[HN Gopher] Why has no one made a better Goodreads ___________________________________________________________________ Why has no one made a better Goodreads Author : bagofbones Score : 307 points Date : 2021-04-16 15:09 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (uxdesign.cc) (TXT) w3m dump (uxdesign.cc) | CA0DA wrote: | Do you think a more "privacy-centric" Goodreads alternative could | thrive? One that's mostly focused around tracking your book lists | and less on the reviews? | bagofbones wrote: | I think private shelving/tracking is an important feature to | have in a product that serves the larger business opportunity | of book social networks. | Daiz wrote: | I did make a better Goodreads. But only for my very narrow use | case. | | Namely, I just wanted to keep track of what I read. I didn't care | for the social aspects of it nor the discovery part of it. I did | want certain statistics on my reading though, so a plain text | file wasn't going to cut it. | | Unfortunately, Goodreads was a _huge pain_ to use UX-wise _and_ | didn 't really provide the statistics I was looking for either. | The one positive thing I can say for Goodreads is that the _books | I read were already there_ (I 'm primarily reading Japanese light | novels, so whether the titles are available on the service for | tracking purposes or not is a real concern for me), which is | probably a bigger problem than you might think for anyone who'd | want to build a competitor? The friction to use an alternative | service is obviously going to be much higher if you have to get | the books you read added to the service first before you can | actually track them on your list. | | Anyway, with my sufficiently narrow use case, I just built my own | book tracking with spreadsheets. I add new lines to a master read | sheet and then I have some pivot tables that automatically | compile statistics I care about from there.[1] | | I'm quite happy with this setup for now and can definitely | recommend doing something similar for everyone who just wants to | keep track of your reading and doesn't care for the social | features. | | That said, I wouldn't mind switching to a "real" service again | provided that a) it was sufficiently expedient to use when it | comes to managing your list (this is especially important | considering I'd obviously want to port over my existing hundreds- | long read list to this new hypothetical service) b) it already | had the books I've read catalogued in the service, because I sure | as hell don't want to petition additions to their database for | everything I read before I can actually keep track of it. | | [1] https://twitter.com/Daiz42/status/1158123020596240391 | bagofbones wrote: | You are not alone in this. https://debugger.medium.com/tech- | savvy-readers-are-designing... | manuelmoreale wrote: | There is someone who's working on a goodreads alternative at | https://literal.club/ | stakkur wrote: | Goodreads is owned by Amazon. It's sole purpose is to drive | customers to Amazon, not provide a 'delightful user experience' | outside that goal. That's why they bought it. | randomsearch wrote: | From posts by former goodreads employees, Amazon bought it to | kill it | throwawayjcvbs wrote: | this is false. they bought it 8 years ago, you'd think it | would be dead by now if so. | corobo wrote: | Haha I have "make a like 30% better Goodreads" on an idea card | somewhere | milofeynman wrote: | I use LibraryThings to track what I've read, my collection, and | what I want to read and I don't believe it's attempting to | complete with GoodReads. It's in a different space of keeping | track of your book collections and targeted at small libraries | etc. I'm sure there is some community to it but I've never | wandered into it and it's not the focal feature of the site | jeremiecoullon wrote: | There are probably a bunch of alternatives for this. For example | a friend built Reading List which I've heard is good | (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/reading-list-book-log/id121713...) | (iOS app) | davidwparker wrote: | Reading List is mentioned in the article. It's in a list: | | > There is a long list of startups that tried to unseat | Goodreads, but they're either in the graveyard or floating in | limbo. Examples include BookClub, RocketReads, LibraryThing, | ReadingList, Booknshelf, BookBrowse, Booklikes, Libib, | BookSloth, Bookself. | thrower123 wrote: | I only use Goodreads because it is baked into the Kindle app on | the Kindle Fire that I do most of my reading with. I don't | remember if I ever set it up this way on purpose, but it is | integrated so whenever I start reading a book, it marks it as | "reading" on Goodreads, and when I finish, it marks it as "read". | foobarbecue wrote: | Goodreads is an excellent, mature, website with a vibrant | community. I use it all the time and have never noticed it | lagging or had trouble using a feature. I think it looks and | works better than most of the space-wasting, feature-hiding, | animated sites online today. I review a few books a month on | there and end up in interesting discussions frequently. The | amazon kindle integration, with ability to publish your notes on | a book, is a killer feature for me. IIRC they had this before | Amazon bought it, too. | | People seem to dislike the recommendation engine. I can't comment | on this because I didn't notice it even had one... it's not a | feature I'm looking for. I guess I get that from friends and | possibly from the main Amazon website. | rsync wrote: | From the article: | | "Goodreads was acquired by Amazon in 2013. One would think that | having Amazon's customer ethos and resources would give muscle to | create a delightful user experience." | | Is this sarcasm ? | gpapilion wrote: | I think the issue with Goodreads continues to be that people want | Facebook/Twitter for readers, and its not and will likely never | be. | | As an author, the specialty nature of Goodreads doesn't provide | enough reach even though the segment of the population you are | reaching is excellent. The additional eyes, and casual readers | you pickup elsewhere makes the energy devoted to Facebook a | better investment. | | For readers, I just don't think the discovery aspect is as | useful. I think a lot of this like last.fm, where logging | listening could provide good recommendations. Books take longer | to consume than songs or albums, and there was very little cost | to music compared to books. Lastly I just think your average | reader, doesn't read enough books to take advantage of the | recommendations. | sayhar wrote: | I'm flabberghasted that neither the article nor the comments so | far talk about Open Library | | https://openlibrary.org/ | | It's a nonprofit, it's tied to the internet archive, it's been | around a long time, its improving very quickly, and it Lets You | Check Out Books! | amatecha wrote: | Was going to post the same. Huge omission. Turns out they were | founded in the same year, interestingly. | girzel wrote: | They're also working on some kind of recommendations engine: | https://github.com/Open-Book-Genome-Project/TheBestBookOn.co... | | I don't quite know how it works -- I've been meaning to spend | some time exploring it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. | ngokevin wrote: | 20% or even 100% better UI/UX doesn't disrupt anything. Anyone | can go to a popular service and nitpick on their UI and UX. But | if someone wants to replace them, they'll have to be 10x better. | dhosek wrote: | I consistently get recommendations for books in languages that I | don't read. I wonder if that's because I have read books in | languages other than English and recorded those editions on | Goodreads. What's particularly aggravating is for the | recommendation engine to surface a translated version of an | English book to me. My general rule is that if I can read an | untranslated version of a book, I'll read the untranslated | version, so I'll prefer _Cuentos de Eva Luna_ over _Stories of | Eva Luna_ but _The Honorary Consul_ over _El Consul Honorario_. I | still don 't understand why Goodreads thinks I'd like to read | Agatha Christie in Polish or Shakespeare in Arabic. Of course, I | think the winner has to be https://www.dahosek.com/wait-what/ | Hitton wrote: | What I like about goodreads is that it has reviews (not ratings, | I noticed that those are becoming gamed a lot), description, | quickly identifiable genre of book (shelves) and link to other | books by the author. That's about it. I personally don't like | posting reviews, especially if the book is bad, because it feels | rather mean towards author and I know few authors whose first | books were pretty terrible but they eventually improved a lot. | | I would like a app where I could add my notes on a book, could | easily see that I already read book by an author and also add | note to this author (for instance "avoid", "read if nothing | better available", "read only later books", "read everything | except series Z" etc.) and it would have appropriate | notifications. I don't need recommendation engine, some kind of | search based on genre, tags, popularity and rating would be | enough. | vuciv1 wrote: | Hey, just wanted to throw it out there that I'm working on | something slightly related | | https://swapiverse.com/ | | I'm making a decentralized book swapping platform. You give a | book away and get the right to access any book that anyone has | listed. | | Reduces waste, and saves everyone money | | Not sure if we will add in reviews for the MVP, but it's | definitely looking like a cleaner version of goodreads. | | Here are some screenshots: | | https://twitter.com/_joshuafonseca/status/138028946914478489... | miloszkowal wrote: | Curious, how is this different from paperbackswap.com, which | has been in operation for over a decade, and has hundreds of | users online at any given time? The UI of swapiverse is good, | but you might have to overcome the same network effects that | Goodreads has. | the_lonely_road wrote: | This feels like one of those things that will be ruined by bad | actors. Finding cheap worthless books for free or next to free | is quite easy. I could get my hands on 10K "books" right now | for the cost of picking them up and storing them. If there is | anything valuable on your site it will likely be quickly | swapped out for garbage by some "entrepreneur" flipping them to | a for sale site. | | The project looks cool and I wish you the best of luck in | designing solutions to avoid bad actors. | grok22 wrote: | But the swap is for free (+cost of shipping). So of no value | to one of those kinds of entrepreneurs (unless maybe they | find a way to arbitrage shipping costs). | aww_dang wrote: | Link fails with infinite redirects here. | edly wrote: | Made an account just to comment: Goodreads seems to be way more | interested in _selling_ books than _recommending_ books, and they | want to sell books from Amazon primarily, then other major online | retailers. I 'll give points for including "smaller" retailers | like Indiebound, but they're at the bottom of the list. | | I just switched to LibraryThing and I'm in love with it. It not | only predates Goodreads but it runs circles around it. Go to a | book page on LibraryThing and you're treated to the most common | tags for it, people with similar libraries to yours who have it | in their libraries, member recommendations for similar books, | lists the book appears on, forum conversations, and a full list | of translators, editors, and illustrators. Want to acquire the | book somehow? You can configure LibraryThing to have links to | major retailers and even search for local book shops and | libraries and have them appear in all book pages. AND, if you | want to swap a book for another book instead, it gives you links | to swap sites with how many are available and how many are | requesting said book. | stonesweep wrote: | You're not the only LibraryThing user around - we get drowned | out in these HN threads because the UI isn't sexy. | pjmorris wrote: | Big LibraryThing fan. I paid a teenager to label bins and | catalog the books in each bin and made each bin a LT | collection. If I can't find something on my office shelves, I | check LT to see if it's in a bin. It's really handy. | bwanab wrote: | Not to mention the very real threat that if anyone seriously | started challenging Goodreads, Amazon could put what for them is | a trivial amount of resources into making the changes it needed | to keep in front. | bbasketball wrote: | I wish more people knew about https://rate.house - it's like all | media sites combined into one, just need more people using it. | bennysomething wrote: | I'm just glad this didn't open with "good reads is broken here's | why" | mekarpeles wrote: | Mek here from internet archive's OpenLibrary.org. | | Open Library was started by @aaronsw. | | We're a library catalog with 3M+ books to read & borrow. | | We've been around for 15 years, not going anywhere. | | We're open source and non profit: | https://github.com/internetarchive/openlibrary | | We defend patron privacy, offer free APIs, and release all public | data openly: https://openlibrary.org/developers/dumps | | Most projects on this page have likely used our data. | | We have a Reading Log and several other more substantial features | in the works. | | Our catalog spans more than 20M works: | https://openlibrary.org/stats | | You can help! https://openlibrary.org/volunteer | toomuchtodo wrote: | Are there any plans where metadata for Internet Archive patrons | could be scoped to API tokens or applications (Oauth2), so that | external applications could add value for users on top of the | Internet Archive corpus? | troyvit wrote: | This is exactly why I came to this thread. Thank you! | wenbin wrote: | Book metadata quality is extremely important and it's hard to get | right in a short timeframe (e.g., < 3 years). | | Over the past decade, Goodreads builds a huge army of volunteer | members (120,000+) to help correct book metadata [1][2]. | | But to compete with Goodreads, a new service can start from a | vertical, instead of ALL BOOKS IN THE WORLD. A subreddit could be | a good MVP. | | - [1] https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/What-is-a-Goodreads- | Lib... | | - [2] https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/220-goodreads- | librarian... | villasv wrote: | In other words, good quality book metadata is expensive. Book | recommendation/reviews aren't haven't been so profitable as to | justify such investment. If I was a publisher, I'd put my money | on the book influencers, not on Goodreads and alternatives | anyway. | bwb wrote: | It isn't expensive... it doesn't exist. Ingram's API is | probably the best and it is messy as hell. I've been playing | with it and it will help augment data, but you have to have | humans to really fine tune things. I just entered 2,500 books | manually to launch this on Monday (https://shepherd.com/) and | I still am going to need to go back to build relationships | between the types of authors (lead, translator, illustrator, | etc). It is a hard problem. | | Ingram's is like $1k a month, maybe $2k for the full flat | files. I can't find anything that is high quality and with a | bigger data set. | villasv wrote: | > It isn't expensive... it doesn't exist. | | It's the same thing, but I get what you mean. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | The volunteer army is pretty shackled. There are certain | problems with book metadata that cannot be fixed by ordinary | members with librarian status. They can only be fixed by | Goodreads staff. However, Goodreads Staff (apparently a | skeleton crew that are barely keeping the lights on) no longer | respond to reports about metadata problems. | throwawayjcvbs wrote: | this is the real reason goodreads wont be dethroned. book data | is very very messy and requires lots of manual cleaning by | humans and goodreads is where the humans are. its like trying | to make a wikipedia competitor. it just wont happen. | skeeter2020 wrote: | Amazon bought CDnow which was all human-curated and had very high | recommendation value, but that doesn't scale with the size of | today's music catalog tail when people are only renting (aka | streaming) music | [deleted] | scanr wrote: | Does anyone know of a good book recommendation system? I wonder | if it's a Hard Problem. I'd love to find one that didn't just | recommend the same top 10 popular fantasy or science fiction | authors. | vhpoet wrote: | Have you seen https://www.readthistwice.com ? (fyi, I'm the | founder) | mcguire wrote: | Shouldn't the title of the article be "Why no Goodreads | alternative can (or has) beat Goodreads". I don't see anything | about making a better one. | mrkurt wrote: | https://thestorygraph.com is a better goodreads. It's found my | last 8 or so books for me. | GCA10 wrote: | Author here. I'm going to join the argument that Goodreads may be | clunky (in fact, it definitely is), but it's not broken. OP's | criticisms all have some validity, but they overlook these far | more important facts: | | 1. Goodreads has a LOT of users. It's the most extensive source | of feedback on all my books. Lots of "wisdom of the crowd" that I | can glean, looking at what people say. I'd rather have a kludgy | site with 350 reviews than a UX masterpiece with only six. | | 2. Goodreads's huge user base means that reviews get noticed. | This is crucial to keep the reviewing ecosystem going. When I put | some energy into reviewing someone else's book that made an | impact on me, I get a lively mix of upvotes and responses, which | validates the time spent. Writing a crisp review on a minor site | and getting no engagement is the worst user experience of all. | Even if the official UX is beautiful. | | 3. Goodreads has pretty good tone control -- and that is not easy | on any social site. People come to talk about books. Most threads | don't get hijacked by MAGA/vs/woke. Anyone who overlooks this | factor hasn't tried to operate a social site in the modern era. | | 4. Goodreads has the balance of power right between authors and | readers. There are some things you can do as an author to drive | engagement. But not a lot. You can't overwhelm the site with | promo for a book that doesn't engage people. And Goodreads will | stop you pretty quickly from flaming readers who give you one- | star reviews. | | All of these, I'll submit, are big, enduring advantages. They | can't be swept away by a small new site with prettier UX or | faster load times. | say_it_as_it_is wrote: | Item #3 is why /r/books is dead on arrival | superfrank wrote: | > One would think that having Amazon's customer ethos and | resources would give muscle to create a delightful user | experience. Disappointingly, it's remained an elusive dream. | | Take this with a big grain of salt because my memory is terrible, | but I thought I remember reading an article a while back from | someone who was either working on Goodreads when it sold or at | Amazon right after they bought it and they said the code for | Goodreads is