Why are there so many more people on GoodReads? - (#2)

Since the old thread was long and tangent-y, I have started a new one for people that want to continue talking about what GoodReads has or doesn't have compared to Librarything.

Link to previous thread.

Thanks SqueakyChu!

You're welcome. I wouldn't want anyone to miss the first part of this discussion! :)

This is just a bit of rant, I just thought this one was over the top and it didn’t have anything to do with me I wanted to see the answer to the newbies question and was shocked at the responses.
This new member was asking a simple question and was treated so rudely LT is lucky they are still a member..
http://www.librarything.com/topic/80367
I have seen it time and again on here in the groups where people are just plain mean.
And then you wonder why so many people are put off by Library Things better than you attitude.

I'm on both. I'm here more often, though. This is my library. Good Reads is my journal.

>5 susiesharp: I absolutely agree.

That discussion also raised some other relevant points: does LT deliberately make it hard to add books? And is there a place here for people who don't care about perfect bibliographic data?

>6 bookishbunny: I'm curious: why did you choose to use GR as your journal rather than LT?

That's just how I started using both sites. It was before there was an option to list a book as "read but not owned", though I just started using that feature now.

>5 susiesharp: Some (certainly not all) of those responses were extremely rude, and I've had it happen to me, too, but I don't know if it's an LT characteristic. It's a common occurrence on unmoderated chats and says more about how nasty some people can be, given the chance, than LT membership as a whole. If GR is free of such disagreeable posters I'd be quite impressed.

Well I haven't seen it yet in any of the groups I belong to over at GR although I'm sure there are examples there to..I only clicked on that topic because I thought that would be a nice a feature to have and was just so shocked at how this new member was treated.I just thought wow what a horrible first impression.

>5 susiesharp: Wow. Some of the responses were nasty and totally uncalled for. Talk about not being nice. Since when is a request for assistance/information being called whining?

That discussion also raised some other relevant points: does LT deliberately make it hard to add books? And is there a place here for people who don't care about perfect bibliographic data?

1) Deliberately? I doubt it, but yes it could be a little easier.
2) Yup. I could care less about about perfect bibliographic data, but this site works fine for me for both lazy cataloging and interesting conversation.

I find it very easy to enter books that have ISBNs.

I've seen GR get at least as rude. That's why I started using LT talk instead.

I think that all open online communities include some members who display a level of aggression that would be considered unacceptable in most RL interactions. Some of these people would be more moderate in person and others have limited social exchanges in RL. This is why I tend to express my discomfort or displeasure with such behaviour when it arises. Whenever we let it pass uncommented, we tacitly condone it.

In general, however, LT seems more courteous than most other online forums.

sez you! step outside and say that, clarkey.

My mistake!

Goodreads members probably enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3enbL8O3mR0

OK, maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it. Well, never mind....

Anyway, this site is much more polite than other places I have been to, including health-related message boards (go figure), animal rescue (go figure again) etc. Of course, I haven't visited the politically related boards on LT, so I am probably missing a lot.

k4k

>20 krazy4katz:

The point is that bright red blinking advertisements are really annoying. LibraryThing has no ads for members. Goodreads had that!

Of course, I haven't visited the politically related boards on LT, so I am probably missing a lot.

Um. I recommend not...

>20 krazy4katz: Sadly, I'd also recommend staying away from Recommend Site Improvements for its level of snark and disagreeableness. Nowhere near the political groups, but still unpleasant enough to avoid.

I'm a little late to this topic (after slogging through Topic #1), but I'll put in bit, even though my thoughts maybe somewhat redundant.

A) First off as a preface, I'm a casual user of LT, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I use LT for keeping track of my 'pleasure' reading, while for my 'serious' reading (mostly journal articles) I use other resources. From what I've seen in various posts, there are some very dedicated, very serious users of Librarything. There is a certain group that is concerned with many minute details (cover source, book editions, birth dates, etc.) that I just find unimportant. Not that is is necessarily a bad thing, it's just not my interest.

B) My wife uses GR, while I use LT. It's perfect for her. She uses it to get book recommendations, keep in touch with friends and see what they're reading. In other words GR works great for her as as a social network site. I would not recommend her to use LT. It's just too complicated for her purposes. I use LT to keep track of books I've read or want to read. I don't use it to keep track of a physical library. I have little interest in using GR because I find the cataloging abilities of it too limited.

C) Social-based tools are just nifty. For instance, I'm always on the look out for book recommendations. I find the LT recommendations lacking. The algorithms don't seem to work very well and in fact I think there is a huge wall for algorithm-based recommendation methods. Look at Netflix - they had a $1000000 contest for someone to develop an algorithm with 10% better recommendations. We need algorithms that are 1000% better not 10%!

LT does have user-defined recommendations, but I think GR kicks the pants off LT in this area. Maybe I haven't learned to how to fully use LT, but why should there be a learning curve for something so simple? When I want to find books to read I'll typically look at Amazon. It has very nice recommendations and lists of all sorts (great social-based tools for readers).

D) So back to the original question - why are there more people on GoodReads - I would guess that there are more 'casual' readers in the world than librarians or would-be librarians. A lot of the features of GR appeal to the casual reader.

So where does that leave us? I definitely think that LT could appeal to a wider audience by incorporating more social-oriented tools, but change in this area seems slow. Perhaps this is on purpose. I don't know. But I would like to see LT become the site readers turn to, rather than the site librarians turn to.

7: does LT deliberately make it hard to add books? And is there a place here for people who don't care about perfect bibliographic data?

What's hard about it? And sure, you could just enter any edition that first comes up in any search. Nobody is checking if you have the correct data for your books after all.

> 24
Not to mention that manually adding a book with only a title and an author takes about a second and a half...

>24 Nicole_VanK:, 25 - You realize this is part of the problem, right? A user comes in and says, "this is a part of LT that is perceptually difficult to use" and people immediately come in and say, "NO IT IS NOT!" and refuse to listen to the suggestion.

It's not as attacking in this thread as I've seen, but it's still downright snitty and dismissive. Yes, it's easy to you, but this suggestion comes up time and time again.

So either everyone is a moron and deserves derision or maybe, just maybe, there's something to the perception...

>26 stephmo:

Saying that something easy is difficult just to make someone think it can be done better is not the way to go. I do not disagree that the adding can be made easier (or at least that an alternative way can be added) but I do not agree that the way we have now is that hard.

24, 25: That's true, and I've always found it difficult to understand why people find adding books confusing, when there's a tab on every page for "Add Books," but the fact is that many, many people try to add by first searching LT for the book and then trying to add it from there (i.e. via the Search tab, then the work page, then the very inefficient green plus sign). For what ever reason, that's the way that they expect or that seems most intuitive.

Having seen so many discussions about this now, I'm more convinced that LT could do something more in the UI to make this clearer if possible (like adding an "add books" section to the Search page, which could simply be a message like "Adding Books? Click here.") and especially to make the green plus sign work better, with fewer steps and more accurate results (e.g. via an edition-sensitive lightbox).

> 26: That's why I'm asking "what's difficult about it?" How is that "derisive", "dismissive" or "snitty"? Where did you see me use the word "moron"?

And it's not like Zoe, the poster of #7, would be newbie user. So that can't be the problem. I really don't get it. Just what is so hard about entering books on LT???

But, if we're going that way, my question would be: will there still be place on LT for people who do care about bibliographic data? Is it so awful that people could want to catalogue their books here? It's the main reason why I came here, after trying both Shelfari and GoodReads.

I'm getting the impression that, quite the reverse, you're the one who's dealing out the snitty dismission here.

>29 Nicole_VanK: You know how to enter books. You can't unknow what you know.

But, hey, if I need to be the villain so you feel better and every new user that leaves LT for a site that makes cataloging easier grabs larger shares of new users, so be it.

You can be right. Feel good about it all day long.

>28 rsterling: but the fact is that many, many people try to add by first searching LT for the book and then trying to add it from there (i.e. via the Search tab, then the work page, then the very inefficient green plus sign). For what ever reason, that's the way that they expect or that seems most intuitive.

That is the way you add books on GoodReads, so that's probably one major reason.

>29 Nicole_VanK: But, if we're going that way, my question would be: will there still be place on LT for people who do care about bibliographic data?

I'm a cataloger by trade. I'm very picky with my data. I even refuse to catalog anything I don't actually own. But is there really a way that other people's catalogs and methods will affect my own? As long as combining works properly, I will never even know how careless or inaccurate or incomplete the records of others are, so what's the harm?

>31 kristenn: - It's not just GoodReads - it's any site on the net with an add or plus sign. It doesn't matter if it's even strictly cataloging. It can be a site where you track progress on things, adopt lists of things, track goals, join clubs, join groups - anything - even if you're a kid adding accessories to your virtual pet.

In terms of UI, there's almost always a long way and a quick way. The plus sign offers what looks like a quick way, but is actually just an extra step to the long way.

But, hey, I am probably wrong. Take this with a grain of salt.

> 30: Actually it's scarily easy to forget how to do things. Hope it never happens to you.

But okay, I'm the big bad elitist scaring away new users for asking why something is seen as so difficult. So, indeed, be it....

p.s.: But I totally agree with you guys on the current use of the green plus button. That does need improvement.

32 It's not just GoodReads - it's any site on the net with an add or plus sign. ... The plus sign offers what looks like a quick way, but is actually just an extra step to the long way.

All this is why I think the plus sign process could be improved in a way that makes it more efficient and quick, and that preserves data quality*. If the plus sign initiated a light box or other dialogue that asked people to click on the edition they wanted, with the most common at the top, and then did an ISBN search -- of course, with the option of selecting the source to search and of skipping to manual edit if desired or necessary -- this would get rid of a lot of the confusion ("but I clicked on the book I wanted, so why do I have to find it again on the add books page?"). I tried to explain this suggestion more clearly here.

* I do think data quality is important and crucial to this site as a whole. When books have a title from one work but an ISBN for another, for instance, it can mess up combinations and data quality for everyone, along with features that rely on work combination: recommendations, etc.
(edited for clarity)

5> I have experienced this firsthand, as recently as today, and it takes a thick skin to survive many of the forums on LT. I try to use humour to defuse the situation as much as possible. Sometimes I am successful, most times I am not. There are bullies in every internet venue, and although they may be more literate, LT has its share, as well.

BarkingMatt, despite your intentions, your question in msg 24 comes across as more sarcastic than sincere. I'm sure its that difficulty in reading tone on the internet. If instead of bluntly saying "What's hard about it?" something like "I really don't see what's so hard about...".

> 31: But is there really a way that other people's catalogs and methods will affect my own? As long as combining works properly, I will never even know how careless or inaccurate or incomplete the records of others are, so what's the harm?

But, first of all, that's a big IF. Funky cataloging can lead to all sorts of combination errors. I've recently unraveled this author page (http://www.librarything.com/author/andersenf) for instance. It seems to be the result of some source giving "andersen f" (followed by a distinguishing year of birth only) for any author surnamed Andersen.

Secondly, but that's just me, before coming to LT I ran from Shelfari because it simply didn't allow me to enter my books. It didn't allow me to enter multiple - different - editions of any work. It didn't allow me to enter anything not already known to the system. It was bloody useless - for me at least. I would hate to see LT going a similar way.

37> I think if you venture onto political groups in any venue you need to put on your hard hat and hip boots.

> 36: Okay, I guess. If so that was unintentional. Might also be due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker.

> 38: Let's see: Hardhat: check. Hip boots: now where did I put those boots? ;-)

BarkingMatt, I agree that I want my books listed on LT, down to the edition and dust jacket. There are plenty of other resources for just general listing of books one has read, or wants to read, etc. It would be sad to lose the only (to my knowledge) site where I can catalog my actual library because it takes a few extra clicks for other to add to their wishlist.

eta: As a side note, I just started using the wishlist feature, and it seems very easy to add to it, so I am curious about what some people are finding difficult. Or is it just seen as burdensome?

38> Agreed, and a host of others. I will run down to the store and pick up those necessary items, straight away. But, might I ask, why is it okay for some to bulldoze others, and why do members of the forums seldom speak up about this? Is it the futility of thinking that the perpetrators might see the light? Or is it just throwing one's hands in the air and saying, "Oy, I think it's time to go prune the hedges."

41

People don't change so easily. I have tried (on other boards, not these) to sweetly, gently, altruistically change hearts and minds, as they say. I don't think the internet, where everyone can be somebody else, is the place to do it effectively. People who behave in an "inappropriate way" either enjoy it or are somehow releasing very strong hostility by foisting it on others. Even when I think I have succeeded -- gotten an apology or something close to it -- the effect is gone a couple of days later.

... and we wonder why we have so many wars...

k4k

K.J./41: And sometimes they enjoy pulling others into the vortex. To keep from escalations, sometimes folks just stay out of the whole issue.

>23 aarondesk: Great post, aarondesk. Lots to think about there.

And it's not like Zoe, the poster of #7, would be newbie user. So that can't be the problem. I really don't get it. Just what is so hard about entering books on LT???

Sorry, I should replace "hard" with "inconvenient". I'm constantly trying to focus on this distinction, but even I get careless sometimes.

It would also be worthwhile to provide some context for my comment. Sometimes I assume that everyone who reads this forum also reads the majority of the threads in RSI, which isn't actually the case.

So, in the other thread, there was a suggestion for an easier way to add series, where "easier" means faster and more convenient. For example, having checkboxes on the series page, so that we could quickly select the books we wanted and then add generic editions (title/author/cover only--I know cover isn't entirely generic, but I think the people who would use this feature would generally prefer a wrong cover to no cover at all. Anyway, that's a side issue).

