[ 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: 49 KB, 512x512, goodreads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21048921 No.21048921 [Reply] [Original]

Every single literature platform becomes unusable over the years due to how bad the userbase becomes. I don't see a way to circumvent this except by literally banning women from using them.

>> No.21048929

>>21048921
It's the same problem as any site that doesn't actually track ownership - you can post opinions and rate books without any proof of actually reading them. Good Reads also suffers from people just dropping books they don't like and not rating them altogether so scores overall are inflated.

>> No.21048943

>>21048921
Women are not the problem. Americans are

>> No.21048955

Literally 90% of people who read nowadays are women. Yeah, mostly shit, but at least they read something. Men in general don't read at all.

>> No.21048959

>>21048921
You just have to design a website that is very barebones and inconvenient to use on a phone. That will solve 99% of the problems.

>> No.21048967

>>21048959
I tried to use goodreads and it's a pain in the ass to use. Didn't understand anything, it's quite difficult to rate/review and add books to your year journal, plus I don't really see an use to it if you have a notebook unless you want to brag about what you read.

>> No.21048972
File: 33 KB, 1000x1000, storygraphlogo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21048972

>>21048921
storygraph ultimately has more granularity if that's what you want

>> No.21048998

>>21048972
Every review on that thing feels like writing a report paper.

>> No.21049018

>>21048921
>how bad the userbase becomes
Why would it "become" any different? As far as Goodreads goes, it was shit from the start.

>>21048959
Goodreads is inconvenient to use literally anywhere.

>> No.21049384

>>21049018
>Why would it "become" any different?
huh?

>> No.21049401

>>21048959
One of the few good things about goodreads is that it hasn't become infected by obnoxious webdesign trends. Yet.

>> No.21049417

>>21048921
It'd be a good idea to change the voting system, so that people who rate most of their books 4 or 5 stars have less 'weight' compared to someone who rates books more uniformly (perhaps a normal distribution would be better than an uniform one). That way the books' rating would be less biased towards retarded YA, juvenile or entry-level lit.

>> No.21049422

Ban women

>> No.21049600

>>21048921
I hate BOOKTOK sooooooooo much, these bitches rate a book before it even comes out bc muuh the author i good muuh the smut was good i hate them soo much i hope they diiiiiiiiiie

>> No.21049636

>>21049600
>I willfully waste my life on a social media platform I dislike and now I am mad
Gee how could that happen

>> No.21049641

>>21049636
It’s literally not that deep anon, i don’t spend hours on goodreads lmaoo and you’re probably one of those ya/smut booktok girlies

>> No.21049658

>>21048921
I only use goodreads for the 'readers also enjoyed' tab anyway. It's better than asking for recs on this board at least.

>> No.21049674

>>21049641
I don’t spend any amount of time on any social media platform because I do not care about the opinions someone else has about a book
And before you say >hurr 4chan is social media, I don’t come here to discuss books or read the opinions of others, I come here to shitpost

>> No.21049714

>>21049674
Okay then continue shitposting

>> No.21050475

>>21048955
Why do people assume that reading books for teens has some kind of value on its own?

Reading that is no better than watching shitty television.

>> No.21050511

>>21048921
Remove women or separate the reviews by sex, so only women can comment on women's reviews and vice versa.
Remove upvotes.
Set guidelines for length and substantive quality of reviews.

>> No.21050514

>>21048929
Just look at /lit/.

>> No.21050516

>>21048921
>I don't see a way to circumvent this except by literally banning women from using them
ok chud

>> No.21050522

>>21048921
/lit/ is literally that and is also filled with retards that only read summaries, brainlet level fantasy trash and book collectors who only want to fill their shelf with cute uwu folio society editions

>> No.21050535

>>21050516
Say it ain't so with a clear conscience.

>> No.21050539

two things goodreads can do to make the website better:
(1) ban women
(2) allow shelf/stack threads and frogposting

>> No.21050547 [DELETED] 
File: 2.47 MB, 2544x4000, comment_1662735818gXK7i22tnCnQsaL0PYRANN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21050547

Imagine reading shit by r*ssians...

>> No.21050552
File: 2.03 MB, 1792x3528, 1661469659334178.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21050552

I rarely read books in English and the site annoys me because the books/editions I read are sometimes there, sometimes not there and it triggers me. Fuck goodreads.
I have the books collected on a real shelf in my living room and if I want to read dumb opinion I can always come to /lit/.

>> No.21050684

Goodreads is great actually. If one of the top reviews complains that the book is sexist or whatever, then you know it is good.

>> No.21051521

>>21050514
This

>> No.21051529

>>21048921
/lit/ is probably worse. At least goodreads users read

>> No.21051813

>>21050475
It increased reading skills and thus likelihood to later read something that matters. It also requires effort and almost all books are somewhat truthful and not obscene unlike tiktok whores and NowThis news and

>> No.21051892

>>21048998
Well yeah. Do you expect the people who feel compelled to leave reviews on book apps to be anything other than mildly autistic nerds?

