China’s Food Play Extends Its Reach, Already Mighty
Another reason to shop small, buy local and support your local farmer’s market.
Category: Mutterings
Article: Stunning Satellite Images Show A Changing Globe
Stunning Satellite Images Show A Changing Globe
Serious wake up call to Earthlings who can’t see the dying forest for the trees.
Tweet from Publishers Weekly (@PublishersWkly)
Publishers Weekly (@PublishersWkly) tweeted at 5:11 AM on Thu, May 09, 2013:
Amazon Warehouse Workers Sue Over Security Checkpoint Waits http://t.co/tKyxMfRLne
(https://twitter.com/PublishersWkly/status/332437707131330561)
More fodder for my Amazon boycott fire.
Nook Color Grounded; Can’t Come Out and Google Play
Barnes & Noble announced a couple of days ago that the latest editions of their ereader tablet, the Nook HD and HD+, would receive a software update that included the addition of the Google Play app store. I was not amused.
I own a Nook Color. In fact, by the end of this month, it will be two years old and the extended warranty I purchased from Barnes & Noble will expire. The last software update issued by B&N came nearly a year ago (see my post on version 1.4.3 from last June/July).
Not only am I not feeling the Nook Color love from B&N, I’m also noticing the ereader showing its hardware age. I often must power it completely down to ‘correct’ a situation that frequently arises when it can’t seem to locate my home’s wifi. Come June, if B&N hasn’t issued some olive branch of an update that would open up Google Play to my NC, I may just wipe it and finally convert it to an Android tablet.
Later this year, I’ll probably invest in an Android tablet, possibly a Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0. Not another B&N knockoff. While I’ve enjoyed reading ebooks on my Nook Color and using it for the occasional web surfing, Tweeting or reading e-mail, my experience with my Note II has opened my eyes to the limitless Android possibilities.
Article: Researcher’s Serial Port Scans Find More Than 100,000 Hackable Devices, Including Traffic Lights And Fuel Pumps
Researcher’s Serial Port Scans Find More Than 100,000 Hackable Devices, Including Traffic Lights And Fuel Pumps
Remember that old hardware in the dark closet buried in the basement? Might be time to upgrade.
Protected: Old World Countdown
On Amazon Acquiring GoodReads
Updates
October 25, 2013: Great article in Salon from a couple of days ago on How Amazon and GoodReads Could Lose Their Best Readers.
September 20, 2013: Amazon has started deleting reviews for other members and also deleting shelves, without notice or warning. Visit this announcement thread for more particulars: Important Note Regarding Reviews
And here I’ve quoted one of the best of the posted feedback messages from Wendy Darling:
I’ve been thinking about what I want to say since this announcement went live, and I almost said nothing–because at this point, it seems obvious this Feedback thread, like countless others before it, is pretty futile anyway.
I want to be clear: my opinion and decisions are a matter of principle rather than a matter of being directly affected. I’ve been pretty careful about my shelving and still stand by every single review I’ve written, and as much as I don’t care for the idea of policing shelves, I respect GoodReads’ right to change its TOS.
But like most people, I am absolutely appalled that user content has been removed without warning. What was the purpose of that? Why was it so dangerous to allow people the opportunity to edit their shelves and reviews? What would you think if you heard that Twitter was removing user content without notice, or policing your lists? Why aren’t private shelves an option? And most importantly, who was this gesture meant to impress or appease?
To make matters worse, to hear the language that was used in the email that Steph Sinclair and others got chiding them for operating in a way that wasn’t “in the spirit of GoodReads” is infuriating. The amount of time, thought, and dollars that goes into writing reviews and maintaining a blog is enormous, and all those people do it purely because of their generosity of spirit. To use that kind of language is a huge slap in the face, and diminishes the tremendous amount of good that those reviewers do for books with the positive reviews and features they produce. I am astonished that unpaid reviewers are constantly expected to take the feelings of professionals into account, when those who point the fingers at them don’t take 5 minutes to do simple research into the type of reviewers they are. I suspect that this move comes on the heels of several ill-conceived, agenda-driven, poorly-researched posts from Nathan Bransford and Salon and Huffington Post, but it seems that no one also weighed in the backpedaling that was done after those posts were published.
