Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: New Wish List --coming soon?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: New Wish List --coming soon?
Date Posted: 2/8/2009 5:35 AM ET
Member Since: 1/12/2009
Posts: 74
Back To Top

The fact that the Wish List will be changing came up in another thread and not eveyone knew about it (including me!), so I thought I'd start a new thread on it.

You can find the info in the "What's New" section (top right of this page).  The New Wish List info is about half way down the page.

It's a long description, but if I understand it, the gist is that we will have to rank our WL books in the order we care about them and the WL will use a formula combining our ranking and the time our book is on the WL, to come up with our place in line for each book.  It looks like time on WL will still weigh more heavily than ranking, but a higher ranking will eventually pass those who rank the book lower even if the latter have had the book WL'd for longer.

For me, the biggest headache of the whole thing will be to rank the books, because I don't really care what order they come in.  If I have a book that I must have soon and it's not posted, I'll find it another way.  My PBS books are for my pleasure reading and I just want a steady supply of the many books I'm interested in. 

They say that, at some point, there will be an "auto-rank" feature, where PBS will automatically figure out the best order to rank the books in to get them the fastest.  Personally, I would *strongly* recommend that the New Wish List not be implemented until the auto-rank feature is part of it.  It will cur down on the frustration for a lot of us, I think.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 7:44 AM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 52
Back To Top

I'll have to go check that out.  I saw it mentioned elsewhere and didn't have a clue what was meant by "new wish list".  The thought of having to rank all my WL books is not appealing in the least.

Cathy A. (Cathy) - ,
Date Posted: 2/8/2009 10:19 AM ET
Member Since: 12/27/2005
Posts: 4,124
Back To Top

It's been about 18 months now that it's "coming soon". You really don't need to worry about it at this point.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 11:42 AM ET
Member Since: 4/25/2007
Posts: 11,457
Back To Top

Yeah, it's been a looooooooong while that it's "coming soon".  I've been here almost 2 years and I remember hearing talk of it shortly after I joined.

I'm not worried.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 1:17 PM ET
Member Since: 8/19/2007
Posts: 4,236
Back To Top

I wouldn't have a problem with the new WL except or the fact that the RL list will be deleted.  I don't use the RL list as a RL list, but in another way, and I'd hate to see that option taken away. 

Also trying to rank my books would be a real headache.  I know many of the books on my WL will never be posted, but I do want them.  Now I'd have to decide doI want to rank a book I know will never come up (and I'd purchase it if I could find it anywhere at a reasonable price), over a book that I know hasn't been published yet, but I'll probably get it faster than the book that's never going to be posted.  Decisiions, decisions and I hate making them.    Pat

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 5:22 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

I hate to say it but, the day the new WL is implemented here will be the day I close my account.  The idea that someone who wants a book "more" than I do is somehow entitled to move ahead of me in line for it simply galls me.  Imagine if this was how things worked in real life:

  • The "very busy" person who simply "must" get to their hair appointment goes straight to the head of the line at DMV, no matter that you've been waiting for three hours.
  • The person who is a "huge fan" and who has "all their albums" gets to jump positions in the line for concert tickets.
  • The guy who is late for work and really "needs to get there now" is allowed to run red lights.
  • The snotty twentysomething whose boyfriend is illegally parked in the fire lane and honking his horn gets to go ahead of you in the grocery line, while you try to keep your three kids from begging for every piece of candy in the display rack.

Bad, bad, bad idea PBS powers that be, and I predict you will lose a lot of other members over this if you actually implement it here.



Last Edited on: 2/8/09 5:23 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 2/8/2009 5:39 PM ET
Member Since: 7/24/2008
Posts: 54
Back To Top

I'm with PatinKS, I would have exactly the same problem and I have no idea what I'd do about it. 

I'd have to choose between gettings books that I want that are available to some extent, and maybe one day possibly getting that one really super awesome expensive book that I Really Want that will only show up on PBS once in a lifetime.

I still haven't heard a solution for this problem. 

