[slibhb]

The article is right that Goodreads is used as "an organizational tool to keep track of what you've read" (or what you're planning to read). But that's actually a bad thing. Selecting books should have an element of randomness to it. You should buy the books in a bookstore, by browsing, and you should read them in a haphazard way. If you don't want to use bookstores, you can simulate this by buying lots of books online and reading them in a disorganized way.

Books are much better this way. Worrying about efficiency, must-reads, and creating lists are bad ideas. It takes the fun out of it and you won't enjoy reading as much.

Also the presentationalism of Goodreads is a huge negative. If you have to make lists, keep them private. By publishing your lists, you're going to end up worrying about what other people think or even censoring yourself. E.g. not listing A Sport and a Pastime because you don't want people judging you for reading "erotic fiction" or lying about having read Jordan Peterson because you don't want people to think you're a wingnut.

[rhizome]

>The article is right that Goodreads is used as "an organizational tool to keep track of what you've read" (or what you're planning to read). But that's actually a bad thing. Selecting books should have an element of randomness to it.

I think that would have to be at least part of the reason why they didn't call it "a selection tool to keep track of what you want to buy."

[slibhb]

But Goodreads is that, it has a to-read and have-read list.