# Salon article: Did a writer get bullied on Goodreads?



## David Greene (Oct 16, 2010)

Not sure if someone else put up a thread on this article. It discusses how complex the situation is regarding reviews these days.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/21/debut_author_allegedly_got_rape_threats_on_goodreads/?source=newsletter


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I've heard of authors doing anything they can to keep their books off GR.


----------



## Moondreamer (Apr 27, 2013)

Passive Voice also posted on it : http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2013/cancelling-the-release-of-debut-novel/

I don't know the whole story but any amount a bullying that would push a writer away from publishing their first book is extremely sad. But in the end, your own mental health comes first.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

There are loads of stories of writers getting bullied on Goodreads. Nine times out of ten they bring it on themselves by throwing their toys out of their pram over some review they didn't like. I don't condone bullying but I don't condone unprofessional behaviour by writers either.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

She wasn't exactly unprofessional, more naive than anything. I don't think she understood the basics of Goodreads. 

But it was a total disproportional response by those were offended by her. I checked it out before it was cleaned up, and yes, it was as bad as the Salon article says.


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

There is nothing the author could have done or said that condones the threat of rape and death on her.

She asked a question, and got attacked.  And threatened.  And abused.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

I didn't see any of it firsthand, but note that the other side of the story has events going like this:

1. Reader Prime posts 2-star rating.
2. Reader Prime claims author PMs them and says they're a troll.
3. Author friend comments on rating and requests Reader Prime stick their hand in a blender.
4. Author asks publicly how she got a 2-star review for an unpublished book.
5. Readers reply helpfully with information to #4 about how GR works--that ratings are not necessarily reviews on GR.
6. Readers go balistic over #2 and #3 when they find out about it. (ie, #4 didn't trigger any of the things the author is complaining about.)


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I've heard of authors doing anything they can to keep their books off GR.


Yes. And if you're books are there, take your book rating with a grain of salt. I noticed a long time ago that a reader can rate a book 1 star even though they also "marked to read" it. And they probably will NEVER read it and the mark remains. One thread posted on here last week stated that GR is more for readers, NOT authors and gave rules for engaging on GR.

Write for your enjoyment. Write what your soul beckons you to put on the page. Ray Bradbury learned this decades ago, and that's always the advice he gave. No author will ever please every reader. With that being said, there's also no place for such threats toward an author (or any other person for that matter) just because they ask a legitimate question. This kind of behavior is becoming the norm for a lot of places on the Internet and that's just sad.


----------



## Cege Smith (Dec 11, 2011)

I saw some of this earlier today and tried to do some backtracking on it to find out the whole story. I guess it just completely blows my mind that she asked a question- clarification really from what she says- and had that kind of crazy, blown out of proportion response. I just feel like I'm missing something in the equation (please note that I have a higher than normal degree of skepticism about everything). It definitely does not condone or justify people acting as they did in response.

The thing I'd be interested in hearing more about is what others think about her decision to pull her release all together. She has said that a lot of people disagree with that decision, and I fall into that camp. With that outpouring of support that she has on GR, she'd probably have a best seller on her hands. Even bad publicity can be good publicity.


----------



## LanelleH (Jul 4, 2013)

Maybe this author shouldn't be publishing a book, criticism is apart of writing.  You can't escape it.  If you're going to allow people online to stop you from publishing because of threats, it's probably not for you.  Threats are so common online, as sad as that is, people think they can say whatever they want and they do.  

It's sad but it happens.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Vivi_Anna said:


> There is nothing the author could have done or said that condones the threat of rape and death on her.


This.

It's one thing to low-rate someone's book.

Threats and wishes of violence? We can at least be somewhat civil.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Vivi_Anna said:


> There is nothing the author could have done or said that condones the threat of rape and death on her.
> 
> She asked a question, and got attacked. And threatened. And abused.


100% this. Anyone who says, "Well, yeah, she had it coming. She commented on a review" has become inured to how hateful reviewers can be to authors. I don't care if it upsets some people for authors to comment on reviews. Bullying, threats, promises of rape . . . there's no excusing that. Those people (and there are a lot of them on GR and Twitter) are a massive problem. They are evil. A couple of actresses have quit their careers in the past year because of abuse on Twitter.

And the people who say "Get a thick skin" haven't been through this, I don't think.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeonardDHilleyII said:


> One thread posted on here last week stated that GR is more for readers, NOT authors and gave rules for engaging on GR.


Here's the thread:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,150750.0.html

Betsy


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Just another day on the Internet. 

The Internet is a breeding ground for hate. Has been for a long time.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

Barbie Hall said:


> Maybe this author shouldn't be publishing a book, criticism is apart of writing. You can't escape it. If you're going to allow people online to stop you from publishing because of threats, it's probably not for you.


There's criticism about your writing, and there's threats of rape. Those are wildly two different things. It's not just having a thick skin, it's about having the emotional resilience to deal with being threatened with rape and ignore it, and I am not going to judge someone who can't do that.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Of course, there is no way anyone should condone this kind of behaviour.

From an author's point of view, though, and in order to protect your own sanity, this is still extremely good policy:

1. Do not comment on reviews
2. If you have trouble with #1, do not READ your reviews. Do not even go to goodreads, if you find it troublesome
3. Do not engage
4. If you find the comments troublesome (and holy hell, some of them ARE), complain privately to the site's owners, the site's ISP, or any other authority you can find.
5. If you have to make a public comment, make it general, in a place that cannot be directly linked to the reviews in question


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> 100% this. Anyone who says, "Well, yeah, she had it coming. She commented on a review" has become inured to how hateful reviewers can be to authors. I don't care if it upsets some people for authors to comment on reviews. Bullying, threats, promises of rape . . . there's no excusing that. Those people (and there are a lot of them on GR and Twitter) are a massive problem. They are evil. A couple of actresses have quit their careers in the past year because of abuse on Twitter.
> 
> And the people who say "Get a thick skin" haven't been through this, I don't think.


And here's the question: why are the rules this way? Why is it such a hard and fast rule that authors can't speak up for their books, or correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. I've never actually done this, but when I read such about such a violent response to an author "breaking the rules" I have to question why on earth these rules are in place and why authors accept them. In our new world of self-publishing, it seems that the rules are different. A film producer may not have responded publicly to film critics, but a youtube video blogger will certainly engage comments that are negative.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

journeymama said:


> And here's the question: why are the rules this way? Why is it such a hard and fast rule that authors can't speak up for their books, or correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. I've never actually done this, but when I read such about such a violent response to an author "breaking the rules" I have to question why on earth these rules are in place and why authors accept them. In our new world of self-publishing, it seems that the rules are different. A film producer may not have responded publicly to film critics, but a youtube video blogger will certainly engage comments that are negative.


There are a number of sharp-tongued trad-writers out there who built a rep of taking their readers to task. I think that might've been the inspiration behind GoodReads's policy asking writers not to "engage" with readers.

They were afraid it'd go something like this:






Only less funny.

Trouble is, sounds like at times, all that's happened is that the tables have turned and now it's the readers being nasty to the writers. Apparently, at the drop of a hat.

There might be bits about this we don't know or haven't heard.

But bottom line? Threats of physical violence are why online bullying and anti-stalker laws were invented. Anyone who does it, be they a reader or author, is stepping over a line.


----------



## Teri Hall (Feb 10, 2013)

Barbie Hall said:


> Maybe this author shouldn't be publishing a book, criticism is apart of writing. You can't escape it. If you're going to allow people online to stop you from publishing because of threats, it's probably not for you. Threats are so common online, as sad as that is, people think they can say whatever they want and they do.
> 
> It's sad but it happens.


I think that this may be a problem--the idea that "Threats are so common online, as sad as that is, people think they can say whatever they want and they do" is just shrugged off as sort of "boys will be boys" or "that's just the way it is". Not a problem with you, Barbie, I don't mean that. But a problem. I never respond to reviews, and I've never encountered this kind of vitriol, but it's really just not okay to make these kinds of threats *to anybody, anywhere, any time*. We've lost our humane-ness if this is just accepted.



Hugh Howey said:


> 100% this. Anyone who says, "Well, yeah, she had it coming. She commented on a review" has become inured to how hateful reviewers can be to authors. I don't care if it upsets some people for authors to comment on reviews. Bullying, threats, promises of rape . . . there's no excusing that. Those people (and there are a lot of them on GR and Twitter) are a massive problem. They are evil. A couple of actresses have quit their careers in the past year because of abuse on Twitter.
> 
> And the people who say "Get a thick skin" haven't been through this, I don't think.


Agree 1000% with this. I think one should never respond to reviews no matter what, but I feel for this writer, who obviously should have checked to see why the stars were left before she asked, and who may have been able to *not* respond once she knew (because she would have been able to take a moment and say "who cares?" to herself). She made a mistake. Asked a question. Does she deserve what she's getting? NO. Should she pull her book? I think, NO.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Someone needs to write a book about an author who hunts down troll reviewers - people who go around hurting people on the internet. I bet you would find some very interesting stories on the other side of some reviews.

I bet that dude that held all those women hostage in Cleveland for several years - I bet that guy was an avid GR reviewer.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> people who go around hurting people on the internet.