Both positive and negative reviews are an important part of a site like this (it’s the reason why so many of us have trusted its reviews until now) and I wish authors would understand that this site as a goldmine of market research. There is a huge opportunity here to learn about reader habits, discover strengths and weaknesses in their work, etc. But because a handful of vindictive authors are unable to separate their work from their egos, and because they fail to understand how to engage appropriately in the marketplace, GoodReads has become an increasingly hostile place. As the lines between personal space and community hangout and author advertisements continue to blur, the message that GoodReads is sending with this action is that this is NOT a safe haven for readers at all. It has taken ages for them to acknowledge any inappropriate behavior from its authors, and there is still a disingenuous lack of sync between what users are told and what is presented to authors, as evidenced by the screenshots we’ve seen in the last day or so. I have never expected GoodReads to come out strongly in defense of specific, and extremely damaging, attacks on their users by the authors that they court for advertising. But I did expect that they would minimally keep their promise to protect the rights of their users.
There are an alarming number of friends jumping ship to other sites. For myself, I’m not sure what I’m going to do yet. But I do know that I’m probably going to start treating this site merely as a cataloging tool. I’ve always interacted here as part of the community, not as a place to serve my own agenda or ego, but I am not comfortable with investing so much energy into a place that feels it can yank my reviews and shelves without notice. (I mean, obviously any website can. But should it?)
Right now, I’m considering a number of options, including:
— only posting a star rating and brief reaction, with a link to my blog for the full review
— unchecking the “feed to GR affiliates” option
— no longer making any librarian edits that don’t specifically benefit me
— taking my profile privateWhat’s ironic is that when this announcement went live, I was in the middle of planning a post acknowledging a milestone that I passed on GoodReads a couple of weeks ago. I have never put much stock into numbers and rankings, but 10,000 friends and followers did feel like something to celebrate. But all that seems pretty meaningless now.
Last note: I’m very glad Carolyn Crane and a handful of other authors have spoken up. There are a ton of notable authors who have voiced their negative reactions to this new policy on Twitter, but I hope they will also step forward to chime in here, where it counts. There are a lot of users eyeing an exit, because positive sunshiney conversations are only of interest to people who don’t actually read, or who don’t engage in analytical thought–and the loss of people who post critical reviews also means you’re losing a countless number of positive reviews as well.
As reviewer rights erode and as the trend of stifling conversations continues, it seems that GoodReads is becoming a place that is no longer a safe or trustworthy place for readers. And that makes me sadder than I could possibly ever express.
As a result of her post and the rest of the feedback to GoodReads most recent shocking actions, I’ve created an account at BookLikes and have started the import process of my books, reviews and shelves. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the import completes successfully.
August 6, 2013: Today, I received the following e-mail from GoodReads:
Hello Jon,
Several of your reviews were recently flagged as self-promotional in nature by other Goodreads members. As these reviews seemed to be solely an advertisement for your blog (and did not discuss the book), they have been removed from the site. If you’re trying to promote your site, we would suggest reviewing the books on Goodreads itself and simply linking to your blog at the end of each review.
Sincerely,
The Goodreads Team
(sent via the support@goodreads.com e-mail address)
I replied promptly from my Android smartphone:
Be honest. You removed them because I called Goodreads on the carpet about being bought by Amazon. And now you’ve proved my point by removing my reviews.
Thanks for providing more proof of Amazon’s continuing nefarious acts.
Jon Moss
I checked my review count on my profile at GoodReads. This morning I had 355 reviews. After I received this e-mail I had 266. Nearly ninety (90) reviews deleted. Most of them contained a single paragraph as follows:
Due to the acquisition of GoodReads by Amazon on March 28, 2013 and my existing and continuing boycott of all things Amazon, the review I wrote after reading this book has been relocated to my blog and can be found in its entirety by following this link:
I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am. I shouldn’t be hurt, but I am. My intention wasn’t to self-promote my blog. I’m just a small fish in the huge ocean of the internet bloghood. My intention was to make people aware that Amazon is not your friend.
