Reader Views is bemoaning the fact that Good Reads is removing their reviews. They write, in part:
"For the past year, Reader Views has been posting reviews on www.GoodReads.com as another source of getting publicity for author's [sic] books. However, a disgruntled person has reported Reader Views as being in violation of GoodReads' rules ... In light of this, and upon checking GoodReads site, I noted within a few minutes 10+ other "commercial sites" are posting reviews there. When I informed GoodReads' that Reader Views wasn't the only "commercial" site posting there, it requested I send them the links of the other reviewers that were in violation so it could investigate. It is not my intention to be the gatekeeper for GoodReads, and as reviewers we support each other and are not out to destroy each other. We are here to support the authors so they can in turn increase the sales of their books."
As Goodreads points out: "Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, Goodreads grants you permission to use the Service for your personal, non-commercial purposes only."
I am not terribly sympathetic. Reader Views provides a small number of "free" reviews which is not offered for ebooks--and their standard packages start at $75 . And they list posting on various sites as part of these paid packages.
They state: "You are not purchasing a review - you are paying for a stipend that goes to the reviewer to express review your publication." To which I reply: puh-leeze. When you give someone money for a review, you are paying for a review. When a review is paid for it is a commercial property and so, indeed, clearly against the Goodreads terms of service. Goodreads is, after all, not a "source of getting publicity for authors" it is a website for readers and should be respected as such.