Define "hurting people on the Internet"


----------



## Melisse (Jun 3, 2012)

I took my Melisse Aires account off Good Reads a while ago...I thought the atmosphere wasn't right so I couldn't really enjoy the groups I was on that seemed like fun. Plus time-wise I really don't have time for more social sites.

I personally despise groups that allow death threats.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Trouble is, sounds like at times, all that's happened is that the tables have turned and now it's the readers being nasty to the writers. Apparently, at the drop of a hat.
> 
> There might be bits about this we don't know or haven't heard.
> 
> But bottom line? Threats of physical violence are why online bullying and anti-stalker laws were invented. Anyone who does it, be they a reader or author, is stepping over a line.


I can see why readers and reviewers should be protected - should have a voice and opinion that can be heard without being harassed or questioned for it. But now it seems like an internet pile on against certain authors. Authors receiving bad reviews should certainly take a deep breath and _step away from the computer_, but if authors are intimidated enough that their only plan of action is to steer clear of Goodreads, or decide not to publish their books at all, the pendulum has swung too far. It would be lovely to see respect on both sides.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

This just points out again that you should never, never, never comment on reviews or get involved there in any way.  If you think a review is truly over the line, take a shot with customer service to get it removed.  But that's it.  Otherwise, suck it up and deal.  Go home, throw things, cry, break stuff if you have to...none of that will sabotage your career.  But stay off these sites.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

I would take the threat of rape and violence very seriously.
There are sick people in this world who try to carry out their threats (deadly attacks at school, in the workplace, etc.)

If this happend to a relative or close friend, I would make every effort to have Goodreads taken down.

Bullying and threats of violence in some places ARE against the law.

This should not be taken lightly.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Vivi_Anna said:


> There is nothing the author could have done or said that condones the threat of rape and death on her.
> 
> She asked a question, and got attacked. And threatened. And abused.


Yeah -- I'm a big fan of GR and I recommend that authors use it (wisely), but it has gotten to the point where they really need moderators there, who people like this woman can go to with complaints this serious, so the offenders can be permanently banned. That is just ridiculous and all kinds of wrong.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Apparently, the shelves the author was being placed on in GR were shelves that meant that they (the reader) would rather be raped or sodomized than read the book.
She said she was confused and mistaken.

http://laurenpippa.tumblr.com/post/58960875753/hopefully-clearing-stuff-up

But still, shelf titles like that leave me very uneasy. Yes I know that people commonly say, "I'd rather die" but to say 'I'd rather be raped' is something different as rape is something that happens almost exclusively to women* - and is used to threaten and to demean women. On the internet, rape threats are often used against women and it is one of the ugliest things about the online environment.

(*Among adults not in prison and in 1st world countries.)


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Actually, rape doesn't happen almost exclusively to women.  It's just reported more often when it happens to women...which is saying something, because it happens more frequently than it's reported.  But let's not split hairs.  The point is, Goodreads has now reached the size where it really requires some rules for behavior and moderation to enforce those rules.  That way nobody is going to be the target of rape threats, and whether an author is being treated unfairly for the simple "crime" of asking for clarification or whether they brought the one-stars and angry comments on themselves by truly acting like a jackass can be decided and remedied (if needed) by an impartial party.

Maybe now that Amazon owns it, some staff will be hired to do just that.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Seems to me that this sort of nastiness, along with pointless ratings (in terms of how most people understand ratings) and reviews written simply to entertain other readers with one's ability to be mean is making Goodreads a pretty useless place for people who are looking for what the place was _supposed_ to represent.

I can write a decent run-on sentence even at 10:30 on a Wednesday evening.


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Someone needs to write a book about an author who hunts down troll reviewers - people who go around hurting people on the internet. I bet you would find some very interesting stories on the other side of some reviews.
> 
> I bet that dude that held all those women hostage in Cleveland for several years - I bet that guy was an avid GR reviewer.


Quite a bit of foul language in this clip.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

journeymama said:


> It would be lovely to see respect on both sides.


The latest mantra is "Readers don't owe writers shit."

That obviously includes that they don't owe us respect, basic civility, decent treatment, honesty or any of the more common human rights. They are readers. They can do as they please. No limits.

Face it, they bought you. For $2.99.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Anya said:


> Yes I know that people commonly say, "I'd rather die" but to say 'I'd rather be raped' is something different as rape is something that happens almost exclusively to women* - and is used to threaten and to demean women. On the internet, rape threats are often used against women and it is one of the ugliest things about the online environment.
> 
> (*Among adults not in prison and in 1st world countries.)


*WTF?*

Where do you get that? It's just that in our society a boy/man will rather suffer in silence than admit he has been raped.
That's one of the reasons why altar boys being raped by priests was/is endemic in the Catholic Church.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Define "hurting people on the Internet"


If someone writes a bogus review of one of my books, they are taking money out of my pocket - food out of my children's mouths... so to speak.

I'm not talking about "I didn't like the book," type stuff. I'm talking about people who, out of pure spite, write absolutely untrue, hurtful comments and reviews. It's not just Amazon... it's not just books. The internet is full of this crap. Most people with a business on the net have suffered from this.

I know three of my reviews that I could win a slander lawsuit if I wanted to take the time to hunt the reviewer down. I can prove the reviews hurt sales. I can prove what was said wasn't true or accurate. This applies more to non-fiction, than fiction, but still.

That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> *WTF?*
> 
> Where do you get that? It's just that in our society a boy/man will rather suffer in silence than admit he has been raped.
> That's one of the reasons why altar boys being raped by priests was/is endemic in the Catholic Church.


Andrew, my reference was to grown men over age 21. My understanding is that rape general is grossly under-reported and that amongst adults, studies estimate male victims at 3% and female victims at 20% - or at least those are the figures I remember when studying this subject (social studies).


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Anya said:


> Andrew, my reference was to grown men over age 21. My understanding is that rape general is grossly under-reported and that amongst adults, studies estimate male victims at 3% and female victims at 20% - or at least those are the figures I remember when studying this subject (social studies).


* Approximately 1.5 million women and *835,000 men* are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. (National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence - July 2000)

* One in every 6 women and *one in every 33 men* have been raped at some point of their life. (U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization - January 2006)

http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm

Granted, women run a higher risk but this hardly amounts to, "something that happens almost exclusively to women."


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> * One in every 6 women and *one in every 33 men* have been raped at some point of their life. (U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization - January 2006)


I'm in total agreement Andrew. A huge number of men have been raped at some point in their lives. It seems that every day there's another report of some religious order, boarding school or other in which these crimes were perpetrated. I personally know men who suffered these things at the hands of 'religious' men when they were young. And yes, rape happens to grown men too - and it should be treated as seriously as any rape should be, with men given full support in the reporting of rape.

The point of my post was that rape threats are often used against women online and in very public ways. Such as the threats against the woman responsible for putting the image of a woman on a British bank note:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/twitter-apologizes-to-women-abused-online/2013/08/03/a1a02818-fc6a-11e2-89f7-8599e3f77a67_story.html

Rape threats, in general, are not aimed at men in public. Women are constantly being reminded - if you're female, you don't deserve to have an opinion, and you 'should be raped' to shut you up.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Anya said:


> I'm in total agreement Andrew. A huge number of men have been raped at some point in their lives. It seems that every day there's another report of some religious order, boarding school or other in which these crimes were perpetrated. I personally know men who suffered these things at the hands of 'religious' men when they were young. And yes, rape happens to grown men too - and it should be treated as seriously as any rape should be, with men given full support in the reporting of rape.
> 
> The point of my post was that rape threats are often used against women online and in very public ways. Such as the threats against the woman responsible for putting the image of a woman on a British bank note:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/twitter-apologizes-to-women-abused-online/2013/08/03/a1a02818-fc6a-11e2-89f7-8599e3f77a67_story.html
> ...


Permit me to say that this is what you should have said in the first place.

Stated like this, I can agree wholeheartedly. Even more, in our society with its skewed male so-called morals, even male rape has a gender connotation. The rapist aims to take the manliness away from someone by (mis)treating him as in his sick mind a woman can/should be treated.

PS:
Let's not mince words: 'religious' men = anointed priests and confirmed ministers. Without the single quotes.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

I read about this today  

Personally I'd have continued with the book release thinking all the buzz created would have to help sales but then everyone handles things differently and it's definitely a case of your own sanity and well being coming first.  

I don't think this woman was being particularly thin-skinned.  She hadn't even released her book yet.  It wasn't a reaction to a bad review but questioning the rating system.  I think it was a fair enough question - why does GR allow readers to rate books that aren't even released?

It's a terrible thing that people can use rape threats against a person on social media and the social media owners can get away with saying it's not against their policy.  It's not just Goodreads but I've also seen it happen on twitter and facebook recently.  On twitter with the case Anya mentioned amongst others while facebook lets groups that incite rape to operate on their site.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

This reinforces why I stay away from direct interaction with potential readers and reviewers. I stay away from goodreads especially... it's utter anarchy. I do answer messages sent to me on this site and on my FB page, of course, but I've never seen anyone wade into the public discourse over their own book and come out victorious. 

The pack mentality that permeates the internet now that people can rip you to shreds anonymously and safely behind a screen name has brought out the worst in a lot of folks. I feel for this author... I'm not sure what I would have done if I was being eviscerated before I even published for the first time.  