just terrible to work in and any change you make | causes a ton of bugs. They basically added enough features to | make it fit into the Amazon ecosystem and after that it's not | worth the time or effort to improve it. | felixbraun wrote: | Readmill (acquired by Dropbox) was a better Goodreads -- there is | no app I miss more | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTNCLSoMho | rebuilder wrote: | So while we're on the subject, is there a good book | recommendation service? I usually just browse the Kindle store, | but the recommendations there are pretty awful. Most of them seem | to be NYT best sellers, which usually seems to mean "derivative | crud". | | It seems odd that Amazon's recommendation engine isn't better. | Perhaps it works for most people. | vhpoet wrote: | Have you seen https://www.readthistwice.com? (fyi, I'm the | founder) | gvinter wrote: | Yes! Readerly (readerly.com) delivers on what Goodreads doesn't | - it doesn't rely on the 5-star rating system and learns what | you like to give you better recommendations. This means it's a | social network that improves for users as it grows, it doesn't | weaken as Goodreads does. | tmcw wrote: | This missed the biggest technical moat by a mile: data. | | Book data is scarce and expensive. Goodreads gets it for free | because of Amazon, Amazon gets it subsidized because of Amazon's | chokehold on book publishing. Any Goodreads competitor needs to | license paid data and sort through the duds and the duplicates, | and struggle to match up book with only ASINs that are on Amazon | Kindles and nowhere else. | | And Kindle integration. When you finish a book on a Kindle, it | asks you to review it on Goodreads. If you want to add an option | to review it on $otherstartup website, your best bet is a supreme | court antitrust case. | bagofbones wrote: | The metadata itself is not a moat. ISBN APIs allow for easy | access to primary data attributes of a book. | | The social data that Goodreads aggregates is definitely a moat, | because it powers their SEO efforts further. | arjunkava wrote: | It is already doing what need to be done and you know what over | innovation kill the simplicity of the product. Goodreads is | pretty simple and great part is it is not suggesting me someone | to follow based on books I've read. That is innovation for all | the current social app and it sucks. | whalesalad wrote: | One of my closest friends and his wife are on a mission to | improve this space. They've founded a company called Italic Type: | https://www.italictype.com/ | palehose wrote: | Does Amazon make any significant revenue from Goodreads? I can | see how it might be something that boosts their kindle sales but | other than that they probably have a good reason not to focus on | it like... because it isn't a business breadwinner. Why work on | Goodreads when you can make more money on AWS? Does anyone really | believe they are going to become the next hot social network | because they nailed the market for people who read books in the | most transparent/ community accessible way possible? | bwb wrote: | I am actually working to peel Goodreads apart and focus on doing | one thing better, which is book discovery. I am actually | launching into Beta on Monday -> https://shepherd.com/ | | If anyone is interested let me know what you think. The goal is | to create an online experience that is like wandering through a | bookstore and seeing little notes about which books are the | staff's favorites. | calrueb wrote: | This is cool. Is there an ML component, or is everything hand | curated? | bwb wrote: | 100% hand curated for now, my hope is to get into NLP early | next year to do some cool stuff :). | elliekelly wrote: | Open Library recently(ish) launched a bookshelf style browsing | feature to mimic the organic discovery of titles based on your | interests and, even though it's frowned upon by some, the | cover. It's awesome. I've read so many books that I've scrolled | past a thousand times on iTunes and Audible. It does help that | I can flip through the books a bit before deciding to read it. | Like you can at the store or the library. | waihtis wrote: | Avid reader here, just signed up. There's always room for new | methods for discovering reading material. | | Not to pry on your secret sauce, but if you're open would be | good to hear how you're trying to do the discovery part | differently. | bwb wrote: | Thanks! | | To start, I am focusing on asking authors/experts for their 5 | book recommendations on a topic they are passionate about and | know well. Here are some examples of how this is playing out: | | The Best Books On The Soviet Space Program And The Space Race | -> https://shepherd.com/best-books/the-soviet-space-program | | The Best Books On The Ocean And Seas -> | https://shepherd.com/best-books/the-ocean-and-seas | | The Best Books On Content Creation And Content Marketing -> | https://shepherd.com/best-books/content-creation-and- | content... | | Then I will relate those book lists to each other both | distantly and closely in order to help a reader follow their | curiosity through the website, kinda like walking through | aisles of books: https://forauthors.shepherd.com/related- | book-lists | | Then toward July/August I will add Topic pages to help people | find books on a topic they are interested in like World War | 2, Grief, Startups, and so on: | https://forauthors.shepherd.com/shelf-pages | | My goal is as I build up the content that next year I will do | two things: | | 1. Start playing with NLP to create even more unique ways to | find books, such as browsing a timeline of Japan and | inserting people and events and books/book-lists into | | 2. Start asking users for their 1-3 favorite books of the | year. I want to make this an incredibly high quality vote | that is limited. And, use that to help add more books to the | mix. | | ben@shepherd.com, hit me up as I could use feedback :), | Thanks, Ben | mrec wrote: | I think the "Topics" list really needs some curation [1] and | some more layers of taxonomy. Right now the "topic" breakdown | seems 100% isomorphic to the "recommender" breakdown - the | links literally go to the exact same URLs - which isn't | sustainable. Bookshops don't have separate shelves for each | member of staff. | | [1] Do we really need both "Anglo-Saxon England" _and_ "Anglo- | Saxon Britain"? Or three different "Norse Mythology" topics | _and_ two different "Norse Myths" topics _and_ a "Norse | Mythology and Polytheism" topic? | bwb wrote: | Totally, this is launching on Monday into beta and there is a | lot of work to do here. | | The cool thing is that those recommendations are vastly | different depending on the person making them. So I do want | the same topic from different angles and then I am going to | change how they are viewed to make that more useful. As this | scales I will be drastically changing how that is displayed | on the homepage and topic pages. | | For example, here is a future way to get books recommended on | a topic one at a time... kinda like book dating: | https://forauthors.shepherd.com/shelf-pages | mrec wrote: | I dunno. It's all well and good having multiple "angles" on | a given topic, but if a new user has no meaningful way of | distinguishing between those angles then it's just going to | be confusing and noisy for them. | | Self-written mini-bios are not the answer here; the | question "what makes this recommender different from the | others?" is not something the recommender can answer in | isolation, even if they're being maximally honest. | gen220 wrote: | You should submit this! I think it's a great idea. | | One way that people discover books is by listening to / reading | about authors they enjoy, talking about other books and authors | that _they enjoy_. | | There's an NLP problem in there for sure, because they like to | both bash and praise certain people. | | It'd be amazing to have a searchable graph of "Tolstoi likes | Turgenev likes Gustave Flaubert". There could even be a time | aspect to it, as certain writers hated or loved their | contemporaries as time went on. | | At present, authors and literary people have these graphs in | their heads, it would be nice to write them all down and expose | them. At present it's quite laborious to bootstrap such a | mental graph by yourself, as a student or hobbyist. | bwb wrote: | Thanks!! I was going to submit it Monday morning :) | | Oh I am so excited about NLP!!! Toward July the backend is | getting more details around the type of topics so I can start | training models eventually. | | You nailed it, I can't wait to get that going and start | playing :) | gkop wrote: | How is DBpedia for books? Could it play a role in | bootstrapping your database? | bwb wrote: | Very cool, I just talked with a NLP expert and they had | recommended it as well. I honestly haven't dug into that | aspect yet as I've just been grinding away to get the | basics going. This might help a lot! | krmmalik wrote: | What are you plans for helping authors establish a relationship | with their readers? | bwb wrote: | Gosh so much as that is half the goal of this site! | | There is a growing trend that authors have to become their | own marketing team. That concerns me because it is very | difficult to do and it takes time away from writing. One of | my long-term goals is to make it easier for authors to market | themselves and I am looking forward to working on this | challenge. | | How am I doing that? | | Right now... trying to help them zero in on their target | audience. So if they