If you want a non-corporate alternative to Goodreads, there's a Fediverse one, BookWyrm: https://bookwyrm.social/
(I don't know how many people are using BookWyrm, but Goodreads itself seems half-abandoned. Maybe most of the publisher attention is on TikTok influencing now?)
Thanks, this is neat. Goodreads seems to be get so little development attention these days that it's a miracle it still runs.
Interesting choice by BookWyrm to hide review ratings by default. I like it — I always felt that on Goodreads literature that's a little more challenging to tackle is reviewed very unfairly compared to easy-to-digest-but-content-light popular books or pulp fantasy. Making the default to have users read the contents of a review instead of glancing at an aggregate number seems like the right answer.
I've been tracking with bibliocommons through my local library, but it has it's flaws. I can add books that any bibliocommons library has indexed, but there's no convenient way to search outside my library.
I find goodreads sucks at book recommendations, but excluding the books that some random twitter replacement didnt read doesnt seem like its going to make it good at book recommendations either.
Goodreads however remains fun for keeping me accountable with my reading goals, and nothing else has replaced that.
DCC - Yeah this isnt great. Yeah the litrpg genre was infested from the beginning with 20booksto50K people, and then LLM people.
Specifically for his private social media that’s a benefit for his paid subscribers. 5 or 6 days of a few hours a day, with Claude.
If you want a non-corporate alternative to Goodreads, there's a Fediverse one, BookWyrm: https://bookwyrm.social/
(I don't know how many people are using BookWyrm, but Goodreads itself seems half-abandoned. Maybe most of the publisher attention is on TikTok influencing now?)
Thanks, this is neat. Goodreads seems to be get so little development attention these days that it's a miracle it still runs.
Interesting choice by BookWyrm to hide review ratings by default. I like it — I always felt that on Goodreads literature that's a little more challenging to tackle is reviewed very unfairly compared to easy-to-digest-but-content-light popular books or pulp fantasy. Making the default to have users read the contents of a review instead of glancing at an aggregate number seems like the right answer.
This looks rad and very user drivrn.
I've been tracking with bibliocommons through my local library, but it has it's flaws. I can add books that any bibliocommons library has indexed, but there's no convenient way to search outside my library.
This link is more informative.
https://craigmod.com/roden/102/#the-good-place
Craig Mod is an interesting example of someone who makes a living online through "ethical" content production.
Title: Go Knicks, A Better Goodreads, 'Cheap' Killer Films
Who?
author at Random House, advisor to Medium, partner at Designer Fund, angel investor, expert on publishing and digital books, former product designer at Flipboard: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=craigmod.com https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=craig+mod
Doesnt seem to overlap with good reads at all?
I find goodreads sucks at book recommendations, but excluding the books that some random twitter replacement didnt read doesnt seem like its going to make it good at book recommendations either.
Goodreads however remains fun for keeping me accountable with my reading goals, and nothing else has replaced that.
DCC - Yeah this isnt great. Yeah the litrpg genre was infested from the beginning with 20booksto50K people, and then LLM people.
If it's only for tracking books you really liked, it's not a Good Reads replacement.
Someone might have said similar about (Systrom's version of) Instagram: if it's only for photos, it's not a Facebook replacement.