[ 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: 66 KB, 1000x1000, Goodreads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5006888 No.5006888[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is it taking so long for someone to come up with a better online database than this?

>> No.5006892

>>5006888
What's the incentive?

>> No.5006896

>>5006892
money bruh

>> No.5006897

>>5006888
It's not that terrible, is it?

>> No.5006898

>>5006896
How so?

>> No.5006903

As a database, what is wrong with it?

>> No.5006905

>>5006897
>five star rating system

The fucking worst.

>> No.5006920

>>5006903
Precisely. Seems like OP has more gripes with the community/culture on goodreads. As a database, it works just fine.

>> No.5006932

>>5006897
It is when you compare it to other websites like imdb, rym or last.fm

IMDb was a gift from heaven when I started getting into movies. A literature equivalent of it would be great

>> No.5006970

>>5006905
I'd be ok with that if they filtered certain ratings.

People on goodreads can make accounts, vote for five books and never come back - and their vote count as much as the vote of people who read a lot and are active members.

IMDb filters that shit so they'd never have the equivalent of a John Green book getting a million votes and 4.5 average while acclaimed books struggle to keep a decent rating with a thousand votes or so because the people who read it are more demanding.

The IMDb top 250 is shit but it can be very useful for someone who is looking for a place to start. Now imagine a top 250 based on Goodreads' ratings.

>> No.5006973

>>5006932
What features does imdb have that you'd like to see on goodreads? Like a top 250 list or some shit?

>> No.5006994

the ratings don't bother me, but it's a complete clusterfuck finding the right page for a certain translation of a book

>> No.5007006

>>5006973
A top 250 list wouldn't work on goodreads, they'd first have to change the rating system. The IMDb's keywords system is good. Customized search engines like that would also be useful

http://www.imdb.com/search/title

There is a lot of small things they need to change as well. I've just realised that Goodreads' lists only include a particular edition of the book, not the book per se

https://www.goodreads.com/list/book/677992
https://www.goodreads.com/list/book/12395
https://www.goodreads.com/list/book/246644

Why even do that? Nobody pays attention to that shit

Also the movie connections/trivia/quotes etc sections on IMDb are so good, anon. So good.

>> No.5007013

>>5006888

Best way to do it would be to separate ratings between "fan ratings" and "critical ratings". Only allow individuals with fantastic track records or with some way to prove they know what they're talking about to rate books on the critical ratings charts. People like critics, scholars, book reviewers (professionals, not amateurs), professors, other writers, etc. If they could somehow filter out all the bullshit 5-star ratings that every person gives to shit books, it would go a long way. Maybe something akin to rotten tomatoes Tomatometer (meter comprised of critics and reviewers) and the audience meter (meter comprised of average joe's with no credibility.

>> No.5007021

>>5007006
>Goodreads' lists only include a particular edition of the book, not the book per se
Different ISBN necessitates a different page, because for organizational purposes it's not the same book. Irritating but technically correct.

>> No.5007035

>>5007021
For display of technical information, yes.

But user-based information like lists? Come on.

>> No.5007036

I wish rateyourmusic would just add books to their website.

>> No.5007038

>>5007035
Fair enough.

>> No.5007040

>>5007013
I agree. They should weigh votings differently, based on how many books the user has read and other things like that.

>> No.5007047

>>5007036
You and me both bro

You and me both

>> No.5007063

>>5007047
Cop their structure. Create rateyourbooks.com.

>> No.5007173

>>5006994
ISBN

>>5007063
That's a fantastic idea.

>> No.5007255

>>5006888
You want one?
Go pay for it.
Goodreads is free, they offer a SHIT load of resources yet they are free.

You want something better go pay for it/pay someone to make it for you.

>> No.5007278

>>5007255
i'd pay for something good but there's nothing for which i'd pay

>> No.5007312

>>5007278
Then pay someone to make something for you; say a private book database, where you can be pretentious and only see books that you like.(aka only Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Infinite Jest, Finnegans Wake, etc, etc, etc)

>> No.5007466

>>5007255
oh god fuck off

>> No.5007483

>>5007255

>durr everything worthwhile has to be paid for yyyyyy

enjoy paying for someone not killing you, faggot

>> No.5007660

>>5007483
enjoy dying of aids, faggot

>> No.5007680

>>5006903

1. Lots of poorly cataloged items. Doesn't represent page number differences between editions, etc.
2. The list system is just garbage. Fucks up with editions. Supposed to be more like a popularity poll. Garbage.
3. No trivia, etc, like IMDB
4. Scoring lacks a sensible weighting system.
5. Community and community building system are bad.

>> No.5007732

>>5007680

1. Every seperate edition has its own page number
2. Lists are user generated. Generate your own?
3. My funny anecdotes.
4. Add people who look interesting. Their ratings are now on top of book pages.
5. see 4.

>> No.5007738

>>5007680

u mad?

>> No.5007837

>>5007680
>>5007732
#rekt

>> No.5007851

>>5007660

would you like to hold my seed, trapchan faggot

because i think your cancer is not enough

>> No.5007893

The minute something slightly better shows up that website and LibraryThings will be myspaced out of existence in a month

>> No.5007895

how am I supposed to remember all the books I've read to rate them?

>> No.5008121

>>5006888
>What is LibraryThing?