this site is shit
is there anything better out there?
You're on it.
>>8101054
Are you looking for better cataloging? LibraryThing. It doesn't really have the social media aspects though.
>>8101066
No he isn't
>>8101054
>this site is shit
What's wrong with it?
>>8101597
He uses it incorrectly.
>>8101597
OP is just mad that the unwashed masses can rag on his favorite meme book but rate twilight or something five stars.
>>8101662
>implying unwashed masses would bother creating a goodreads account
The vast majority of people do not read. They rise for their daily slog and drink themselves to sleep in front of a screen.
Protip: don't read reviews.
This and the lack of reread option are the only real drawbacks to the site. The database is massive, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the biggest book database in existence.
>>8101687
This. The people are retarded so reading the reviews is an exercise in masochism.
>>8101687
Depends on what you mean by book database. I'd imagine WorldCat is bigger.
>>8101555
Yes he is.
>>8101597
It's only good for keeping track of read or unread books. The auto-recommendations are usually terrible, the reviews are manipulated by Amazon (which owns Goodreads) and the discussions are like what you'd expect from a bunch of middle aged book club ladies who meet on Sunday after church.
>>8101054
Why is it shit? Surely you arent using reader recommendations to guide your reading habits, or interacting with other users in public groups?
Otherwise the recommendation engine and book tracker work excellently.
>>8101992
>auto-recommendations are usually terrible
gotta disagree. They recommend by period, genre, associated writers by geography, and then popularity. Mebbe if you are reading starter /lit/ it only gives you pleb suggestions, but if you want to get into /lit/ by country or time period it will feed you good stuff.
>>8101066
This.