I agree that a LOT of indie authors don't seem to understand that by offering their work for sale they've effectively entered the entertainment industry with all the rewards and horrors that entails. If you don't get a thick skin you won't survive long. But this particular incident seems way over the top.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Permit me to say that this is what you should have said in the first place.
> 
> Stated like this, I can agree wholeheartedly. Even more, in our society with its skewed male so-called morals, even male rape has a gender connotation. The rapist aims to take the manliness away from someone by (mis)treating him as in his sick mind a woman can/should be treated.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'll permit you to say that. Sometimes, words on an internet forum do not carry the intended meaning.

Such as the word religious. It could mean following a religion. It could also mean godly and aspiring to a higher moral compass. I can't see how those perpetrators were in the least bit godly. One of the young men I was referencing was a victim of a church leader of a small informal church (not ordained or confirmed) - the young man was only 10-11 at the time. 
I am demeaning their right to be called religious by my use of single quotes.

And no, I am neither godly nor religious - thank God 

On the subject of this thread - the author did say she was mistaken about the rape threats and also misquoted.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I agree with the sentiment that Goodreads has reached a point - actually reached it long ago - where they require moderation. Personally, I think they should dip into what they're earning from authors and publishers on advertising to hire people whose job it is to keep violent rhetoric off the site. They may be too large for volunteer staff to keep up with these incidents. 

As to whether the author in question should've canceled the release of her book, I wouldn't have but that's her choice to make. It appears the situation may have been misunderstood in this instance and the author wasn't being threatened after all. But either way, this sort of thing happens on GR constantly and ought to be addressed by the site owners.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

I have a lot of experience with that crowd. 

They are on the Amazon message boards too, or at least were, I haven't been there in a while. I ran into them head first three years ago by posting in the wrong place. Of course, there was no right place at the time. I let them chew on me a while, and sold a boat load of books. They've come after me three times since then, making fun of cover art, blurbs, posted bad reviews, etc., etc, etc. and every time I let them know I knew what they're doing, my sales went up.

So I started asking them to attack some of the books that weren't selling very well. Golly gee whiz, they wouldn't do it - and I asked nicely. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.


----------



## JB Rowley (Jan 29, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> 100% this. Anyone who says, "Well, yeah, she had it coming. She commented on a review" has become inured to how hateful reviewers can be to authors. I don't care if it upsets some people for authors to comment on reviews. Bullying, threats, promises of rape . . . there's no excusing that. Those people (and there are a lot of them on GR and Twitter) are a massive problem. They are evil. A couple of actresses have quit their careers in the past year because of abuse on Twitter.
> 
> And the people who say "Get a thick skin" haven't been through this, I don't think.


Well said, Hugh.

Although I have 'met' some lovely people in the Aussie groups at Goodreads I have not been comfortable there. The culture of bullying seems to start with the site administrators.


----------



## hyh (Jul 21, 2013)

OMG...as a newbie about to launch my debut novel next month, I'd just uploaded my book to Goodreads last night and was getting excited about it! Then I saw the article today and then this thread... 

Now I'm scared.  

Hsin-Yi


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I had a lovely reader post about this on my FB trying to rally forces and I deleted it.  Why?  Because I knew I didn't have the whole story.  Yes, Goodreads has bullies living there.  Trolls, if you will.  I've taken my share of lumps from non-reading reviewers.  But they don't just attack out of the blue for no reason like that.  Yes, they will crap-star a book and talk smack about an author, but to attack?  That usually takes some sort of provocation from the author.  So until I had the whole story, I wasn't interested in putting myself in the cross-hairs.  Going after reviewers who are acting badly and asking others to jump on the bandwagon sounded/felt way too much like bullying to me.  An eye for an eye usually is a bad idea in my book.

Someone on this thread explained that she PMed the reviewer to call her a troll and then her friend told the reviewer to stick her hand in a blender.    Yeah.  Just as I suspected.  Author and friends behaving badly.  I'm so glad I didn't let this post stay on my FB.

Does she deserve to be bullied back?  No.  Does she deserve to have her Goodreads account closed?  Probably.  Will that ever happen?  No.  Goodreads seems to pride itself on the outlaw mentality.  And Amazon bought it because it was so popular and has so much influence on book buyers.  It's doubtful they'll change the way things work.  I wish they would of course, but if it was worth millions of $$$ the way it was, why would they?

Anyone using social media of any type (especially forum-based ones like GR) is completely stupid and asking for trouble if they don't bother to learn the lay of the land first. We've all seen it.  It doesn't take much to ruin your reputation.  We've seen it happen here on KBoards, even, and we're pretty nice, tolerant folks.  If all she had done was ask that innocent question, it all would have blown over and she would have been fine.  But she ATTACKED a reviewer.  Not just commented about how the review was wrong, but attacked her.  That's not okay.

PMing someone to call her a troll and having your friend go after her and suggest self-harming is NOT an innocent question being asked, as she's suggested.  This author is not being honest with the public, so shame on her for that.  It explains to me why she's not publishing her book.  Who'd buy a book written by someone who does that?  She's going to have to come up with a new pen name and a new title first.  I'll bet you she does.


----------



## Lo/Roxie (May 11, 2011)

The author in question has a post up where she talks about how this hot mess of a Charlie Foxtrot started. (http://laurenpippa.tumblr.com/post/58960875753/hopefully-clearing-stuff-up) Probably best viewed with a grain of salt--but there it is. There are some sceenshots floating around online of the offensive shelf tags.

I think the problem with GR is that it's SO big and there are so many private corners that it's impossible to know how this dust-up really began. I'm honestly surprised at the people who are shocked to learn that some users tag shelves with such wild names. Like, seriously, "aggressive-male-affection-in-prison" and "would-rather-drink-motor-oil-sp**ge" are among the TAMEST shelf names I've seen over there in a long time.


----------



## AKMartin (Jul 21, 2012)

There should be zero tolerance on any sort of bullying or abusive behaviour that happens on these sites. 
Social Media sites have their uses but they are also the cause of a lot of hurt in people’s lives, because the owners of these sites do not take corrective action to stamp out these types of acts.

Humanity is easily lost, in a faceless world


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Someone on this thread explained that she PMed the reviewer to call her a troll and then her friend told the reviewer to stick her hand in a blender.  Yeah. Just as I suspected. Author and friends behaving badly. I'm so glad I didn't let this post stay on my FB.


Yeah, that's really not good.
I'd be interested to know where the poster learned this.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

I've only replied to one or two reviews on GR, which was to point out an erroneous fact about the book that the reviewer mentioned. This was before I realised you shouldn't reply at all. Nothing else happened, the reviewers never replied or anything like that.

I've never got threats from anyone on GR, but a while back I did get death threats and commenters saying things like I should burn in hell because of my little Sims videos, because they had gay content. At the time it terrified me, I had never had anything like that happen to me before online. I disabled commenting for a lot of the videos, so if they want to spew vitriol, I don't have to see it.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Ah, so not quite the "poor innocent author being attacked" thing. Thanks for clearing that up, Elle. I wasn't going to say anything, since replies had went poof on GR, so I didn't know all the details.

That said, the incivility in this society is becoming disheartening. It's one reason I have no use for all those "reality" shows -- participants seem to be encouraged to be as nasty and hateful as possible, and sadly, people mimic what they see. It must be all right, since it's allowed on TV, right?

Rape and other threats of physical violence shouldn't be allowed, no matter who does it, who is on the receiving end, or where it's at.


----------



## RockyGrede (Apr 19, 2013)

Haven't amazon brought out good reads?

I think they will sort these kind of issues much more quickly in the future. But at the same time, to what extent will remain to be seen

I've been on good reads for a few weeks now. But after reading this thread, I'm wondering if it was a right move. So far it's been good. I guess I have to be careful what I post over there.


----------



## Pamela (Oct 6, 2010)

I never go to Goodreads.  A reviewer said she wanted to hurt my main character in one book.  

On Amazon I have fun with reviewers.  Sometimes I'll offer a free book, if they like my writing. I've made some nice reader friends.  In one case a reviewer asked me what happened to a dog in one of my books.  So I made up a happy ending for Bruno, the dog, in a reply to her review.


----------



## Ashy (Jul 2, 2013)

It seems that this thread is kinda splitting: one half seems to want to talk about and define bullying and the other wants to talk about reviews on Goodreads. I'll speak to the latter, as that's where my experience lies. H20 received several reviews that I would say that I'm not happy about, but I responded (privately) to almost all of them...in that I *THANKED* the reviewer for their opinions and for sharing them. Just because I don't like your opinion does not mean that I don't like you, as an individual -- and just because I might not value your rating of my book does not mean that I do not value your right to have, and express, your opinion. In many cases, this has lead to an honest and open dialogue between the reviewer and I. It has taught me lots about the _*PEOPLE*_ on Goodreads, and lots about why I wrote the book to begin with. I try and focus on that and then move on.

HTH


----------



## Nigel Cross (Aug 21, 2013)

I chalk this whole thing up to a few misunderstandings that basically fed into more misunderstandings. Her main mistake was asking an honest question about why people would review a book before it's actually published. There's a reason for it, and she obviously didn't know it. Then the reviewers who are often reactive more than they should be, saw her question as a challenge, and then immediately came to the charge, basically responding as if she was one of those reactive writers who engage readers with hostility. From there, it grew on its own as the next wave of people rarely read the instruments that lead to circumstances and then jump in, filling in all sorts of details that never actually happened, which then leads to ridiculous statements that trollish behavior people tend to make on the Internet.

