I have a question about our new options in our transaction archive. 

There is a button asking us to update the situation on a RWP.  One of the options is that the sender did NOT resolve the situation.  Isn't that subjective?  In my case I don't believe this sender resolved the situation at all.  I was very disappointed and lost a credit.  Now, the sender may feel they resolved the situation (to their satisfaction).  In this particular case the sender did respond, we did communicate back and forth.  The sender was cordial, but refused to believe my claims about the books.  But, that is not the point of my question here, I am just giving background so you know that the sender did follow guidelines as far as responding.  So, what happens when I update this?  I mean, for as much as I was upset by the situation and loss of credit, it was a long time ago and I'm not interested in revisiting this situation.  Nor, I doubt, is the sender.  Is PBS going to send this person a message saying I updated the situation and I'm still unhappy?  Or are they just trying to keep track?

I would think if it wasn't resolved to your satisfaction, you would either not do anything, or mark an answer that indicates it was not resolved to your satisfaction. If it wasn't resolved, you would pick (from the Help Center -
Follow-up on Problem swaps)

So then if you noted the problem, but did not ask for your credit back or otherwise request a response, it wouldn't be right to state that the sender didn't reply or resolve the problem, since they weren't really asked to. 

Thanks for posting this, Sherry.  I *did* do a quick search in Help, but it was too quick, obviously.  ;-) 

I'm busy going back marking all the "good" ones "resolved."  :-) 

Yes, and if you click on "request details" there in the transactions archive, you can see the PMs that went back and forth to refresh your memory.  So cool!

Yes, Kris, because it was your choice to let the issue just be resolved with no action necessary. I would call that a resolved issue. It was your call to not ask anything of the sender, and therefore, it should be deemed a resolved issue. IMO :)

I think the feature is a step forward, but I'm concerned that it is either one-sided or being presented that way.  i.e. the description of it makes no mention of black marks being put on the record of the receiver for (possibly falsely, who knows?) reporting books received with a problem, or of "double black marks" being put on the record of the receiver for not doing their side towards working out some resolution to the alleged problem.  If some member is reporting every other transaction "received with a problem" and asking for credits back, I suspect the problem is with that member, not the senders.

And of course it's totally subject to the receiver's POV. For example:

I try to be sure I'm sending out books that meet the PBS guidelines. Once in a very great while, I send a book and the recipient marks RWP and sends me a PM berating me for sending what is, in their opinion, an unpostable book. We're never gonna agree, so usually my reply is to buddy back the credit. (I'm not asking for opinions on what anyone else would do, that's what *I* do)

With the new button, I can see a recipient who marked RWP getting a credit returned and still marking the transaction unresolved because I didn't PM back and grovel & apologize for sending a "bad" book (even though it was a difference of opinion over "bad")

And yes, this is a minority of PBS members but lets not pretend they're not out there.

I don't have any (knock on wood) RWP transactions yet, so I can't check --

Is the sender able to weigh in, too, on whether the issue was resolved or not? 

I could see, as this new thing gets some use, that they'll be adding or changing the options a bit.  Some of my RWP transactions just don't fit the choices as they are currently -- so I'll just be leaving those as they are. 

That said, I really like it.  It's one thing to make a mistake, it's quite another to ignore it and the ones that do deserve a "double ding."

(Must be time to do my nails again -- they're all over the keyboard and making up new words!)

Everyone should keep in mind that what the system/R&R are looking for is *patterns* of issues.  One or two here or there are not going to impact your "status" in any way at all.  Now, if you have 10 bad transactions and 10 marked that you refused to work things out?  That might raise a flag for investigation.  Please don't become hugely concerned over what might happen once in a while or be a mistak.

However, I'm not too sure that I like this idea of giving the other person a second mark. 

Julie, one of the reasons for this new system is to give R&R a more complete picture as well as help members who may have made a mistake but took responsibility and  fixed it.  Those members don't deserve the same negative mark on their account as a member who says "too bad!" or "well, that's the way I got it..." and refuses to refund a credit.

...the description of it makes no mention of black marks being put on the record of the receiver for (possibly falsely, who knows?) reporting books received with a problem... 

R&R do keep track of problems with recipients too.  So, someone who repeatedly reports books RWAP are also being monitored and risk putting their membership in jeopardy, just like senders with a high percentage of reported problems.   They are watching for patterns - on both sides.

 ...or of "double black marks" being put on the record of the receiver for not doing their side towards working out some resolution to the alleged problem...

Can you give me an example?  I'm not coming up with anything a recipient should have to do to resolve the fact that they received an unpostable book.

I also hope/think that it may give some people a little extra push to do the right thing.  With the old system, the sender didn't have much incentive to refund a credit. Their black mark was already there after the book was reported RWAP.  Now with the possibility of a second strike they may give it a second thought.  It just sort of levels the playing field, so to speak, since the sender automatically get's their credit, whether there is a problem or not.

I've already been able to use it twice today.   I had two books that I had to mark RWP and just a few hours later everything is worked out.  These guys definitely deserve a note that the sender resolved the issue! 

I think it goes both ways -- people who make honest mistakes will be shown to be responsible, and those who are sending out crap and telling the recipients "tough noogies!" will be noticed, too. 

Luckily I kept a spreadsheet with all my RWP... listed the problems with how it was resolved or NOT. I was able to clear all except one transaction.

Out of 6 problems (reported) 4 were resolved by sender...1 sender belonged to the "Witch of the Week Club" and refused to return my credit...1 sender would not respond to 2 PM'S

I had 5 transactions that I did not report as a problem because damage was mild.

This is a good feature.

I have seen/heard of several people that marked books RWP because they didn't understand the rules, like marking a book that came without a DJ before they realized that they were not required, or ex-library books. These people had no way to make their own mistake right for the sender. Now they can.

When the sender did miss something wrong with the book, and readily returned the credit, they really should have that transaction weighed differently than someone who doesn't even respond to the PM about it, or gets nasty. So, I'm really glad for this feature.

Oh, and there's nothing on the sender's side for a RWP transaction, unless there is after the transaction is marked resolved.

I'm so glad this feature was added.  I received a book with a problem and I marked it RWP.  I'm happy to go back and say that the sender resolved the issue. 

Thanks, Julie, for posting this because I had no idea that this feature was available.