Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: 7 conditions in her RC/ she's cool we are friends...END LOL

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: 7 conditions in her RC/ she's cool we are friends...END LOL
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:14 AM ET
Member Since: 8/17/2005
Posts: 1,586
Back To Top

I accepted it but it may be the last RC I sccept...I only post WLed books and this one was a FIFO.....the lady has 7 freakin RC conditions....most of them she states are just site rules..I hate when people restate the obvious.......then she had 2 that were her own..she put it all very nicely so I accepted it .. hubby is wrapping it right now..I just think re-stating the rules is a huge either mistake or it will show a VERY picky person who will see issues where there are no issues...like as he wraps it I keep checking it...will it be too much tape for her..not enough ....scary....The book is new in fact it's a bestseller only out end of April...but man I hate RC's like this one...Should I have pmed her and pointed out she doesn't need to re-list the rules??



Last Edited on: 5/11/10 9:20 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:23 AM ET
Member Since: 12/21/2009
Posts: 579
Back To Top

bleh! I'd pass on it out of spite, :P But then again I didn't read it. All execpt for one of the RCs I have seen have been rude - somewhat rude. I even sent an I'm Sorry to the one lady who had severe cat allergies and I couldn't send to her.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:35 AM ET
Member Since: 8/17/2005
Posts: 1,586
Back To Top

Trust me I was tempted ..very....and many people want this book so it's not like it was going to sit....yet.....she took I think great care to say some good things about PBS and its members etc.....like I think she TRIED to make a pleasant RC ..trying counts to me...and hubby said send it to her...but if she sez anything negative I am done with any RC

 

Edited to add I really like your turtle avatar I have 4 turtles and just love them



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 12:36 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:39 AM ET
Member Since: 1/23/2009
Posts: 3,041
Back To Top

Sara, try not to look at it that way. Some people state the obvious because they have repeatedly received books that do not meet the basic PBS conditions and are trying to protect themselves as much as possible from getting burned. I don't think people that put "repeats" in their RCs are doing it because they are picky, but rather because they have had a string of bad luck and are trying to avoid this in the future, thinking that if they state it in their RCs it may make a person think twice about sending the book to them. But then of course if that book is unpostable and a WL book, it's just offered to the next person in line, and then because there are no RCs, perhaps that person will be less likely to complain.

Most of the books I send through PBS are in close to brand new condition, unless it's a book I've received on PBS that has been passed around to many other members as well. But it's a fact that some people post less than stellar PBS condition books and think it's okay to do so. Unfortunately for me, the last 2 orders I've received have been RWAP, so when I start getting a bunch of RWAP worthy books in a row, I set up stricter conditions for awhile because it makes me feel better. For the record, I'm not picky; if the book meets PBS conditions I'll happily mark it as received. If it's so-so, I'll still mark it received, but I will think twice about whether I should re-post it, and often use either swaptree or bookmooch for it.



Last Edited on: 5/12/10 12:35 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 1:09 AM ET
Member Since: 9/25/2006
Posts: 1,138
Back To Top

I would have turned her down. I don't need the aggravation of rc's.If people are so picky then they should buy it new. This is a used site.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 1:39 AM ET
Member Since: 1/20/2009
Posts: 2,680
Back To Top

I'm one of the people who restates the major rules in my RCs. I don't regret it, and I'm not deleting them anytime soon. You'd be amazed how many RC turn-downs I get with something like 'book is fully readable but has some water damage' or 'has big stain but can still be read', and so on. I know for a fact I've avoided a LOT of RWAPs by having my RCs the way they are. If there are so many people not reading or not following the rules, at least my RC weeds out a lot of them.

I don't understand why people with RCs are automatically considered to be 'picky'. I RWAP obvious unpostables where the damage couldn't have been missed, and wrong books when I needed the version I was requesting. If the damage was easy to miss, I often let it go, but otherwise I feel members should be responsible enough not to send books with obvious damage that violates the rules. I've never marked a book RWAP for violating my RCs, and wouldn't do so unless it was blatant (like sending a hardcover without the dust jacket). So, I really don't get the whole 'If people are so picky then they should buy it new' thing over someone having any RCs at all.



