Photographer: Francesco Marino
I found out today that goodreads, a place where reviewers post their reviews, has kicked out Reader Views. This is what they had told them: "Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, goodreads grants you permission to use the Service for your personal, non-commercial purposes only."
But for the life of me, I have no idea why they would kick out ReaderViews and not the many other reviewers who are “commercial” and post their reviews on their site. And what about some of those publishing houses that send hundreds and hundreds of their employees under the disguise of "readers" to post favorable reviews about their clients’ books - they do this on amazon and thousands of other websites. At least Reader Views only gives a positive review if the book deserves it.
What’s interesting is after ReaderViews told them that other reviewers are doing the same thing, goodreads replied, “give us their names and we will look into it.” Now I don’t know about you, but when I was a kid, my mama told me never to snitch on your peers. So, Irene Watson of Reader Views followed suit and said: “It is not my intention to be the gatekeeper for goodreads, and as reviewers we support each other and are not out to destroy each other.” Ironically, ReaderViews does exactly what its name represents – it gives the book to randomly selected readers and readers write up a review. Once the reader reviews it, ReaderViews has no control over the outcome of the review be it good or bad.