wrote a book about the Battle of Midway, | I want to get them to recommend 5 books around that subject | and then feed readers into their recommendation. As readers | not only meet their book they get to see their voice and | expertise. In early user testing I found these | recommendations increase interest in the author and their | book because you get to peek in their head. | | Next? Full channels based on topics like WW2, Grief, Anxiety, | Startups, etc. The goal being to give authors channels with | interested readers to serve their book and book lists within. | Details here and hoping to ship this end of July: | https://forauthors.shepherd.com/shelf-pages | | Lots more, but need to get the flywheel spinning. | | I could talk a lot more about this, feel free to email me :) | krmmalik wrote: | Sounds very interesting. Thanks for the detailed reply. I | wrote a book about 4 years ago. It was very well received | by those that read it and still gets a 5-star rating to | this day but marketing it was real hard and getting the | kind of distribution I would have wanted has been really | hard. | bagofbones wrote: | I love the curation of topics - it's exactly the way people | would think about discovering niche books. | | Curious to know - how did you curate these? | bwb wrote: | Totally by hand over the last 3 months, I have quite a lot of | automation in place to help me do it, but at the end of the | day I work with each author to craft these. | | With just me I should be able to scale up to 300 new lists | each month, and I am looking to further accelerate that. | mariushn wrote: | How do you get in touch with authors? What's their | motivation to contribute a list? Getting more exposure? | evanmoran wrote: | This is cool. Thank you for sharing! | | I wanted to add to others suggestions to consider adding more | genre-like categories. I realize they aren't as specific as | "world war 2", etc, but I think you will miss out without the | common popular genres there. For example, "best fantasy in | 2021" or "best cooking book 2021", etc, overlap with tons of | interests and seem missing. Maybe write down every genre in | Amazon search and see how your groupings compare? Just my 2 | cents! | BigBalli wrote: | I created https://MyBookList.com many years back so have quite | some experience in the field. | | From a product owner's POV, Goodreads's strength is community and | users' sunken cost. these people are used to the UI/UX and keep | using it which proves a (costly) redesign is not urgent or | critical. | [deleted] | kome wrote: | well... https://www.anobii.com/ is quite used here. It used to be | bigger, but still, going quite strong. | phku wrote: | I've been using readng.co lately and really enjoy it. | randomsearch wrote: | Disagree with this post. All it's saying is "goodreads dominates | the Google sales channel" and any startup founder will tell you | there a dozen alternatives to that channel. This is absolutely | _not_ the reason goodreads hasn't been replaced. | | I have tried all the alternatives that have been launched and I | think they are all a bit rubbish. Add that to network effects and | there's just no reason to switch. | | Why hasn't anyone produced anything vastly superior? Because | there's no strong business model to justify a lot of VC | investment and attention. | | Amazon owns the online book market, so to make money from selling | books you're not competing with Goodreads but with Amazon. | | There are lots of alternative solutions to the business model and | related problems and it is very much possible to wipe out | goodreads, but (1) there are many more attractive businesses to | start rather that are easier to do, and (2) anything that gains | traction could be met by huge investment in goodreads by Amazon | or else will just be bought at an early stage for spare change. | podiki wrote: | Are there any decent self-hosted options? In my searches the best | (or "best") I see are more full blown inventory tracking | platforms. I wouldn't mind something that keeps track of your | books, ratings/comments, lists, and is nice to look at. (Of | course, I could just do this in org-mode and make a nice HTML | export or something...but probably needs some database/searching | functionality.) | intergalplan wrote: | All of: | | 1) assembling a usefully-large initial dataset to gain traction, | | 2) keeping it updated, and | | 3) content moderation & anti-spam | | Seem super dull and tedious for project that's probably going to | fail, and there's little about the rest of the process of | building an improved Goodreads clone to offset that and make it | enticing to work on. I'd say the only folks likely to try would | be those who already have & maintain at least a partial dataset | of books for other reasons, and/or existing name-recognition and | a community around books and reading. | bagofbones wrote: | All of: 1) assembling a usefully-large initial dataset to gain | traction, | | 2) keeping it updated, and | | 3) content moderation & anti-spam | | Seem super dull and tedious for project that's probably going | to fail. | | ^i would say these are problems if you start off building a | Goodreads clone. There are other go-to-market strategies to get | to network effects. | stopachka wrote: | This is a great essay. | | I'm hacking on a competitor (zeneca.io) with my best friend, and | can relate. | | I think one of the other big challenges to overtaking goodreads, | is figuring a "hair-on-fire" kind of problem, where people would | switch and use a different product frequently. | | For us, one such problem was displaying lists in a way that you | could share on your blog. This is getting traction, but issue | there, is that this isn't something that incentivizes people to | use the product frequently. Without frequent use, iteration is | much harder. We're experimenting with deeper social, discovery, | and tracking to solve this. If anyone has ideas, feel free to | ping me! | bagofbones wrote: | Quick question - why is "displaying lists of books" a hair-on- | fire problem? | nezaj wrote: | For a long time I had a "todo" to make a better way to | display my favorite books. Before we started working on | Zeneca, I had a bullet list on my personal website. I noticed | so many other people did the same. For example in Naval's | Almanack he also has a bullet list with some comments on his | favorite books. It struck us that a better experience could | exist, and for now most people just accept the status quo. | | Having a nice way to display my books was enough of a "hair | on fire" problem for us to start working on Zeneca. It's been | cool to see other people using the platform and asking for | more features to solve broader problems and engage more | frequently. | | You can check out a sample profile here: | https://zeneca.io/joe | werber wrote: | I haven't logged into Goodreads in ages, but their e-mail updates | keep me updated on what my few friends on the platform are or | want to be reading. I engage with those e-mails, and have | conservations that they ignite. | karaterobot wrote: | This article focuses on "better" in the sense of being a | successful business, rather than "better" in the sense of being a | resource for book lovers. That's a really gross way to think, but | he is correct in a sense, and it's why I always preferred | Librarything with its wonky, book-nerd centric interface to | Goodreads and its growth loops. | bagofbones wrote: | Apart from the interface, in what ways is Librarything better | than Goodreads? | karaterobot wrote: | I'd say the interface is _not_ one of the strong points, | since it confuses a lot of people and turns them away from | the site. But, it is powerful if you want to engage with it. | | For example, I could compare my library to yours and get a | list of the books we share, that we both liked, but aren't | generally very popular. Or I could get a list of books I've | read, sorted by their Lexile score. Or get a list of all the | epigraph quotes printed in the books I've read. | | Basically, it's a database approach rather than a social | approach. You can do all the above stuff on the website, but | their API is also really powerful, and free. In fact the | whole site is completely free. | | Another thing I really like is the Member Recommendations. | They have an algorithm that recommends books you might like, | based on other books. But, in addition to that, they have a | list of books recommended by actual people who have read both | books, explaining what it is about book B that might interest | you if you liked book A. So, more like what an actual | librarian would do. Here's an example of what I mean: | | https://www.librarything.com/work/1472#memberrecs | | Lastly, I just think the vibe at Librarything is better than | Goodreads. They're a tiny company made up of librarians and | developers, and you feel the scrappy Web 1.0 charm from them | and the community there in a way I never saw with Amazon- | owned Goodreads. | stonesweep wrote: | > In fact the whole site is completely free | | Blog about this: | https://blog.librarything.com/main/2020/03/librarything- | goes... | crossroadsguy wrote: | I believe a better GoodReads can only be a a non-profit. Maybe | something federated. Financial possibilities are almost done for. | GR is too big. Event LibraryThing has Amazon money in it. | | There was this reco.com (now shutdown) which was more like "recos | by famous people". I didn't like that idea but I had anyway | checked it out hoping it might become something better. It | didn't. | | Jinni kind of permanently dissuaded me from building a profile on | recommendation sites feeding their recommendation engines only to | see a shuttered gate after a while. Though it's actually better | in cinema space right now. There are some academic options (or | were; not sure what is something like Movie Lens right now) | spillguard wrote: | As an avid reader who has been using Goodreads for years, my | reason for not switching to an alternative has almost nothing to | do with any of what the author mentions. That reason is purely | the promise of stability provided by a site that's been around | for longer (not to mention the big-name ownership) - the faith | that Goodreads will stay running for years and years into the | future. | | When it comes to the list of books I've read, I want to set it | and forget it - and with a small upstart, there's always the | worry that the maintainer will run out of money (or interest) and | shut the service down. Sure, most of these book sites have | import/export functionality, but why bother with that when | Goodreads will likely be around for a long time? | bagofbones wrote: | This is a very valid argument. You have implicitly invested | effort (in form of lists) in Goodreads, and wouldn't want to | lose them. It's another reason why a challenger can't rely on | book tracking as the primary feature to drive adoption. | mdoms wrote: | Maybe this is a regional thing but one of the major premises of | the article doesn't hold for me. I almost never see Goodreads in | Google search results for books. I'm not even sure I EVER have. | dnissley wrote: | Here's a list of the alternatives to goodreads I collected from | this thread, along with some thoughts on how each compares with | goodreads. | | 1. OpenLibrary: https://openlibrary.org/ | | No user reviews, but they do at least have ratings. Other than | that, no social features or lists -- just a way to keep track of | your library. Awful suggestions. | | 2. Shepherd: https://shepherd.com/ | | Not a real directory -- short curated lists around various | topics. Books don't have their own dedicated page. No | suggestions. No social features. No way to keep track of your own | books. | | 3. Readerly: https://www.readerly.com/ | | Mobile app only, invite only. | | 4. LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/ | | Good social features. Poor mobile web UX, although looks like | they have mobile apps. Has been around since before goodreads but | doesn't seem to have changed much for the better, so improvements | in the future seem unlikely. | | 5. Zeneca: https://www.zeneca.io/ | | Decent social features, but still pretty empty feeling. Looks | like they're just starting up though. | | 6. Story Graph: https://app.thestorygraph.com/ | | Only social feature seems to be ratings + feed of | started/finished/rated. Also got that new reddit style slowness | feeling. | | 7. Readng: https://readng.co | | Decent social features. I like this one the best of all the | alternatives here, it has the best UX by far. There's kind of a | private feeling to it though -- there could be more | discoverability / suggestions, and I don't think I should have to | log in in order to do things with a website like this (don't have | to with goodreads). | | 8. Bookwyrm: https://bookwyrm.social/ | | Part of the fediverse and this particular instance of this app is | closed. Pretty basic, supports reviews, can't say too much about | it though. | | 9. Rate.house: https://rate.house/ | | Supports rating/reviews of all types of media, not just books. | Might not attract the right audience for a bookish community. | | 10. MYBookList: http://www.mybooklist.com/ | | Pretty basic, not even cover images are supported. Basic social | features: reviews, ratings, lists. | irrational wrote: | This reminds me of the question "Why has no one made a better | Board Game Geek?" (https://boardgamegeek.com/). It actually is | slowly getting better now, but it is still shockingly stuck with | a UI/UX from the very early 2000s. | | Another website, Board Game Atlas | (https://www.boardgameatlas.com/) was launched a year or two ago | to compete with Board Game Geek but hasn't really caught on, | despite having a superior UI/UX and some killer features. | | Why has it not caught on? Mainly because everyone is already | using Board Game Geek. That is where the community is so unless | everyone moves over en masse it probably isn't going to happen. | | However! After Board Game Atlas was launched, Board Game Geek | suddenly started updating their UI/UX. | | Here you can see the pre-Board Game Atlas homepage: | | https://boardgamegeek.com/dashboard | | Here you can see the post-Board Game Atlas homepage: | | https://boardgamegeek.com/ | | They've made similar improvements for interior pages. Up until | very recently the interior pages were totally unusable on mobile | (the forums are still terrible), but now they are mostly usable. | | My take away is this, if you want Goodreads to have good UI/UX, | create a competing website that does the same thing as Goodreads | with good UI/UX. When Goodreads feels threatened by the new site, | even if people are not moving over to it en masse, they will | start to find the time and money to fix their own UI/UX problems. | Though, it may take awhile, BGG has been improving, but it is | taking a long long long time. A shockingly long time. | donio wrote: | I actually like the current BGG UI a lot. It certainly has its | quirks but it could be SO MUCH worse. It is definitely more | enjoyable to use than most "modern" websites out there. Clear | textual links rather than figuring out mystery buttons, pages | load reasonably fast (including those with very large lists) | and it stays responsive too rather than slowly murdering the | browser. | | I am all for improving it but I really hope that it doesn't get | ruined in the name of UX. | hipnoizz wrote: | Well, it is definitely true that BGG UI feels dated and | disjointed, and if Board Game Atlas triggered some reaction on | BGG side then great. I don't find BGA UI that much better. | Cleaner, more 'modern' - yeah... which includes a lots of white | space and rather low information density. On BGG I visit some | forums, read reviews for games I'm interested in and browse the | files section - even if UI could be improved here it is usable | enough and the volume of information makes up for all the | deficiencies, at least for me. And contrary to Goodreads BGG | seems to have working search ;-) | gweinberg wrote: | Say, does anyone know of an open reverse bibliography service | (find boos that cite a given book)? When I read a good book it | often helps me find other books worth reading, but I can only go | backwards in time that way. | DavideNL wrote: | I just started trying https://app.thestorygraph.com/ as an | alternative... | forgotpwd16 wrote: | I read the article but didn't understood what is _wrong_ with | Goodreads in first place. Comparing with some of the mentioned | alternatives it's a simpler interface yet is more information | rich. Even not considering its bigger community, it's still a | better option to track books. | dazc wrote: | Monetizing such a site would be difficult unless you happen to be | already the world's biggest bookseller. Thus, any | person/organisation with skills and talent to undertake such a | task would be better off promoting something with wider margins. | | Discounting this reason, and supposing it happened, then amazon | could just turn up the dial and throw some resources at it. As | things stand, they don't need to. | bagofbones wrote: | Lack of an evident business model could be a reason that turns | off smart founders from picking this problem. However, if the | product adds enough value to enough number of users, one could | figure ways to monetise it. | stinkytaco wrote: | I assume the effort, time and money required to get to | "enough value to enough number of users" will require you to | answer the "ways to monetise" question for a VC or even | yourself _before_ you start. | weird-eye-issue wrote: | No it wouldn't. You could just be an Amazon Affiliate. Also | with enough traffic display ads can make a lot | stepbeek wrote: | Genuine question: would Amazon suffer such an affiliate to | live long term? | dazc wrote: | Since they would be still making money, possibly? | | I have been an amazon affiliate for 10 years or more and, | to be fair, they behave much better than any other | affiliate program I have been involved with. | phpnode wrote: | both of these require very large audiences to make money, the | amazon affiliate program pays very poorly and people hate & | block ads. Not saying it's impossible but the days of | slapping a few ads and affiliate links on your website and | expecting to make decent revenue are long gone. Especially if | you want to offer a good UX | bagofbones wrote: | agreed. if affiliate were to the only revenue stream, it'd | be quite a small opportunity. | weird-eye-issue wrote: | You guys don't know how wrong you are. I analyze | affiliate websites for sale every day. | maest wrote: | That's very interesting! Can you talk some more about | what you see? | weird-eye-issue wrote: | I see a lot of sites grow to thousands in monthly revenue | fairly quickly and sell quickly for a minimum of 40x | monthly multiple. There are tons of resources and tools | out there to build sites that will generate a lot of | organic traffic. | | It takes a lot of work but if you have the resources | practically all of it can be outsourced. What I do is | learn as much as I can about each role that is needed, | then I hire virtual assistants and train them to do that | role. That helps keep costs down since you aren't hiring | an "expert". | | I'm growing a couple sites right now that I haven't | written a single word for or taken a single photograph | because I have some awesome writers and a photographer. | I've also never posted a single article to Wordpress | because, you guessed it, I have an awesome VA that I | trained to do that for me. I even have a content manager | (the highest paid role) who manages the writers and tells | them pretty specifically what to write. | weird-eye-issue wrote: | Actually they aren't long gone at all. Go look at Empire | Flippers, Flippa, etc. I build, buy, and operate affiliate | and display advertising websites. Lots of sites can make | $30 per 1000 visitors just on ads depending on the niche. | Some affiliate sites make over $700 per 1000 visitors. | Again it depends a lot on the niche. | | Also the majority of people do not block ads. This also | depends on the niche though. Gaming and tech niches are | usually low RPM unless you get targeted affiliate traffic | (like you show up on Google for "Best Gaming Laptops of | 2021") | phpnode wrote: | would you consider a book reviews website a profitable | niche? seems like it'd be a gamble in terms of effort vs | reward given that most books are pretty inexpensive | weird-eye-issue wrote: | People looking for books online likely have more | disposable income than the average population. So I would | say ad revenue will probably look pretty good but this is | just a guess. Sometimes this can be surprising for | different niches. For example, you might not think recipe | websites make much money but in fact they often make $30 | per 1000 visitors (on ads alone) due to their audience | profile. I got turned down offering $140k for a recipe | website a few months ago. They were making around $3k per | month. | | As far as affiliate revenue, they are very likely to be | making a purchase soon if they are looking at book | reviews so if you can get them to click your Amazon | affiliate link there will be fairly high conversion. The | revenue per purchase probably is quite low due to the | price and margins on a physical book (although I wonder | what it looks like for Kindle books) but with enough | traffic you can absolutely make it work. I can think of | some interesting ways to get a lot of traffic with | Pinterest as well in this niche. | | This is a numbers game. Keep your costs low and your time | involvement low and even if it is only making $2k/month | that is good enough because you can have several sites at | the same time. | | Btw as far as needing a ton of traffic to make money well | sometimes that is true to an extent. Recently I was | looking at a website that was the most popular user- | created website for a specific mobile game. It is | generating $6k/month despite having the lowest RPM I've | seen so far (only making around $2 per 1000 visitors). | Despite this the hosting cost was only $50/mo and I bet I | could get that down to $15/month with even better | performance. | | Side note - you get paid commissions on everything people | buy for a certain time after clicking your affiliate | link. People buy tons of stuff on Amazon so you'll get | lots of revenue for non-book things too. | | If you want more info on this type of business model go | look at these site (I am not affiliated with them at | all): | | https://thewebsiteflip.com/ https://fatstacksblog.com/ | HDMI_Cable wrote: | I don't really see why the UX needs to change, Web 1.0 design | was/is very functional, and I find that Goodreads has a | nice/balance between the simple things (Adding books to a list) | and the complex (e.g. filtering). Of course, the writers design a | UX blog, so they might disagree. | superkuh wrote: | As soon as someone does and it achieves network effect it will be | bought by a mega-corp and we'll have to do this all again. | pauljonas wrote: | So true. | | And so sad. | | And now excuse me while I dream of a world where gifted | creators can build a flourishing web gathering space where it | can thrive and grow and not be then harvested by the borg that | encapsulates viewers as nothing but breathing credit card | tokens. | bagofbones wrote: | lol. my strong hunch - it will only be a mission-driven founder | who will take this to it's righteous end. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | That's why https://bookwyrm.social/ is so interesting; as part | of the Fediverse, this can't happen. | TOSSAWAY_1 wrote: | lol yeah. that does make me happy. | Johnny555 wrote: | Probably the same reason why no one has made a better IMDB -- | Goodreads has a head start and it's "good enough" for most | people. It takes a lot of time (or money) to build enough content | to make a viable competitor. A book recommendation engine that | has only 5% of the content of Goodreads won't be very popular. | vhpoet wrote: | Have you seen this? https://www.readthistwice.com/libraries | macando wrote: | _No matter which book you search for, the top results will always | have the Goodreads listing. In fact, Google surfaces the | Goodreads rating in the Knowledge Panel. Goodreads is a monster | at SEO._ | | Due to this some companies are literally undethronable. | bagofbones wrote: | It's hard because of this reason. But I'm certain alternate | acquisition channels/go-to-market could exist. It's a matter of | understanding the customer's journey and capturing them at a | stage other than "discovery" or "search". | minitoar wrote: | Too Googleable To Fail | FunnyLookinHat wrote: | I've never been into Goodreads or similar sites much, but my wife | definitely has and reads a lot. She has switched over to The | Story Graph and has really liked it (minus the lack of friends | that are present). | | https://www.thestorygraph.com/ | podiki wrote: | Same here, never used Goodreads (though looked on there for | book info sometimes), but have been trying out The Story Graph. | Is pretty nice for tracking reading and seeing your books, even | in a beta stage. | | Have also looked a little into Library Thing (also mentioned in | this discussion). Anyone use both and have useful comparisons, | pros/cons for each? | Saturdays wrote: | Oooh this looks interesting.. I export my GoodReads data and | play with it on a spreadsheet to learn more about my reading | trends. | sec400 wrote: | I've been enjoying using https://beta.readng.co/ as an | alternative | mikedc wrote: | I've also been enjoying Readng. | | I'm mostly looking to share what I'm planning to read/am | reading/have read with a small circle, and for that it's pretty | much ideal. There's some basic collection functionality, but no | complex library management, no discussions, no recommendation | engine, and not very much metadata. It's probably not for | everyone, but the minimal approach is refreshingly low- | friction. Kudos to the creator(s) for the overall experience. | | My only gripes so far have been that search is hit-or-miss | (especially for non-fiction), all searches sometimes yield | results in an unpredictable order (where an exact title match | might be buried amongst partial or seemingly unrelated | matches), and the cover they pick is sometimes less-common or | downright obscure. | newbie578 wrote: | An interesting article, the now staple monthly "why isn't | GoodReads fixed or disrupted?". | | And again the answer is the same, which it seems like a lot of | people keep avoiding. | | There is no viable business model for an alternative to emerge, | simple as that. If someone finds a viable business model for a | social media network about books, then they got a billion dollar | idea. | | Although I doubt it, if there is someone like that, I wish them | the best of luck. | kaitai wrote: | Yeah, I think some folks have mentioned it, but The Storygraph | [1] has really gotten some traction as a replacement. Question | for HN readers, then -- if you look at Storygraph vs Goodreads, | what's the missing secret sauce? Just critical mass? | | [1] https://app.thestorygraph.com/ | [deleted] | heisnotanalien wrote: | If it's not broken, why fix it? I go to goodreads for the high- | quality book reviews and community. I literally don't care about | UX or fancy algorithms. I'd rather use an old algorithm called | 'talking to someone I know' for book recommendations. Right now | it feels like a clunky old site made for books reviews and I like | that feel. I don't want some Amazon product manager who only | cares about monetising (where can I smack ads?!) to touch it | thank you very much. And god forbid some UX person gets hold of | it and redesigns it in the boring/minimal feel (so it loads fast | and we can smack lots of ads on it). | gwern wrote: | It actually is broken in a lot of ways, and I don't mean the | complaints about stalkers or fake reviews or other community | problems, just on the pure technical level. It's been slowly | bitrotting, it feels like it somehow gets slower every year, | and they've been removing features. I recently moved all of my | stuff off GR and stopped using it because I asked myself why I | was putting up with it when it clearly was only going to get | worse over time. | | For example: lists in reviews don't render, somehow they broke | list markers, and this has been the case for like a decade now | (?!); you can't add links to profiles anymore, and you can't | edit your profile if it already has a link (because 'spam'); | you can write book reviews