/lit/ - Literature

>>21478434
Shouldn't you decide that for yourself? You are an adult, after all.

>>21478442
op's a frog, anon. and so are you and so am i. we're all baby frogs.

Sometimes I feel rather dumb for spending so much time adding all those books. FOR FREE.

>>21478453
>tfw another year where no princess has kissed me
Reee.

>>21478453
I'm a cat.

>>21478453
Based and infantile pilled.

Let adultslaves make the decisions while we play.

>>21478434
i used to frequently add books in my language up until a few months ago where they changed the system. i decided against continuing doing so because it feels like they're punishing you for investing your time and effort into improving their cluttery dogshitfucknigger site.

>>21478465
a cat is a type of frog.

>>21478469
Exactly how I feel. That site update was like stab in the back. I can no longer trust them. I really want Discogs type database for literature to become a reality though. Maybe AI will make it happen.

>>21478477
A cat has never pissed on my hand. Most of the frogs have. Are my hands a toailet for them?

>>21478465

>>21478469
what did they do?

i imagine people on goodreads actually read unlike on this b/x/pol/adv seethe and bait shitposting board
how many books do retards here read a week?
illiterate school kids read 30 pages an hour, short stories of ~150 pages are supposed to be read in one sitting, if you liked reading you would read a novel in a day or two

you just know that average 4channeler is so subhuman that he is almost 30 and didnt read a book since highschool, less than 2% of threads on here are about a specific piece of literature

just checked the catalog to make sure
NOT A SINGLE THREAD ABOUT LITERATURE IN THE FIRST 20 THREADS

>>21478457
>>21478434
I'm a librarian and I've added probably 300+ books and editions over the years. I regret it massively.
They have some sort of a bot that recently decided some of my contributions are "not books" and automatically deleted them. They also automatically import garbage data from Amazon, resulting in DVDs and other random crap in the database, and especially tons of "Forgotten Books" editions (ripped from Google Books) with horrible typos.
(Not even counting the garbage that was added to the database by random users and other librarians who seem too stupid to wipe their own ass, or the abysmally bad redesign that - besides being ugly and clumsy - hides useful data.)
To me that was a clear sign how worthless I am to the site. They don't even just let me hang around, they outright made a program to ruin what I add and automatically import more garbage without having a single human check it beforehand. They clearly don't want me as a human contributor, and so I stopped using the site almost entirely. Going to delete my profile, and make a new one just to follow a few IRL friends.

>>21478483
>I really want Discogs type database for literature to become a reality though.
There's OpenLibrary database, and there are some sites based on their db that are aiming to replicate what Goodreads does, e.g. Bookwyrm.
Also, once more popular, should be decent - Library Thing (used to cost money to join, now it's free).
And a database is beng made by the team that made MusicBrains, but it seemed too limited and early in development, at least back when I checked it.
>Maybe AI will make it happen.
Judging by its current capabilities, it would generate a db as shit as Goodreads', or - more likely - just make up a ton of nonexistent books out of thin air.

>>21480084
>They have some sort of a bot that recently decided some of my contributions are "not books" and automatically deleted them.
is there a way to find out when that happens?

>>21480084
yeah librarything is pretty much the only goodreads alternative that i can see, but that site looks completely awful and its database is in infant stage.

>>21480084
why do you want to delete the old profile btw?

>>21480157
Not really. At some point I went to check the author's profile, and realised a book is missing. Later I also saw an another edition was deleted because I had shelved it and the cover was replaced by the default, more popular edition.
I went to the librarian forum and a poster replied to me and said that it was probably done by a bot. But then a moderator came and deleted his post and told me to send an email to GR. (Which is typical for them in general. They do everything to stifle open communication between users and towards the admins.)

>>21480167
>and its database is in infant stage
Yeah, the effort of the majority of people has gone into Goodreads. LT is actually very old, some 15 years, I think.

>>21480175
Because other users can access my librarian edits there even if I remove all other data from my profile.

>>21478434
Shouldn't you decide that for yourself? You are an adult, after all.

>>21480167
check out storygraph

It doesn't matter

owned by amazon, several superior alternatives, i'm thinking 'no'.

>>21480514
alternatives?
i hate the piece of shit goodreads has become

>>21478434
If you want to

>>21478434
>>21480084
>>21480418
>>21480615
check out my app - 26reads.com :)
of /lit/'s top 100, 55 are available to read online for free: https://www.26reads.com/list/77231-lits-top-100-books-of-all-time

>>21480418
How does it compare to goodreads.

>>21481940
>Because life's too short for a book you're not in the mood for.
looks promising