3 ms·
- It sucks at recommending books. You may stumble upon some book in the home feed, but its recommendation is as good as if it didn't exist. - Lists suck. For e
by input_sh 5y ago
- It sucks at recommending books. You may stumble upon some book in the home feed, but its recommendation is as good as if it didn't exist.
- Lists suck. For example, it never anticipates even something as simple as abandoning a book (though you can create that).
- There's like a whole industry of faking ratings and nobody cares about it enough to do anything about it.
- It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago.
Well, they did so recently to kill the API access, which was its #1 selling point to me. I liked using it by not visiting their ugly design ever, but that's not a possibility anymore.
- ainzzorl 5y ago> Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago. This is what I love about it. When something works for me (and Goodreads does), I don't want it to change.
- input_sh 5y agoIt's not a good thing when there are glaring issues that remain unfixed, like books receiving 1 star reviews while they're still being written.
- Brybry 5y agoPersonally, as a Goodreads user I don't care about the review ratings. I'm there for: a) making a list of things I want to read b) finding more books by authors (including upcoming) to add to that list c) release dates for books on that list (and sorting that list by date) d) seeing what other people are reading All of those tasks were time consuming before Goodreads and I'm extremely happy that some let's-refactor-our-website-for-whatever-reason push hasn't broken my use case. 1 and 5 star ratings for unreleased books are dumb but humans are really bad at 5 star rating systems anyway. I find there's far more value in the number of ratings, but in the end books are often about personal taste.
- dewey 5y ago> It's owned by Amazon, but Amazon basically didn't touch it since the acquisition almost a decade ago. This is a good thing. In the recent year they updated the design in subtle ways to make it nicer to use and less rough around the edges too which was a nice surprise.
- verylittlemeat 5y agoGoodreads will always win simply because it's where all the users are. Like reddit or any huge site its usefulness isn't in the presented top layer (recommendations/front page/popular list of x) it's the depth of millions of users. If you read a relatively obscure book and look it up on goodreads then you read through the reviews to find users who gave a high quality write up and then look at that user's profile. This will lead you to other users and books that are actual quality. You could create a smaller website with a higher quality surface level but it's going to be infected with the bias of a small "elite" userbase making it a basically useless echo chamber.
- the_biot 5y agoIn other words, stop trying, let's just stick with the current terrible status quo. That's a supremely unhelpful comment to make, intended to discourage anyone from improving things ever. Shall we all just go back to a cave and knock some rocks together?
- verylittlemeat 5y agoIt's a reality check for anyone who makes a better goodreads and doesn't understand why it never gains traction. It's on par with complaining about facebook and creating your own better version of facebook while completely ignoring the reason why everyone is on facebook to begin with.
- poetaster 5y agoWhile I generally agree that everything needs work, I also believe don't fix it if it isn't broke.'