which you can't then edit (because | the edited, but somehow not the original, violates 'length | limits' - which are shockingly easy to run into if you include | any links); they disabled part of the export API recently, and | I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years you can't even export | your books... | thelastwave wrote: | More React will solve everything. | bandAid0 wrote: | So a new goodreads minus the technical problems comes along. | | It gets popular. The community becomes a mess, it becomes | costly to police, you have people upload an ID and the world | hates you for invading their privacy, management shifts | resources away since its stable-y making money regardless | (given some Byzantine model that matters to ownership anyway) | and then it falls victim to bit rot. | | So a replacement to your goodreads replacement comes along... | askafriend wrote: | GoodReads is absolute trash even amongst trash, I don't | understand how you could be defending it. | notahacker wrote: | I think what actually happens is a new Goodreads minus the | technical problems and also minus the reviews and community | comes along. Turns out people prefer having actual book | reviews to faster page loads and more stable link | structures, and everyone stays where they are... | nwienert wrote: | You can do ID (or just validate a few other ways) with | anonymous accounts, done properly seems a good balance. | | Some would hate it, but if it actually improves the quality | and the company has some security chops I'd see it as a | selling point. | throwaway3699 wrote: | By definition, you cannot have ID for anonymous accounts. | Not without a third party (who I want nothing to do with | anyway). | thelastwave wrote: | Furthermore, is it really up to a book review site to | solve the problem of identity and anonymity on the | Internet? Seems like the wrong place in the stack to | focus on that. | nwienert wrote: | Yea, I think it's a good model for other type of | companies and have thought of it before which is why I | brought it up here, just felt like clarifying it is | possible to do if desired. | nwienert wrote: | Communication issue: | | I'm defining "anonymous to the world" or "anonymous | publicly", whereas you're defining it as "anonymous to | everyone, even the company". | | But in the scope of a book review website, and this | thread about preventing spam by having ID enforced, my | comment made sense as that. The company knows you, but | you can have an anonymous handle to the world. I had | clarified that with the line about trust. | throwaway3699 wrote: | I considered that, but most people who get annoyed about | privacy are upset that private companies have any data at | all. e.g. location data on Facebook. | | It's good opsec to assume all private data at companies | may get leaked, including links between your ID and your | name. | | Consider the scenario where somebody is reviewing books | on dangerous subjects (politics, religion, LGBT+, etc...) | and is suddenly outed to the whole world due to a data | breach. | nwienert wrote: | For some set of people it would be a problem, I think for | book reviews that's a tiny set, not to be dismissive of | them, but still. | | For other types of applications you'd want to have a | better system, like a writing platform. | | But still, there's ways to do it. You can validate the | high res copies of whatever you want to validate, then | make a hash using a few key numbers, in partial. Stuff | like that gets you close to ideal, even the worst case | break would expose almost nothing, and you'd prevent | duplicate accounts. Only risk is losing the documents | during validation before they're deleted, all depends on | the application. | Retric wrote: | You can actually do validation for completely anonymous | accounts. The most common version is DDOS protection | where even read only websites can still benefit. | | An anonymous review website could similarly rate limit | how quickly reviews change, so someone spamming 1,000 | reviews accomplishes little. | [deleted] | dmos62 wrote: | How do you find high quality book reviews? Or, is it the | average review that's high quality? | heisnotanalien wrote: | I follow people whose reviews I like. | devchix wrote: | The review page and discussion thread is hideous and painful to | navigate. If a site is to be able to recommend $nextbook it has | to curate inputs, either as ratings or text reviews. There are | huge bookclub memberships but hardly anybody write anything | substantial because it's a quagmire to wade through (thus | implying few review readers). Lapsed readers like me would love | a place to talk books, obscure, trendy or not. r/books is a | never-ending loop of "I've just finished Ender's Game and I | ..." and "Why we do $something when we read", and similar | dross. If there's any space that could use a boost in "user | engagement" I wish it could be for readers. But, as we bookish | lot aren't terribly argumentative, and unwilling to shiv anyone | who opines that they loved DaVinci Code, it's an unknown with | what to bait us. I log into Goodreads probably twice a month, | avert my eyes and then close tab. | IggleSniggle wrote: | I think Steam is probably a decent model of what Goodreads | could have looked like. Full of product reviews, with a | carefully crafted recommendation engine that focuses in on | genres/studios of interest based on a combination of what | your friends are reading/reviewing/liking, your past | purchases, new release, etc. | | Video games have a similar problem to books in that there's a | lot of genre, and genre is also often a hazy line. And, too, | some people really like stuff that I think is total crap (and | vice versa). | | These days I am almost exclusively shown content that I am at | least somewhat interested in. | busterarm wrote: | the spam emails are pretty shit | afterburner wrote: | You can turn that off in settings. I have and get nothing | from them. | busterarm wrote: | That's not the point. | | I didn't sign up for a goodreads account. I was given one. | And it's sharing my email address with third parties by | default. | | That's scummy company behavior. | inanutshellus wrote: | Since you call them "spam", I assume you do not want the | emails you're getting, rather than saying you want the | communication but they're lower quality than you want. If | that's the case, I've been a GR member for years and only get | emails from them when a particular author does something I've | asked GR to notify me about. Implies to me that merely | unsubscribing and managing your preferences seems to work. | busterarm wrote: | I have a GR account due just to having a Kindle | subscription and I don't use it and haven't configured | anything (nor want to). Just for having the account I get | emails like "the official adult site <some url> of | Goodreads." | | If there were some way I didn't have this goodreads account | at all, that would be preferable. | BikiniPrince wrote: | I actually would like a better algorithm for suggestions. I can | scroll fifty pages of their basic suggestions before I hit | something I'm interested in and don't already have. I would | really like to fetch their catalogue and try the Netflix search | improvement contest, but for books! | billfruit wrote: | It is broken in certain aspects, Goodreads is one of the | slowest sites around, if nothing else is done that alone needs | fixing. And it has been in this state for years now. | jacobsenscott wrote: | I don't actually use good reads, but I clicked around - | everything I clicked on loaded faster (less than 2 seconds, | usually less than 1) than everything I clicked on in medium | (always more than 2 seconds, where this blog post is hosted). | | Neither site is fast, but "one of the slowest around" doesn't | track either. | ryantgtg wrote: | In my experience, Goodreads loads slower on a phone than on | a desktop browser (and it's only the initial load that I | notice being slow). I've long suspected (without evidence) | that this is intentional because they nerf the mobile web | experience in an attempt to get you to use their app. | davidwparker wrote: | I think it may be more so for logged in users. When logged | in, and I go to the homepage, which is essentially an | activity feed, it has 93 requests, 4.4MB of resources | (1.5MB transferred), and took 7.66 seconds to finish. | bagofbones wrote: | I hear you. It's not broken. It does serve the primal use cases | like shelving, reviews/ratings, meta-information pretty well. | But there is also so much more to the experience of reading. Is | Goodreads really the best we deserve? | pavel_lishin wrote: | > _And god forbid some UX person gets hold of it and redesigns | it in the boring /minimal feel_ | | It sounds like you care about UX a great deal, and the UX | currently suits you fine! | | I mostly agree with you; it has a few pain points, but I fear | the day when it goes through the great Digg/Reddit redesign and | becomes virtually unusable due to information density | plummeting to zero. | | I _think_ it 's not likely to go that route, though - since | it's owned by Amazon, it doesn't have to be profitable by | itself, it just needs to result in enough referrals to buy | books on Amazon. | throwawayjcvbs wrote: | that is underway right now actually. theres a beta in- | progress for a re-design of a couple pages including the book | page. | WalterBright wrote: | Modern UX design seems enamored with sites that refuse to | scroll smoothly, which is maddening and quite