However, if YouTube was as good at recommending books as it was recommending videos, I would never use its book recommendation algorithm. You necessarily have to get almost every book recommendation “correct” for it to be seen as actually useful by the user.
When I see a book recommendation, I read the associated review (if it has one), read other people's reviews, look at the author and the blurb, and, yes, even the cover.
That tells me much more than a YouTube thumbnail, with only a little more time (but of course I'm going to put more time into choosing a book that might take me two weeks to finish). Indeed, my initial filter is probably much the same as a YouTube thumbnail: I skim past many recommendations based on the genre and author alone.
I think if the Times Book Review always wrote reviews in which 1 out of 15 of them made me thing "I need to get that book," I'd be amazed at how much they "get" me. I wouldn't bother with anything else. Every 15 recommendations lands me another "must-read?" Sign me up!
The problem listed in the article is that Goodreads is no where near 1 out of 15.
5 billion YT videos, comprising 1 billion hours, are watched every day, a meteoric rise ever since they improved the recommendation engine.
That recommendation engine has also been accused of contributing to the rise in polarization and conspiracy theories world-wide. So it may not be a force for good. But it's damn powerful.