Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: I'm astounded by this complaint--FOLLOW UP

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: I'm astounded by this complaint--FOLLOW UP
Date Posted: 4/17/2012 9:23 AM ET
Member Since: 3/13/2009
Posts: 202
Back To Top

I received an request for a posted book. I had posted it by ISBN . It met all qualifications. The cover picture was different which PBS says doesn't matter.

Today I received this PM:

"I received your book today, but it is not the book I was expecting. I was looking for the 7th revised edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding for a breastfeeding support group that I run, as shown in the cover photo. While I can appreciate the classic version I received, I'm afraid it will not provide the level of information and support that I was looking for from the more recent versions. I will not be able to use this book and would be happy to pass it on with a new cover photo, unless you would like me to send it back to you. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed with this order."

She has not marked as received. I'm astonished. To me it's like saying that she didn't like the story line of some mystery.

I replied::

"I'm sorry it's not the edition you expected but I'm afraid it's the one you ordered.
It was posted by ISBN and fulfilled all the qualifications listed by PBS. It was the proper title, proper author, proper ISBN and proper format and in good condition.
PBS does not require the cover picture to be the same one they show.
Although it may not be the edition you wished you must, by the rules of PBS and in good conscience, mark it "received in good condition".
Thank you"

What should I do if she marks it RWAP?

 



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 11:20 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/17/2012 9:27 AM ET
Member Since: 10/17/2009
Posts: 621
Back To Top

Since you sent the edition she requested and the ISBN was right, I'd say contact the PBS Team to intervene if she marks it RWAP or doesn't even mark it as received within a week.

Date Posted: 4/17/2012 9:55 AM ET
Member Since: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1,442
Back To Top

Completely agree with Kristen.  You did nothing wrong.

This sounds exactly like this complaint in the is forum. Wonder if it's the same receiver??

Wrong book - not wrong book - rude?



Last Edited on: 4/17/12 9:57 AM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 4/17/2012 10:29 AM ET
Member Since: 11/30/2007
Posts: 4,969
Back To Top

Looks like the member needs to have an RC saying if the cover doesn't match the one on the PBS page, do not send. LOL!  Thomas, you are not at fault as you sent the one with the right ISBN, this member has no merit in her disagreement.  The member should not RWAP it because it is the book she ordered and received, doesn't matter if she doesn't like the cover, the text is the same. Like the others said, you may have to contact the PBS team.

Date Posted: 4/17/2012 11:44 AM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,775
Back To Top

Obviously you are not at fault. Contact PBS if she does not mark it received within a few days.

In the spirit of education, however, you could consider sending her a PM explaining a little bit more about how she could obtain the version of the book she wants. She may not know that publishers re-use ISBNs for later editions of the same book, in some cases (but not always). She may not know that she can use a RC to communicate her requirements when she orders a book. She may not know that it is a good idea to check on Amazon, when you are considering ordering a book with many editions, so that you can (hopefully) find out whether or not old and new editions have the same ISBN.

 

Date Posted: 4/17/2012 12:12 PM ET
Member Since: 5/18/2007
Posts: 13,192
Back To Top
I agree with what everyone has said, however, wouldn't a revised edition have a new isbn number? Revised usually means the content has been updated/changed. Or will they also call it revised if the picture has changed too? It sounds like her beef is not only with the cover but the lack of updated content as well. I guesswhat I'm getting at is that the isbn # could be wrong if it links the book to an older edition instead of the 7th revised. The OP should ask her what edition she received, if it wasn't the 7th. Still not his fault but maybe it's an error that can be fixed within the system.

Last Edited on: 4/17/12 12:14 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/17/2012 12:28 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,775
Back To Top

I agree with what everyone has said, however, wouldn't a revised edition have a new isbn number?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is no universal rule. 

Some publishers use the exact same ISBN for completely different titles of books. Some publishers use the exact same ISBN for both the hardcover and paperback editions of a book.

In any case, when cover images are added to PBS listings, the cover image may or may not be the cover of the exact edition of the book that is listed. Sometimes you have to put a new cover image on an older edition because there is no available picture to find of the older edition.

That's why the PBS rules state that the cover of the book does not have to match the PBS listing. And why people shoudl post books by the ISBN, not based on the cover image.

I've found that in the case where books come in many editions ... it is smart to look on Amazon first to tell if the newer editions have a different ISBN or not.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 11:26 AM ET
Member Since: 3/13/2009
Posts: 202
Back To Top

Just received the following response:

"In good conscience, the fact that the cover photo was absolutely incorrect should have been communicated prior to shipping the book. It was deceptive to ship the book without being forthcoming."

She evidently doesn't know the rules. I think her use of words like "deceptive" and "without being forthcoming" are very insulting and tantamount to calling me a crook.

But I bit my tongue (or rather--fingers) and decided not to reply as the nature of PBS means I will probably never deal with her again.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 11:32 AM ET
Member Since: 4/7/2008
Posts: 15,690
Back To Top

Thomas - Did she mark the book received?

She's obviously wrong and doesn't want to admit it - most likely she's a new person that didn't take the time to read the rules. If she were around longer, she should understand that PBS wouldn't function properly if matching covers was a consideration but she's only concerned about how her expecations weren't met.

If she marked the book received, then you can leave it as that.

 

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 11:52 AM ET
Member Since: 2/15/2006
Posts: 284
Back To Top

This is pretty much what happened to me. After sending her the help docs and replying with basically the same info several times she got it and marked it resolved but I had reached the point where one more message and it was going to TPTB.

susan/vt

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 11:57 AM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2009
Posts: 793
Back To Top

Being a medical professional and being familiar with medical books I can sympathsize with both parties here.  My question is what about the description that is posted on PBS.  Did it state the edition and year of publication, most times they do as I always check.  Did the link to Amazon bring up the edition you correctly posted?  If they bring up your edition then she is in the wrong for not checking them or sending you a PM to verify the edition.  If the date of publication was different from what you posted even with the same ISBN I would allow her to keep her credit and inform PBS that in this case the picture of the incorrect book is posted.  As medical information changes all the time the wrong edition could be critical.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 12:09 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,187
Back To Top

Thomas - did the title mention edition at all? Though posting by ISBN is correct, Title must also match exactly. Just want to make sure that the cover is the only place that indicated the wrong edition.

Is it 9780912500010? I do have problems with that listing being used if if is not the 7th edition, it is deceptive and a data edit should really be submitted before posting a book to a listing if all of the information on the listing is not accurate. The desciption and the image both say it isthe 7th edition, yet its pub date probably says its not. We say none of that has to match, yet a member could use that desceptive information to pass off a book they want to get rid of, knowing full well they are sending something that is not as described. If this is the ISBN, please let someone know so that it can be corrected and no other unsuspecting receiver gets a book that they do not want.



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 12:15 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 12:22 PM ET
Member Since: 4/28/2009
Posts: 1,256
Back To Top

So Theresa, if I understand you correctly, you're saying it is up to the poster to check the description, edition info and publication date on a book's info page before posting by ISBN? 

I think that is a bit much to ask the poster to be responsible for. 

To me, the main concern PBS stresses when posting is that the ISBN and binding match.  If my book meets the criteria, I say it's the correct book. 

If a requester has special needs (like making sure a book is the latest edition) it is up to them to do the research and/or PM the poster before ordering. 

Just this week, I received an audio book that was an abridged addition, even though it clearly stated on the info page that it was unabridged.  Should I have asked for my credits back?  Now, I did go to the Edit page and put in a request to have that changed, but I don't think it was the posters fault that I got the wrong edition.  Our ISBNs matched, so in my opinion, neither of us did anything wrong.  Many times, details on the PBS book description is faulty, or is missing.  It's just one of those things.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 12:41 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,775
Back To Top

I do have problems with that listing being used if if is not the 7th edition, it is deceptive and a data edit should really be submitted before posting a book to a listing if all of the information on the listing is not accurate. The desciption and the image both say it isthe 7th edition, yet its pub date probably says its not. We say none of that has to match, yet a member could use that desceptive information to pass off a book they want to get rid of, knowing full well they are sending something that is not as described. If this is the ISBN, please let someone know so that it can be corrected and no other unsuspecting receiver gets a book that they do not want.

Yes, but won't you likely end up in a situation where someone with the 7th edition edits the listing to reflect the "correct" information, and then someone with an older version of the book (same ISBN) edits the listing to reflect the "correct" information?  You could end up with members just re-editing this listing to be "right" multiple times. Unless the data Edit Team keeps track of listings like this somehow.

Not to mention that people who do have the 7th edition woudln't want that listing to be reflecting the old edition of the book, as that would tend to put people off of ordering it, thinking it might be too old, when really they would get the 7th edition.