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 6:07 PM ET
Member Since: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,755
Back To Top

Daboss has it right but the PBS powers that be don't much care what any of us thinks about their new wish. They state they will do it no matter what. Of course it isn't fair but they don't care, they want "new" members to be able to get books faster. They are more interested in new members than the members who have been here the longest. I don't know why they want to change the system when it works well and is simple. I hear all the time how complex some of the other sites are and how people like this site because it is easy to use. I guess they want to be like the other sites but I sure don't know why. How many of us has the time or inclination to rank our wish list or watch others go ahead of us in line? We learned in grade school that it isn't polite to try to cut in front of others already in line.

I don't know why I even bother to post, it is their site and they have made it clear they will do this no matter what anyone thinks or how unfair it is.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 9:27 PM ET
Member Since: 7/31/2007
Posts: 2,690
Back To Top

Come on folks...it is not that bad!  They are going to take into consideration the length of time that you have had a book on your WL...I personally think it will make things work much smoother...and it isn't like I don't have a huge mountain of books to read anyway. 

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 9:43 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

So, what you're saying then Christy is that if you put a book on your WL and rank it low, and 12 other members come right after you and put it on their WL, but rank it high, it's okay with you that they all go ahead of you?  That's what it boils down to after all.

For me, that's not acceptable, so I would choose to close my account if that happens.  That's my choice to make, isn't it?

 

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 10:03 PM ET
Member Since: 7/31/2007
Posts: 2,690
Back To Top

Yes Bernhard, that is exactly what I am saying...IF it was so important to me to get the book I'd rank it higher...

I have a large TBR pile, it isn't like I'm desperate for books to come in but, if there was one then I'd have the choice of ranking it higher so that it moved up the list faster.

and yep, you are free at any time to take your toys and go play in someone else's sandbox....

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 10:15 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

"and yep, you are free at any time to take your toys and go play in someone else's sandbox...."

 

Okay... who put the pea under Christy's mattress?

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 10:17 PM ET
Member Since: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,755
Back To Top

So Christy you have all the time in the world to rank all the books on your wish list? Lucky you, not everyone does and just because you are okay with people cutting in line ahead of you it doesn't mean that everyone else has to agree with you. There are many people on the DVD swap that already have this mess and hate it. I decided it wasn't for me either. Come on Christy it isn't that good!! My problem isn't with what you said but how you said it. You are entitled to your opinion but so is everyone else. That "come on folks" came through just a bit condescending, hopefully you didn't mean it that way.

 

 

.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 10:58 PM ET
Member Since: 7/31/2007
Posts: 2,690
Back To Top

Bernhard...you put that pea there....I was just responding to your "question" in the previous post.

Elaine, you can't really compare DVD swap and PBS...that is like comparing apples and oranges....the volume of books & the number of members in PBS way outnumber those in DVD swap so it actually changes the scheme of things.  Do I have time to rank my books...sure I have some time from time to time...once you initially rank your books that is not something you have to change daily...you could theoretically tweek it some every day but, not always.  There is also suppose to be a auto-rank where you can allow the system to rank your books to produce the best results.

The "Come on Folks, " was only condescending if you wanted to take it that way....it is so tiring though to hear folks talk about how much the PBS team don't care for its members...They Care, They Listen, They Act when needed....They are constantly making decisions for what they deem is in the best interest of the organization....remember if they didn't care about us they wouldn't continue to maintain this non-profit bearing organization.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 11:08 PM ET
Member Since: 4/25/2007
Posts: 11,457
Back To Top

The fact is that someday the PBS team WILL change the WL format.  Will you have to rank the books on your list?  No, I bet you can let the system do it for you.  Will I take the time to rank my WL?  Yep, I surely will.  Anything on my WL is something I want to read someday but I'm content to wait for them.  If I immediately HAVE to read a book, I'll buy it.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 11:26 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

"Bernhard...you put that pea there....I was just responding to your 'question' in the previous post."

Are you uncertain that I actually posed a question in that post you refer to?  You can usually tell from the punctuation.  If there's one of these "?" on the end, then it is indeed a question.

How wonderful that you graced me with your response though!  I'm particularly impressed with the rudeness and condescending tone that you have also included at no additional charge.  Truly a Princess!