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 1:43 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 1:53 AM ET
Member Since: 8/17/2005
Posts: 1,586
Back To Top

I do not mind reasonable RC's but restating the site rules to me should no longer be allowed I imagine if one said something in their RC like I have been burnt by a small amount of members sending books that do not follow  PBS  rules could be OK for those who really HAVE been burntt a lot but now on I think I will just pass on RCs on anything other than cats and smoke...BTW I never said ALL RC's show a person is picky and wants new books (mine are new) but I feel most people who list the normal rules can and will be passed over. and I do feel they (many not all) will be fussy and hard to please

This RC read like  a BOOK in and of itself. All that said I am still wondering if I should have pointed this out to her,.,nicely of course....maybe when she gets the book I will tell her I almost didn't post it to her and why...nicely again but this was crazy....



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 1:55 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 2:06 AM ET
Member Since: 4/2/2009
Posts: 7,620
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 8/23/12 2:44 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 2:10 AM ET
Member Since: 8/17/2005
Posts: 1,586
Back To Top

ROTFFLMAO I love it A ....I am gonna use it next time I get some crazy long RC  listing all the rules

 

"AT THIS TIME " HAHAHAHAH

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 7:11 AM ET
Member Since: 8/25/2007
Posts: 13,134
Back To Top

Some people state the obvious because they have repeatedly received books that do not meet the basic PBS conditions and are trying to protect themselves as much as possible from getting burned

I've seen this happening more and more frequently, as it seems that some members don't bother to read the posting requirements, send out unpostable books, and then play the "what's your problem?  It's still readable" or "this is how I got it?" card.   It SHOULD be unnecssary to re-state the basic posting rules, but obviously it's not.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 8:29 AM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

Well I find it annoying to be reminded of the posting guidelines in RCS but then I follow the posting guidelines. I also realize it's probably someone who has received a high number of unpostable books so I don't just automatically turn them down. It all depends on the wording. If it's just a polite type of "please make sure your book meets the posting guidelines" type RC then I accept.  If it's rude or really long-then I decline. 

Although I wonder how many bad senders actually pay attention to those RCS.  I mean if they're going to ignore the pop-up that reminds them about posting guidelines when they post the book-are they going to pay attention to your RCS? And if they do pay attention to your RCS and decline-then it's just passing them onto the next requestor to deal with-and they may not be the type to complain and help get rid of this person. 

I guess I've been lucky in that I've only had to mark about 10 books RWP. I've gotten a whole lot that I wouldn't have posted personally-but weren't bad enough to complain about. But then I don't expect every book to be postable after I've read it either.



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 12:00 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 8:38 AM ET
Member Since: 7/23/2005
Posts: 7,409
Back To Top

Actually, my favorite RCs are those that restate the posting guidelines.  My books meet them, those RCs aren't ambiguous and I don't have to jump through hoops to comply with them.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 9:42 AM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,601
Back To Top

I also get irate at those who just re-state the PBS posting guidelines in an RC. PBS says that Requestor Conditions "allow you to specify any SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS you have for the books you want to receive." IMO, just restating what the PBS posting guidelines say is a mis-use of the RC feature and only serves to turn more people to not accepting a request with ANY Requestor Condition. I'm beginning to go that way myself, except for very simple ones like "Not currently in a smoking home" or "no ex-library books."

I also don't understand how restating posting guidelines in an RC gives you any extra protection. If you have no RC and you get a bad book, you mark it RWAP for a sender-damaged book and ask for your credit back. If it's a wishlisted book, you go to the front of the line where you were before. The person can give your credit back or not. If not, they get an 'unresolved RWAP' on their record.

If you have an RC restating posting guidelines and get a bad book, you mark it RWAP for not meeting your RC and ask for a credit back. If it's a wishlisted book, you go to the front of the line. The person can give your credit back or not. If not, they get an 'unresolved RWAP' on their record.