The point was then raised that Tim might be deliberately avoiding quick series adding, because it would lead to inflated wishlists and overly large libraries. This is what I was referring to when I asked whether LT was deliberately making it "hard", but what I really meant was "far less convenient than it could be".

Anyway, I don't think allowing one person to add quick generic editions would detract from another person's careful cataloguing.

On the topic of what people expect: they expect to be able to add a book quickly from any place where they see the book on the site. The work page, someone else's catalogue, whatever. They don't expect to be directed to another page to perform a search that may not even be successful.

Funky cataloging can lead to all sorts of combination errors.

I do think that in some ways, LT needs to fundamentally rethink the way a single book affects an entire work. When there are 10,000 copies of one work, and someone mistakenly adds another single book that shares an ISBN with a different work, it shouldn't cause the whole system to crash and burn. Rather than protecting against bad cataloguing by making everything less convenient, LT should find a technical solution so that bad cataloguing doesn't do so much harm.

But, might I ask, why is it okay for some to bulldoze others, and why do members of the forums seldom speak up about this?

I've found that people do generally speak up. Not everyone, of course, but I've still gotten plenty of support on these forums.

> 41 I'm finding that there is a segment of people who equate having a right to be mean as having a mandate to be mean. Whereas I feel just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do it.

Then, when called on it, it is always your fault for having a "thin skin" rather than their own rude behavior.

In order for there to be change, the person has to be willing to change.

So, basically, I'm down with changing things to make casual adding easier. It's on my list, along with some other major cataloging changes.

Unfortunately, it depends, in part, on some work that Casey has been doing for many months--getting correctly-parsed and sourced MARC and Amazon records for all books in LibraryThing. This work has dragged on and on and on, for various reasons. I'd show you the bald patches, where I've pulled my hair out, but what good is that?

In general, this shows a "problem" that LT has, that is the flip side of a virtue. We care about correct data, diverse data sources and so forth. It would all be easier if we did what our competitors did--had uneditable data provided exclusively by Amazon, and to heck with the rest.

That said, the delay on this has been inexcusable.

"When there are 10,000 copies of one work, and someone mistakenly adds another single book that shares an ISBN with a different work, it shouldn't cause the whole system to crash and burn. Rather than protecting against bad cataloguing by making everything less convenient, LT should find a technical solution so that bad cataloguing doesn't do so much harm."

A very astute suggestion. An algorithm that promotes the majority data at the expense of minority aberrations -- that would be great.

It doesn't crash and burn. When a new edition enters the system it has to guess where it should go. It goes through a cascade of choices. Ultimately, if it has nothing better to go on than an ISBN, it uses that.

>46 timspalding: I'm glad to hear it's coming. What exactly is it, though? It sounds like this isn't quite the "generic" edition that people want for various reasons, but LT-based specific editions?

It doesn't crash and burn.

Well, it apparently does something really, really, bad, to justify crippling the green plus sign.

"Crash and burn" is indeed way too strong. But it could, for example, lead to two very different books being suggested for combination in "editions". And then it's only a matter of time before "some well-meaning but deplorably uninformed person" actually does combine them. I dread the day when somebody will come along and combine all of Shakespeare because of something like this.

I dread the day when somebody will come along and combine all of Shakespeare because of something like this.

Right. And you shouldn't have to. At this stage, there should be technical restraints in place to prevent things from going seriously wrong, no matter what some "well-meaning but deplorably uninformed person" does.

I don't think that LT is particularly hard or even inconvenient to enter books into. Sure, you can only do it one book at a time, but that's the price that you will probably have to pay for accuracy. I'm glad there are other sites that are quicker and easier, but less accurate with data. For people for whom that is what they want, they provide a useful service. For others, like me, who want precision in their catalog, it seems like LT is probably just about right. I don't want speed and convenience as the cost of accuracy.

(As an aside, I think it should be noted that the guy complaining about being "bulldozed" is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Perhaps others didn't rally to his defense because they recognized that he was spouting bullshit and got called on it).

>51 _Zoe_:

Combining all the books from one author together has nothing to do with having an alternative way to add books Some people just combine anything that gets proposed because they believe that the site knows better:) I had been untangling a few authors that had this happen to them in the last months - thankfully no major one so it never took a lot of time.

I don't want speed and convenience as the cost of accuracy.

No one is suggesting that you personally have to choose the quick and convenient but less accurate way. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for others, though.

>53 AnnieMod: But why does the site propose bad combinations? Why doesn't it know better? I do think this is related to convenience of adding in some way. What were the exact reasons for changing the green plus sign? I know it's "bad data", but more precisely?

I don't think that LT is particularly hard or even inconvenient to enter books into

It's a real split in perception, and not really worth arguing. In general, it's one reason we are who we are now--smaller, perhaps, than we might be, but also full of lots of committed, classy people, like you fine folk :) . Still, we need to do it better.

As I said, hair pulling. I did resist this idea for a while, but we're talking about 6-12 months ago.

Perhaps others didn't rally to his defense because they recognized that he was spouting bullshit and got called on it

I don't know the situation there, but I'm certainly glad the 9/11 truther group has largely died.

>54 _Zoe_:
No idea for the green plus :) But for the bad proposed combinations:
A few different cases: Same ISBNs and titles that start in the same way are the reason in most cases. But in a lot of cases lately a bad combination that is not cleaned ok causes it also - the real copies of the wrong combination are removed but the 0/0 are still tangled in the wrong work so the link still exists (because we now do not see the 0/0 ones in the Editions list and someone need to remember to get them off also and most of the people do not know or just do not have the patience to do it especially on bigger works). And sometimes some works get combined by mistakes - and then someone does not clean the mess.

No one is suggesting that you personally have to choose the quick and convenient but less accurate way. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for others, though.

The thing is, right now, if you don't care about accuracy, you can speed up entering books right now. Just punch in the name, take the first edition that pops up, and you're done.

For others, like me, who want precision in their catalog, it seems like LT is probably just about right. I don't want speed and convenience as the cost of accuracy.

I don't think anyone asking to make things easier is suggesting this is the sacrifice.

And it's a shame that this is the flip side of the perception - that ease of entry must somehow mean a terrible loss in the quality of data. I think everyone is asking that there be a way to do both.

If nothing else, the green check could just grab the most popular version of a work - if there's only one manual version of it, that's the most accurate the site has anyway. This is close to the generic version idea, but it's an actual copy of an existing edition. For instance, if you wanted to wishlist The Book Thief, it grabs and warns you that it's grabbing The Book Thief / Markus Zusak (ISBN 0375842209) because at 4326 copies, that's the most popular version on the site. Of course, it could always say, "is this the one you want?" and offer more versions...

ETA -

The thing is, right now, if you don't care about accuracy, you can speed up entering books right now. Just punch in the name, take the first edition that pops up, and you're done.