 

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 11:31 PM ET
Member Since: 10/23/2005
Posts: 7,719
Back To Top

I always wonder why this topic is resurected every few months. No good ever comes of it. And yet my the middle of April there will be another. I'd bet books on it.

Date Posted: 2/8/2009 11:36 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

Sarah, the problem, as I see it, is not one of time but rather of fairness.  Is it fair to have members waiting patiently in line for their turn and then have other members placed ahead of them on the line?  Some of us, myself included, don't think so.  PBS has always said the reason for the "one credit = one book" rule is to ensure fairness to all the members and prevent bidding wars.  To change the WL as is proposed, strikes me as being both unfair and just one step removed from such bidding.  In effect, you getting a WL book  would depend greatly on how high you were willing to "bid" (ranking) on it.

Date Posted: 2/9/2009 5:26 AM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

Cheryl, good to see you!  Yep, it does get resurrected every so often - but then it has to because of new members or old ones that didn't know. 

I'd like to take your (everyone) time to say that if TPTB want to make new members happy by getting them books faster - they could do it easier than just changing the whole system.  They already get 2 free credits - granted that the most wanted and least posted books may not be there for them.  They aren't there for the majority of us.  But the change could be for 1 or 2 credits to be put in postiions 1 or 2 of  only a couple of book WL.  Even if they change the entire system it doesn't mean that new people will get what they want sooner - it just makes every book WL more unfair for everyone.  And they could limit each books WL new member's preference spots to a couple per book.  I don't like line jumpers any more than anyone else - but it if means the greater number of books will still be available on the FIFO then by all means change it.  But leave it first come first served for the most part.  It works well, and everyone knows what to expect.  It's the sysem that most of us recognize as fair.  Many of us have been on WL for more than a year and haven't moved any.  Doing this will make it worse.  I am in agreement with Bernhard.  I won't be ranking and tweaking my WL because it's silly.  I'll just buy it used at Amazon or somewhere else.  I won't like it.  the credits here will become less valuable to me as a member because I can't count on my place in line to be honored.  Still strikes me as a bad move.

Ruth

Date Posted: 2/9/2009 6:21 AM ET
Member Since: 10/19/2006
Posts: 136
Back To Top

I've been hearing about the new wish list for a long time now. Everytime it is brought up there is such an outcry against it that I feel it will probably never happen. I'm really kind of on the fence about it anyway.

There's the good:

  • Unlimited wish list.
  • Finally, most of the inactive members will hopefully be phased out when they don't rank their list.

There's the bad:

  • No more reminder list!! (I really use that and would miss it dreadfully.)
  • I want all of the books on my wish list now. If I didn't they would be on the reminder list. Some of my wishlisted books have been there for years. If I move them too far down and lose them to someone else I will be seriously bummed as they are out of print and will likely never be offered again.

I guess my final thought is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Date Posted: 2/9/2009 1:48 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

Anne - you gave a great response.  Personally, an unlimited WL is dangerous for me - I'd be buying credits even more often then I already do!  Right now I'm a remote warehouse for PBS books! ;D   I'm not really into ranking WL books.  There's active and then there's ridiculously active.  I don't want to be even more active than I already am.  I do move things on my WL when it becomes obvious that certain books I want won't be forthcoming soon enough to suit me.  More importantly are the books coming into PBS going to improve in time and numbers?  I don't think that part of the equation is addressed by the proposed new WL.  And if new/more books aren't going to increase, then why should the standing WL change?  Why should we be ranking and tweaking something that isn't otherwise changing?  It just looks like a lot more switching around within the system that seems would be harder on the programming and servers. 

As for the RL - I'm with you - Idon't want to lose it.  I do use it as a Reminder list - not just as a secondary WL.  I use it for all kinds of things.  I'm hoping that a "Maybe" list can be instituted if the old RL goes away.  I'm not big on using the notebook because it's public (if your profile is public).  I love the RL and the ability to put notes, etc. on it. - sort of wish there was an ability to put other non-public info on it - such as names of people I'd like not to trade with again or people I would like to keep a watch on their bookshelves since they have interesting books and aren't a buddy.  But my need for some kind of RL is high.

