Is there anywhere else to find books and read reviews?

[Anonymous No.16847747]

Reading the reviews on Goodreads makes me hate reading.

[Anonymous No.16847750]

Fuck this faggot

[Anonymous No.16847831]

Manny sure does shit up the place.

[Anonymous No.16847861]

>>16847831
Every fucking book I look at he's writing some long winded pretentious horseshit that barely has anything to do with the book. Goodreads is all wannabe writers who use it as an outlet because no one wants to listen to their inane ramblings

[Anonymous No.16847912]

In a way glad to see Manny the Tranny triggers other people too.

Anyways, this question about a non-cringe version of Goodreads comes up in too many places - shall we just create our own? I am willing to fund. If interested, please reply with 3 things you like about GR, and 3 you detest.

[Anonymous No.16847916]

>>16847861
>tfw this is what I do

[Anonymous No.16847928]

>>16847912
There will never be a non cringe goodreads. The average “reader” is a woman reading twilight tier garbage and you bet she’s going to want to discuss her garbage on a basal level, discussing shipping and how characters are problematic

[Anonymous No.16847944]

>>16847928
Even high brow lit is plagued by superficial reviews. Reading them discourages me from writing

[Anonymous No.16847947]

>>16847912
if you follow only based readers and writers, then there will be literally zero cringe in your timeline on goodreads.

[Anonymous No.16847960]

>>16847928
I am aware, anon, and I agree in a way. Garbage books and garbage readers are a necessary evil (they fund the book market, after all), but can't we just use them as consoomers to create something just a bit better? Curious to read people's thoughts.

[Anonymous No.16847969]

>>16847947
Agreed, but GR is still trash from a functionality perspective.

[Anonymous No.16847976]

Just finished an amazing Churchill biography. Use Goodreads as a living recommendation engine.

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/7002468-carlos-eduardo

[Anonymous No.16847984]

>>16847947
recommend some based readers and reviewers then (TLDR: post 3 nigger)

[Anonymous No.16848075]

>>16847984
Better than foods guy Cliff
Paperbackdreams girl Kat
/lit/ group

[Anonymous No.16848086]

>>16847750
for real. what's his endgame?

[Anonymous No.16848165]

>>16847750
The Jeff Teidrich of Goodreads

[Anonymous No.16848188]

It's dumb. Wannabee writers give everything 4 or 5 stars so as not to offend any publisher or influential writer. DNF should be an automatic one star, most just won't rate it. I take a point off any ratings to get closer to the real rating of a given book.

[Anonymous No.16848203]

>>16847750
Manny was my third block.

[Anonymous No.16848248]

>>16847912
Last time I checked, the way they log the ISBN numbers, is hosed. Now they are trying to use the latest, for reasons of commerce, when the system was built on the oldest.

[Anonymous No.16848391]

>>16847984
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/733629-chris
This guy is kind of funny, his profile is pretty much dead now though

[Anonymous No.16848408]

>>16847984
I can't imagine that there is anyone who writes reviews that's not a douchebag

[Anonymous No.16848579]

>>16848408
>cannot imagine cool people discussing literature online
>on /lit/
checks out

[Anonymous No.16848616]

>>16848579
writing reviews is different than having a discussion on lit or even reddit

[Anonymous No.16848672]

>>16848616
yes. it's permanent and in-depth.

[Anonymous No.16848970]

>>16848672
t. self-important reviewfag

[Anonymous No.16849877]

>>16847861
>long winded pretentious horseshit
God, this.

[Anonymous No.16850105]

>>16847984
Roy Lotz
Xander
Andrew from Bangkok, Thailand

[Anonymous No.16850150]

the point of goodreads is not the reviews its to see how many ratings a book or an author has, they're a good index of popularity, and within a single author's catalogue usually the books with the highest number of ratings are the best

[Anonymous No.16850968]

>>16847960
The best you could do is build a website and let /lit/only use it.

[Anonymous No.16851730]

>>16847747
people read reviews? im just using it as a to-read list that i can easily keep track of, like, i suppose, everyone of you

[Anonymous No.16852074]

>>16847747
https://bookmarks.reviews/

[Anonymous No.16852154]

I wish on goodreads profiles it showed mean score and standard deviation, then expand rating to /10 or /100 so the mean score has a good enough dataset could instantly disregard shitters goodreads using it
>person on average rates books 80/100 with a deviation of 20
>know to not listen to any ratings they give