I don't know the solution, but it seems to me that just re-editing the listing to supply old information instead of new information is not really the best answer either.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 12:47 PM ET
Member Since: 11/28/2010
Posts: 754
Back To Top

 

Thomas - did the title mention edition at all? Though posting by ISBN is correct, Title must also match exactly. Just want to make sure that the cover is the only place that indicated the wrong edition.

Is it 9780912500010? I do have problems with that listing being used if if is not the 7th edition, it is deceptive and a data edit should really be submitted before posting a book to a listing if all of the information on the listing is not accurate. The desciption and the image both say it isthe 7th edition, yet its pub date probably says its not. We say none of that has to match, yet a member could use that desceptive information to pass off a book they want to get rid of, knowing full well they are sending something that is not as described. If this is the ISBN, please let someone know so that it can be corrected and no other unsuspecting receiver gets a book that they do not want.

 
 
 
If I put in that ISBN I would think I AM getting the 7th edition version.  The title says 7th edition.  The description of the book says 7th edition.  I would RWAP it if i got an older version.  That is very misleading about what book you are ordering if it is not the actual book the person is sending.


Last Edited on: 4/18/12 12:52 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 12:50 PM ET
Member Since: 11/28/2010
Posts: 754
Back To Top

I think there is a HUGE difference in just having two differnet covers for two books that are close to being the same age --VS-- having a current version of the book and a 30 or 40 year old version of the book.

 

Let alone different editions.



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 12:55 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 1:09 PM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2009
Posts: 793
Back To Top

Ann Marie, If that was me with the audiobook I will gladly give you the points back if you ask as I think abridged and unabridged is important too but could have been easily overlooked if it is the same ISBN which I think is unusual for audiobooks.  But my point was more with Medical books where the date of the information isn't just important, it could be critical. 

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 1:40 PM ET
Member Since: 3/13/2009
Posts: 202
Back To Top

First of all I forgot to mention that the receiver DID finally mark it received and so I got my credit.

 

Second of all I did, at this time, enter the ISBN number into the BOOK BROWSER and discovered that it does indeed indicate that it is the 7th edition.  It also says it was printed in 1978, which may or may not be the 7th edition.  So I can see where the receiver might be upset. I think , however, that she is misdirecting her ire. She ought to be upset , not at me who listed the book by ISBN, but by the system . Speciffically at the publisher of the book who says that they printed a highly revised edition but reused the same ISBN.

It would be impossible for PBS to sort out all the different editions of every single book. All that it can do is go with the ISBN that each book has. Therefore these forums have often dealt with confusion on large print/small print, different editions, paperback/hard cover. All because they reuse the ISBN of different editions.

It is not up to the sender to try to mind read what a requestor wants. My wife, for instance prefers the older copies. When she sees a Nancy Drew from 1945 and one from 1992 she wants the 1945. She likes the covers better and feels they're "more authentic". 
 

PBS reflects this difficulty by its rules. EVERY SINGLE TIME you post a book the following shown:

"This is how your book listing will appear in the PBS library.
Do the Title, Author, ISBN and Book Type match your book EXACTLY?

And right below that they print:

"Please note: book cover image shown does NOT need to match your book."

The receiver of my book has 49 books on her bookshelf. So she has seen that message at least 49 times.

The requestor , however, DOES know what s/he wants and can add a RC. She might have stated that she wanted 7th edition and I could have checked. Or she might have said "Only if cover pictures match." Then I would not have sent it.  As I said I'm not a psychic. It is up to the requestor if they want something beyond the 5 criteria: Same title, same author, same ISBN, same format and in good condition ( per PBS criteria.)

 

 

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 1:45 PM ET
Member Since: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1,442
Back To Top

Well said, Thomas. agree 100%

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 1:52 PM ET
Member Since: 5/7/2009
Posts: 793
Back To Top

Thomas, I understand your side too but for future info a Nancy Drew book is VERY different from a medical book. Also in the late 1970s ISBNs were just starting to be widely used and the 978 prefixed ones not until much later.  It was obviously a catolgue error that you might not have known about.  I guess I was concerned about your using "astounded" in your posting.



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 2:16 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
zeke68 -
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 2:16 PM ET
Member Since: 10/30/2008
Posts: 2,810
Back To Top

Any time you need a specific edition of anything, you should not rely on a swapping site to get it.  Most swapping sites do not differentiate between editions, publication years, or covers.  I've seen this issue come up time and again on all of the sites I belong to.  Most of the time, the requestor is blaming the sender, when the sender has done everything right.