July 26, 2013: After a nearly six week hiatus, Otis showed back up in the GoodReads Feedback group commenting on integration between Amazon Library and GoodReads. He’s still trying to reassure the ‘readers’ at GoodReads that’s there’s nothing untoward happening behind the green curtain.
June 11, 2013: Not entirely related to GoodReads, but definitely about Amazon, as reported by Publishers Weekly from the Apple Trial: Rupert Murdoch Wanted to ‘Screw’ Amazon
June 9, 2013: Belated Update (originally published by Otis on May 22, 2013): An FAQ on Amazon’s Acquisition of GoodReads. And, as I suspected, my data at GR is now Amazons:
Will Amazon have access to my Goodreads data?
Yes, as a subsidiary of Amazon, we can share data as appropriate under our privacy policies. How does this impact you? Primarily in two ways:
* Amazon and Goodreads could use the data to look for ways to offer you a better service on one or both sites. For example, by providing you with personalized advertising based on your reading tastes (similar to the advertising we already have on Goodreads).
* Amazon and Goodreads could analyze the data to see what kinds of new features or services might be useful on one or both sites.
So my campaign to sabotage my data is vindicated. I will continue to move reviews here to my blog and unrate books at GoodReads. My apologies to my GoodReads friends and followers. In the case where I decide not to review a book, I will leave my GoodReads rating initially after I finish reading it, but will eventually unrate the book to continue corrupting the data Amazon collects from me via GoodReads.
I have no plans to leave GoodReads, as I enjoy the groups too much and the interactions with reading friends.
May 9, 2013: While not specifically related to the Amazon buyout of GoodReads, this morning’s article in the Huffington Post reveals continuing nefarious deeds of the etailer behemoth.
A link to the Huffington Post article: “Amazon Warehouse Workers Sue Over Security Checkpoint Waits”
And should the above link ever break, I printed out the article to a PDF available here: “Amazon Warehouse Workers Sue Over Security Checkpoint Waits”
April 19, 2013: Not that I’m an Apple fan (aside from the apples that I can each autumn), but apparently Amazon nixed any hopes of seeing GoodReads integration in iBooks with their deal: Amazon-GoodReads deal quashed Apple iBookstore plans
April 15, 2013: Another interesting article coming out of the London Book Fair: Is Amazon Good or Bad for the Publishing Industry?
April 14, 2013: I find it interesting that Otis has been mostly absent from the GoodReads site since making the announcement late in March. To see what I mean, check out this link to his GoodReads account’s comment activity in the GoodReads Feedback group. I’m going to hold him personally responsible for the last sentence in this comment:
Breaks my heart to see BunWat leave.
I don’t know her well enough to know her reasons, but I will just guess she isn’t a fan of Amazon. While I don’t expect everyone to love this decision, I believe it will be a very good thing for the vast majority of readers, and think Goodreads has a very bright future in front of it. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting the people at Amazon, and have found them to be good, bookish people that are excited about creating a better future for readers and authors.
One thing I am sure of: I expect to prove to you all over the coming months and years that this will be good for Goodreads, for readers, and for authors.
— Otis Chandler, CEO, Goodreads (emphasis added).
Only time will tell.
April 12, 2013: Just read this article via a Publishers Weekly Tweet: Booksellers Urge Court Not to Toss Amazon E-Book Suit
April 9, 2013: Decided I should probably link to this post from my snub stubs at GoodReads, since this post is no longer sticky and will quickly get buried in the tide of migrating reviews from GoodReads.
April 2, 2013: Changed this post from a sticky post. For an explanation of my star ratings, please visit my ‘Two Stars or Not Two Stars‘ blog post.
April 1, 2013: In addition to relocating my reviews here from GoodReads and leaving behind a stub link, I am stripping the ratings from my GoodReads reviews as well. I’m manually entering the rating in the review with the link, but clearing the actual star rating from the GoodReads database.
