“Our job is to show members those reviews, and not show reviews that we deem to not be appropriate or a high enough level of quality.” (Source: GR Review Guidelines.)
Well, I’m totally fucked.
The end.
Those who dared:
Kayla on tasting ‘a note in the… Marcus Roche on maybe it’s me, but… ouaqquwcgk on my confession dkmhwgijnw on random awesomeness Kris on maybe it’s me, but… 
Kris + Books = Good. *Sometimes*. 
So much more succinct than my post. And so delicious.
I am green with envy. 😉
You are famous, you: http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2012/08/08/new-review-guidelines-suggest-goodread-values-authors-more-than-readers/
Oh my. Thanks, Chris, I hadn’t seen this! I already had an intertubes crush on Nate the Great. Now I am verklempt.
You’re welcome! And LOL aboutcher crush. 😉
Gah! I need to read more carefully. The post isn’t by Nate. I wondered, because he “knows” me, intertubes-wise. Still, nice compliments from a stranger.
Kris, smack me down to normal in 30 seconds, please.
I would’ve had I’d seen this earlier, trust me.
I’m very generous like that.
I attempted to write something insightful and thought-provoking, but discovered someone had beat me to it.
Such a relief. The lazy thing, you know.
To me the name GoodReads simply means finding out about good books that one can read. To do that you need all reviews to make a decision. The site is not called GoodReviews. And TBH (and probably very naively) I thought the site was for readers, not authors…
orannia, I must be naive as well. I really did think it was a reader-driven site. Too bad… I’m seriously looking into LibraryThing for cataloging my books. There’s also; http://whatshouldireadnext.com/ but it’s not as robust as it should be. I guess it needs more diverse users.
I think many people are having second thoughts about GR not only because of this, but because of the increasing bad behaviour of both authors and readers. Who can blame them. Seriously, who really wants to participate in such a community which can be so contentious?