And as I said before - first come first served as always been an American institution and process that we all know, trust , and are used to having..  It does work the most fairly for everybody. After all, new PBS members do need time to assimilate all the features and uses as well as the whole PBS process.  Bumping them up just because they are new isn't really a good idea if they aren't aware of how things work.  Why should they be rewarded just for being new when so many others have been here for years and contributing to the system in many different ways?  PBS members on the whole are very nice and helpful.  I don't think taking advantage of them by changing the system so much is a good thing.  Inactve members still manage to get weeded out without the need for constant attention to one's WL.  I don't want to be forced into "anxiety" of losing a book because I didn't remember to tweak things yesterday!

And of course this is only my personal opinion.  I would be so sad if it changed to the extent I didn't feel it worth staying because there are so many great people here and I do think that TPTB had a great idea and currently have the best book swap site on the interne.

Ruth

Date Posted: 2/9/2009 7:48 PM ET
Member Since: 10/13/2008
Posts: 150
Back To Top

When I saw all the complaints I decided to seriously read through how it works, reading slowly and paying attention to the fine details. It really isn't that bad. I actually like it. They explain right there that "time" gives you the most points, and for a new member to pass someone who has been waiting for, like a few months, it would take the new member a really long time (in some instances twice as long as the orignal person in line, you would likely have it already). PLUS, it is likely you wouldn't even notice because it would only happen with a book you have ranked lower, in which case are you really focused on them, or just waiting for whenever they come up? If it was a book you were really waiting for yourself, you would have it highly ranked, that plus the bonus of 'time" points on your side means you wouldn't get passed on any books you are actually "actively" waiting for.

Many people here have tons of unread books on their shelf that are wishlisted, but they have so many books, they haven't gotten to reading them. So why shouldn't someone who is ready and eagerly wanting to read that book get it first when you wouldn't even touch it for months yet?

I understand the theory that the world doesn't work that way. But maybe it should. I let people with a few things go ahead of me in line when I have a ton. If I see someone is in a rush, I let them pass me if I know I am not in a rush. So in a way, for some people the world does work that way. I think it is a friendlier system. LIkewise, I know it will come back to me when I am in a rush for something. It benefits me as much (or more) as it takes.

I think everyone should really review the way the points actually add up (there is an example and clear explanation in the help docs) before poo pooing the system. Also, it states you will get points for all the time you have been on a wishlist from before the new system gets implemented. So if you have been waiting years, it is very very very unlikely a person newer would pass you. People won't be breezing past you as easily as what it sounds like here.

I actually was a little annoyed it hasn't happened already. THOUGH I am really annoyed about them taking away the Reminder List. That sucks and I hope they realize it is the only way at this point ot see how many copies of a book is in the system.



Last Edited on: 2/9/09 7:51 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 2/9/2009 9:57 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2008
Posts: 2,007
Back To Top

Sita, the fact still remains that if this is implemented as described then people who rank a book higher than someone who ranks it low will still get ahead of them if they both WL a book the same time, or even within a few days of each other.  And, what I don't see in the description of the new system (and I did read it all) is any clear description of how the rankings will be apportioned.  Consider, for a moment, having to rank all your WL books in order of "preference" on a simple number scale.  So, if you have 200 books on your list, only one book can be #1, only one can be #2, etc.  If, instead, the system is setup with a simple 1-5 system (like the current star ratings system) what prevents someone from giving every book a 5 ranking, thus invalidating the entire system?

In the case of the latter, it then becomes no different from the current system, because everyone can just rank all their WL books at the top of the scale and be done with it, so all that is accomplished is the addition of another layer of complexity to the whole WL system.

In the case of the former, someone else will always be able to rank your #2 listed book as their #1, and get it before you, even though you may have waited for it longer.  It might not be much longer, I'll grant you that, perhaps a matter of only a few days or weeks, but in the case of an uncommon book a copy might only be posted once or twice a year, and your having it as #2 on your rankings might mean you have to wait an additional six months, or more, for another copy to pop up.  Meanwhile, someone who put it as #1 on their wishlist, weeks after you wishlisted it, gets it before you.

 

Does that sound fair and reasonable to you?  To me, it does not, which is why I said I would close my account here if such a system is implemented.

 

Also, let me address the comparison you made to shopping.  Yes, sometimes when I'm shopping, and I have a full cart, I will let someone with only a few items go ahead of me.  But that is my choice to make.  With a systems such as I believe would be implemented, that choice is taken away from you.  A better comparison, using your same example, would be going grocery shopping and having to rank each item on your list in order of preference, and only being allowed to buy your #2 ranked item after all the people who ranked it #1 have been served.  And then you can buy your #3 ranked item when all the other #1 and #2 rankers are served... and so on.

Understand also that I am not forcing my personal choice on anyone here, nor could I, even if I wished to.  All I have done is examine the system as it has been presented to us, seen what I believe to be serious flaws in that system, and stated my opinion of the proposed system and what I intend to do if that proves to be the case when the system is implemented.  You can agree with me, disagree with me, or completely ignore me, it really does not matter to me or affect my choice of action in any way.

 

Edit to fix punctuation



Last Edited on: 2/9/09 9:58 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 2/9/2009 11:22 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

Okay, another from me, too.  In the example that is offered about letting other people go ahead - you in person make that choice each and every time based on the circumstances of the moment.  In the case of PBS the system will make that choice.  I do have lots of books in my TBR.  Many of the books in my WL are books that fill the holes of series that I want to read and I don't have #1 or #2 of 5 or 6 or 8 volumes.  So no, I'm not willing to let others go ahead of me in that instance.  Many of the books I want are ones where I'm 1 of 1 on the WL.  But then along comes another person who wants it, too.  I may be willing to let that person go first - but it's a book I've wanted for more than a year.  I don't really get to decide that even with the ranking.  And an unlimited WL will only make ranking harder.  I certainly don't need to add unlimited books to my WL.  I have over a 1000 on my RL, but they aren't all books I'm sure I want.  Some of them are for other people for gifts, or I'm thinking about whether I want them, or maybe I'm thinking about buying them used since they aren't available but I don't want to use WL spots for them.  My RL isn't a secondary WL really.  It's a consideration list and one that I consult on many different books for different reasons.  I'm of the opinion still that first come first served is the way it works best.  I won't go as far as Bernhard and say it's a dealbreaker - but it may very well be.  That will make me very sad because I love it here.

Ruth

Date Posted: 2/10/2009 5:28 AM ET
Member Since: 1/4/2009
Posts: 294
Back To Top

Elaine Fulltimer writes: "I don't know why I even bother to post, it is their site and they have made it clear they will do this no matter what anyone thinks or how unfair it is."

I appreciate your saying this, Elaine, because it gives an opening for a question I've had every since I first got here (about a month ago):

Where is the Brainstorm(ing) Forum? (brainstorumforum...)

You know what  I mean--a place where all the threads are devoted to the future of PBS: where is it going this spring? where it is going for 2009? what are the longterm prospects--for merging with the other Swap sites, for example?

What I'm thinking of is a place *not* for answering questions or clearing up confusions about how things are now--we're in that forum right now-- but looking forward to features that don't exist yet, or features that with some tweaking, could work a whole lot better. We could also talk about things we feel good about, that we don't want to see jettisoned as newer projects com come rumbling through--like in this thread, with people talking about the Reminder Lists and how they don't want to lose them.

I would hope that one or a few of the Powers that Be, the poobahs, could arrange her or his time so that they would, on a regular basis, spend a few hours in the Brainstorm Forum a week. Call them the Liaison. The Liaison would mostly be lurking, so if they were efficient about their time, they could download huge chunks of the forum, and boil them down into weekly summaries for all the other poobahs.

The point is to open, and then maintain, a real dialogue. And it couldbe so cool, to get to the point of the "blue sky" planning for the next five to ten years! Are the 3 (4) Swap sites going to merge at some point? How soon? And what will the place be called?

Will Swap ever go international?  We've all heard that in many places, all over the globe, American paperbacks are very hard to get hold of, and astronomically expensive. Are there any organizations that send used books out to developing countries? Do we. can we, want to help out?

 

                                                    --just thinkin',

 

                                                              Fiona



Last Edited on: 2/10/09 6:04 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Page: