[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 1200x628, goodreads_wide-e23f6858b6bf20dcaf8493237a214a0e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13517477 No.13517477 [Reply] [Original]

why does this board hates goodreads when almost all of the books /lit/ likes are equally lauded there?

>> No.13517484

Because it's social media. Honestly, I just use it to keep track of what books I read.

>> No.13517511

Any kind of garbage is rated 4.0+ on that site.

>> No.13517661

Twilight is rated higher than Gulliver's Travels

>> No.13517749

>>13517661
There are different kinds of readers in goodreads. There are heavy philosophy readers, as well as heavy YA readers. So if you're the former kind, ofc it runs the risk of your favorite book being outrated by a YA.

>> No.13517764

>>13517511
You're right
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23203843-the-legacy-of-totalitarianism-in-a-tundra

>> No.13517802

>>13517749
Even if there are “serious readers” on Goodreads, the majority of them are intolerably reddit. You must make the distinction; the concept of “us”, the people in the know, and “them” really do exist at such an extent on Goodreads that you can tell just by reading a single sentence of their review which group they belong to.

Why do we hate it one might ask? Because the very fact that there exist people who might rate Ulysses a 5, not too many it seems as it only has a 3.7, and also rate some person like Dan Brown a 5 too without suffering the consequences. For me at least the very fact of their existence is intolerable

>> No.13517826

If RYM had a section for books I would ditch goodreads in a heartbeat, I just keep track of what I read

>> No.13517947

>>13517826
I loved rym but I lost a lot of trust in them since the Boy Boy West Coast issue

>> No.13517996
File: 7 KB, 108x137, 1544894548527.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13517996

This is the face of goodreads

>> No.13518012

>>13517947
They suck for music, especially classical, but their film list is probably the best aggregate list (Letterboxd is good too but has too much riajuu shit really, really high like Into the Spider-Verse and The Dark Knight) and their video game list is surprisingly good too so far, although it's still in beta.
https://rateyourmusic.com/list/Horrorca/who-needs-friends-when-you-have-fiction-ryms-favorite-works-of-fiction/
Here's an approximation of what an RYM top books list could look like, and it's much better than anything goodreads can offer

>> No.13518027

>>13517996
I HHATE IT

>> No.13518031

>>13517477
It's not the site /lit/ hates, /lit/ couldn't care less about the site one way or the other. It's the userbase we hate. The unwashed masses. I hate their ideas, at least, their uncritical, unexamined thoughts and opinions--not worth a rat's ass.

>> No.13518040

>>13518031
>said the faggot posting on an anime website with frog cancer

>> No.13518047

>>13518040
Yes, young men on the spiritual outskirts of society have a certain loathing for normies. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

>> No.13518054

Look Nathan, I get you're trying to be friendly but you liking my updates gets annoying. We can discuss literature on /lit/ or you can make group discussions on goodreads to talk about specific books

>> No.13518066

>>13518054
FUCK OFF SLIMY CROAT

>> No.13518068

Anyone posting on an image board in 2019 is going to have a disdain for any kind of new internet communication technology.

>> No.13518077

>>13518068
I use discord and twitter to get tranny poon and drugs

>> No.13518093
File: 2.11 MB, 200x150, 1558836287122.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13518093

>>13517477
>all of the books /lit/ likes are equally lauded there?

>> No.13518095

>>13518066
calm down dude It's me, Anonymous4999

>> No.13518201

>>13518012
I'll agree with you that their movie list is good, probably a bit too much Tarantino worship but solid. I would honestly love to see book on their website because they have a great format and algorithm for charting their lists.

>> No.13518207

A plain 1-5 rating system where the first two numbers are barely ever used is never going to give good results. Putting a number next to a work of art is useless anyway though.

>> No.13518208

>>13517996
Why are guys like these always at the top of the reviews?

>> No.13518229

>>13518012
>it's much better than anything goodreads can offer
>Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest in the top 7

>> No.13518240

>>13518012
Such a banal list.

>> No.13518399

If you can't make use of Goodreads you're stupid af. It's an amazing resource no matter how you slice it

>> No.13518935

>>13517484
>Because it's social media.
So is 4chan, despite all attempts of people around here to deny it.

>> No.13518983

>>13518208
Middle brow appeal of the low brow.

>> No.13519261
File: 29 KB, 591x594, 1538243411120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13519261

Why do people care about making a list of what they've read? You can generally have an idea of what you already read by reading a short summary, and if you can't, then you can read it again.

>> No.13519281

>>13517477
▶becus it maynestreem

>> No.13519306

>>13518077
How do you get drugs from twitter?

>> No.13519315

>>13517802
You sound euphoric

>> No.13519454

>>13518012
>sonemic, glitchwave ect still aren't finished

>> No.13519702

>>13517477
cuz it's full of tumblrinas and feminists who'll give classics a 1-star calling them racist and sexist

>> No.13519817

>>13518935
(Liked)

>> No.13519822

I've never used it. I probably should because my memory is so shit, I have a hard time remembering what book I read 5 books ago.

>> No.13519829

>>13519702
tumblrinas heheh

>> No.13519905

>>13519702
what's wrong with feminists?

>> No.13519909

>>13519817
*replies*

>> No.13520271

>>13518077
When do you get out of High schoo?

>> No.13521371

>>13517477
Ratings there are essentially useless because of the broad userbase meaning it devolves to basic poptaste due to "omfg I luv Harry Potter" outnumbering semi-literate people ten to one.
However it is extremely useful if you find people with similar tastes to your own and then stalk their reviews and ratings.

>> No.13521466

>>13518399
this and this

>> No.13521780

>>13517477
I use it to keep track of my library and what I've read and want to read but I don't use the social functions. It has seamless support with my kindle

>> No.13521931

How do you make friends on that site?

>> No.13522023

>>13519261
Either you're an autist that can rattle off hundreds of books at once or you're a pleb who has read >10 books in your life. Either way there's no excuse for wondering why a normal reader would want to keep a list of what they've read.

>> No.13522050

>>13517661
Gulliver's Travels is retarded trash (and so is twilight). I dont understand were people in those completely without imagination and they used mercury supplements or something like that to help them out come with a nonsense like Gulliver's Travels?

>> No.13522061
File: 181 KB, 1280x975, tumblr_ozdc1nokEb1u25kiio4_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13522061

>>13519817
(you)

>> No.13522086

>>13517477
Hate? I thought everyone here loved it as much as I do. The threads with the shit normie reviews are gut-bustingly hilarious. I wouldn't want anything to do with those people ranking John Green over Homer, but their opinions are great fun to mock. As for the site itself, I like it. I like that I can pick the cover for the book; comfy seeing the cover I see everyday online.

>> No.13522193

>>13519905
Their beliefs, actions, character and aesthetics are wrong, evil and destructive. Other than that they're fine.

>> No.13522278

>>13522193
Imagine still getting your knickers in a twist over the concept of “feminists” in 2019