>>25412515
never use goodreads, RYM, or letterboxd. and for the love of god never use \lit\

>>25412515
You're using it wrong

I love order. I love neat metadata. This website is designed to make me crawl up the wall into a corner. I can take emoticon ridden reviews of Jane Austen but one book having 70 different entries, some with the cover, some with the title not capitalized and so on. Fuck that mess. Unusable.

>>25412515
The problem with reviews sites is that they are filled with the unwashed masses and the unwashed masses don't discern style nor substance, they only care about the work's content. And this is worse for literature because people who read think themselves as smart for reading books, so they believe they don't need to educate themselves.
I don't believe /lit/ is better than goodreads, /r/books or the booktook community considering I once saw a retard insist that Tolstoy and George R. R. Martin had the same style since both use descriptions. The only relevant difference is that one group book fills their shelves with classics and the other with the latest corpo garbage.
>>25412524
Of those three, at least RYM had quality standards and taste beyond top 40 crap before poptimists took over. Letterboxd is fun for the one line joke reviews, but their obsession with interpreting every movie as a queer experience is extremely grating. Goodreads was never good.

>>25412575
>I once saw a retard insist that Tolstoy and George R. R. Martin had the same style since both use descriptions
How the fuck did these mindless automatons ever getting passing grades in english high school classes kek

>>25412515
the top reviewers are mostly shit but there are decent users on the site

>>25412515
The thing about Goodreads is if a book has foids and trannies sperging about it in the comments, the book is worth reading.

>>25412515
Oh yeah, well a hot Latina author follows my reviews. We're friends.

>>25412515
why are you reading the reviews, idiot?