>> No.21052615

>>21048921
For me I just use it to keep track of books I want to read and books I have read, it's easy to hold stats. It's sometimes humorous to read 1 star reviews of books I like though.

>> No.21052634

>>21048921
just block all females it makes it so much better

>> No.21052954

What's the book equivalent of Letterboxd?

>> No.21053030
File: 97 KB, 664x855, comfy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21053030

>>21052954

>> No.21053039

>>21051892
>Do you expect the people who feel compelled to leave reviews on book apps to be anything other than mildly autistic nerds?
guilty

>> No.21053045

>>21048943
Ultrabased

>> No.21053073

>>21048967
i like goodreads because it gives me updates on what my friends i haven’t been in touch with in a while are reading. plus my phone addict autism brain sees the books neatly categorized not only on my shelf, but also on my phone?! it is enough to induce orgasm.

>> No.21053115

>>21049417
a better option would be to allow for half star rating increments so people have 10 options instead of 5
also the goodreads star system description says that only one star is negative while two stars is "it was okay"
this is counter to how most people think of rating things, most people instinctively think "3 is the middle so that's average, two is below average, one is the worst shit I've ever read in my life, 4 is good, and 5 is the best thing I've ever read in my life"

>> No.21053118

>>21048943
4chan taught me non-Americans are huge retards only worried about white girls fucking them or not.

>> No.21053123

>>21048955
This is the big problem, men need to read, it expands intelligence. Women pretend to read to make them look smart. Men need to read to actually be smart.

>> No.21053134

>>21053123
Hahaha no
Case in point: this entire board

>> No.21053173

>>21053134
You're saying Twilight is intelligent for intelligent people? Or 50 Shades of Grey?

>> No.21053189

>>21048921
There needs to be a literature discussion forum with a survivor system, where fellow users can vote out bad accounts. Maybe each account would have a ban button, and if enough people press it they automatically get booted.
It would need some heavy moderation too, especially in its early years, to cultivate the board culture, to prevent abuse, to stop any raids (you don’t want a bunch of freaks from some other site to take over your infrastructure

>> No.21053208

>>21053173
No I’m saying that everyone tries to appear smarter than they are

>> No.21053215

>>21048921
I just use Goodreads to keep track of what I've read, want to read, and am currently reading. I don't give a fuck about anything beyond that and it serves that function adequately.

>> No.21053231

Serious question.

Why keep track of what you've read? You either absorbed the work or didn't.

>> No.21053252

>>21051813
These women are in their 30s reading shit that's at a lower level, in terms of writing and thematic or intellectual depth, than what they read at 14.

Many of them don't even really read but pretend to. There's this whole cancerous and shallow subculture of fandoms and shipping and shit that no men participate in. And this stuff is the focal point for many women. This is the main cause for the decline of media in general. Tossed everything out the window because they are not capable of anything else now.

Not like /lit LARPing and pretending to read is any better either, but it has no impact on anything.

>> No.21054245

>>21050511
>Remove upvotes.
this would fix any social media platform. stop including social-point systems. people should not be able to just up or down vote something. they must be able and willing to provide supporting or counter arguments, or their opinion is worthless, and adds nothing to any discussion

>> No.21054249

>>21053208
retarded take. read Jung

>> No.21054275

>>21053231
Its because the people who track their reading don't actually read anything of substance.

>> No.21054314

>>21053231
>>21054275
Based. People who use these kinds of websites are midwits that see books as mere signs to display on their profile without absorbing any of it.

>> No.21054410

>>21053115
>a better option would be to allow for half star rating increments so people have 10 options instead of 5
that wouldn't change much, most retards would still rate every generic juvenile book 10/10. Goodreads would be better with a system that weights each type of voter: those who tend to vote every book 1 or 5 stars only have a lower weight compared to a more sensible voter who rates their books on a normal distribution around 3 stars.
Retards would still be around, but wouldn't skew the ratings that much

>> No.21054417

>>21053189
you'd be banned for promoted sexist, bigoted, racist, chud authors in no time

>> No.21054434

>>21054417
*promoting

>> No.21054545

>>21053231
Based.
"The most correct thing to do after reading a book is burning them" - said a samurai master in a book of which I intentionally already forgot the name (never try to recall it)

>> No.21055295

>>21048943
Unfathomably based

>> No.21055307 [DELETED] 

unpotable

>> No.21055567

>>21048921
The biggest problem is that men get scared and insecure about their own hobbies in the presence of women and starts self-censoring and hiding their power level, which obviously deadens discussion about any interesting works. Own that you like weird shit. Controversial shit. Cringe-worthy shit. Fuck them and their retarded opinions.

>> No.21055588

>>21053252
>Many of them don't even really read but pretend to.
but how do you know that?

>> No.21056157

>>21055588
Have you been on /lit/?

>> No.21056190

>>21056157
not much

>> No.21056228

>>21056190
No one here reads.

>> No.21056804

>>21053123
>it expands intelligence.
It doesn't expand intelligent at all. Reading attracts those who are more intelligent. Intelligence is immutable.

>> No.21056822

>>21056804
>Intelligence is immutable
Terrible take