Is this book-with-a-torn-cover postable or is it RWAP?  The amount missing seems to be approximately 1 square inch.

The posting-guidelines say:

Cover not torn or chewed/gnawed

• some used book stores cut out a small part of the cover; if the amount missing is less than 1 square inch, this is OKAY
• a small rip (less than 1 inch) in the cover is OKAY
• yes, that does say "chewed/gnawed" above.  That means no pet-chewed (or human-chewed) books.

I would mark that received with a problem.

I would mark it RWAP - it was noticed before sending - she should have PM'd you before it was sent.  Something similar just happened to me as the sender - now before accept a request - I check the book out for any damage I might have overlooked. 

I would RWAP the book. The guidelines clearly say that covers are not to be torn or ripped. I would not have sent that book out nor would I want to receive one like that.

One more question;  The guidelines say that "some used book stores cut out a small part of the cover".  This cover is TORN, not cut.  But I have never seen a book with a cut cover from a used book store.  Is it possible to determine (from looking at the picture) if this is a used book store mark or just a damaged book?

Most used bookstores, clip the upper right-hand corner off.

It's a damaged book. The sender used the words "torn cover" in the note.  I would expect used book stores to use a pair of scissors to cut. It's very hard to deliberately make an uneven edge as such. I think the point is to cut off where the price is printed on the book. You can check to see if you can still find the price on the book.

Heh. It's funny how the sender left a little note instead of PMing you prior to mailing.

Yeah, evidence.  Thanks for your help.  I will mark it RWAP...http://www.paperbackswap.com/forum/topic.php?t=165875&l=25&ls=0#p3534786

I wouldn't send out a book like that nor would I be happy to receive it but I would not mark it as RWAP.  I can see where someone would think that if there can be a one inch rip in the cover and  there can be a one inch square piece missing why can't there be a piece of the cover torn/ripped off. I am not saying I think this way, I am just saying I wouldn't mark it RWAP because someone else might.

I don't think it is RWAP. If the missing area is less than about a square inch overall, then it is probably postable. Covers can be ripped, torn, or cut up to 1 inch. 

I can't tell exactly, of course, but that looks like it falls into an acceptable range to me.

I don't think its a stretch to believe that a square inch of the cover can be missing when it says so right in the guidelines.

Also, I don't believe that you should care about ripped vs. cut. As long as it was not chewed off, I don't think it matters to the rules.

Sarah;

The guidelines don't say "Covers can be ripped, torn, or cut up to 1 inch".  The guidelines say "a small rip (less than 1 inch) in the cover is OKAY".  This damage is worse than a rip.  It's torn off.  And it's 2 inches.  Not within the 1 inch limit of a rip.

It also speaks about used book store cut covers,  But this does not seem to be a used book store cut cover.

They are just saying book store as an example. Also, the rules say:

"if the amount missing is less than 1 square inch, this is OKAY"

This means that the missing piece could be 2 inches x 1/2 inch and still be withing the rules.

Its a gray area. My opinion is that it is postable.

Ripped vs. cut is irrelevant. I can easily use scissors to make a ripped edge look cut. As long as the overall missing piece is less than 1 SQUARE INCH, its postable.

I don't think that was done by a UBS.  They usually cut away the upper outside corner, and those are *usually* less than one square inch, although I've seen larger as well.  Your sender probably thinks it's ok because it looks like it might come out to one square inch or less of missing cover, but the rules don't specify rips in the same terms as they do cut corners.  They say "a small rip (less than 1 inch) in the cover is OKAY", not one square inch, and don't mention missing pieces at all.  Frankly, I think they just mean a rip with little or none of the actual cover missing, but that's just my opinion.  I'd say use your best judgment, but you'd probably be in compliance with the rules if you marked it RWAP.

My library, for some reason, cuts off their bar codes from the front covers of paperbacks, instead of just markering them out. Since the bar code is in a corner, when they do this, you end up with a missing piece of the cover that is less than an inch long but more than an inch wide. It is just abut one square inch (total), in fact.

Since the total cover missing is less than a square inch, I feel just fine posting these and receiving them too. I've never gotton an RWAP on these.

To me, when PBS uses examples in the rules, some people take them very literally, and some people take them as an example. For instance, I remember when people were arguing over the reasons you could mail up to 48 hours after you "Mark Mailed" .... because PBS gives 3 examples of this in the rules. Some people argued that these were the ONLY 3 reasons, and some people argued that these were 3 EXAMPLES, and that you are allowed to mail 48 hours after marking for any reason. PBS was asked to clarify, and it ended up that they asked people to use their reasonable judgement, the 3 things were just examples, and that as long as people were mailing within 48 hours of marking Mailed, that was fine with them. (my paraphrase)

So, I don't know if, in this particular rule,  PBS meant to say  that ONLY A USED BOOKSTORE could cut part of a cover ... but I doubt it. I think its an example. Because they can't list every single valid reason why a cover might have a small piece missing, they have given an example, and also a guideline that the missing piece should be smaller than a square inch.

If PBS clarifies this further, I am willing to be wrong.

But that's what I think about the rule as it stands now.

I totally get your POV on this too, Sara.  I probably wouldn't RWAP that myself, but I can see where lots of others would, so I wouldn't send it.  "Best judgement" is the biggest grey area there is in the PBS rules:P  Just because a book has a certain corner cut off of it doesn't mean it was done by a UBS anyway.  Someone's dog could chew a corner off their book, and if they clipped it away with scissors, it would look like it was done by a UBS.

I’ve already marked it RWAP, asked for my credit back, and I’m sticking with it.  I consider it my PBS civic duty to mark such books RWAP.  If we let this type of thing slide, then all of us will begin to receive more (not less) damaged books.  You should thank me for doing you a favor.  :)

I believe the 1 SQUARE INCH limit from the guidelines pertains to UBS cut corners (note the semicolon punctuation).  Use a semicolon between independent clauses if the clauses are closely related, but not joined by a coordinating conjunction or a correlative.

·  some used book stores cut out a small part of the cover; if the amount missing is less than 1 square inch, this is OKAY

I think that I am repeating myself.  But this is a lot worse that a small rip.

·  a small rip (less than 1 inch) in the cover is OKAY

For myself how I view it - if the bar code is cut off because it was from a UBS or FOL sale - I would be ok with a that.  I would be ok with a square cut on the front or back cover or circle or other marking indicating a UBS/FOL/ whatever - this was torn and the sender sent a note that they hope they weren't too upset - which indicates that they knew there was a potential for a RWAP.  I think in this case I would have notified the requestor first - some come back with no problem - others don't want it  but the requestor should decided.   When the cut is made with a pen knife or scissors the cut is neat and if it is a keeper I wouldn't mind having it around, but I don't want covers that have had sections ripped off even if it is 1 inch or less.  I have seen them at my UBS and FOL and won't buy them for that reason  Just me....

You should thank me for doing you a favor.  :)

Thank you. I mean that sincerely, although we don't necessarily agree on this issue ... postability is sometimes in the eye of the beholder! That's why you just have to use your best judgement! I also enjoy PBS and don't want to see the quality of books go down, just as I don't want to get RWAPs on books I sincerely believe are postable.

And ... yes, this is what happened during the discussion of the "48 hour Mailing" thing. Some of the lawyer members of PBS were involved and gave their interpretation of the rule as if it were a legal document in a court of law.

Marilyn (or are you Dan? (I remember you posting as Dan sometimes)) ..... I am sure you are entirely correct about the semicolon.

I am just not sure that whoever writes PBS rules thinks overmuch about semicolons! I would guess that they are trying to express the rules clearly and accurately, and not worrying about the exact punctuation of them. JMO.

This is Dan.  Marilyn reads.  Dan facilitates the flow of books.

Though we (you and I) agree on most subjects, I believe that we will agree to dissagree on this small point.  But I'm always happy to listen to your opinion.  :)

btw> The transaction has been marked as resolved.

The horizontal tear is more than 1", it is not postable. I don't see how the square inchness matters if the 1" tear is already broken. If that was the case, if I have a book with a 2" tear along the bottom that is not postable, all I have to do is rip a chunck out of the book and it makes it more postable? Nope. 

Melanie must have a boyfriend who is an engineer.  Either that or she's married to one.  Or maybe she is one!

Anyway the engineer in me appreciates the logic!

Dan (for Marilyn)

I get your point Melanie, and it is excellent logic. Now I believe that the 2 rules contradict each other.

Because "square inch" is a unit of area, not a phrase that means "exactly one inch in each direction"

maybe they should change the wording of the rule to be something like "if the amount missing measures less than 1 inch in each direction" instead of "if the amount missing is less than 1 square inch"

I guess this illustrates that no matter how much clarity you think you have written into the rules, they can still be interpreted in multiple ways.

Nice pic Dan, very clear.

Interesting discussion :-)