Goodreads is perhaps the best example of enshittification imo. It’s only good now as a way to track your reading lists.
I tried bookwyrm today and it feels quite polished already, like giving you a guided tour of it’s features. Hopefully it takes off as well similar to mastodon and lemmy.
wouldn’t it make more sense to make a more generic federated list site that could be used for any category of things you wanted?
Books, music, movies and so on all have big differences in how they’re best presented, what sort of information they should have, how social features are best integrated. I don’t really see a monolithic site that tries to do all of that being better than separate federated sites that can cater to their own unique focus.
I don’t mean to make a single website do all of those things. I mean in the sense of making a federated website protocol that allows you to start an instance for whatever kind of thing you want. Maybe it wouldn’t work, but it would save a lot of time on re-inventing the wheel every time you wanted a new type of tracking site.
That makes more sense. Still, I think the point stands; tracking different things is different enough that trying to fit all of them into the same framework wouldn’t be ideal. Off the top of my head, one example is how a ‘watched’/‘read’ list is needed for books and movies, but a ‘listened to’ list wouldn’t make a lot of sense for music; while on the other hand an ‘owned’ list is important for music, but not as relevant for books and movies. There’s plenty that would make sense to federate of course, like reviews, but if it was me making this I would be much more inclined to have separate backends with certain parts having ActivityPub integration.
There is a list of fediverse apps available, not yet for projects in start up. (Or I haven’t found it yet)
I think they’re saying that instead of making a site to track books and site to track music and a site to track movies and a… we could just have one site that’s built to track anything and you just set the category.