But this is where the perception falls down with the green plus. If someone wanted to enter it manually, they'd enter it manually. They just want to slam in a copy with one click - not type in stuff. That's the perception we're missing.

So many interesting comments today! I find it very easy to catalog books but must say I have encountered rudeness and meanness on the threads. I rarely enter anything anymore.

But this is where the perception falls down with the green plus. If someone wanted to enter it manually, they'd enter it manually. They just want to slam in a copy with one click - not type in stuff. That's the perception we're missing.

Exactly.

But this is where the perception falls down with the green plus. If someone wanted to enter it manually, they'd enter it manually. They just want to slam in a copy with one click - not type in stuff. That's the perception we're missing.

So don't just disable the green plus, get rid of it. The divergence of perception and reality is resolved.

>61 StormRaven: No, people are still going to want a faster way to enter books.

If the green plus sign could be more efficient for books that actually have a source that would help enormously. If all copies of a particular book were added manually, how hard would it be for the green plus to generate a message that says, "Sorry, all copies of this book were added manually, and so you may be unable to find this book ...blah, blah - would you like to add it manually?" Or even to disable or remove the green plus sign where all editions of a book were added manually?

>63 rsterling: I think it's for books added manually that the green plus is most needed.

62: But you have to admit that perception will no longer be at odds with reality.

>65 StormRaven: Honestly, by this point I'm not sure anymore what "perception" stephmo was talking about.

If you mean that people would no longer see a button that worked differently from what they expected, that's true.

But the expectation would remain the same--instead of questions about why the adding-from-the-work-page button doesn't work properly, there would be questions about why we don't have a convenient button for adding from the work page.

52> Sorry, sweetheart, but I wasn't referring to you in the message. Someone else has that distinction.

However, since you popped up, I am getting a little tired of you labeling me, and trying to discredit anything I say because of the label you attach to my person. I have tried being reasonable with you, and throwing in humour to diffuse your vitriol, and nothing seems to work. Is it me, or my lifestyle that gets up your nose? Either way, grow up and get over it.

As for 'getting called on it' when you disprove the facts as they are, then you can make that call. Just calling me a 'wingnut' doesn't support your claim. Put your money where your jaws are working overtime and prove me wrong. Or, if I am such a hindrance to your peace of mind, then take on Richard Gage, at Architects and Engineers for Truth.

I apologize to the others in this thread for having to post this response, but I've had enough of this juvenile activity. I had thought this would be a place for civilized discourse.

42 & 43 & 45> Great insight, and some sage advice. I will keep all of this in mind. Merci.

As for 'getting called on it' when you disprove the facts as they are, then you can make that call. Just calling me a 'wingnut' doesn't support your claim. Put your money where your jaws are working overtime and prove me wrong. Or, if I am such a hindrance to your peace of mind, then take on Richard Gage, at Architects and Engineers for Truth.

I don't need to prove a wingnut like Gage (who got his information about the government conspiracy from a wingut theologian conspiracy theorist) is wrong. The NIST has done this already. As have actual experts in the structural engineering field. When told of Gage's claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science." A spokesperson for NIST said the agency's computer models were highly reliable in assessing the amount of fireproofing dislodged, a factor that would not be present in other steel buildings cited by Gage. Basically, Gage is a wingut who has no credibility. That you cite him as your authority demonstrates that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

> 67, 69

Please, take it elsewhere. I have no objection to the occasional digression, but your personal dispute has no place here.

Thank you.

I agree the green plus sign is especially needed for works that have only been entered manually. Why make someone re-invent the wheel ?

I would like the ability to add generic editions. I am using Read But Unowned in my wishlist account to add stuff I read in school. I don't have the books anymore so I have no idea what edition it was.

Yes, I do go to the add page with the intention of adding the first one, but I see the options and I think maybe I can find a familiar cover, and start searching.... and its not a fast job anymore.

I don't see why the generics couldn't be constructed so they don't muck up the data that is so important to many.

I also agree that there should be a way so that one combiner can't mess up a book with thousands of copies. Talk about a needle in a haystack.

I'm curious--what part of message 67 constitutes abuse?

I wonder if Tim's alcohol consumption has increased since he birthed LT... I'm guessing it has.

Both 67 and 69 are an abuse of my patience in this thread. If I wanna read pro/con flamewars about 9/11 and people "yelling" at each other about it, I'd go to groups dedicated to it.

>74 KingRat:

Agreed. So, back to topic, I think.

I think more people are on GoodReads because of the name. Would you prefer a good read, or a thing? If LT was renamed GreatLibrary, people would come flocking in. LibraryWow! would work also, but you'd have to include the screamer.

Overcoming my determinaton to treat everything Andrew says (ever) as being intended for comic effect, I must say that I tend to agree about the relative popular appeal of the names GoodReads and LibraryThing. Implicitly, one is for readers and the other for librarians. We know that this is not so but the tyro making a choice does not. Humans judge books by their covers.

So, MrA, you think the guys cybercamped on www.GoodThing.com are wasting their time?

They overlooked libraryreads.com, however.

75> I didn't choose to bring it here, and I even asked you for guidance, on your profile page, in private, so as not to stir things up more. I have not received a reply, so I can only surmise that this type of attitude is acceptable on LT, in forums. I don't live this way, and I don't intend to become a 'flamethrower on LT.' If there are forums where you allow this attitude, it would be helpful if you would list them this way, so that myself and others can avoid them.

As for flagging me for abuse, I don't get that, and I guess my apology to the folks in this thread for responding to the attack from #52 was not considered sufficient. Perfection in all things still eludes me.

Off-topic posting isn't against the terms of service so I counter-flagged both the messages that were flagged, Tim's bizarre support of it to the contrary.

Yeah, I'm hoping Tim will clarify his position. If "abuse of patience" is now grounds for flagging, I foresee some problems in the future....

--> 76

You're hilarious! Tim is as likely to change its name as he is to change the Band-Aid color of the logo. :)

#82, he wasn't agreeing with the flags was he? Just with the patience trying bit. That's how I read it. No comment on the flags.

Forgive me as I haven't trawled through these threads, but has anyone made a simple pair of comparative lists for things LT does and things Goodreads does and seen how they face off against each other? If so, what are the glaring differences in *function* between the two?

I haven't made a comprehensive list, but the main thing I go to GR for is their List feature, which LT doesn't have at all.

ETA: :(

#84 -- That was how I read it, as well. And I would also be interested in seeing such a list. I've never done more than glance at the Goodreads homepage, being completely entrenched in LT, so I'd definitely be the wrong person to attempt such a thing.

>76 MrAndrew:

I think there's something to the name issue, but it's not quite what you think. I certainly had no librarian focus in mind when I started LibraryThing. I just have always considered my books, and my family's books from which they sprang, as a library. I reject the idea "library" means a municipal building as much for free computer access and after school babysitting as for storing books.

That said, the direct source of the name was a joke on Lovecraftian themes--the site was the Thing in the Library. But it was a private library, of course.

Tim's bizarre support of it to the contrary

In a message on another topic I made the observation that I'm glad the 9/11 Truthers group is no longer popular.

I don't think there's anywhere that it's said that off-topic digressions are against the TOS. Systemmatic abuse for spammy ends would be, of course, but that's not what's going on here.

No comment on the flags.

I don't think the flags were there, actually. If they were, I wasn't agreeing with them. I think that a complaint may have arisen in connection with this. I'm not, frankly, sure, but I got a complaint recently about a thread I was on personally, and, as I do when my impartiality could be questioned, I forwarded it straight to Abby.

I haven't made a comprehensive list, but the main thing I go to GR for is their List feature, which LT doesn't have at all.

I don't think you're in the majority here as regards the feature. But yeah, I think it would be a good thing for us.

I don't think you're in the majority here as regards the feature. But yeah, I think it would be a good thing for us.

What do you mean by "in the majority"? You don't think most LT users want this, or you don't think this is the reason people go to GR?

I ask only out of curiosity, since you did say you think it would be a good thing. And it certainly seems to be one of the most-wanted features here, right up there with wishlist separation.

The latter. I have to say, I think it's high. But I don't think it's in the top 2 or 3.

Tim- I think you made my day. There is hope for lists on LT!

Sure. They come after Facebook, probably. I'm quite tempted to just bang them out—I think I could do it in a hard weekend, frankly. But I have a bunch of other stuff to do, and I should spend that weekend on Facebook, or whatever.

Well, in an unofficial survey of "small" improvements it was #2 after 25 responses.

I think it's time for some more polls....

If it will only take two weekends, I'm hoping for both Facebook and Lists by the end of the month ;)

#94: you'll probably see them in "about two weeks"

57> No comment on the flags.

I don't think the flags were there, actually. If they were, I wasn't agreeing with them. I think that a complaint may have arisen in connection with this. I'm not, frankly, sure, but I got a complaint recently about a thread I was on personally, and, as I do when my impartiality could be questioned, I forwarded it straight to Abby.

Um, not quite. You responded to #74 after that person flagged me, and Abby only responded after I posted message #80, while I was out of the office, even though I left that message yesterday. I'm not trying to cause trouble, Tim, but you did not respond to this situation, and I see that my message #80 is now flagged, as well. This one should make an even number, then.

Post script: I see that #69 had his flag removed. How nice. The irony is not lost on me.

Please people, play nice. Red flags are for TOS violations, not for posting off topic or for being unpopular.

> 96: Okay, maybe they were there and he just didn't notice them. Tim was agreeing to #74, mainly saying that this isn't the place for that particular dispute. And, I might add, that wasn't just about you.

Tim in #91: I'm quite tempted to just bang them out—I think I could do it in a hard weekend, frankly

Mwa-ha-ha ... English slang made that whole sentence so much funnier than you meant:

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/b.htm
(Check out about 1/2 way down the page ...)

98> I am glad I am not the only one who thought of that. Hehehe

I encourage the bang-it-out approach. It's faster and results in fewer over-engineering problems. And hey, it can always be over-engineered later. (-;

OT: Also, it seems to me that the 9/11 arguments are off-topic (and not productive) but not abusive, but calling someone a conspiracy theorist, wingnut, etc., is (whether true or not) definitively within the purview of the TOU forbidding namecalling and personal attacks. I have flagged accordingly just to make my entry into the de/flagging wars. (Is this flagging a dead horse?)

I just joined last week and here is why.

I like the fact that there aren’t tons of people on the site and I like the fact that it is a “pay” site (even though the amount is low) because then people have more of a stake and feel more obligated to participate.
Just like a gym membership.

I will take the plunge soon – not because that I have a big library since I give most of my books away – but because I want to support this effort and as a software engineer / www developer I certainly appreciate this effort.

I love the crisscross referencing with other members because to me reviews are meaningless unless the person shares my taste.
I know that when Roger Ebert reviews a comic book based movie I can trust his judgment because he is a comic book fan as well.

I couldn’t care less that the Harry Potter or Twilight books get rave reviews from teenagers (mostly) – because that genre doesn’t speak to me. So a five star review from my fourteen year old niece or my thirty year old sister is meaningless (even though I can certainly appreciate the fact that these books got teens to read again).

It is much more meaningful to me that member “Y” has posted a five star review on “Wolf Hall”, which I contemplated reading and when I go check out their book collection I can see that they have a similar taste.

As for GUI and user friendliness, yes at first LT was a bit confusing because of the so many features and options which overwhelm the new user.

Need to stop skimming. Sorry.

No offense, but must we keep talking about this, here? Reply and someone will feel forced to reply to your reply—and on and on.

I must admit to flagging for name-calling, as well. OT topics happen, but name-calling is unacceptable, imho.

>103 timspalding: I know you like to avoid negativity just by telling people to stop in the one particular instance, but if there's no clarification about what's acceptable and what's not then you're just deferring the problem until later.

Is name-calling acceptable, or not?

Is flagging for purposes other than those listed acceptable, or not? (Message 68 had two flags--why?)

I didn't realize this was in question. From the Terms of Use:
Do not make personal attacks. As Wikipedia's policy states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."


Name calling is not acceptable.
Disagreement is acceptable.

Off-topic posts might be irritating, but are not flaggable offenses.

Good points 101. I was on GR for awhile before trying LT. On GR, users don't stray much from their groups or threads. Even with its statistics-heavy architecture, LT seems much more free-wheeling, playful. A steeper learning curve, but a lot to discover.

107> Yes, but SR was calling KJ's source a wingnut, not KJ himself.

ETA: Sorry Tim, but if there is inappropriate flagging isn't it best to hash it out on the thread where it occurred?

Maybe it's just not clear what name-calling is. Does it include any terms that are intended to give offence? Calling someone a conspiracy theorist or saying that they're "spouting bullshit" without addressing whatever actual points were raised in the discussion (which I haven't read)?

And are there any consequences for abuse of flagging? Can someone's flagging privileges be revoked if they flag posts that are completely innocuous?

106>

Yes, but I think the question is "what constitutes name-calling or 'personal attacks'"?

The general understanding seems to be:

1. Don't single out LT contributors by name and insult them.

2. Non-LT members, and hypothetical LT members that are major public figures, are fair game. I can say whatever I want about Dick Cheney without running afoul of the TOS.

3. Groups of people are fair game, so long as they are not defined by LT status (e.g. 'newbies') or reading taste (e.g. 'Twilight fans'). (It's unclear whether "veteran LT members" are a protected class or not. It appears not, based on actual usage.)