I apologize to my author friends. GoodReads was the only place I rated and reviewed books. Now the only place I will do that is here, in this Amazon-free zone.
To make it easier to find the book reviews and ratings, I modified my menu (see above) to include a Ratings area. The Reviews menu has been expanded to include Fiction and Non-Fiction items under the Books submenu.
March 31, 2013: I wanted to pass along a good article I just read published at Salon entitled ‘Amazon buys GoodReads: We’re all just data now.’
∞∞∞
Original Post from March 30, 2013:
Yesterday, GoodReads announced ‘exciting news‘ to it’s community of volunteer librarians, reviewers and readers. Otis and Elizabeth and the rest of the GoodReads team had agreed to joining the Amazon family. Of course, they were excited. They sold out the only vibrant independent reliable source of book reviews and recommendations for cold hard cash in their pockets (rumor has it the sum could be over one billion dollars).
I heard the news late in the day and immediately felt sick to my stomach, disappointed and angry. After reading comments on the blog post referenced above and other threads in many discussion groups on GoodReads, I was not alone in my reaction.
I make no secret of the fact that I boycott all things Amazon. I have similar feelings about other modern-day monopolies (like Microsoft and Adobe). I have not purchased a book or an ebook from Amazon in years. I own a Nook and an Android smartphone. I support open source software initiatives and net neutrality.
The first thing I did last night when I had calmed down enough to see clearly and think coherent thoughts was to export all my book data and reviews from GoodReads.
The second thing I did was to think about what to do with the hundreds of reviews I’ve written over the last five years and posted at GoodReads. Some of these reviews were re-published here on this blog. I do not want Amazon to profit from my time and effort in crafting those reviews.
So, to thwart the juggernaut, however infinitesimally, I plan to remove each review from GoodReads and repost it here. One of the first hurdles I will need to overcome is finding a different non-Amazon source for book covers. I will leave behind a short explanation where my GoodReads review previously resided together with a link to the blog post housing the transported review.
What sort of an explanation should I leave behind? I’ve been mulling over a few sentences while driving home and during dinner. Let me try a few of them out here:
Due to the acquisition of GoodReads by Amazon on March 28, 2013 and my existing and continuing boycott of all things Amazon, the review I wrote after reading this book has been relocated to my blog and can be found in its entirety by following this link …
After Amazon devoured GoodReads on March 28, 2013, this review fled the postapocalyptic and dystpoian writing on the wall and sought sanctuary at my blog’s refuge …
Fear not! I bring you tidings of great joy. My review escaped the clutches of Amazon and can be found, safe and sound, at my blog …
I haven’t made up my mind about continuing my activities within the many groups I participate in and moderate. GoodReads was such an integral part of my life. It helped me rediscover my love of reading, fostered my nascent writing hobby and nudged me to branch out as a fledgling blogger. I have met and made many wonderful new friends who share a love for similar flavors of books and broadened my reading horizons. It also reunited me with old reading buddies from high school and former employers. Five years ago, I relied on the ‘New Fiction’ shelf at my local library to find something to read. Now, I have hundreds of books lined up in my reading queue. I just don’t know if I can walk away from my reading friends and GoodReads.
I am resolved, however, to never again write a review on GoodReads. I may not even rate books there anymore. I will have to play that by ear and see what happens over the new few weeks.
So don’t be surprised if you start to see a lot more activity on my blog in the coming days. Reviews will sprout here like spring flowers in May after April showers.
Refuting the Luddite Fallacy
I read three long articles this week, authored by journalists from the Associated Press. Normally, I scoff at FUD, especially as it pertains to technology, and specifically computers. I’ve spent the lion’s share of my life in communion with bits and bytes. I’m extremely comfortable with my digital BFF.
But these three articles, under the AP Impact brand, presented a disturbing picture. If the facts as presented are to be believed, I don’t really need to worry about my job being outsourced. Instead, it will simply vanish.
AP IMPACT: Recession, tech kill middle-class jobs via the Wichita Eagle
Practically human: Can smart machines do your job? also via the Wichita Eagle
Will smart machines create a world without work? again via the Wichita Eagle
According to these three articles, not even doctors, lawyers and IT (the latter two of particular interest to my circumstances) will be immune from this trend.
In modern usage, “Luddite” is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.
If only I were a decade older. Then I probably wouldn’t feel any stress concerning this developing situation. I would be that much closer to retirement (and/or death). Can I be nimble enough to survive?
The Luddite fallacy addresses the idea that technological advances can have adverse effects on structural unemployment. Most mainstream economists agree that the benefits technology provides to the economy as a whole (i.e. increased aggregate demand due to falling prices) outweigh the costs of the temporary displacement of particular workers, who can find other work as technology fuels economic growth.
“In Contemporary Thought” Wikipedia Luddite article
Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Lord knows I have enough stress in my life to keep me up most nights already. But I can’t help mulling it over.
If we eliminate jobs (is that a Republican’s wet dream?), what’s left to drive our consumer economy? You can’t sell a house or a car to a robot or a computer.
On the other hand, I don’t want to protect or regulate jobs just to keep people employed. The flip side (for the Democrats) being that most if not all people would be employed by the government. How does this different from places like Communist China?
Neither extreme appeals to me. Always before, technology has improved lives and provided replacement jobs in innovative initiatives. It seems now that we’ve reached the zenith and the point of diminishing returns looms ahead (unless it’s already here).
I don’t even have to blame SkyNet for our destruction. We’ve done it to ourselves.
unHappy unHolidays
I walked into my building’s lobby yesterday morning, returning from more than a week of vacation in Texas, completely oblivious to the unHoliday decorations sprouting around me. That is until I stood idly waiting for an elevator to arrive to whisk me vertically to my floor and found this assaulting my eyes:
I must admit, compared to last year’s lobby largesse, this year’s decorations are a slight improvement, but seem to be a return to the first year (being 2010) metal montage. Then the building launched it’s crusade to snuff out any resemblance to traditional Christmas heraldry.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the last three years worth of unholiday spirit on display in the building lobby:
All I can say is at least this year’s metallic monstrosity matches the color scheme near the garage access elevators:
Thank goodness for my two daily stops at Hallmark, where I can bask in the warmth of a more traditional Christmas spirit on display, spreading Peace, Love and Joy indiscriminately.
The Gray and the White
We protected the purple walls with blue tape, brown paper and clear plastic drop clothes last weekend. We wrapped up the room by Sunday evening, ready for Terry to paint the ceiling during the night, when that front southeast corner room would remain cool. He did get the edging done before we took time out for dinner and an episode of Falling Skies.
I woke up Monday to the same dingy gray ceiling, but I wasn’t complaining. Terry could take as much time as he needed. I headed off to work. Terry painted as much as he could Monday afternoon, but ran out of paint at about the halfway point on the ceiling. I saw a trip to Home Depot in our future for more bright white ceiling paint. Terry thought about buying a five gallon bucket of ceiling paint, because we also have to paint the vaulted ceiling in our bedroom before we proceed with flooring in that room. The $103 price was a bit of a shock, but we compromised and bought a two gallon variety instead for a bit over $40. We reviewed the hard wood flooring options available, still not happy about having to order what we wanted and have it ‘quick shipped’ to us a week to ten days later. Nothing ‘quick’ about that, if you ask me.
The ceiling remained half-gray, half-white for a couple more days. I came home Wednesday evening to a bright white ceiling and the smell of drying paint. We turned on the ceiling fan and retired downstairs for dinner and an episode of Chopped. A thunderstorm rolled through Lansing while we ate, dumping some much needed rain on us and gracing us with a beautiful double rainbow.
The rain demonstrated yet another home maintenance issue to resolve before the drought ends in earnest.
Terry finished painting the ceiling Wednesday, applying two coats of the bright white ceiling paint.
With the ceiling dry, we could unwrap the room, leaving a huge pile in the middle of the floor to confuse the dogs.
This concludes the renovation of the top of the purple room. Next, we’ll tackle the floor, once we decide on whether we’re just doing this one bedroom, or all the bedrooms on the top floor.