unpleasant. | jquaint wrote: | I find goodreads has a bit of bias problem on their ratings. | Most books are rated between 3 and 4. Its really hard to tell | if that rating is accurate because most people who didn't | finish the book (an indicator of low quality) will not leave a | review. | ipaddr wrote: | I think that's honestly how most people score. If you read | the entire book and it was okay you give it a 3 if it was | great a 4 best book ever a 5. If you hated the book you may | not finish or review. | | The opposite is uber where rating affects future service and | puts a lot of power over others in your hand. Not giving 5 is | socially unacceptable like not tipping vs tipping less and | complaining. | bscphil wrote: | > Most books are rated between 3 and 4. Its really hard to | tell if that rating is accurate | | Sometimes I agree with you (because it's annoying to me too), | but other times I feel like that's _accurate_. The difference | in quality between a book that 's in the 75th percentile | quality-wise among the books I've read and a book that's in | the 25th percentile is not very large! I'd say, by and large, | most books that get published are pretty good. Few of them | are completely flawless or life-changing, and that's okay. | 3-4 seems about right for 50% of the books I read. | | If you combine that basic fact with a range of people with | differing tastes, you get even more reversion to the mean, so | just about every book has a 3-4 rating. | | The same goes with beer. If you check the major beer rating | sites, you'll see most beers end up with a 3-4 rating. | Personally I think movies have a much wider range in quality, | but you still see this effect somewhat with IMDb: a huge | proportion of movies is in the 6-8 range. | | You might think that the ratings would be more useful if what | we got was a percentile rather than an absolute rating, and | that might be right... or it might disguise the fact that I | really _would_ get close to the same amount of enjoyment out | of a 3.5 as a 3.9, even though they 're separated by 30 | percentiles or whatever. | ALittleLight wrote: | It's strange to me that this is the pattern for things like | books, movies, or beer but with Uber drivers the pattern | seems to be "Give 5 stars unless something was wrong." | | Before I learned this Uber etiquette I would rate drivers | the same way. "Well, he got me from A to B without issue, | but was there anything that set this ride apart and | elevated it?" | Tagbert wrote: | That is due to Uber corporate misunderstanding ratings | and penalizing drivers who get anything less than a | perfect rating. | zwieback wrote: | Yeah, most review sites have the 5 or nothing problem. I look | at the distribution and then find some medium to low starred | reviews to see why I might not like a book that otherwise | seems a good match for me. | | In aggregate the star rating is pretty good for literature | and non-fiction. For mass fiction it's fairly useless. | snarf21 wrote: | How do you make a better goodreads that is _sustainable_ when | Amazon will always make it free as a way to sell more books on | Amazon? It is pretty easy to make a X that is better than the | status quo. How will you compete with the big guys financially? | People want everything for free. | bagofbones wrote: | This is the billion dollar question, but having the right | answer at the outset may not be necessary. In fact, most | successful business go through multiple iterations on | monetisation opportunities before they strike gold. | | It is more important to build a product that solves problems | that Goodreads doesn't solve right now, and find a way to | acquire customers that doesn't rely on Google SEO. | snarf21 wrote: | That is a good approach but the risk is that if the feature | you add that people _really_ want is trivial for Amazon to | copy after you 've proven it. | distances wrote: | Good first step would be to free the data under an open | license. A MusicBrainz for books. | | Now that I think about it, there probably are multiple | projects already trying to do that. | oauea wrote: | Do you remember when people made websites to solve problems | and build community, instead of to make a profit? You can | always just shill for amazon using affiliate links, everyone | wins. | dlivingston wrote: | The value of a social network is directly proportional to | the number of edges in the network graph (I.e., | SocialNetworkX might be better than Facebook, but if none | of your friends are on it, it's worthless). For Goodreads, | couple that with the vast amount of book metadata they have | + Kindle integration, and any startup would have a long way | to go to even reach parity. | | Scalability + data aggregation + user adoption == lots of | funding + a clever business model + a significant reason to | switch from $DOMINANT_COMPANY + a good bit of luck. | | That requires huge financial resources, and thus, a solid | monetization scheme. | x0x0 wrote: | Making money (and this site will take a lot of money to | build, even if it's just to break even) via Amazon -- while | competing with an Amazon property -- is not something that | is going to work. I frankly think this is the central | reason there's no goodreads competitor: how to make enough | money to break even when Amazon becomes your enemy... | throwawayjcvbs wrote: | goodreads is not supported by amazon. its self sustaining | through ads, affiliate links and publisher promotions. | x0x0 wrote: | Not to mention amazon will very aggressively react when you | start cutting into an (effectively free) leadgen source from | them. | HKH2 wrote: | The recommendations generally seem reasonable. | | What bothers me is that they clearly have the data to allow for | very specific queries, but there's no way to make them. | zem wrote: | what bothers me even more is that all the data for those | queries is user-generated, which means that users have | essentially contributed value to the site but cannot get it | back. that's the competition I would really like to see - a | site that crowd sources book metadata in the form of tags and | then makes the data freely available and searchable. | jborichevskiy wrote: | Almost Everything About Goodreads is Broken | | https://onezero.medium.com/almost-everything-about-goodreads... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20904549 | ryantgtg wrote: | Counterpoint: Goodreads isn't broken. | | It's not at all broken for me, nor for my friends. As the | article up top says, there are two ways to discover books: | incidental discovery and intentional discovery. On Goodreads, | incidental discovery largely flows from a daily email showing | me what my friends (who are all real life friends) are | reading. That daily email is the #1 reason why I won't leave | Goodreads. Any site can manage my read/to-read list, but if I | don't have any friends on that site, then I lose out on a big | source of discovery. And I can see from the email that my | friends also use that email to discover new books. | mhb wrote: | It's great that your tastes are similar enough to those of | your friends' that that works for you. But I doubt that | that is universal. | | Recommendations could be so much more helpful if they were | done by an algorithm similar to what Netflix used to have - | Cinematch. Then even people without friends could get good | recommendations. | ryantgtg wrote: | My tastes are not necessarily similar to my friends. | That's actually what makes the email feed cool. I am open | to branching out and reading books that I normally | wouldn't expect to read. | | In terms of recommending what I am already likely | interested in based on my previous reads, the "Readers | also enjoyed" section seems decent to me. Is that what | people think sucks? I've used that a fair amount and | found it to be valuable. Or is it the whole "Browse" | section that's bad? I never look under there. | | I use goodreads every day, but that means spending 5 mins | max on it (I hop in, add a book that I heard about | somewhere to my to-read list, then I hop off). And, like | I alluded to in my first reply, from what I can tell this | behavior also holds true for my friends. I don't think | I'm an outlier, though I totally understand that people | use the site differently than me and they find it | wanting. | seppin wrote: | While the phrase "X is broken" is maybe the most overused in | our society, GRs is functional but far from optimal. And there | appears to be no incentives to get better. | steviedotboston wrote: | People said the same thing about the Reddit UI and look what we | got... | atomashpolskiy wrote: | I find Goodreads UX tasteless and clunky, especially on mobile. | My favourite website in this department is fantlab.ru, though | it's mostly in Russian. | throwawayjcvbs wrote: | a redesign is underway | rkachowski wrote: | From reading the article, the answer seems to be something like | "because Goodreads has optimised heavily for SEO and uses this to | stay on top of search results". | input_sh wrote: | I mean Google also made a conscious decision to make it an | authoritative source in their knowledge graphs. | | Swapping those links for a competitor would be damn near | impossible, and it has not much to do with the SEO. | zozbot234 wrote: | The knowledge graph thing is something any site can opt into | by using schema.org markup. So long as they don't get banned | for supplying misleading info in their schema.org tags, it | ought to just work. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-16 22:00 UTC)