As I understand it, this means:

"Newbies are stupid": flaggable.
"Women are stupid": not flaggable.
"lorax is stupid": flaggable.
"lorax is a woman, and women are stupid": probably not flaggable, which is where I start scratching my head. You can't say C, but you can say A and B which directly implies C? Or is this okay only if A is assumed or already established rather than being said outright?

I'm probably a bit self-interested here, but I would argue that saying someone is spouting bullshit is a criticism of their argument. It isn't a comprehensive address to the arguments being made, but on the other hand, there isn't any other really good way to describe the "9-11 truther" arguments. It is, however, a criticism of the argument, not the person.

I'd say that "conspiracy theorist" isn't an insult either, unless calling someone a Catholic, or a deist, or a Republican is an insult. It is a description of a person's beliefs.

Calling someone a wingnut would be an insult, but I didn't call K.J. a wingnut. I called his source a wingnut. His source is a public figure (of sorts), so criticising him directly is okay as far as I can tell.

I don't have any more on this topic in this thread. I posted stuff in the thread where 9-11 came up, although K.J. hasn't responded to it, so we'll carry it on over there if he comes up with something substantial to back up his theories.

>110 lorax: Right. It seems like there's more concern for the letter of the ToS than the spirit of it, so that arguments like this one flare up all the time because there's nothing to prevent people from making statements that are person attacks in essence but not quite direct enough to be flagged.

"Newbies are stupid": flaggable.

Not unless it's quite obvious who you're talking about—like you post right after someone asks "how do u use this site?"

"Women are stupid": not flaggable.

Right.

"lorax is stupid": flaggable.

Not if you mean the Dr. Seuss character.

"lorax is a woman, and women are stupid"

In that form it is flaggable, and has never been said by anyone, except possible Aristotle.

It seems like there's more concern for the letter of the ToS than the spirit of it

As in law, courts follow the letter, not the spirit, because the latter is subjective and vague. As stated many times, words are flagged, not feelings.

>111 StormRaven: The thing is, saying that someone is "spouting bullshit" without actually addressing the details of what they've said is offensive and antagonistic. It was enough to start a flag war and derail the whole thread. In other words, it's exactly the sort of thing that would be better avoided, at least in groups other than Pro and Con.

I'm not sure when a label becomes an insult. Do "conspiracy theorists" self-label with those words?

The thing is, saying that someone is "spouting bullshit" without actually addressing the details of what they've said is offensive and antagonistic.

The details were addressed in the thread that K.J. was apparently complaining about. Whining about it here was his idea.

The thing is, saying that someone is "spouting bullshit" without actually addressing the details of what they've said is offensive and antagonistic. It was enough to start a flag war and derail the whole thread. In other words, it's exactly the sort of thing that would be better avoided, at least in groups other than Pro and Con.

Quite frankly, what's derailing this thread is people's inability to let this topic go. Strictly speaking "you're spouting bullshit" is probably not a TOS violation(1). It's certainly antagonistic and offensive. We should do what we can to avoid it being a problem—ignoring it, making it clear it's not acceptable and then ignoring it, etc.

(1) It's a comment about content, albeit an almost empty one. "You are bullshit" is not. I know, these are slight distinctions. But, mostly, the bad actors step over even this line soon enough.

Strictly speaking "you're spouting bullshit" is not a TOS violation. It's certainly antagonistic and offensive. We should do what we can to avoid it being a problem—ignoring it, making it clear it's not acceptable and then ignoring it, etc.

Sure. But I don't think we had quite reached the "it's not acceptable" part yet.

Also, if it were a TOS violation, it could easily be flagged and then ignored. Flagging is a nice quiet way to express "not acceptable". When it's not technically a TOS violation, the only way to express that it's not acceptable is to talk about it.

Anyway, having said that it's not acceptable, I'll try to work on the "ignoring" part now....

113>

Well, no, it's never been said in that form. Which is why I went on to say:

Or is this okay only if A is assumed or already established rather than being said outright?

since that's what actually happens. If I mention that I'm gay in an early post in a thread, and then someone comes in and starts going on about how gay people are all evil child-molesters, as it currently stands that's 100% okay and non-flaggable since they didn't make the connection explicit in a single post. And that's what just doesn't make sense; as long as people abide by certain narrowly-constrained criteria, they can be as abusive as they want to. (Fortunately, the advent of "ignore member" has made this far less painful, since I can just happily "ignore" the sorts of people who do this.)

>119 lorax:

We're gone over this elsewhere, I think. In brief, I see your point, but I don't think it happens very often. The nasty ones generally get opposed, and they have nowhere to go but up, rhetorically. They slip and are corrected, or leave or—very occasionally—are sanctioned.

Extending the TOS to cover things that aren't said, but someone thinks are implied, or to ideas that (someone/me/you) thinks are objectionable in a more objectionable way is a much more dangerous course.

111> Calling someone a wingnut would be an insult, but I didn't call K.J. a wingnut. I called his source a wingnut.

I will put this down to lapse of memory, instead of what it actually looks like. Here's one of the instances SR seems to have forgotten, and it was only a day ago:

It doesn't really matter at this point, since K.J. has exposed himself as a conspiracy theorist wingnut. Source: http://www.librarything.com/topic/80245, Post #45

Another in the same thread: you are nothing more than a standard issue, nutty "the U.S. government is all evil" conspiracy theorist. Post #41

Tim: I'll leave this to you to determine what you wish to do about it. I'm done with it, and as SR has noted, I don't engage him at all, and it would be nice if he got the message and found another target.

Again, I apologize for the intrusion, and I also hope this is the end of it. From my side of the fence, it is.

Errr... back on topic: Hi ZoharLaor. Welcome to LT. I think that you make a sound point that Good Reads has an apparently simpler interface and offers a simpler experience. That makes it more accessible than LT but there is more here to reward those that want complexity.

I agree with TheoClark. I use both, though (as I mentioned above). What can I say. I loooooooves me some book sites.

120>

I think the TOS as they stand are fine, as long as they're clearly represented as what they are, and not as what people often pretend they are -- something that makes people "be nice". People can be and are vicious, if they're smart enough to play by the rules, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It's the pretense that the only problem with "meanness" is people being impatient with newbies that I find wearisome.

#120: in regards to TOS flagging & arguments & other challenges in forum threads...

For the most part, I don't see the 'nasty-ness' that people mention... but occasionally I do see postings that I don't need to see.... for a variety of reasons..

So, I thank you for the "block this member" feature.

I don't have to 'listen' to anything the blocked member(s) 'says' or 'thinks'... or 'opines' upon..

When you implemented this feature, I immediately blocked someone with a very 'unique' mindset. Not bad, not 'stupid'... unique... and one that I didn't want to trudge through.

But I very recently found the desire to double the number of members that I could block.

For that I thank you. very much. very very much!!

***and anyone who wants to block me... I won't be insulted or hurt or pouty or childish or immature or even have a temper tantrum... not that you would know it if you blocked me...

So, when it comes to how many people are on GR v. LT, are there any numbers we can look at? And I wonder how many people are on both.

>126 bookishbunny:

The zeitgeist provides the information you seek (and then some). :p

OK, so from zeitgeist, we have 985,162 members (right NOW). How many does GoodReads have? I couldn't find that in my superficial look at the site. I didn't want to sign in.

k4k

I was wondering about it in context of GR and cross-users. But that may take more research than would be practical.

126- I can't remember where I saw this (and I might be remembering it wrong) but for some reason these numbers are popping up in my head. GR-2.6 million members. LT- 1 million members. Does that sound right? Or is my memory faulty?

Looked around. This might of been where I got the numbers. Not sure how many members are active on both sites.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/12/goodreads-venture-capital-mil...

They have more traffic, and more books registered (they don't really catalog). We have better engagement metrics--which is to say nuttier people ;)

The last thing I'd care about, however, are user numbers. User numbers are crap. Even when they aren't spam--and I know both GR and LT have been hit by spam sign-ups, for one thing because Otis and I tip each other off when we spot something big, they're still meaningless. For example, if we had 900k users and they were all active on the site we'd be utterly crushing Goodreads. Facebook now claims, what, 300 million users? But stats sites show them with no more than 125 million monthly uniques. Counting second computers, separate browsers, cellphones and etc, I doubt they have half that number. Don't get me wrong, they're huge, but they're not 300 million people checking the site every day huge.

It's all about activity--amount and depth. I think we have them clearly beat on depth, but definitely not on amount.

I use both. My serious collection is on LT but all my Facebook friends are on GR. In fact, if someone on one's FB friend list adds the GR app, then they automatically add as friends on GR proper (there does not seem to be any way to turn this feature off although I didn't really try that hard). I link from there to my reviews on LT because I have more control of my content here.

I think that if you just want to communicate to your social networking friends what you're reading and want to comment on their reviews, GR has a shallow learning curve and is more social, but has no good tools. If you're more interested in the cataloging aspects and the books themselves (you don't need to be OCD to like LT, but it helps), then LT is your site. I think that while there is probably a bit of overlap, the demographics are fundamentally different and if you try to change the site to grab all of the GR market share, you'll lose your core users. But Tim, you probably already knew that.

LT- Unique works 5,039,967

I can't find a GR number for that but I'd say it's lower than LT's. By a good bit.

Tim, I think you have the hardcore book freaks- the ones that like cataloging, book ownership, and pathological TBR list buildering. Like you say, the nutty people.

I'd liken it to booksellers. The antiquarian sellers can work a lucrative niche and make their millions but the tens of millions are made working the masses. There's a big difference between readers and collectors. And there's probably a big difference between the core LT users and the core GR users.

I'm not a collector. I'm an accumulator. And most definitely a reader. And I think I'm about as much a core user as I can be without being here from Launch Day.

This site is incredibly social, but a lot more. It seems GR is for people who ONLY want the social aspect.

I think that if you just want to communicate to your social networking friends what you're reading and want to comment on their reviews, GR has a shallow learning curve and is more social, but has no good tools. If you're more interested in the cataloging aspects and the books themselves (you don't need to be OCD to like LT, but it helps), then LT is your site. I think that while there is probably a bit of overlap, the demographics are fundamentally different and if you try to change the site to grab all of the GR market share, you'll lose your core users. But Tim, you probably already knew that.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. GR focuses on social interactions while LT focuses on cataloguing, certainly, but I don't see why people who like to catalogue their books shouldn't also want to see what their friends are reading. Currently, that's not really possible here.

Maybe I'm just not one of the "core users", though....

I don't see why people who like to catalogue their books shouldn't also want to see what their friends are reading. Currently, that's not really possible here

Currently reading is displayed on the profile so that we can see what our friends are reading. Perhaps it could be more greatly featured, but I wouldn't say it's not possible. I don't use GoodReads, so would you tell me what they do highlight what friends are reading?

Perhaps if we could have a section in Connection News about what our friends/interesting libraries/etc. have listed as Currently Reading?

First, I think CR is pretty limited. It only shows the books that drag on for a while, not the quick reads that are done in one sitting. I'd rather see Recently Read.

Second, despite great efforts I've barely been able to convince any of my friends to use LT. Those who do have accounts don't update them regularly. I'm hoping the promised new FB integration will help address this, because plenty of my friends on FB do use one reading application or another.

Second, despite great efforts I've barely been able to convince any of my friends to use LT

Same here.

I'd rather see Recently Read.

You won't get any argument from me there.

I'm not saying LT is perfect. There are definitely some social networking things that could be done to increase interaction. Under 'Connection News', recently read and currently reading should absolutely be options. I also think that the comment portion of the profile could be improved. I end up archiving my comments after a few days because it otherwise ends up being a long stream of unrelated comments, where the conversation is taking place on two different profiles. I think something more akin to the Facebook model (Post followed by a string of collapsible comments) would be a good first start.

My friends who are on GR are, in general, casual readers. They use it to tell the world what they are reading right now and what they thought of it in 100 words or less, and to leave a quick comment about someone else's 100 word review (there are, of course, exceptions).

My friends who are on LT are, in general, people who are voracious readers. They want to show the world their collection of books. They are mostly members of book clubs and leave reviews of at least 250 words (and when they don't, I call them out on it).

I've tried to covert some of my GR friends to LT and they are mostly intimidated by the completeness of LT. People here tend to have ALL of their books listed and for them, that's too much of a commitment, while for me, that's why I'm here. For my friends who are book nuts, that's also why they're here. I come to LT to interact with my book nut friends. I go to GR to interact with my casual reader friends.

That's not to say that there's no room for improvement on the social networking front (any sort of FB app, improved comments, improved connection news), but I didn't buy a membership to see LT turn into FB for Books.

My youngest sister's on GoodReads and until last month was completely uninterested in LT. She now has an LT account and I think I've convinced her to really use it. My other sister has been on LT for a while but doesn't have a lot of her books on - she's just too busy to enter them all, so she's doing the 'enter after reading' thing. I've also lured my parents onto LT and am helping them enter their books.

I have an account on both sites - on GR mostly because Dee (my youngest sister) invited me and it was easy. I put in a bunch of books - basically, the books Dee had on there that I also owned (because it was a one-click enter). But I find it very boring - I like LT's reading dates and reviews. I came to LT as a cataloging site - and then it turned into a reading journal site (and no, it's not nearly as easy as GR but it feels a lot more solid). Now I spend most of my time either cleaning up data from my early entries (Amazon covers, at the moment) or in Talk - where I can hear from lots of interesting people about interesting subjects. I don't see any equivalent of that on GR - it's very limited conversation from what I've seen (though it's true I've spend maybe 20 hours on GR and hundreds if not thousands on LT).

I am on both sites.I do like the groups/talk on LT way better than on GR.Its alot more user friendly Especially now with the "cleaned-up" groups page --Great Job with that by the way!
I am looking forward to the FB features that are coming to LT.

>128 krazy4katz:, 130, and 133:

According to Goodreads About Us section, the site has "more than 2,800,000 members who have added more than 77,000,000 books to their shelves." The site doesn't say from what date those numbers are current.

I don't know anything about GoodReads, but socializing with a large number of my fellow human beings is somewhat overrated, in my opinion. I am proud to be one of the "nutty" people. k4k

Having played a bit on GR, but being a dedicated LT user, I'd be willing to say that I think the numbers on GR might always outnumber ours. There is simply a different demographic going to GR than is heading here. There is some overlap, but, ultimately each person is going to make a choice on which site to spend time.

One thing I can say is that I'm glad that Tim is now taking some extra time to feed us some new features (tags for groups, a newbie group, a soon-to-arrive FB application, etc.) that might be relatively easy to create (although I don't know for sure), but might help with attracting and keeping potential/new members here.

I've checked out other groups like Good Reads, but I love LT and have a lifetime membership. There is so much to this site and it keeps getting better all the time. Regarding the "rude factor" - anytime you are with a group of people someone might come off being rude - that's a given. LT has so many interesting topics and members that I have to limit my site time so I can get some reading done:)

I just signed up on GoodReads, to find out how it stacked up to LT. So far, it's not even close.

1. It took seven tries to upload a profile pic and get it to 'stay.'
2. They do not have the depth of catalog one would expect a book site to have.
3. They have less than half of the covers of the books I have read in their database. This was very surprising.
4. If a book description is wrong, there is no way for a member to correct it. You have to have 'Librarian' status to do so. The process to become one is simple, but you have to perform the 'Why do you want to be a GR Librarian?' dance, before you are approved. That seems childish, to my mature mind.
5. To upload one of the missing covers to the book's page is not possible, unless you are a 'GR Librarian.' Or, maybe I am missing that option, when I search the page. So far, my expedition has come back sweaty, and without results.

LT makes it easy to contribute. If you have an appropriate cover image, or the correct data, upload it. That's a simple, and very adult, approach.

I don't really mind the fact that people have a (very tiny) hoop to jump through to become a librarian at GR because there is no item-level data. Any changes you make are to the master work page. Which then affects the libraries of everyone else who has already added that book to their account. Here, you're only changing your own personal copy of that. Over there is more like a Wikipedia entry.

#150 That turns out not to be exactly the case. Any member here can change CK which is global. And I don't even want to think of the mess an ill-considered combination or separation could cause. Which is why I don't very often go into that arcane world.

151> True, but your own personal book entry overrides the Canonical Title entered in CK. The CK isn't really so much the book as it is about the book. Most of those fields never even show up in your catalog (seriously, who puts People/Characters in their catalog view?) As far as I can tell from my brief use of GR, they don't even have the data that would go in CK. So it's a bit of a moot point.

GR is a single, unified catalog—one record for every book-work. Librarians can edit those global records. There are no personal records to edit. This is also why they use only once source.

LT has personal records. You get the record from 690-odd sourcs. You can edit every piece of data. There is a "global layer," derived from statistics of personally-held books. The global layer is separate, and does not impact the personal records. Some fields—the ones in CK—are global, but can be edited by members in a wiki model.

> 153

They don't use only one source anymore. Amazon is still the biggie, but they also use Barnes & Noble to add books from. Probably who they are using for their Iphone app.

Right. That's who they're using. B&N's data isn't very good. But we're hitting them like hell right now...

I have had no complaints about B&N data, in fact they often have an alternative cover that is a better match than Amazon. Easier just to use B&N than Amazon and have to import B&N's cover.

Now GR data for books is often poor, but thats because of the fact that many people over there just don't care about the data - they just want a book in their library. Since its just a back up on-line site for me, I just go with the flow.

The discussion of why GR is so much more popular recently came up in the 75 Book Challenge group, and I think it's worth considering one of Tim's previous statements and the possibility that he's entirely misunderstood what booklovers are about:

Every classification system implies something about the world. The GoodReads system divides the world of books into "read," "currently reading" and "to read." It implies that books are about read-ness. Some people clearly want that. But I can safely say that many LT users do not. For my part, I think that's an impoverished way to see your books—the way people see books who aren't fundamentally book lovers, let alone collectors. It's a classification system that sees books as "done" or not, as if any book worth reading is ever "done." I don't throw my books out when they're done, and I reread them. And neither of these activities are why I want a catalog of them on LibraryThing! And that leaves aside reference, essays, poems and short stories the "read"-ness of which is very problematic. Down deep, LibraryThing isn't a simple reading tracker. You can use it as one, but we're not going to reorient the system for the benefit of a minority.

The 75 Book Challenge group is by far the most active here on LT, and several of the other top groups by activity (Club Read 2010, 1010 Category Challenge) are also based around people listing and discussing the books they've read. In other words, one of the most successful aspects of LT is its use as a reading tracker--a use that Tim has explicitly rejected and even insulted (we're not real booklovers), but that GR has embraced. I can't help but think that this difference in attitudes is related to GR's success.

> 157

The 75 Book Challenge group is by far the most active here on LT

So what? Why do you assume that group activity is the standard by which to judge how people use LT?

>158 lilithcat: This is exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. No matter how strong the evidence that a lot of people care about tracking reading, there's always some excuse for why it's insignificant and should be completely ignored.

It doesn't have to be a battle between one view and another. Supporting use of LT as a reading tracker isn't going to prevent you from cataloguing your books. I just want to show that a lot of people are seriously interested in the reading tracker aspect; the very active 75 Book Challenge group is relatively small (~500 members) because it starts fresh every year, while the 50 Book Challenge group is less active but has more members (~2000).

I'm not saying that this is the single most important use of LT. But I am saying that there's a high enough level of interest to merit more than dismissing all these people as "not fundamentally booklovers".

I suspect Tim dislikes the binary aspect of read/unread; reducing books to that one status. He alludes to multiple readings, for instance, suggesting that GR is reductive.

I do think the reductiveness is worth objecting to, although not worth rejecting, per se. The ideal system would be one that would capture and enable logging of a lot of information about our relationship to books and any particular title. Read/Unread is part of it (an important part). I would personally love to log my daily page number on books as I read them; sort of a bookmark function that also tracks reading. But I also want marginalia / notes, and the ability to log that I heard about Book A from Book B (footnote 336), and that I referenced this book on date X, date X2, date X3, date X4 -- and many more times than 10 times.

LT is the only one that really supports reading tracking - that was the reason I first started using it. Nothing else had any mechanism for me listing even then fact that I've reread a book, let along tracking when.

Yes, I'd like it if LT made dates read a little easier to get at/populate, and if we had more statistics on them.. but it's still way more functionality than I can get anywhere else.

(and no other website makes me accidentally type "we" instead of the site name, showing how much I feel ownership. Wow.)