Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Declined RC can contact me? - Nope, she can't.

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Declined RC can contact me? - Nope, she can't.
Date Posted: 3/8/2012 10:12 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

For the longest time, it has been that unless you've taken note when you request a book, if the owner declines your RCs, their identity is obscured and the transaction does not appear on your txn registry. 

Today I declined an RC.  So I was really surprised to receive a message titled "book request communication" that went on to say "the member who you mailed the book has added a comment to the dialogue for this transaction" and provided me a link for it.  You know, the transaction that doesn't show anywhere on my account?   It also has a message block with her message like it does when you RWAP.

How is this possible?  I know that she was the sole wisher left and it probably went onto her RL.  But the communication is in relation to the canceled request and shows on its page.

From the flip side, I had a book request where the other person rejected my RC and I cannot find ANYWHERE that I may contact them.  Not from the email alert, or from the transaction that shows in my credit registry.  It does not show in my transaction archive of course...With no message box.   Not that I want to contact them, but I am curious to know if something has somehow been changed.

I also noticed that the ones that timed out and rolled over to the next wisher don't show in my archive - I could have sworn they did. 

 

Update:

So you don't have to scroll down.   Remember, I cannot see WL-Hold timed out transactions on my account.

She was on a WL hold and it timed out on her - she got online immediately after and rerequested the book.  I wasn't paying attention to the timeout time and had no idea that it had timed out.  She figured the odds of there being another copy at the same exact time were pretty low, so she assumed it was still me.  The PMs were actually on the time out, not the RC-Decline.

 



Last Edited on: 3/9/12 2:43 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/8/2012 10:18 PM ET
Member Since: 7/19/2008
Posts: 15,398
Back To Top

The policy has been that RCs were totally blind.  But there was an exception previously where there was just one copy in the system, that we could request the book again with the RC turned off.  Then this was changed, with the last copy being moved to your reminder list. 

I'm wondering if it has been changed again.  There did seem to be a glitch where it was not letting us turn off the RC to re-request the book. 

Date Posted: 3/8/2012 10:32 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

That's what I always thought.  But she hasn't re-requested the book again...yet - the communication is firmly attached to the canceled transaction.

I do plan on responding to her (she just wants details), but I'm very distracted by this anomoly. 

Date Posted: 3/9/2012 12:05 AM ET
Member Since: 12/31/2009
Posts: 3,995
Back To Top

If you want, I can request a book from your shelf. If you go ahead and decline my RC, I can check my archive to see if there's something new there.



Last Edited on: 3/9/12 12:05 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/9/2012 11:38 AM ET
Member Since: 7/28/2006
Posts: 4,980
Back To Top

How strange!  Maybe that's something that you want to ask the Team, they would know if something has changed recently. 

I also noticed that the ones that timed out and rolled over to the next wisher don't show in my archive - I could have sworn they did. 

Last time I had a rolled over request, it did show up in my TA.  I would double check your sort to "All Transactions" so you know you aren't missing anything.

Date Posted: 3/9/2012 2:37 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

My settings are set to All Transactions.  They still don't show.   The Xed ones below are books that I accepted, and then the poster never marked mailed.  [I think one of them was suspended and the transaction canceled.]  There should be quite a few timeouts listed below.  I posted 6 books of Slayers Text and 3 Fantasy books.  About 5 of the Slayers books rolled over at least once.  Photobucket

I believe I have figured it out how she was able to contact me though..I would have figured it out sooner if the timed out requests had shown.

She was the last WLer on the book.  It appears that it timed out on her, and she got there right after it did and rerequested it.  Since it all happened on the same day, close in time, it was all pretty invisible to me.  I had checked out her name while waiting the day before and it was the same - checking to see if it was someone I was already sending one of the other Slayers books.  Her PMs are actually on the timed out transaction, not the RC-Declined one.

Date Posted: 3/9/2012 7:01 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,186
Back To Top

I'm not exactly following your timeline of events but this statement: "But she hasn't re-requested the book again...yet - the communication is firmly attached to the canceled transaction."  Says that the communication has nothing to do with an RC declined transaction. Those do not ever become cancelled transactions or show up in your TA. If you can find it in your TA, it did not get there by you turning down the RCs. Once you decline that RC there is not record of it for you to see.

 

I also noticed that the ones that timed out and rolled over to the next wisher don't show in my archive - I could have sworn they did. 

I don't think they would since there would be no transaction, they've never requested the book you've only offered it to them.



Last Edited on: 3/9/12 7:01 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/9/2012 9:54 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

Says that the communication has nothing to do with an RC declined transaction.

I should have qualified it by saying "the RC Canceled Transaction." 

When I said that she hadn't re-requested the book yet, I was referring to a possible RC-Less request, pending our discussion of the condition. 

When I posted, AFAIK, the timeline went like this:

  1. Book on WL hold was requested
  2. I declined based upon her RCs
  3. She PMed me based on that transaction for clarification on the conditions.

What actually happened was:

  1. Book was on WL Hold by Person
  2. WL Hold Timed Out - Book hits the open market
  3. Person requests the book off the open market
  4. I declined based upon her RCs.
  5. She finds the transaction that timed out from her side, assumes  and sends me a transaction communication from the Timed Out request.

Now, if WL Hold requests that time out don't hit the transaction archive, that's really interesting, as it appears it hit the requestor's side.  Like I said, I had no history of it, and the last WL hold book I missed was like...5 years ago.

Date Posted: 3/10/2012 12:00 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,186
Back To Top

Now, if WL Hold requests that time out don't hit the transaction archive, that's really interesting, as it appears it hit the requestor's side. Like I said, I had no history of it, and the last WL hold book I missed was like...5 years ago.

It can't be on just one side's transaction history, it is either a transaction in history for both, or neither. I believe it is possible to click on a PM button on the requester's side while a book is in the 48-hour Hold and see who the posting member is though, it used to be anyway. Your post made it sound like you see the communication coming from a transaction in your TA, or are you just assuming that the TA is she found the way to contact you? She could have also just clicked the Order More From Member button to get your member name before submitting the request that you turned the RCs down on.



Last Edited on: 3/10/12 12:01 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/10/2012 5:22 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

Your post made it sound like you see the communication coming from a transaction in your TA,

It did, sort of.

I can access the transaction only through the link that was sent to me via email.  I cannot access it in my TA.

As I mentioned previously, I did use the PM button while it was on WL hold to see who had been requesting it.  The WL Hold timed out at 9:00PM EST, she requested it again at 9:22PM EST which was where I saw the RC, declined, etc.

After I declined, she found the copy still in the system, did order more from member to get my profile, and assumed the book was still the same person (I think Manga is one of the slowest moving genres on the site - the odds of two people posting Slayers 4 at the same time..I'd have better odds at Powerball.) and (I assume) sent me a PM. 

I have no idea how it got attached to the transaction.  It may not even be listed in her TA anywhere.  In my PM box, the title is "Requestor conditions" on her PM to me - not the system messages that tend to go with transactions ie: A problem or A member has a note about the book you sent.

Honestly I'm starting to wonder if it was some sort of system glitch.  Instead of sending me a PM Notice with the text contained, it sent me a "New Book Request communication" with a link to the transaction.  I did make it a point to reply to her using that link instead of from my PM box.  However the entire scenario was very confusing.

Photobucket



Last Edited on: 3/10/12 5:36 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/10/2012 6:47 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,186
Back To Top

 the title is "Requestor conditions"  - she can type whatever she wants on that line, its not necessarily a system generated title relating to the transaction activity.

 

I cannot access it in my TA. If you went to your TA, resorted it by Request date and looked on 3/2 you'd find it. When you click on the link, it is just taking you directly to the listing in your TA.

It is an odd course of events. It looks to me like, after you denied her RCs, she just went back into her TA and PMed you from that transaction thinking it was the one that got turned down and changing the title to what she wanted to talk about, and that is why the PMs are attached to that transaction. 

 

Date Posted: 3/10/2012 10:46 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

If you went to your TA, resorted it by Request date and looked on 3/2 you'd find it. When you click on the link, it is just taking you directly to the listing in your TA.

Please refer to the first image I posted.  That is exactly how my TA looked when I took the screenshot yesteday and it looks exactly the same now.  No amount of puttering around with it playing with sort options gets the WL Rollovers to show.

 

Date Posted: 3/10/2012 11:11 PM ET
Member Since: 7/5/2007
Posts: 2,140
Back To Top

I've done some more digging, and I believe this statement "It can't be on just one side's transaction history, it is either a transaction in history for both, or neither." is incorrect.

A WL Hold will appear in the requestor's transaction history regardless of the outcome, be it accepted, canceled by sender, or if it times out. 
[Except RC declines, which are, as we all know, double blind]

A WL Hold that times out will not appear in the sender's transaction archive.

I finally found my lone timed out book... From 2007.  Transaction Details did indeed have a message box.  I bet if I contacted that person they would be unable to find the transaction on their side and would be scratching their head in confusion.

 



Last Edited on: 3/10/12 11:19 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/11/2012 4:35 AM ET
Member Since: 8/26/2006
Posts: 9,327
Back To Top

I finally found my lone timed out book...

There are two ways for a transaction to time out.  If it times out because one member doesn't respond at all to the request or offer, it should not show up in the transaction archive.  It takes an agreement between two members to make it a transaction.  If it times out because the sender doesn't mark it "mailed", then it will show up in the archive.  (The sender had accepted to

However it used to be different several years ago.  It was when they added some features to the site (maybe requestor conditions?) that they redefined what makes a transaction.  Maybe what you are seeing from 2007 was prior to the changes.