Does this site actually recommend good books to read?

>>9091207
Generally, yes. Depends on what you're currently reading and what your library looks like.

>>9091207
The algorithm they have does. The users are almost entirely cancer though.

>>9091207
>Do people usually recommend good books?
That's the question you should ask, and the answer is no. People recommend popular and shit books, being great works in the first category sometimes.

It's good for obscure stuff. But it's userbase are mostly middle aged housewifes and teenage Doctor Who and Harry Potter fans so you shouldn't expect good recommendations.

>>9091308
>>9091286
>>9091283

You can spend years on Goodreads without ever having to come into contact with these insufferable Harry Potter fans. Get friends with good taste in books and follow reviewers that aren't cunts and you're pretty much set.

>>9091207
Daily reminder Don Quixote is a 3.8.
>>9091330
>Get friends
yes please

>>9091286
> People recommend popular and shit books


>Ask around for fantasy hoping to get something less known
>always those people saying wheel of time, game of thrones, malazan, mistborn

Guess it's just my fault for having shit taste in fiction.

>>9092207
I will never stop shilling the Worm Ouroboros.

>>9092220
Guess I'll just read it.

>>9091207
The less popular the book, the more likely you are to find decent individual reviews. The more popular the book, the more likely you are to find a rating that encapsulates the general concensus on the book amongst the wide reading public.

Never for books potentially read in High School, though. Just don't even bother.

>goodreads instead of library thing
Why?

>>9091207
Cool people tend not to use sites like this so you don't get the cool stuff in the recommendations.

>>9092315
Much better design / user experience. Better library.

So I just looked up a book I had just read - Survivor, by Chuck Palahniuk - and the top question was: "Do you think the plane crashed? I like to believe that Tender and Fertility landed safely and raised their child together, living happily ever after."

fucking plebs

If you want a shit show, look up casino royale, and drink all the SJW tears because James Bond hates women. It's fucking incredible.

>>9092352
>reads Chuck Palahniuk
>calls others plebs

>>9092379
>he doesn't read for fun
>Reads to appease strangers on the internet
(You)

>>9091207
step 1 Add good books
step 2 add good to read books
step 3 ???
step 4 Profit

Goodreads has been owned by Amazon for 3 years, and so their recommendations aren't so much "what are you most likely to enjoy" as they are "what are you most likely to buy". A lot of people don't realize this. Therefore I don't really trust their recommending algorithm because it's very shill-y and not genuine.

>>9092352
>not constructing your own reality
quite pleb desu

>>9092385
>he doesn't realize some people actually have fun reading the books he can't understand

>>9092508
Look at the reality you are trying to enforce. I don't "understand" the books you read? How did you come to that conclusion? That's a totally baseless assertion. You realize that you are allowed to read "trash," right? You realize that if reading is the only thing you do that elevates you above other people you have achieved nothing? You realize there is nothing remarkable about reading, right? Oh, but it takes a lot of brain power to really "understand" the kind of books you read, huh? Okay, feel free to link me to the dropbox full of essays you've written about the books you read. Oh, you haven't written anything? You have absolutely nothing to show for the hobby that you use to distinguish yourself from others? Wow, that must be really sad, dude. I'm sure you'll impress everyone the next time you read Ulysses. Twice is just not impressive. After reading it three times and really understanding it, everyone will gather around you to watch you read books. Everyone will be so impressed. "Hey, look! It's that guy that reads better than any of us! You guys got to see this!" Imagine how ambitious and hard-working you must be to read the same books that hundreds of thousands of people have read before you. The sheer dedication and skill to actually be the 3 millionth person to read Don Quixote. I didn't think I'd live to see someone do that. I'm really glad that you posted today to show me this. I am sure that I speak for the rest of the world when I say this---we are all so impressed that you read books.

>>9092592
Not even who you're replying to but you quite literally implied there's books you read for fun and books you obligate yourself to read to appease strangers in the internet.

>>9092351
>Better library.
Why would you reply if you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, faggot?

>>9092592
>buttmad genre fiction pleb can't understand how someone can enjoy reading something more high brow than Chuck fucking Palahniuk

Average day on /lit/.

>>9091207
i don't read anything that is rated below 4.0. So far it has been very helpful.

>>9092385
Anon, I'm not even particularly e/lit/est but Chuck Palahuik is legitimately embarrassing.. The only excuse for reading him is if you're still in your angsty mid-teens

>>9092616
>autistic "patrician" teenager can't understand most fulfilled people don't need to cover their crippling insecurities by muh highbrow internet elitism

>>9092642
Why are you even here and not on /r/Books?

>>9092655
Why are you even here and not on /r/Books?

Check out the event they have now. Go to the 100 best romance novels, pick the shittiest looking one with half-naked ripped dude and read the reviews. That's who's reviewing the books there.

>>9092625

4.0 is an average score, though.

If a book is REALLLY bad, it's sub 3.6.

>>9092614
I just searched for a bunch of submissions I made to Goodreads and none of them are on ligerything

>>9092676
It takes 2 minutes to fill out book data.

>>9092670
>>9092625

>The Odyssey is a 3.7

Into the trash it goes, I guess.

>>9092686
Why invest time in such an ugly looking website?

>>9092697
>form over function
Yeah, stay on Goodreads.

>>9092714
That's where all the babes are ;)

>>9092714
>look at me I'm such an edgy contrarian for using an obscure and ugly as sin website to catalogue my books instead of the popular alternative

>>9092692

They're meant to be subjective reports on what the reader felt about the book, not an objective measure of its quality.

>>9092592
Ok I was the one who posted that bait and I am so glad you all fell for it

But I didn't write that pasta

>>9092730
That's probably why the ratings and most review are entirely useless. :^)

>>9092733
>everything I'm not aware of is obscure and stupid

>>9092740
Who cares about ratings, it's fun enough to just browse people's liberries.

>>9092737
>you all fell for it
>2 replies

Here, have another (You) you poor soul.

>>9092733
>he's not using the same thing as me
>what an edgy contrarian
W E W

>>9092692
that's a fairly accurate rating though. Any of Homer's works translated to English rather than read in its original Ancient Greek is certainly not worth a 4.0 rating.

>>9091330
I'm new to /lit/. Is Harry Potter seen as bad literature? Does the folks in /lit/ not enjoy some entertainment?

>inb good books are entertaining too
>inb get out /b/ fag

>>9092791
it's fairly straightforward reading requiring very little intellectual rigour so most of /fit/ is unexcited by it.

Not that you should never read it, but if you do, what exactly is there to post about? The themes, plot narrative, structure, character development etc., largely speak for themselves.

We enjoy either complete shitposting or discussing books with more complexity and that are more open to interpretation and debate.

>>9092814
Ah I see, thanks for the info. I was just confused because Harry Potter came up in such a negative light. You're absolutely right that it is not worthy of a discussion, but depending on the person it's still a series I'd recommend sometimes. I loved it as a kid. Absolutely hated the movies though.

>>9092853
No, a lot of /lit/ really hates HP for some reason. Or maybe it's all memes and I'm autistic.

But I agree. HP is alright.

In any case that's irrelevant -- it's the Harry Potter FANS he's complaining about. i.e. the kind of people who love Harry Potter as an adult.

>>9092315
GR is free and has other /lit/izens. I'd rather make myself a nice spreadsheet than use LT

>>9092592
This is actually sad. You completely missed my point. Some of us, believe it or not, truly enjoy those books people like you label pretentious. I have a lot more fun reading something like Gravity's Rainbow than I do something like Ender's Game or The Martian. You might disagree, but nobody here gives a fuck. It's not elitism, it's you being on the wrong board. This is exactly why people from reddit shouldn't come here. You might think people should include pulp
in these conversations, but the reality is that I come here to get away from that shit. I don't discuss the books I read with anyone in real life, because they're generally not at all interested, and I honestly don't care to share my feelings on what I'm reading to anyone who isn't at all passionate about it. I'm here because there's people here who (at least pretend to) like the same type of lit that I do, regardless of whether or not they are reading it to impress everyone. I think you should go back now.

>>9091330
You can all be my friends
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/41254951-pandrew

>>9092493
> Therefore I don't really trust their recommending algorithm because it's very shill-y

I can't confirm that. I label my books read using the shelves mechanism so that I get recommendations by country, genre, specific aspect etc. pp., and quite a few times the recommending thing has recommended me books that I couldn't even get from amazon directly. I've also been on that page for years and since the amazon takeover nothing really changed, except that their kindle integration supposedly got better, haven't bothered to check that

>inb4 accusations of being a shill

>>9092188
>Greatest piece of literature ever written is rated a 3.8
What a fucking joke.

File: 1a080906c5d2c19e7fa40711ad0f8f641235191030_full.jpg (63KB, 450x557px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 450x557px

>>9091207
>legacy of totalitarianism in a tundra has near perfect score
>all the reviews are just low-quality memes

I wonder how many people actually got curious enough to read it after seeing it on goodreads

File: comfy.jpg (29KB, 197x190px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 197x190px

>>9091207
Is it like last.fm for books?
That idea is something id be interested in.

>>9094423

i don't give a shit about the recommendations. i don't bother rating anyway. i just use it to catalogue all the shit i've read for future use (looking through lists for recs for other people who ask or checklists of books i still need a copy of, etc.)

File: 1362351000028.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>9091207

Goodreads is actually great if you add the right people. Don't worry about the site recommendations themselves so much, if you add the right people you'll barely look at those.

i just compared books with someone on my friends list and saw that he rated Crime & Punishment a 1

also Gatsby

>>9094499
4 of those books are rated higher than Dorian Gray

They're right.

>>9094518
This. I can't think of a worse novel counted as "literature" than TPODG

File: reallynow.jpg (51KB, 318x354px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 318x354px

trying out goodreads recommendation

>>9093601
.t amazon advertisement ai

File: recs.jpg (514KB, 1032x2873px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1032x2873px

The recommendation system works fine.

>>9094673
Because you're clearly using the shelves/tagging system correctly, which is what most mouthbreathers here don't get