Goodreads Was Never "Good", But What's Happened To It?

Goodreads purportedly has over 180 million members. Does it really? What do they do there? As you know, I hate the place, but most authors do. And as long as an author has stupidly created his or her own page there, their books will populate the site and be subjected to passive-aggressive reviewers. (Who knows if these reviewers have even read the book? There is no required verification.)

I had to be really bored to even surf over to Goodreads, so what does that tell you? While it was always ad-heavy, I don't know what they've done now, because the interface is horrible. It's like they've given up completely. The home page is so busy, I've now developed vertigo. And no longer can one communicate with...anyone on the site. Not that my previous communications were many or fruitful (somebody wanting to push some paid service on me), but what if I someday gained a fan? I wouldn't even be able to thank her or him. So much for user friendliness. 

Did Amazon buy Goodreads in 2013 as a tax write-off? Bezos has mountains of money, but he's invested nothing in Goodreads. But then again, scanning his list of holdings shows that he's not big on technology upgrades. Take Ring, for example. Ring is like a Corona typewriter. It's capable of performing a basic task, but you'll be cursing its dumb-assery all the while. Audible? Oh, yay---I've sold tons (aka, "none") of my AI-narrated novels. So, like Ring, I guess one gets what they pay for. I can't afford to shop at Whole Foods; I can barely afford my corner market these days. I pulled up a listing of his MGM Studios theatrical releases, and nope; none that I've seen or would want to see, ever. (He also owns a so-called "newspaper".)

I get why authors hate Goodreads, but I still can't understand its draw for readers. One can find new books to read without being smacked in the face by a giant ad. And if members are relying on reviews as recommendations, well, all books suck, apparently, so they won't be parting with their hard-earned dollars anytime soon. And call me cuckoo, but I read what I want to read. I don't need a stranger to guide me.

If an author wants a quick way to blow money, she can do a Goodreads giveaway for $119.00. But guess what--a KDP giveaway is free! And it reaps the same number of reviews (zero)! I've read countless Reddit posts regarding the worthlessness of paying for a Goodreads giveaway. I'm always confounded by authors' eagerness to throw money away.

While I hate peeking, I did notice that Running From Herself has a new review (since last I checked). This time, my novel isn't "confusing", but it is "slow". I'll cop to slow, in places, but hey! What novel doesn't inevitably slow down? No book is rock'm, sock'm. At least it shouldn't be.

Still: 

December 6, 2025

It’s a bit slow in places, and I sometimes felt like shaking h, but the story is interesting and original, and the writing is smooth. I’m a (music) fan.

(Yes, she actually wrote "h".)

I'll take "interesting, original" and "smooth writing". This reviewer is clearly a discerning reader. 😉 She gave it four stars, btw.

I also just noticed that my reviewer who was "confused" added the tag #ARCReader, which is strange, since I didn't offer any ARCs. Maybe she "read" a free copy in her mind. Maybe it wasn't even my book! Or she might be the one in 2,000 who grabbed a copy via FreeBooksy and actually wrote a review. Still not an ARC reader, though.

If my current trajectory holds, I'll visit Goodreads again sometime in April, if for no reason other than to see how the site has once again deteriorated. 

 

P.S. I never remember to check up on my two-book anthology of novellas, but here's where Touching Home stands on Goodreads:

 

Leaving Home isn't on my dashboard, although it is on the site, and the directions for claiming it don't work. (So there you go again, Goodreads.) I will note, however, that no one has read it.