If anything good comes out of this, she learns that people aren't easily appeased and that as a writer you need to grow a massively thick skin against those who are just nuts. Her reaction of pulling her book was a bit over the top, but it's her choice, so it will be interesting to see where it goes from here. If anything, she may have achieved a lot of early publicity for a book that may or may not be published, regardless of whether or not that was originally her intent.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

I really don't think we know the "truth," Elle.

The author said she did one thing; the group who is after her said she did one thing. Nor do we know whether she ordered her friend to go after the group. Maybe she did or maybe her friend did it on her own after a private email crying on her shoulder.

I just feel bad for any newbie authors first stepping out into marketing their books. Do you remember how it was like--to read boards and have a check list of things to do and sites to visit to try to "promote?" Some of the advice out there are downright dangerous for one's mental health but many noobs don't know that. I learned a few painful lessons myself and that was when the Internet had "kinder" posters who don't call people gutter names to humiliate the target. It is sad she has to let go of her dream and be forced to shut down her blog as well.

I wish Lauren Pippa well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

I think this story is a disgraceful reflection on the growing toxic nature of Goodreads and Amazon forums. You only have to read a few of the posts from here to see what's going on: http://www.stopthegrbullies.com

I don't buy for one moment that any author deserves to be threatened in anyway and/or have their books sabotaged by a bunch of mad trolls just because they think they own a social media site. And that's what it is: social media, yet somehow the very people that create the books that these reviewers play god over aren't allowed any voice for any reason, all the while bullies and trolls can ruin authors' reputation and threaten them.

I don't care about 'rules' and whatnot. There is no rule on that site that says authors should be treated like scum. There are hundreds of examples of this going on. You only have to look at some of the disgusting shelves that have been created by these various trolls to denigrate a large number of authors. I've seen it first had with a friend of mine. She wrote a blog post about why she wrote a book, a bunch of trolls took it out of context and started a vendetta against her and her books on GR.

Rookie mistakes, not engaging etc etc etc ... none of that excuses the behaviour that goes on that site, and it's growing. That's a very sad state of affairs.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

GoodReads is a great place to announce new books. I watch the reviews on a new book to see if there is a problem, other than that, it is just not a good idea to talk to reviewers. Someone will always take issue with what you say.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> Someone on this thread explained that she PMed the reviewer to call her a troll and then her friend told the reviewer to stick her hand in a blender.  Yeah. Just as I suspected. Author and friends behaving badly. I'm so glad I didn't let this post stay on my FB.


I won't defend those who threaten rape, murder, or other such harm. There are sadly people on both sides of the equation who seem to always take things too far.

That being said, I'm active on Goodreads and generally speaking most "wounds" are self-inflicted there. Good behavior is often met with good behavior. Act like an @ss, though and the masses will descend upon you.

Outside of the above extreme examples, most times if the reaction seems a bit much compared to the "crime" it's because it happens over and over again. Think about it. There are 2 million+ ebooks on Amazon now. How many of them were pretty much just spewed out by someone thinking they were God's gift to publishing who then proceeded to spam every single place they could find and responded to negative responses vilely? I've seen it happen several times. People get sick of it and get overly defensive as a result.

That being said, I don't think it's hard to avoid either.

1) Read the rules.
2) Be polite and/or professional
3) Keep your friends or family in check (as much as you can)
4) If you hear that friends and/or family get out of line explain that you don't condone that sort of crap


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

I decided to write a blog post on using Goodreads. I know a lot of this has already been said, but if you can think of anything to add drop me a comment. Goodreads can be great, it's just such an overwhelming place for a new author! Hopefully this might help: http://sarahdaltonbooks.com/?p=245


----------



## Melisse (Jun 3, 2012)

I won't support a site that gives power to bullies and abusers. More will come.

Getting a 'thick skin' so such gross verbal abuse rolls off your back is actually something abusers value.  Tey like it when they can tell their hurting victims to'get over it.'

Am off the site(which seemed sometime ago to welcome authors with their author pages). Won't be back unless they make policy changes regarding threats of violence.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Melisse_Aires said:


> I won't support a site that gives power to bullies and abusers. More will come.
> 
> Getting a 'thick skin' so such gross verbal abuse rolls off your back is actually something abusers value. Tey like it when they can tell their hurting victims to'get over it.'
> 
> Am off the site(which seemed sometime ago to welcome authors with their author pages). Won't be back unless they make policy changes regarding threats of violence.


I don't think there were actual threats in this instance. It's something that looks to have been blown out of proportion in the retellings, but a lot has been deleted so it's difficult to know.

I do agree that Goodreads needs moderators, though. I think they are going to have to have a long think about how Goodreads is run.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Pamela said:


> I never go to Goodreads. A reviewer said she wanted to hurt my main character in one book.


This actually made me chuckle, because I'm posting a WiP on Wattpad, and one of my fans-and he's actually a fan-hates the narrator. (Each book in the series has a different narrator.) He jokes about it and about when another character's going to kill her. *shrug* Something she's doing _could_ very well get her killed by that other character.

Now, as for the topic&#8230; It's entirely possible that a friend of the author lashed out _despite_ the author's input, and the folks on Goodreads assumed that the author was behind it.

I once received a perfectly legitimate negative review-one that stung, but it gave me the clue stick that I'd mislabeled my story. I showed it to a few friends, smiling and saying, "Remember that comment you made? This is what you were referring to! Here's what I did wrong. I finally got the clue stick!"

My friends got more ticked off about it than I was. I actually had to beg a few of them to _not_ go after the reviewer.

In this case&#8230; We don't have the full story, and we likely never will. Any site can have a bullying vibe, if you hit a hot topic or have the wrong attitude. I recall an incident not all that long ago wherein KBoards wasn't innocent, itself. *shrug*

Now, threats _are_ out of line, but whether that's what happened or not&#8230;we don't know. And frankly, I'm not convinced it's any of our business, particularly since the author's saying things were blown out of proportion.


----------



## Pearson Moore (Mar 14, 2011)

Bullying? From readers? From that august group that champions literacy and extols the written word?

Yes.

I know for a fact because several of my works have been literally bullied into non-existence. I removed them from circulation after they were plastered with one-star reviews. Trolls and their nasty comments drove me from two major websites. I studied the history, and it turns out that these now desaparecidos volumes were offered on literary ground that had long been given over to a turf war between violently opposed camps. I'm being vague here, for my own protection. But the end result is sad for both readers and author.

The world has changed a lot since I was a young man, and in some unsavory, distasteful ways. It's not just in the realm of books, either. Our grandparents would be ashamed of most of us and our so-called "culture." I remain an optimist. Many of the changes since World War II have been positive. I suppose it's because I'm an optimist--that I believe improvement is possible--that in my personal life I have joined groups that work towards cultural improvement. But I am sad when good ideas get shouted down by the loud, intolerant belligerents among us who wish to force their views on humanity.










Our grandparents fought the hate-filled people standing around that book-burning fire. I remain optimistic that we can work in a peaceful manner to convert the hatemongers. But I'm sad to see that hatred of ideas remains as strong as it was that night in Berlin in 1938 when Nazis and ordinary Germans asserted Aryan supremacy over any idea that did not match their beliefs.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Nigel Cross said:


> If anything good comes out of this, she learns that people aren't easily appeased and that as a writer you need to grow a massively thick skin against those who are just nuts.


I do not completely disagree, but I do have some problems with this statement.

* Good writers are thin-skinned and should remain so.
* This puts the blame and the responsibility on the victim. Bullies need to stop bullying or need to be _made_ stop bullying.

A lot of people on this board seem to admire Stephen King. Maybe we should take a look how he uses Goodreads and follow his example.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Pearson Moore said:


> I remain optimistic that we can work in a peaceful manner to convert the hatemongers. But I'm sad to see that hatred of ideas remains as strong as it was that night in Berlin in 1938 when Nazis and ordinary Germans asserted Aryan supremacy over any idea that did not match their beliefs.


You aren't seriously comparing the people on Goodreads to Nazis are you?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Sigh. I guess I shouldn't be surprised this made it to Kboards. 

First of all, there were no threats of any kind towards the author. Nobody threatened her with rape. Did not happen. She lied. Then it spread all over the net. In her latest "apology" the author now says that nobody threatened her with any rape. 
But nobody hears that anymore now in the rah rah rah down with the evil goodreads reviewers posts everywhere. 

It was the authors friends that told one reviewer to stick their hand in a blender and another one of her friends told another one to go hang herself. And yes, there are actual screenshots of that. There are none of the author being threatened, since that never happened. 

But hey, good publicity stunt. Now instead of having one 2 star from someone that hadn't read her book, she now has 100 fake 5 stars from supporters. 

And how she claimed she won't publish? Yep, she changed her mind. She now wants to change the cover and the name. So now she has a bunch of 5 stars and an average rating of almost 5. Mission accomplished.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

There is an old saying about how a lie can travel around the world while the truth puts on its shoes. This isn't a case of bullying on Goodreads or authors versus readers. It's a case of a Salon writer not fact-checking a damn story before posting it.