So how is having an RC that merely restates the PBS guidelines giving you any more protection? Or any better chance of getting a credit back? It's still in the sender's court, and since an unresolved RWAP is an unresolved RWAP whether it was for 'wrong book' or 'bad book' or 'RC not met' there is no difference to what happens to the sender. I think all it does is turn people off totally to trading with anyone who has any sort of RC.

Cheryl

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 11:04 AM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top

I also don't understand how restating posting guidelines in an RC gives you any extra protection.

I think because it'd be a double whammy against the sender.

From what I understand the thinking is, the black mark for sending out a book that doesn't meet RC's is worse than sending out a book that didn't meet site conditions. Sending out a liquid damaged/stained book is one 'official' problem, and not meeting an RC is a second "official problem" for one transaction. And they'll rack up black marks faster and be pulled from the site before they can do a lot of damage to other members.

Also, it's the only way people can get someone to take a last look at a book before wrapping it up and sending it. The site has the guidelines, and some people aren't reading/ paying attention to them. The site has pop-ups when you post a book, and some people aren't reading/paying attention. You accept a book and people aren't reading/payng attention. They're just too easy to pretend not to see and ignore.

But the RC is in-your-face, and the sender can't say they didn't notice it or see it.

It's the only extra bit of protection a requestor has, and may actually help weed out a lot of the crappy traders if they rack up extra black marks.

I think all it does is turn people off totally to trading with anyone who has any sort of RC.

I've never seen a good excuse  to get offended and not send a book to someone who has an RC stating just the basic site rules. The system is FIFO, the RC isn't about anyone in particular, and is not a personal insult. To pretend it means anything more than that to me is just being childish.

Either your book meets basic conditions or it doesn't. Either you think it meets their RC or it doesn't. That's all that any sender should be concerned about.



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 11:04 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 11:07 AM ET
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 1,114
Back To Top

They don't bother me. I just accept them or not depending on if my book meets their requirement. Some people are picky and some are not.

 

Denise

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 11:31 AM ET
Member Since: 5/3/2006
Posts: 6,436
Back To Top

I'm not seeing why restating the rules means someone is pickier than usual. It means they want to receive a book that's postable according to the rules. It makes me think that someone who thinks asking that the rules is followed is extra picky is not actually following them.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:05 PM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

I know for me a lot of depends on the wording. If someone goes into a tirade about all the bad books they've been getting and how I better not send them a bad book-um decline.  Not going there.

But I will accept a simple "hey, I've getting a lot of book that don't meet PBS posting guidelines-please double check that your book doesn't have any stains, water damage etc..,".  I'll accept those. Unless they take 5 paragraphs to say it-then I don't even read the RC and just decline.  The only long RCS I accept are the mandatory APO/FPO ones warnign that a book might go lost. 

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:11 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,916
Back To Top

From what I understand the thinking is, the black mark for sending out a book that doesn't meet RC's is worse than sending out a book that didn't meet site conditions. Sending out a liquid damaged/stained book is one 'official' problem, and not meeting an RC is a second "official problem" for one transaction. And they'll rack up black marks faster and be pulled from the site before they can do a lot of damage to other members.

I don't think this is true. You can only RWAP a book once. You either pick "Doesn't Meet RC" OR "Damaged By Sender". It is a double black mark in either case, unless they resolve it, in which case, it is only a single mark.

I don't see how one RWAP for not meeting RCs would somehow count more than one RWAP for sender damage.

When PBS reviews these .... any single RWAP transaction is just subjective. Either party could be correct, as far as PBS knows. The thing that carries weight is the accumulation of RWAPs.... becasue that is the judgement of multiple receivers who have marked RWAP. Any single transaction is just you-said/I-said .... it is the weight of accumulation that proves the sender is at fault.



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 12:15 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:13 PM ET
Member Since: 11/5/2009
Posts: 1,083
Back To Top

Try not to take them personally.  I firmly believe that many people who joined and are sending books have never even read the posting guidelines or know how this site works.  And since they don't read the guidelines and are under the false impression that they are sending someone a "free" book, they think that a stain or wavy pages are the price someone needs to pay to get that "free" book.

The only time I turn down an RC, even if my book meets their standards, is when the RC is written in a way that makes be believe the person behind it is angry or impatient.  Those people worry me about how they would interpret the condition of a book.

 

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:34 PM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top

I don't think this is true. You can only RWAP a book once. You either pick "Doesn't Meet RC" OR "Damaged By Sender". It is a double black mark in either case, unless they resolve it, in which case, it is only a single mark.

I don't know if it's true or not.

But over the years, by the responses from TPTB and discussions on the subject,  I think some people think it's true.

I have no idea myself whether it is or not.

But I've certainly been tempted to have an RC that restates the guidelines. You get a couple of books in a row with obvious water damage, and have to fight for credits you may or may not get back, it's tempting to try every last thing you can to keep it from happening again.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 12:39 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,201
Back To Top

Should I have pmed her and pointed out she doesn't need to re-list the rules??

No. They know they are relisting the rules and shouldn't have to. They are doing it for a reason and probably know they risk touchy people turning them down, but would rather suffer that than more crap books.

 

Sending out a liquid damaged/stained book is one 'official' problem, and not meeting an RC is a second "official problem"

Since you have to pick one or the other- you cannot mark it RWP twice - I don't see how it would garner 2 black marks. People re-list them for the reason many people state they refuse them - the people posting bad books will not want to deal with a "picky" person and deny the RC to try to find someone with no conditions thinking they might be easier to slip a piece of junk by on where someone who reposts the rules is obviously knowledgable and watching.

I also get irate at those who just re-state the PBS posting guidelines in an RC. Irate seems a pretty strong reaction to such a little thing that isn't any more than the site asks of you and something not directed at you personally.

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 1:57 PM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,177
Back To Top

I admire your attention span Sandy, after the second RC point my eyes would have crossed and shortly thereafter I would have declined from sheer bordom.  I do recall one memorable (long) RC list of 'don'ts' followed by the note the member would accept specific (smut) publishers in ANY condition.  My book was smut in excellent condition, and I giggled all the way to the post office.

In my limited experience, it appears that RWAP appears more in some genre than others...so readers of certain publishers or genre probably receive many more unpostable books than others.  IMO, TS smut & romance, erotica, scifi, and UF seem to have arrive in better condition.  I've been requesting some biographies and non-fiction for a small school library, and almost half have arrived with writing and/or underlining on text pages...without involking the textbook waiver.  And yes, it can be major frustrating. 



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 1:59 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
mistie -
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 2:20 PM ET
Member Since: 9/27/2007
Posts: 2,019
Back To Top

To those who dislike receiving RC's, and are inclined to decline them on principal - what are your thoughts on the following RC - is it rude, too long etc?

 

*I am only willing to accept books in, at minimum, good to very good condition.

*No books that are CURRENTLY in a smoking home

*No ex-library books

*No ex Book-Crossing books

*No books with excessive yellowing

If you feel your book may be borderline based on my requester conditions, please decline my request as I would prefer to wait than receive a book I am not happy with.

Thankyou

Date Posted: 5/4/2010 2:23 PM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,177
Back To Top

Make SURE to add contact information Linda.  Turned one down yesterday b/c requester asked me to please contact if there ANY questions...but neglected to give contact information.  My book probably met their conditions, but no way to confirm that so it went to the next person in line.



Last Edited on: 5/4/10 2:24 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/4/2010 2:28 PM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

I would probably turn it down due to this: *I am only willing to accept books in, at minimum, good to very good condition.

All the books I send meet PBS postign guidelines. But that requirement is just too subjective and just says "picky person" to me.  I know you are probably not a picky person. But since that line is followed by 4 additional conditions-I would just decline rather than risk dealign with a complaint.

Page: