Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Is this a change in PBS policy?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Is this a change in PBS policy?
Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:17 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

Melanie D. posted a thread in CMT that I think we all need to think about.  It's about the possible trading unpostables for credit in the Book Bazaar being okay but we can't post them to our bookshelves for credit.

www.paperbackswap.com/forum/topic.php

You might want to read it to see what you think.

Ruth

Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:30 PM ET
Member Since: 9/13/2007
Posts: 2,520
Back To Top
Thank you for linking this here, I missed it when scanning the much more active CMT board. I'm not sure what I think... I guess I don't mind, as long as people don't start using this as an excuse not to return a credit when they do post an unpostable to their shelf and send it out. I usually put in my message that I am requesting the credit back because I can't post the book and swap it when I am done reading it. I would hate to have someone come back and tell me to just post it in the book bizarre, because what if no one wants it? I guess I just don't want this to mean there are no longer consequences for sending out a damaged book. Especially when I have gotten books that have been so bad that I didn't want to touch them, much less list them in the book bazaar and send them out to someone.
Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:30 PM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I would like that. I actually have ARCs that I'd offer for credit. It's a perfectly valid edition and without damage so it's not something I consider unpostable, simply not allowed. Maybe it is now allowed! I hope PBS confirms it since people seem to think it may cause a feud. :\

Editing to add that I see Leisl's point. Another reason I think PBS should confirm and make it clear that it's not a loop hole to send out unpostables without alerting the receiver.



Last Edited on: 4/1/09 11:33 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:44 PM ET
Member Since: 10/23/2005
Posts: 7,719
Back To Top

Only my opinion here, but I dont think I would spend a credit on an unpostable, allowed or not. I wonder if folks would.

Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:54 PM ET
Member Since: 4/12/2007
Posts: 2,566
Back To Top

I would, IF it was on my WL, and I was 300 of 301, and the damage was minimal, and I was planning on keeping it.   Otherwise, probably not.  :)

I'll be watching for this in the BB to see what happens, and how many people start doing this.  Interesting.

Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:56 PM ET
Member Since: 9/13/2007
Posts: 2,520
Back To Top
I could see people doing it for really popular wishlisted books. I know that there are some on my shelf that I want as keepers and wouldn't mind a bit of writing/staining/slight waterdamage. The Post Secret books for example. As long as I knew what condition I was getting it in ahead of time, I could see paying a credit for an unpostable.
Date Posted: 4/1/2009 11:59 PM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,599
Back To Top

I'm not sure if it's a policy change or not. I do think they need to make something like that statement public so that if indeed they're allowing this, it's given official sanction.

I personally never go near the book bazaar, so I'll just continue to offer my unpostables (slightly damaged but still readable, and ARCs) as freebies with an order. I personally wouldn't feel right asking for a credit for them, nor would I pay a credit for one unless it happened to be a somewhat rare book that I wanted for my keeper shelf or something and the problem was minor.

Maybe this would stop people listing their unpostables to their shelves and hoping the receiver doesn't notice if they know they *can* request a credit for them in the bazaar? I don't know. Time will tell I guess, if they do decide to make it official.

Cheryl

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 12:15 AM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

I worry about this only because it might  dilute the quality expectations of PBS books.  It would get hard to sort out which books came from where on PBS.  Before this, I felt confident that books I get wouldn't have the unpostable problems and had a leg to stand on if I got an unpostable.  There are scenarios that I can see that could be bad for the bookshelf books' quality.  And if we are able to post for credit for unpostables on/in the BB then I'm afraid that someone would counter a complaint with "it was postable on BB so what are you complaining about?"   I personally prefer the clear line even though I do have unpostables I could post on BB for a credit - if it turns out it's "legal" here.  It really lowers my expectations.

Ruth

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 12:20 AM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,187
Back To Top

I didn't take it as a policy change, more of a correction of an erroneous assumption. 

I don't see a big flood of posts in the BB asking for credits for crap.  I do see it as a way for a few more rare, heavy, or highly WLed books being offered with slight damage. I see many people with postage $ limits and with the postage going up again, members may get less willing to send freebies. Now they can at least offer the books to people who might want them.

The members that get new ARCs will benefit the most IMO. I can see members willing to pay a credit for a book before its pub date and are currently only ordering books they don't want to get them so they are spending a credit on them anyway. For those who won't pay a credit for an unpostable, it won't affect them other than maybe moving up the WL line quicker if people in front of them are taking unpostables. For those willing to pay credits for unpostables, it gives them a better opportunity to see more of them.

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 12:28 AM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,187
Back To Top

Maybe this would stop people listing their unpostables to their shelves and hoping the receiver doesn't notice if they know they *can* request a credit for them in the bazaar?

Cheryl, I think you hit on a really good one here. I think some people post those minor flawed books to get the credit and then pretend they didn't see the damage because they want the credit for it. Now they can see that they can get a credit for it through the BB and may not try that anymore. 

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 11:34 AM ET
Member Since: 2/12/2008
Posts: 4,470
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 4/1/11 2:17 PM ET - Total times edited: 2
Date Posted: 4/2/2009 1:02 PM ET
Member Since: 1/19/2009
Posts: 154
Back To Top

I'd gladly pay a credit for an unpostable, as long as it is readable and in 1 peice.

And as long as someone told me ahead of time it was unpostable.   It just angers me if someone is trying to fly under the radar and post something that they should know better than post.

A small stain, a little writing, or a torn cover and some water damage isn't a huge deal to me, if it is something I really want to read.  Most of the time, I don't order with the sole intention of reswapping after I read it. (usually I only plan to re-post new, WL'ed books) I give them to the womens shelter if they are "iffy" or I actually keep a lot of the ones I order.

 

 

 



Last Edited on: 4/2/09 1:03 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/2/2009 2:45 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

The danger I see with this is not with the first trade via agreement and Buddying a credit for the "unpostable", but the ones that come after and the people who say "I got it from here like that so I won't return your credit."  That happens often enough as it is.

Ruth

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 3:24 PM ET
Member Since: 12/29/2008
Posts: 3,883
Back To Top

I can see both sides, but I have to say that there are so many books on my w/l that I want badly enough to pay a credit for (particularly those I know are keepers!)  and I would not mind at all if the book was unpostable and still readable. Given that our w/l now give us an idea of how long the wait may be for a book, I feel even MORE strongly about it!  I hate waiting for books! 

Another point: When Twilight first came out and was wishlisted to high heaven I had a copy.  My daughter read it and my cat tried to as well.  She (the cat, NOT my daughter... I hope!) put teeth marks in the cover.  Unpostable. But I bet probably there were people who, seeing they were # kazillion on the w/l, might have been happy to pay the credit for a completely readable book (just with the ironic bite mark on the cover).  Wish I had known this then! 

 

Date Posted: 4/2/2009 3:37 PM ET
Member Since: 5/3/2006
Posts: 6,436
Back To Top

I get so many unpostables anyway, I'm totally fine with it. At least I would know what I was getting, for a change. :-\

Date Posted: 4/3/2009 6:47 AM ET
Member Since: 10/19/2006
Posts: 136
Back To Top

I would give a credit for an unpostable as long as I knew exactly what made it unpostable in the first place. Mystery stains, missing pages and excessive water damage are a no-no, but torn pages and covers would be acceptable to me.

PBS posting rules are so stringent that almost anything will make a book unpostable, even a two inch tear on the cover. Many of the books I read I want to re-post so I  find myself reading them as if I was holding a newborn, terrified that I will smudge a page or horror of horrors, cleave the spine. Paperbacks are made so cheaply these days they have to be handled with kid gloves.

Date Posted: 4/3/2009 8:43 AM ET
Member Since: 12/29/2008
Posts: 182
Back To Top

I like to trade one ARC for another ARC from someone. MIne are trade paperbacks that are brand new or nearly new. I would spend a credit for a new ARC of a wishlisted book, no problem. Not so sure about damaged, falling apart, etc. books. I won't order a book from someone's bookshelf just to get the ARC or unpostable. Just me.