I've been on the receiving end of rape threats and threats of violence. I'm talking "we need to get a restraining order" level threats. I take that stuff seriously. I have zero tolerance for the culture of rape that is used to shut up women in social media environments. So I had the same knee jerk reaction most people had when they first read the article.

But as the "facts" emerged, apparently the author was never threatened with anything. She "misread" a tag category. Granted, a tag category in poor taste. But saying "I would rather be sodomized than read this book" is not the same thing as saying "you should be sodomized." It shows a lack of immaturity and common sense. The rape threats did not actually happen. Either we take the author's story at face value and she simply, innocently "misunderstood" the category on Goodreads, or she willfully misrepresented the issue.

To be clear, insofar as the actual known FACTS on the ground are at this time, there was never a threat of rape. Those threats were misreported in the Salon article, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise.

But this story will continue to spread _as is_, because it fits the victimhood narrative that is common among indies. Because when you are the victim, nothing is your fault. And this story, despite the fact that we now know it didn't go down like the original article stated, will become "fact" and harden the victimhood narrative. Because of this false narrative, all negative reviews on Goodreads are abusive. Because of this false narrative, ALL people on Goodreads are trolls.

The truth is, I am more inclined to believe the author willfully misrepresented the truth to solicit sympathy than I am to believe this is a case of bullying. Because I see the willful misrepresentation of facts for this purpose _all the time._ Heck, some authors seem to use the willful misrepresentation of facts as a marketing tool to generate pity sales. And it is only after someone stops and points out that the emperor has no clothes that the author starts to backpeddle on the willful misrepresentation.

At the end of the day, the lesson we need to learn is that we should stop and think before we accept a story at face value. It is natural human behavior to believe the first version of a story we hear. This is why lies spread so quickly. This is why false information spreads so quickly. Social media is too dangerous of a beast to just accept everything we see on it at face value. There is a high probability that the first version of events is not being told by the most honest person, but by the one who got online the fastest.


----------



## Melisse (Jun 3, 2012)

Quote from linked article:
' My book was added to shelves named ‘author should be sodomized’ and ‘should be raped in prison’ 

Sorry, I won't sugar coat that. That is a threat of violence. It's not funny and I won't be on asite that allows it.


----------



## Pearson Moore (Mar 14, 2011)

Yes. Some readers at Goodreads, some readers at just about any forum, are intolerant. In that respect they are similar to Nazis. When they threaten or wish death or rape, I think we can say yes, they are behaving as a good Nazi would. I would imagine we speak here of a few loud, obnoxious trolls and not the majority of readers. Well, I take that as given. But I believe much of the angst suffered at Goodreads by those, like myself, whose ideas have been shouted down, who have been personally threatened or abused, is due to these loud thugs. KB has taken some useful stands in this regard. Criticism is allowed, but not if it becomes personal. I think this is a simple, no-nonsense way of dealing with trolls. Goodreads could learn a thing or two from KB.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Melisse_Aires said:


> Quote from linked article:
> ' My book was added to shelves named 'author should be sodomized' and 'should be raped in prison'
> 
> Sorry, I won't sugar coat that. That is a threat of violence. It's not funny and I won't be on asite that allows it.


And those are lies. That is not the name of the 2 shelves. Period. I saw the 2 shelves before the person changed them, that was not what they were called. That is someone making it up. But again, nobody wants to actually look up the truth anymore in these days of instant media.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Pearson Moore said:


> Yes. Some readers at Goodreads, some readers at just about any forum, are intolerant. In that respect they are similar to Nazis. When they threaten or wish death or rape, I think we can say yes, they are behaving as a good Nazi would.


Repeating: the threats did not happen.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Repeating: the threats did not happen.


Nobody hears.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Here's more info on it with screen caps:

http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2013/08/21/the-attack-on-lauren-howard-part-2/


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Pearson Moore said:


> Yes. Some readers at Goodreads, some readers at just about any forum, are intolerant. In that respect they are similar to Nazis.


Wow, talk about dumping a gallon of liquid oxygen onto a match.

I'm sorry, but any comparison of an online forum, where typically the worst behavior you get is name calling, to a group of monsters like that shows a serious lack of perspective in my book. Negative book reviews != people who were responsible for concentration camps.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

ColinFBarnes said:


> Here's more info on it with screen caps:
> 
> http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2013/08/21/the-attack-on-lauren-howard-part-2/


I wouldn't believe anything on that website if it had the Pope's seal of approval on it.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Nobody hears.


Nah, we hear. If you look back in the thread there are a few people talking about how there were two sides to the story, and the same on Absolutewrite.

When you hear words like 'rape and death threats' it's hard not to have an emotional response. But after the initial shock most people start to look into things more closely.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Atunah said:


> And those are lies. That is not the name of the 2 shelves. Period. I saw the 2 shelves before the person changed them, that was not what they were called. That is someone making it up. But again, nobody wants to actually look up the truth anymore in these days of instant media.


So, you are saying Anne R. Allen is a liar.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2013/cancelling-the-release-of-debut-novel/#comment-126594


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Ya know. . . .this thread was going really really well until just this morning . . . . . . bit now it's starting to get a bit warm . . . consider this a yellow flag. . .


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Oh wow, there is so much vitriol being thrown around on these links people are posting. This is beyond help or discussion and so I'm backing away slowly...


----------



## Pearson Moore (Mar 14, 2011)

Rick,

Hmmm. No, I am not equating book trolls with people who set up concentration camps and had a goal of genocide. That came later, historically. The book burnings were happening long before the concentration camps were built. I am *comparing* people who burned books with present-day book trolls. That's all. I think the comparison is legitimate. I'm sorry I upset you!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Wow, talk about dumping a gallon of liquid oxygen onto a match.
> 
> I'm sorry, but any comparison of an online forum, where typically the worst behavior you get is name calling, to a group of monsters like that shows a serious lack of perspective in my book. Negative book reviews != people who were responsible for concentration camps.


Tragic mistake.
This is the usual facile explanation. The Nazis were monsters, hence concentration camps.
The reality: most Nazis were ordinary "decent" people, often very religious, who committed the most cruel acts because someone in authority had told them the victims deserved it.

See also: http://www.prisonexp.org/


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

O.K.  locked. . . . .under discussion in admin. . . . .


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks...

Ann had to go out and passed this one on to me after a discussion in Admin.  I've read through the whole thread, including the parts I had already read.

Let's all stipulate that Nazis are bad and book-burning is bad and let's stop the comparisons of members on GoodReads to Nazis, book-burners and the kidnapper in Cleveland.  The majority of GoodReads members are well-behaved book enthusiasts (*waves hand*) and potentially your customers.  And some are also members here, as has been made clear.

I'm going to reopen the thread for now.  Further discussion of and comparisons to Nazis will be removed as inflammatory.  Frankly, I see another threadlock in its future, but we'll give it a try.  You've had the yellow flag.  Red flag comes next.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I wouldn't believe anything on that website if it had the Pope's seal of approval on it.


It's spin central, but even their screenshots corroborate that the the claimed "threats" as posted by the author did not occur. The shelf names, while crude and excessive IMHO, are not threats directed at the author of rape or sodomy and do not match what the author originally placed in quotes, which one might assume is, you know, _an actual quote_.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> And the people who say "Get a thick skin" haven't been through this, I don't think.


Except that's really the only answer. Get a thick skin. Be the professional. Be a bigger person than some random stranger on the internet.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

*TOS from my web host:*

"Racist, intolerant, "hate", defamatory, "stalking", invitations to fight, threatening or any communication of any nature that we decide, in our sole discretion, as being improper, will result in service termination without prior notice."

*KBoards registration agreement*

". . . you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law."

*Goodreads terms of use*

"You agree not to post User Content that: (i) may create a risk of harm, loss, physical or mental injury, emotional distress, death, disability, disfigurement, or physical or mental illness to you, to any other person, or to any animal; (ii) may create a risk of any other loss or damage to any person or property; (iii) seeks to harm or exploit children by exposing them to inappropriate content, asking for personally identifiable details or otherwise; (iv) may constitute or contribute to a crime or tort; (v) contains any information or content that we deem to be unlawful, harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, harassing, humiliating to other people (publicly or otherwise), libelous, threatening, profane, or otherwise objectionable . . ."

I still say work to have Goodreads taken down


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> Except that's really the only answer. Get a thick skin. Be the professional. Be a bigger person than some random stranger on the internet.


I don't claim to be a professional and I like my thin skin just the way it is, thank you very much.

Yet you are right. We have to find a way to rise above the occasion. "Be a bigger person than some random stranger on the internet" is certainly one way of doing that.


----------



## Pearson Moore (Mar 14, 2011)

Knowing the particulars of a story is always important. I am grateful to Julie and others who corrected initial misreporting of the particulars. Nevertheless, even with corrections, it appears that Lauren Howard was bullied in that her book received one- and two-star reviews before it was even published, before any of the reviewers had read it. The way I read this is that certain members of a group dedicated to reading tried to create an environment in which people would be turned away from Ms. Howard's book. I doesn't strike me that referring to this as *bullying* is off the mark.

Certain members of this--here unnamed--group were intolerant of Ms. Howard. It seems to me this unnamed group would have been better off censuring or even expelling the members who flailed offensive words and unjustified low ratings at Ms. Howard. Maybe not. Maybe we should be tolerant of all manner of intolerance and vitriolic behavior. I think one of the problems with this--here unnamed--group and groups like it is an overly open posture regarding intolerance.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

It only took us to page three of this thread to vindicate Godwin's Law? Wow, just ... wow.

The most interesting thing to me about all this ridiculously overblown drama has been watching the reactions. So many people seem to instantly have an opinion on this issue, and hardly anyone is stepping back to say "wait--what really happened here?"

I have no idea who to believe at this point but I suspect everyone involved is at fault to some degree. 

Also, c'mon guys ... a one-star is NOT the end of the world.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

I think the issue is being hidden behind the drama, which is the use of the review systems and the review systems themselves. We as writers cannot control those who do the reviewing, and trying to do so can result in more dramatic situations such as the one that happened. With algorithms being hooked in with reviews as well as affecting the business of book purchasing, it gives the reviewers a tremendous amount of power. And those who have power are not always ones who wield it with benevolence.

The review systems that some sites use have their own issues. In the case of Goodreads for this one particular incidence, two things would have solved some of the problems. One, while GR members should be able to add books to their shelves prior to its release, there's no reason for a starred review system to be active until the book is actually released. Two, GR should police or moderate the titles to those shelves with the same prejudice it gives for posting a review. 

There are a lot of people trying to define what bullying is in the case of the incident. It's more concerning to me that people are focusing on how the writer 1) brought this on herself, 2) should grow a thick skin, 3) manipulated the situation to get attention, and 4) lied in order to market her writing. There are excuses on both sides either blaming or supporting her. But the bullying itself is evident in what was done in response to her including a mass attack of negative reviews and a barrage of negative comments through GR, Twitter, and in the comments of the Salon article as well as The Passive Voice. Did she make mistakes? We can all agree she did as a young writer new to the profession. Did it open her up to the situation she found herself in? Yes it did. Does that absolve those involved in responding negatively against her? No, it doesn't.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Pearson Moore said:


> Knowing the particulars of a story is always important. I am grateful to ***** and others who corrected initial misreporting of the particulars. Nevertheless, even with corrections, it appears that Lauren Howard was bullied in that her book received one- and two-star reviews before it was even published,


No, that wasn't bullying. It's actually part of Goodreads design.

When you rate a book, it alerts the GR algorithms that you like, or don't like, a certain type of book. For example, if I hate vampire romances and I don't want Goodreads to recommend them to me, I one star books like Twilight. That tells Goodreads "Don't recommend books like Twilight." What happens is sometimes books show up in your recommendations that you will never read. You one or two star them so the GR algorithms stop recommending them.

Goodreads is a READER site designed to help readers find the kind of books they want. The ratings serve a valuable purpose to the readers. Nobody was harassing her with one star reviews. Those were people telling Goodreads not to recommend books like that.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

fallswriter said:


> But the bullying itself is evident in what was done in response to her including a mass attack of negative reviews and a barrage of negative comments through GR, Twitter, and in the comments of the Salon article as well as The Passive Voice. Did she make mistakes? We can all agree she did as a young writer new to the profession. Did it open her up to the situation she found herself in? Yes it did. Does that absolve those involved in responding negatively against her? No, it doesn't.


There was no mass attack of negative reviews. There were exactly a total of 5 one stars. 5. There are 100's of fake 5 stars though. 
And its really insulting to those that have been bullied in reality, to call a person shelving a book with a 2 star rating a bully. That person in question, the one that it all started with, has never been heard from. They just put 2 stars on that book for whatever reason. That was it. And the author has said she send out ARC's. The supposed attacks on the author never happened. 
And the author on her website even admitted that she was never threatened. Didn't happen.

It is really kind of ridiculous how all this venom towards readers and members of goodreads, just because one person marked a book with 2 stars.

And by the way there are many books listed on goodreads that aren't out yet that have a bunch of ratings. Its the way goodreads works. Of course authors never whine when they get a 5 star before a book is published.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

I hear you, Atunah.

Hilariously enough, after posting my comments above, I noticed a new one-star on one of my books.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

As someone who was bullied IRL, I have to agree. Internet bullying by people you don't know and live half a world away? Seriously, get a grip, people. Just stay off those sites, don't read email or turn off the bloody computer. Problem solved! This is not bullying, it's something-is-wrong-on-the-internet-ness.

At goodreads, 2 stars is meant to stand for "this is OK".

I think that's ridiculous, and always use 3 stars for "OK" books.

Also, I love it that on goodreads you can write a review without rating and rate without reviewing.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, that wasn't bullying. It's actually part of Goodreads design.
> 
> When you rate a book, it alerts the GR algorithms that you like, or don't like, a certain type of book. For example, if I hate vampire romances and I don't want Goodreads to recommend them to me, I one star books like Twilight. That tells Goodreads "Don't recommend books like Twilight." What happens is sometimes books show up in your recommendations that you will never read. You one or two star them so the GR algorithms stop recommending them.
> 
> Goodreads is a READER site designed to help readers find the kind of books they want. The ratings serve a valuable purpose to the readers. Nobody was harassing her with one star reviews. Those were people telling Goodreads not to recommend books like that.


Julie,

Will you marry me? (Well, once polygamy becomes legal, anyway.)

We really need to dispense with this fiction that a 1-star rating on Goodreads is an attack of any kind on an author. It isn't. Whether the book is released or not. Whether the reader has read the book or not. Whether the reader explains their rating or not.

If you can't get your head around this or it bothers you that readers use Goodreads in ways that don't benefit you, don't use Goodreads. It's entirely optional, after all.

Take care,
Jackie


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Hilariously enough, after posting my comments above, I noticed a new one-star on one of my books.


Wear it with pride, wear it well. 

But really, I am consistently baffled at how little credit readers seem to get from many authors. We read, we have brains. We see a 2 star on a book, no text, we can kind of tell if we are going to put any stock in it. Most of the time we don't. Because we are well aware how different people are and how goodreads works. That is why most regular users and heavy readers have friends and people they follow. So those reviews and ratings are always shown first. In many cases, we don't even have to scroll down further. 
So if a friend or a person I follow has no text but a rating, I can use that. I know what they like and rate. That is why I follow them. I can compare my ratings with theirs.
A rating to a name I don't know and who's books don't match what I like, wouldn't be useful to me. Its that simple. 
We can tell.

We are smart enough to pick through the stuff. We really are. Please give us some credit once in a while. 
This isn't pointed towards Joe that I quoted, just in general. This constant flipping out over some ratings on goodreads is just really bizarre. 
I am way more put off a book that has a average rating of 4.5 and its not a well known author, than I am seeing a few 1 or 2 star ratings on a book.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No, that wasn't bullying. It's actually part of Goodreads design.
> 
> When you rate a book, it alerts the GR algorithms that you like, or don't like, a certain type of book. For example, if I hate vampire romances and I don't want Goodreads to recommend them to me, I one star books like Twilight. That tells Goodreads "Don't recommend books like Twilight." What happens is sometimes books show up in your recommendations that you will never read. You one or two star them so the GR algorithms stop recommending them.
> 
> Goodreads is a READER site designed to help readers find the kind of books they want. The ratings serve a valuable purpose to the readers. Nobody was harassing her with one star reviews. Those were people telling Goodreads not to recommend books like that.


Okay. That's a rational explanation.

Goodreads actively promotes its site to writers. Join, they yell. Connect with readers, they cry out. Have fun. Promote your books&#8230; They even want their readers to send sycophantic letters to the writers they love. "Join Goodreads. You'll be revered as an author there&#8230;"



> Hello,
> 
> I'm an avid reader of your books, and I am writing to invite you to join Goodreads.com, which is the largest community of book lovers online. Because you are a published author, you already have a profile on Goodreads:
> 
> ...


Goodreads is the largest site of *book lovers* they tell you. Not a single word that it is a site that is the exclusive domain of readers.

The very least they could do when they send out such letters, and certainly when they actually give you author status is explain the way their site, and especially the rating system, works.

It takes about twenty minutes to write a little standard text that could prevent a lot of hassle further down the road.

So, why don't they?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> "Join Goodreads. You'll be revered as an author there&#8230;"


Couldn't find where they say this? 

But, yeah, based on what I've read here many times on KB, it appears that more explanation to authors about how GoodReads works would be a good idea.

Betsy


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

I can get behind the concept that a review with 1 or 2 stars isn't bullying. Having a coordinated effort to give a book 1 or 2 stars in order to purposefully impact the book is unethical, and the opinion held by most in this thread is it's not bullying. So the Salon article asks if in this specific case whether the writer was bullied, the subjective answer by most would be no.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Pearson Moore said:


> it appears that Lauren Howard was bullied in that her book received one- and two-star reviews before it was even published, before any of the reviewers had read it.


Goodreads star ratings are not reviews. Reviews are seperate and text only. You can do both, or either but it's important to keep in mind the different possible uses. Ratings are used by the system's recommendation engine. (Netflix is a similar, but superior, system.) You can give books you've never read a rating so you don't get recommendations for similar books. Authors confusing the GR ratings with reviews has been a source of much friction between authors and readers on the site.

That said, I think the Netflix system is superior, and GR could reduce this friction with fairly minor changes to their system.

EDIT: Looks like I got beaten to the explanation by a good bit...


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Couldn't find where they say this?
> 
> But, yeah, based on what I've read here many times on KB, it appears that more explanation to authors about how GoodReads works would be a good idea.
> 
> Betsy


That was paraphrasing how a rookie author might interpret the invitation letter. 
(As you will have noticed it wasn't included in the quote)

The term *book lovers* is downright misleading. That sentence should read: &#8230;which is the largest site online exclusively for *readers*.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Moral of the story? Beware knee-jerk journalism posted on Salon.com, I guess?

Here's my final thoughts.

1) I feel bad for Lauren, or any newbie author, who gets attacked because people are frustrated with other folks they've dealt with in the past.

2) If there are things that were posted that were abusive but they aren't there anymore so no one can prove it, that tells me corrective action was taken, in the event that such terrible things were posted to begin with.

3) Personally, my interactions on Goodreads.com have been positive... but I don't post a lot over there. I post about what I'm reading, and my ratings of what I'm reading, but that's about it. I socialize here, not there. Just because it's more active over here.

4) Behind every story are multiple sides of that story, and existing somewhere in the middle of the mess is the truth -- what actually happened. I try not to be too knee-jerk and keep that in mind.

5) I suspect, as quickly as this seemed to unfold, that Goodreads' mods did what they could as quickly as they could. Best not to make snap judgments, I think, about the timeliness of their response.

6) We all bring personal agendas to the table. Some of us hear "bullying" or "death threats" or "rape culture" and we get understandably irate. But waiting to learn "the whole story" is usually best. Because sometimes keywords get dropped that set off our personal agendas, but may not bear much relevance to actual events.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> That was paraphrasing how a rookie author might interpret the invitation letter.
> (As you will have noticed it wasn't included in the quote)


Ah, sorry...I was confused by the fact that you had it in quotes. Thought maybe it was somewhere on the site, even if not in the part you had in the blocked-off quote.

I did find this fairly easily:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/guidelines



> _How should I interact with people as an author on Goodreads? _
> 
> Our best advice on how to use Goodreads to promote your work is to be part of the conversation. Think of Goodreads as one giant gathering where everyone is talking about books. Do you want to be the person who joins a group, listens to the conversation and adds another perspective? Or do you want to be the person who walks up to a group in mid-discussion and interrupts them to say "Hey Everyone! You sound like just the kind of people who'd love my book. Let me tell you all about it."?


and



> _How should I handle a negative review? _
> 
> The generally accepted advice - and we believe it's the best advice - is to ignore a negative review or comment. Realistically, not everyone who reads your book will love it so much that they give it five stars. From time to time, Goodreads authors have responded to readers who gave their books negative reviews or ratings, and the results have been disastrous for the authors' reputations. Goodreads is not private; other readers will see a hostile reaction from the author, and a single negative interaction is often enough to turn a reader against an author permanently.
> 
> ...


Has anyone flagged a review and had it do any good?

Betsy


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Ah, sorry...I was confused by the fact that you had it in quotes. Thought maybe it was somewhere on the site, even if not in the part you had in the blocked-off quote.
> 
> I did find this fairly easily:
> 
> ...


And you think a rookie writer who gets a cordial entrapment invitation to a site - who is *asked* to join goes looking for a page with caveats?

Why not give that link in the invitation letter?



> Hello,
> 
> I'm an avid reader of your books, and I am writing to invite you to join Goodreads.com, which is the largest community of book lovers online. Because you are a published author, you already have a profile on Goodreads:
> 
> ...


And even then they *still* should explain the rating system to unsuspecting rookie authors. The guidelines tell us nothing about that and the usage is counterintuitive for a writer.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> And you think a rookie writer who gets a cordial entrapment invitation to a site - who is *asked* to join goes looking for a page with caveats?


Well, no, based on my experience here as a moderator, I don't *expect* anyone to read any directions. Hope springs eternal.



> Why not give that link in the invitation letter?


That would be a great idea. Give them feedback. I doubt the people who are in charge are reading KBoards, though they might be... My standard recommendation is, if someone has a suggestion/complaint, take it directly to the people in charge.



> And even then they *still* should explain the rating system to unsuspecting rookie authors. The guidelines tell us nothing about that and the usage is counterintuitive for a writer.


That would also be a great thing to provide feedback on.

Edited to Add: http://www.goodreads.com/about/contact_us

Betsy


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Well, no, based on my experience here as a moderator, I don't *expect* anyone to read any directions. Hope springs eternal.
> 
> Betsy


Wait, Betsy. There are directions to participate here? I skipped right over those and started posting. I figured the best way to know if I broke a rule is if I got threatened by your shiny cattle prod!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

fallswriter said:


> Wait, Betsy. There are directions to participate here? I skipped right over those and started posting. I figured the best way to know if I broke a rule is if I got threatened by your shiny cattle prod!


 

That seems to be the way most people do it...hey, it's one way.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> My standard recommendation is, if someone has a suggestion/complaint, take it directly to the people in charge.


Ha. The ultimate triumph of hope over experience. It really does spring eternal.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Ha. The ultimate triumph of hope over experience. It really does spring eternal.


 

As my boss used to say, "I can't fix a problem nobody tells me about."

And really, I base my recommendation on my experience. Over the past five years, we've gotten a lot of feedback from our users. It's made an impact on how we do things; so that's my expectation of other sites.

Betsy


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As my boss used to say, "I can't fix a problem nobody tells me about."
> 
> And really, I base my recommendation on my experience. Over the past five years, we've gotten a lot of feedback from our users. It's made an impact on how we do things; so that's my expectation of other sites.
> 
> Betsy


1. My cynicism is also based on experience.

2. That's also why I spend more time here than on GR.

Flattery? Sure, but honest flattery.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

My personal opinion (and experience) on Goodreads is that there are ways to let the system know you're not interested in book recommends of a particular type, without 1-starring those books.

I seem to recall a feature that lets you say "Not interested." Plus, I just clear out most "book recommends" without reviewing them at all.


----------



## HeyImBen (Mar 7, 2013)

Don't worry. Help is on the way. Only 99,999 votes needed. Shaking my head in disbelief at this.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-investigation-terrorism-stalking-bullying-harassment-defamaiton-and-libel-against-indie/MnlBxg2N


----------



## Hatshepsut (Aug 3, 2013)

Evidently Howard meant it when she said Tuesday that she was bored by it al and wished everybody would just move on. And, yes, it does sort of look like she's moving in the direction of publication. Here's her latest message on GRs:

_message 10: by Lauren

I've been told that the book can't be deleted so I just want to change the cover so that my name can alter. Privacy reasons etc. I was going to use a pen name anyway, wish I had have done now! Someone could clear all the ratings (also asked customer service for this but again - they declined) and I wouldn't mind.

Also, I don't think you're evil! I just lost my temper a few days ago, I blame it on PMS in all honesty haha. Honestly, I'm just as pissed off as you guys that people took things and blew them WAY, WAAAAY out of proportion. (i.e. that stupid Salon article that is journalism at it's damn finest, twisted words and altered "quotes"). I perceived shelves as threats, others didn't. I was then upset because librarians wouldn't help me out. It's all such a fucking mess that I'm trying to straighten out now.

I am sorry for all the mess it's called. For everyone involved. I'm by no means a malicious person, I'm sorry for things I've done wrong and I am BEYOND sorry for the disgusting words of some of my "supporters." I never expected this to reach out so far. I really hope you don't hold it all against me because I honestly wish no one anything but blessings and positivity.

BACK TO THE POINT, GR have already told me I can change my profile name so hopefully that isn't reverted back.

My book doesn't have an ISBN or anything so hopefully someone can help me out with changing my cover!  _


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> 1. My cynicism is also based on experience.
> 
> 2. That's also why I spend more time here than on GR.
> 
> Flattery? Sure, but honest flattery.


We'll take it....


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

HeyImBen said:


> Don't worry. Help is on the way. Only 99,999 votes needed. Shaking my head in disbelief at this.
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-investigation-terrorism-stalking-bullying-harassment-defamaiton-and-libel-against-indie/MnlBxg2N


Terrorism...cue mega eyeroll.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

I don't think it's a sincere apology if you blame your bad behavior on PMS, or any other external factor for that matter. Just sayin'.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

I'm glad that I don't pay any attention to my GR reviews! Did anyone see the GR petition called "Goodreads policy on abuse to Authors: Not to allow comments to be abusive in nature"? I don't know if that's a WHOA link so I won't post it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hatshepsut,

welcome to KBoards!  Hopefully, you'll look around our forum and find reasons to stay.  

However, the subject of the thread is "Did a writer get bullied on Goodreads?"

Posts that do not carry on that conversation but only take shots at the author are not appropriate in our forum.  We're looking for discussion here.

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

All this fire and brimestone because of PMS?

I apologize for getting my nose out of joint and saying some ugly things.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

HeyImBen said:


> Don't worry. Help is on the way. Only 99,999 votes needed. Shaking my head in disbelief at this.
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-investigation-terrorism-stalking-bullying-harassment-defamaiton-and-libel-against-indie/MnlBxg2N


Oh...ye...gods...

I'm going to bed...after another glass of wine.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Has anyone flagged a review and had it do any good?


In my experience, no.

I generally come down on the "be thick-skinned" side of the equation. By publishing our books, we're essentially asking to become public figures. If we're at all successful at that, that means some members of the public won't enjoy what we put out there. That's just.. a fact.

But, to cut to the chase and avoid too much WHOA, on one occasion, I was one-star-bombed on Goodreads following a discussion on KB. I have no problem being one-starred if people think my books are flaming heaps of garbage. Catch me on the right day and I'll agree with you. But it does get my back up for my books to be torpedoed because someone disagrees with my advice--which may be stupid, but is certainly well-meaning--on how to build a self-publishing career. Go ahead and call me an idiot, but leave my books out of it. 

When I emailed GR and presented the evidence (which, to my biased eyes, was pretty dang compelling--there were other links to the KB discussion besides me), their staff politely admitted it's the Wild West, and that plenty of authors get favorably biased reviews from friends and family, so deal with it.

Which is probably true, in the aggregate. But it seems to blatantly contradict the guidelines you posted. And as someone who tries to play by the rules, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

For the record, I think GR is generally a cool site, and I totally understand why some of its users are vigilant against authors behaving badly. We do a lot of that. But for better or worse, it's way unmoderated, and its owners seem to prefer it that way.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Edward,

I agree that, generally speaking, it's good to have a thick skin and not be overly sensitive.

When it appeared that threats of violence were in the equation, I had to say, "That's beyond the pale of being thick-skinned."

But now that that stuff appears to be misunderstandings all 'round, the only input of value I have is this:

I think as KB vets, it's easy for us to sit here, having talked a lot of these issues to death once a month or more, and see it from that experienced perspective of "take it in stride."

But I do think it's important to remember, we were all rookies at this self-pub thing once, too, and made our share of mistakes (or not) in the early going, until we found KB, where we could all confab and discuss and figure things out together (even when some of us come to different conclusions).

I don't this this particular author has darkened these halls yet; she likely doesn't have the benefit we all derive from the accumulated wisdom to be found here.

So it might be expecting a bit much of a new, less-experienced writer to handle themselves with the same level of maturity and wisdom as KB regulars.

Just a thought. Thoughts?


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Edward,
> 
> I agree that, generally speaking, it's good to have a thick skin and not be overly sensitive.
> 
> ...


No, you're totally right. We're very privileged to learn from KB and to have benefited from our own experience self-publishing. And anyone with readers likely to drop immediate positive reviews on a new release is more privileged yet, because a negative review or two won't tank a book right out of the gates. It's much easier to be thick-skinned when you know a bit of bad press won't hurt your average score and thus your ability to turn this into a living.

I really meant it when I said GR's lack of moderation is for better or for worse. It's way cool that it's a space for readers to express whatever they want about a given book. They shouldn't have to give a damn about our careers. All they should have to care about is whether they liked a novel.

At the same time, it hurts to watch a new author get swept into a controversy before they've even gotten their feet wet. It's really hard to know how to do it right! I'm so glad I was bumbling around at this and (hopefully) getting the worst behind me before it was all quite this public.

I mean, that's the tension behind all this, isn't it? Paying readers deserve a professional product from a professional author. At the same time, most of us have to screw up right and left before we're "professional." So the more reader-friendly a site is, the more hostile it's likely to be to new authors.

That's.. a quandary, haha. One that can probably never be answered.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

While I hate the thought of any writer being ganged up on, receiving personal threats, having their books panned for no reason, excusing this writer's participation in the issue because she is supposedly a "newbie" isn't right either. 

Yes, those of us lucky enough to have found these boards know more about how things in self-publishing works, and what Goodreads is all about. But that doesn't mean people who don't read here can act how they please, accuse people of threatening them, of trying to kill their books, or whatever. 

I mean, did this person just fall off the turnip truck? Does she have no concept of rational, civilized behavior? Can she not research things, and learn how sites work?

I've been the victim of bullying and emotional abuse. I get how it feels. I'll be the first person with a pitchfork rallying around if necessary.

But let's save our sympathy for those who truly have been victimized, and not some "newbie" who goes off half-c*cked on people. Seriously. We have the Internet now. The information is out there.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

HeyImBen said:


> Don't worry. Help is on the way. Only 99,999 votes needed. Shaking my head in disbelief at this.
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-investigation-terrorism-stalking-bullying-harassment-defamaiton-and-libel-against-indie/MnlBxg2N


It's kind of funny how defamation is misspelled, given the fact that the number one complaint about indies is generally errors of that nature.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

Sheila_Guthrie said:


> I mean, did this person just fall off the turnip truck? Does she have no concept of rational, civilized behavior? Can she not research things, and learn how sites work?


The irony is that the "instant access" of the internet has, at least according to some research I've seen, contributed to a decrease in the ability to independently research and...well...think. People are too accustomed to typing in a question and an instant answer popping up. You can type ANY question into a Google search bar and get an answer. The fact the the answer will often be wrong is besides the point. Recognizing it as wrong takes common sense and the ability to apply logic to a chain of events.

Compound this by a culture that rewards _showing up_ more than it does exceptionalism. Self esteem is more important that actual skill or ability. Having a dream is the exact same thing to some people as having actual talent, and too many people treat the dream and the ability the exact same way. So you have all of these people running around on the internet with little ability to connect point A to point B without someone holding their hand, and they have all been raised to believe that the fact that they WANT to connect point A to point B is all the effort really expected of them so you and I should help them do it.

The other issue is that people don't apply the common sense tactics of socialization we use in the real world to the internet. When I first meet a group of people, I don't just try to take over the conversation. I watch. I listen. I mingle. I get a feel for the room and the people in it. Then, I start conversations. I apply the same concept to online interaction. I'll lurk on a forum for a while before chiming in. I read threads. Get a feel for who is who and the general tone of the site. But people don't do that. They act like they are the only person that matters and just expect people to jump at their questions and provide service.

So, yes, people running into situations half-cocked? Totally the cause of at least half the so-called "controversies" that get people all riled up.


----------



## Hatshepsut (Aug 3, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hatshepsut,
> 
> welcome to KBoards! Hopefully, you'll look around our forum and find reasons to stay.
> 
> ...


It's not relevant that the author who claimed to be frightened by bullies on GRs comes back and excuses her behavior as PMS? Not to be (too) argumentative but I think it speaks to her behavior and (false) claims. Please point out where I took a "shot" at the author?

If I sound less than sympathetic to her situation that's because I am. I feel that Howard/Pippa has used rape as an excuse to manufacture drama and gain sympathy and now she just wants to claim PMS made her do it. As a woman I feel she has not done our sex any favours. I feel bullied by her and her supporters, no, not bullied but somehow-diminished. This is a member of my sex? No, thanks.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Hatshepsut said:


> It's not relevant that the author who claimed to be frightened by bullies on GRs comes back and excuses her behavior as PMS? Not to be (too) argumentative but I think it speaks to her behavior and (false) claims. Please point out where I took a "shot" at the author?
> 
> If I sound less than sympathetic to her situation that's because I am. I feel that Howard/Pippa has used rape as an excuse to manufacture drama and gain sympathy and now she just wants to claim PMS made her do it. As a woman I feel she has not done our sex any favours. I feel bullied by her and her supporters, no, not bullied but somehow-diminished. This is a member of my sex? No, thanks.


As a new member I'd suggest that you spend some time reading our guidelines and get a feel for the tone we expect here. We try to give folks a fair amount of leeway, but personal attacks will not be allowed to stand.

Your post where you re-posted a non-member's comments from another site without her permission is borderline -- but we let it stand as relevant to the discussion at hand.

We did, however, remove a post of yours that we deemed to be a personal attack on that person.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth. The movie Roshomon taught me this - we all have our own reality.

Personally, I find the whole thing suspect. Why is she one of the only people having problems over there? She exaggerated the claims - she was shelved on some categories which were meant to be facetious, and she claimed that she was threatened with these things. Like being shelved on "Authors Who Should Be Sodomized by a Garden Tool" means that you are being threatened with sodomy. That's like trying to claim that The Onion libeled you. Everybody knows it's farce.

I haven't had a problem, at all, on Goodreads. Everybody who I know over there has been very respectful and supportive. Not sure exactly what she did in the first place to earn the one star, but I sure would like to know.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

anniejocoby said:


> I haven't had a problem, at all, on Goodreads. Everybody who I know over there has been very respectful and supportive. Not sure exactly what she did in the first place to earn the one star, but I sure would like to know.


As this is a 6 page thread, you probably missed a few posts, but, as I understand it from the active GR members who posted earlier, MANY people will mark a suggested book with 1 star _solely_ to influence the 'recommendations' algorithms. It has nothing to do with having read the book, it's not meant as a personal affront, and it's usually NOT accompanied by any sort of review. It's a book the member hasn't read that they also don't _want_ to read and, not only that, don't want to read even anything like it. Basically, it's how GR is designed so that reader members will be recommended books that they are more likely to actually be interested in.

FWIW, Amazon works the same way except that the star-only ratings a person can put on a book aren't part of the over all rating average. If you want to rate something to affect the rating average, you have to also write at least something in the way of review.


----------

