk of the reviews are positive and critique-free - whether or not that book deserves it. Where any negative reviews are limited to "it's my fault for not picking a book which is more suited to my peculiar tastes". A site where people can't talk about the elephant of author behaviour in the room.
A site where all reviews are suspect.

The whole value of GR has been that we can see honest reviews from people we trust. If people can't write an honest review about their experience with the book (and its author), then that review has no value.

GOODREADS: Please just do the right thing. People have invested a lot of time and effort in this site. They will cooperate with you IF you treat them respectfully. Censorship, though..... obviously that's going to go down like a tonne of bricks on a literature site.

*For the benefit of people who don't use GoodReads - "bookshelves" on GoodReads aren't just used to sort our lists of books, they are a tagging function. They are what we use to comment succinctly on a range of issues relating to that book. They are also what we use to warn each other about spammers, abusive authors, sock-puppet (fake) accounts, and anything else that a potential reader/reviewer may need to know before they engage with that book. I say "engage" because even shelving a book as "want to read", alerts the author that you have shown interest and can open the door to that author targeting you.

[edit] Postscript: What annoys me no end, is that the media and some other commentators are portraying GR users as if we're simply refusing to accept the corporate reality of a "free-service" that Amazon are providing us with. What they don't seem to be aware of is that, unlike many other sites, it's the users that created this database, including the book data, as well as all the content, as well as taking care of a lot of their administration, as well as a big chunk of their "help" functions etc etc. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to have certain expectations of the site we built & maintain.

[edit] Please also see Carol's excellent summary of ways you can help spread the word about this issue:http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...

[edit] Must Read Ceridwen's Brilliant Analysis of the Deleted Review Data: -...
This shows the authors associated with the deleted reviews & bookshelves as well as showing the real target of GR's censorship - The comments threads. (hide spoiler)]

It's the "off-topic" bullshit they've used before.

I found a copy in my email with better formatting and links (I get an email every day of my friends' reviews). Can you check your inbox, Ruby?

Ruby [Says NO to GoodReads censorship] wrote: "Here's the text of their takedown notice (after it was already taken down):


Hi Ruby,

Your review of Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship was recently flagged by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ members as potentially..."

It is wrong of us to question their policies. Especially when it's on-topic to do so.

Ceridwen wrote: "It's the "off-topic" bullshit they've used before.

I found a copy in my email with better formatting and links (I get an email every day of my friends' reviews). Can you check your inbox, Ruby?"

Yeah, sorry. I didn't fix up the links in this post yet, but I did fix up the version on my blog. I've sent you a link in your inbox.

I don't get email notifications, and the screencaps I took were of earlier versions (before I added those links in).

Here's the blog link, in case my post here gets censored:
Review here:
Takedown Notice here:

Apologies for shitty formatting. I don't get around to using my blog very often!

And Manny's hydra is taking off:
Here's his: /review/show...
Here's mine: /review/show...

If you've had anything deleted, it's a good way to get it back out there.

Given that GR has decided to invoke gulag principles and remove any content that doesn't involve gushing reviews of their potential advertisers, I suspect it won't be long before they start removing those troublesome users who still believe in a free exchange of ideas.

So, Ruby, is there at least one person who has personal contact information for you, so that when GR disappears you we can make sure they didn't send an army of militarized Care Bears on an assassination mission?

Ruby lives in Queensland � they hardly need to send militarized Care Bears: everything's fatal.

LOL. Yeah. I was held hostage by a goanna two days ago. I'm good.

I thought long & hard about whether to go nuclear or not. I actually decided not, because I don't really have the right to get myself disappeared and take the group with me.

That said, they seem to be on the verge of a mass execution from what I've seen, and I don't think they're being too picky. If so, it has been nice knowing you.

I'm happy to exchange email addresses just in case. And I have a backup plan.

Oh, and since this IS a book thread. Here's a recommendation for everyone: /book/show/1...
It's free online, and I'm sure they'd welcome a review.