 

What it boils down to is if you need something so specific, you should just buy it and save the trouble.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 2:26 PM ET
Member Since: 5/15/2005
Posts: 1,328
Back To Top

It's weird but if you go to post ISBN: 9780912500010, it's listed as the 2nd edition but if you search for it, there's no edition in the title but the 7th edition is listed in the description. Sounds like this is a catalog error, not an error on the OP's part.

Date Posted: 4/18/2012 2:33 PM ET
Member Since: 7/13/2006
Posts: 2,410
Back To Top

It's weird but if you go to post ISBN: 9780912500010, it's listed as the 2nd edition but if you search for it, there's no edition in the title but the 7th edition is listed in the description. Sounds like this is a catalog error, not an error on the OP's part.

Requesting member submitted a data edit this morning to correct the listing. Recent changes to the listing won't appear right away or rather some changes appear now and others (like the description) will show up in a day or so.

The original listing (before recent data edit) never had a specific edition in the title - only the cover image and the description stated 7th edition - which as previously stated does not have to match your ISBN when you post your book. Upon verification of member's data submission, research showed that this WAS the 2nd edition of this title and the listing has been updated - removing all reference to this being the 7th edition EXCEPT for the image. A replacement image (that meets our guidelines) couldn't be found so image stands "as is" unless it is removed by the PBS Team or someone else is successful in finding the correct image.

 

 



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 2:46 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 2:38 PM ET
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 262
Back To Top

Thomas, does it indicate IN THE TITLE that it is the seventh edition? If so, you goofed and she deserves her credit back. Otherwise, I can see this being just one of those things that happens in an imperfect system.

Or is it ISBN 0912500018 (same one someone asked about earlier? Because there's something very weird about that listing. On the search page (when I looked for "Womanly Art of Breastfeeding), it looks like it says "second edition", which corresponds to your version. But when I click on the title, the description says "seventh edition," and the information about "second edition" has disappeared from the title (no information about the version is in the title at all).

If that's the case I sympathize with both sides. The database is incorrect (how come it shows two DIFFERENT TITLES in the two different places?). When you posted your book by ISBN, you saw "second edition" (I tried it), which was correct. She saw the cover she wanted and "seventh edition" and ordered it. Both of you acted in good faith, and seem to have done your due diligence (comparing the information on two different screens is unreasonable!), so it's just a shame.

I find no evidence that this is a case of a book being re-issued in a later edition in the same ISBN. I only find this ISBN associated with old copies. I think that the description is simply incorrect on this item. This is a PBS issue rather than a pubishing issue.

This certainly needs to be fixed in the database (the description should deal with one book or the other, not both!), and maybe TPTB can resolve which one of you should be out the credit. Really, neither of you should....

ETA: three of us posted simultaneously on this one.... smiley

EATA: Or was "second edition" added already today, or was "seventh edition" removed from the title today - it hadn't occurred to me that edits could have been made already on this. But in any case, why would the title show up differently on the two pages? That seems like asking for trouble to me. Or is that because of the delay in editing, too? It's amazing how complicated this all can get.



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 2:41 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 4/18/2012 3:10 PM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 9,775
Back To Top

Or is that because of the delay in editing, too?

There is a delay in how long it takes for changes to the listings to show up in various places. So, changes to the title, for example, might appear in the search results differently than when you click on a listing, differently than when you see it in "Books I've Requested" tab, until all the caching is completed.

So, at this exact point in time, anybody trying to figure this out will end up getting more confused, not less.

TPTB can resolve which one of you should be out the credit. Really, neither of you should....

The rules are clear. The publication date and the image and the description do not have to match. So, unfortunately for the requestor, they are out the credit because the OP did nothing wrong. There is really no debate about this.

I think the debate is more about whether or not the people who have the book in hand have some sort of "ethical obligation" to do something extra besides post by ISBN and check the data points that are required to match. There have been a lot of "should haves" discussed .... but the actual PBS rules as they are written today are not unclear on this matter.

The OP did nothing wrong, although perhaps, if he was inclined for "next time" he could check into a description or image discrepancy as he was posting a book (if he was inclined to do so).

And, most of us have learned as requestors to check into the edition/ISBN/PBS listing thing, which this requestor apparently didn't know to do.



Last Edited on: 4/18/12 3:16 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Page: