The problem with Goodreads

     Hello, if you're a reader like me, you heard about the website, Goodreads. Goodreads is a social media website for readers to connect with like-minded people and keep track of their reading. It sounds like a wonderful place for readers like me, But unfortunately, Goodreads is becoming a mess. Maris Kriezman, described Goodreads an “unreliable, unmanageable, near-unnavigable morass of unreliable data and unfettered ill will” in her essay for the New York Times. While that sounds a bit harsh, I believe she makes a good point. 

    Personally, I think the big problem with Goodreads is lack of or nonexistent content moderation. It is because of the lax review criteria, the website has an issue of review bombing negative reviews or posting numerous fake positive reviews for an unreleased book. The recent scandal of Cait Corrain is a great example of highlighting the main issue of Goodreads (You can click on the links to read about it). I hope this serves as a wake-up call for Goodreads to step up their moderation game. But I doubt meaningful change will take place, as Goodreads is putting the responsibility on the users. It kind of sucks because there are solutions to reduce the number of review bombing and astroturf positive reviews. Methods more effective than having the users do the moderating. 

Possible Solutions

    One way is to restrict pre-released book reviews for professional book reviewers, librarians, educators, and influencers. This can be done with a verification system, such as connecting the account to Net Galley or any other professional review site or whatever. The verified accounts have a label showing their position as an influencer or librarian. Using a system like this would dramatically decrease the review bombing and fake reviews. It's not perfect, but it would be more effective than the free for all system Goodreads has. 

    Another way would be a lot more difficult or near impossible to do. The other way is that the reader has to provide proof they bought a book before reviewing. The problem is that it could only occur with Amazon purchases, as Goodreads is owned by them. I doubt that Amazon will be working with their competitors like Barnes & Noble, Bookshop.org, Books a Million, etc. or vice versa (chances are slim). The system would force Goodreads user to purchase books on Amazon and Audible only. Doing this method would be a turn-off for many users. 

Storygraph

    Fortunately, there are alternatives to Goodreads for readers that are not satisfied with Goodreads. The most well known of the Goodreads alternatives is Storygraph. Storygraph is similar to Goodreads, but has some features Goodreads lacks, like half-star ratings and content warnings. I use Storygraph, and I have nothing but mostly positive experiences with the website. However, I fear that the website might end up like Goodreads in the future due to the review system being close to Goodreads, with readers being able to rate books before the books are officially released. But Storygraph, unlike Goodreads, has the potential to avoid featuring the flaws that Goodreads a mess. Storygraph has a small team working on the site and plus members can request features for the website. Both Storygraph staff and the users share the same passion for reading books. So, the chances of Storygraph becoming Goodreads 2.0 are slim, as the staff places a big priority on providing an enjoyable reader experience than increasing profit.

    I hope when Storygraph becomes more and more successful by the day, that they don't lose themselves and forget their goals and the reasons why the website was started up.