[verylittlemeat]

Goodreads will always win simply because it's where all the users are.

Like reddit or any huge site its usefulness isn't in the presented top layer (recommendations/front page/popular list of x) it's the depth of millions of users.

If you read a relatively obscure book and look it up on goodreads then you read through the reviews to find users who gave a high quality write up and then look at that user's profile. This will lead you to other users and books that are actual quality.

You could create a smaller website with a higher quality surface level but it's going to be infected with the bias of a small "elite" userbase making it a basically useless echo chamber.

[the_biot]

In other words, stop trying, let's just stick with the current terrible status quo. That's a supremely unhelpful comment to make, intended to discourage anyone from improving things ever. Shall we all just go back to a cave and knock some rocks together?

[verylittlemeat]

It's a reality check for anyone who makes a better goodreads and doesn't understand why it never gains traction.

It's on par with complaining about facebook and creating your own better version of facebook while completely ignoring the reason why everyone is on facebook to begin with.

[poetaster]

While I generally agree that everything needs work, I also believe don't fix it if it isn't broke.'