This argument is puzzling in that I really struggled to understand what it is that the author thinks is so terrible about Goodreads. If the conclusion of the ar

This argument is puzzling in that I really struggled to understand what it is that the author thinks is so terrible about Goodreads. If the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be that we (Goodreads users) should all feel the desire to quit it, then presumably the problems with the platform will be applicable to all users, not just a handful. On the one hand, she complains that Goodreads is not just a space for readers, it's also a space for authors. On the other hand, she takes the perspective of authors (and is one herself), and complains that Goodreads hasn't done enough to stop review bombing. It's somehow both a problem that authors and readers can interact on the site (as pointed up by the fact that she received a thank you from an author for her early positive review), and that the site doesn't focus enough on the author experience. Even if the problem is supposed to be that the site is unfocused, not really prioritizing any one's needs in particular, that's not likely to cause a typical user to want to leave unless the problems become much more concrete than that. And it's really not clear that a typical user would be upset about interacting with an author on the platform, or attending a Q/A session, etc. While I readily admit that Goodreads has a bunch of issues (amateur reviewers taking themselves much too seriously, interface problems), I'm not sure my complaints are even salient for this author. To me, in fact, statements like the following suggests that her problems with the site might be more personal: > My to-read list ballooned alarmingly, not from titles I felt drawn to out of genuine desire but ones the algorithm pushed on me. The thrill of discovery, too, felt compromised: every time my feed told me a friend had added a book that I’d found first, I felt a frisson of annoyance. Have some imagination. > I use it to get a rough and ready sense of how a book might be selling based on the number of ratings and the speed at which they accrue. I use it to drop five stars on upcoming books by friends, giving their work a tiny boost in a landscape where a book can live or die based on hype. As a Goodreads user, I find it perfectly passable at what it does - allow users to catalogue books they have read and books they want to read, find potential new books to read, and view a feed of books read by their friends. Unlike the author, I'm glad Amazon has more or less abandoned it. It's not a perfect site, or even a great one (their recent UI update made it so that adding a "read date" to a book you've just finished now takes 10 steps instead of 2), but the flaws are minor enough that I'm not strongly compelled to look for an alternative. I suspect this experience is generalizable enough that this is why "we" can't quit it.