Goodreads
and Reader’s Advisory
Unless you are reading aloud to another, reading is normally
a rather solitary event. The reader
selects a book, gets comfortable, and proceeds to drift into the world the
author has created between those pages. Once the end of the story is reached, the
reader returns the book from whence it came, be it a library, a friend’s hands,
or a home bookshelf. Unless the reader
is a participant in a book club, a few words might be shared with a friend or
relative about the reader’s opinion of the book, but essentially that would be
the end of it. The contents of the book
have been read, and the reader is moving on to try and locate the next
enjoyable title.
Enter the internet, and the concept
of social networks. Generally humans are
social creatures by nature. If you need
proof of that fact, simply look to Facebook and its millions of users. It’s only natural that something like Goodreads
would eventually appear. Goodreads is
the equivalent of Facebook for the book lover.
In an issue of Information Today, Mick O’Leary described Goodreads as “a
book-oriented social network where a lot of people spend a lot of time talking
about a lot of books.” In the January 2013
issue of School Library Journal, Joniker referred to Goodreads in a different
way: “It can also be a valuable professional
tool to share with your students and colleagues.” Either way, Goodreads is a website that’s
worth a second glance.
As per the title of David Rapp’s
article in a 2011 issue of Library Journal, Goodreads is a way we have begun to
crowdsource readers advisory. While each
member can use Goodreads to track what they are reading currently, what they
want to read, and what they have read in the past, the real benefit is that they
can rate what they’ve read and receive recommendations based on what they’ve
rated. However, one must wonder how
accurate these website-generated recommendations really are, without the assistance
of an RA librarian. They are based off
the collected responses of the patrons who have rated those books. As Joniker points out:
“Any time ‘non-critics’
are able to share their opinions worldwide, there’s bound to be some friction. While this sort of ‘review by committee’ approach
is something that rightfully makes many cringe, it invariably holds some power,
and most likely guides many readers’ book choices.”
Admittedly,
a book that might strike one person as being an amazing, five-star work of
genius might also strike another as a dull, tedious tome not worth more than
two stars at best. So how can a website
make reasonable recommendations despite this sort of divergence of opinion?
Rapp points out that “RA is most often a one-on-one
interaction, in which a librarian taps his or her knowledge and experience to
determine what book best fits the needs of a given patron – identifying what
the reader likes and dislikes and selecting the best book for them.” Goodreads is simply taking the ‘knowledge’
and ‘experience’ of its prolific user base and adding “complex algorithms to
the mix, crunching the numbers on millions of user-provided book ratings” to provide
a “broad overview of opinion.” (Rapp) Goodreads acquired this algorithm when they
purchased a smaller site, named Discovereads, in March of 2011 (“Goodreads
Rolls Out Book Recommendation Feature,” 2011).
This overview generated by Goodreads can become a useful
tool for librarians to use in making RA suggestions for library patrons. For example, Trott and Naik suggest that “librarians
can mine the depths of Goodreads to create read-alike lists for popular authors”
and make those lists available to patrons. “It is also helpful for suggesting new books
by trolling the many lists by genre or category.” (D’Andrea)
In addition to individual RA assistance, Trott and
Naik suggest that libraries start accounts on sites such as Goodreads and allow
patrons to befriend them – as they post to the account, their reputation as a
good source of information will be reinforced in patrons’ eyes, building a
level of trust they might not otherwise have reached. Patrons will then feel more comfortable in
seeking them out for suggestions when they are needed. This sort of reputation boost can be quite
beneficial to the relationship building between a RA librarian and the library’s
patrons.
Beyond individual suggestions and interactions,
Goodreads provides a wonderful platform where book groups can meet. D’Andrea states “these internet applications
encourage global conversations, they welcome participation from students in
other schools, staff, community and even the authors of the books themselves.” She goes on to explain how thrilled the local
high school book club was by a comment left by the author of the book they’d
chosen to read for the month. Other fun
aspects of Goodreads that she mentions are the ability to “find and archive famous
quotes” and “trivia quizzes about books.” (D’Andrea)
While the idea of a website generating
recommendations in place of a well-informed RA librarian can be a bit scary, we
must remind ourselves of how prevalent technology and social networking has
become in our patrons’ everyday lives.
Trott and Naik point out:
“If librarians
think of readers’ advisory as our sacred territory, then the advent of online
book discussion communities can make us feel as if we’ve lost control. But what
if we change our vision of RA—redefine it as an activity in which all readers
may participate? Ultimately librarians, libraries, as well as patrons stand to
gain with this broader more generous definition and understanding of the term.”
It
would be far more beneficial to use sites like Goodreads to our advantage in
reaching out to patrons rather than fearing the power of the persuasion of
their friends’ reviews. Wright and Bass
suggest that librarians should “go where your patrons are” and participate “in
already existing literary social networking sites such as LibraryThing,
Goodreads, and Shelfari.” A good RA
librarian will want to interact with their patrons to learn more about what
they’re reading. “The conversation about
books is taking place on the web in a variety of forms, and as reflective practitioners,
we need to be aware of those conversations happening outside the library walls.” Trott and Naik agree, saying:
“It is becoming increasingly necessary for
librarians to take their services to where the patrons are, reaching out to
help them instead of waiting for them to come to us. Goodreads is another point of connection that
can be made in order to improve RA services to our patrons.”
With
over 6 million members (O’Leary), Goodreads is not going to go away any time
soon. We need to learn to put this tool
to use in accomplishing what we have always striven to do: help the reader find the next enjoyable
book. O’Leary points out “Overall,
Goodreads is an engaging literary community where members use the online medium
to reinforce their love for books and reading.”
To me, this sounds like an excellent resource to help RA librarians
foster a continued love of reading in our patrons.
Bibliography
2011. "Goodreads
Rolls Out Book Recommendation Feature." Library Journal 136, no.
17: 16-18. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full
Text, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2013).
D'Andrea, Debra. 2010.
"Reading 2.0: From Solitary to Social." School Librarian's
Workshop 31, no. 1: 11-12. Library, Information Science & Technology
Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2013).
Jonker, Travis. 2013.
"Social Media's Best-Kept Secret." School Library Journal 59,
no. 1: 32-34. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with
Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2013).
O'Leary, Mick. 2012.
"Reading Dead? No Way! See Goodreads." Information Today 29,
no. 1: 22-23. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with
Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed February 24, 2013).
Rapp, David. 2011.
"Crowdsourcing RA." Library Journal 136, no. 10: 56-57. Library,
Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost
(accessed February 24, 2013).
Trott, Barry, and Yesha
Naik. 2012. "Finding Good Reads on Goodreads." Reference &
User Services Quarterly 51, no. 4: 319-323. Library, Information Science
& Technology Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed
February 24, 2013).
Wright, David, and Abby
Bass. 2010. "No Reader is an Island: New Strategies for Readers'
Advisory." Alki 26, no. 3: 9-10. Library, Information Science
& Technology Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed
February 24, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment