Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Question: Request denied due to requestor condition

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
  Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Question: Request denied due to requestor condition
Date Posted: 2/16/2008 10:15 AM ET
Member Since: 10/1/2006
Posts: 13
Back To Top

This has happened to me twice in the last couple weeks, and it's very aggravating: I requested a book, but it was turned down due to my requestor conditions. My requestor conditions are simply a reiteration of the PBS posting guidelines. I put them as my requestor conditons because I got a string of books that didn't meet PBS posting guidelines.

Anyway, since the requests were turned down by the posters due to my requestor conditions (even though the books do not meet PBS posting guidelines), the books have been placed on my reminder list rather than my wishlist. I can't place the books on my wishlist until the books (which do not meet PBS posting guidelines) are requested by another member. My question is this: if another member posts the book, will I be notified, or will I still have to wait until the first book (which does not meet PBS posting guidelines) is requested by another member? And if I do have to wait for the first book to be requested, is there a way to have it removed from the posted list since the poster admitted that it doesn't meet PBS posting guidelines, yet posted it anyway?

Mike (Cindy's husband)

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 10:31 AM ET
Member Since: 1/4/2008
Posts: 389
Back To Top

LOL!  Isn't that crazy?  I've gotten several books lately that don't meet PBS conditions either, and probably wouldn't have received them if I'd done what you did and simply posted the original list of PBS conditions.  In my case I'm not too fussy because I plan to keep the books rather than repost them, but I'm amazed at the books people send out thinking they're okay!

Sorry, I don't have an answer to your question.  Just wanted you to know a lot of us share your pain! =0)

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 10:33 AM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 12/31/09 12:53 PM ET - Total times edited: 3
Date Posted: 2/16/2008 10:35 AM ET
Member Since: 5/10/2007
Posts: 5,526
Back To Top

so the person that has the books told you in a PM that the books do not meet PBS standards?  If so, you need to report them to R&R because they shouldn't be posting the books and the next person may not be happy.

If they didn't tell you that they were unpostable in a PM, how do you know they aren't?  some people deny RC just because and it may not have anything to do with the books being postable or not postable.

I was a little unclear in your original message so that is why I'm asking!

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 11:31 AM ET
Member Since: 9/25/2007
Posts: 357
Back To Top

Speaking only for myself, the shorter and more concise an RC is will get you better results.  To reiterate PBS guidelines is just being redundant and some people are going to look at this and say "Okay, obviously this person is going to be way too picky and I don't need that."  So a 'turndown'  does not necessarily mean that book does not meet PBS guidelines.

If someone hasn't bothered to follow PBS guidelines in the first place, they aren't going to bother following your requestor conditions either. 

I have yet to receive a 'bad book',  I'm sorry for those people that have received them.  But when you consider the vast numbers, I would say it is a very small percentage.

I have turned down some requestor conditions, not because my book didn't meet those conditions but because it sent a red flag up that said "I'm going to give you a problem for any little thing that I'm not happy with". 

RCs that deal with allergies or smoke or dust jackets are the only ones that I feel are necessary.  Anything beyond that is just getting nitpicky, and I reserve the right to turn them down.  And if it is more than one or two lines?  Forget it.  Especially with a book that is scarce.  There will be another requestor who will take it.

Just my opinion.

 

 

 

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 11:33 AM ET
Member Since: 10/1/2006
Posts: 13
Back To Top

"Stating that the book does not meet requestor conditions is not an admission that the books is 'unpostable'. Since it's voluntary to use Requestor Conditions, it's also voluntary to refuse a request for any reason. Many people will not send to anyone who has conditions at all. (You can check the discussion forums on this.) And chosing 'does not meet requestor conditions' is really just the easiest explination."

In both cases, the poster said that the book had writing in it (and not just on the flyleaf, which is OK), which means it does not meet PBS posting guidelines. My requestor's conditions are just PBS guidelines-- I haven't added anything to them . As I stated, I put PBS posting guidelines as my requestor conditions because I've gotten books with extensive writing and highlighting, broken bindings, water damage, and one with a page torn out.

I've read in the forums that some people won't send a book to anyone with requestor guidelines of any kind. It doesn't bother me, I check all my books to be sure the meet PBS guidelines, and if someone has tougher conditions, I'm happy to send the book to them if it meets those conditions.

"Some people find restating the PBS guidelines redundant and annoying, and just don't want to bother with it. And I don't think it really gives you any extra protection. It won't get you your credit back if the book doesn't meet conditions, and people who send bad books will just send them anyway. Although it might catch a new member's eye if they've not bothered to actually read the requirements."

I suppose you're right here regarding experienced members who know posting guidelines, but like you say, in my cases, it apparently made some members unfamiliar with the guidelines take a look at the book's condition. I realize I'm not guaranteed a credit refund if the book sent doesn't meet my requestor conditions, but the Help Center does state:

If your book was marked received as having "Violated Requestor Conditions"

  • This means that your book did not meet the criteria that the requestor had specified in his or her Account Settings
    • Please see here for an explanation of how to use this feature.
    • If you sent a book that did not meet the requestor's specified criteria, you should refund the credit.

 

"For the help docs on requestor conditions... And it seems that you can't WL it again until this book is gone, and the one copy has been passed on."

Yeah, that's how I read it, too. But I'm wondering what happens if another member posts the book before the first copy gets requested. Will I be notified, or will I just be left in limbo until the first, unacceptable copy gets requested. That part is not clear to me. Anyway, thanks for your response and your insight.

Mike (Cindy's husband)

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 12:30 PM ET
Member Since: 8/16/2007
Posts: 15,184
Back To Top

Mike - I have the same problem with a book right now, its been sitting on my RL for over a month because there was one posted that did not meet my RCs. I watch to see if the number goes up from 1 in the system, once it doesn, my belief is that I can order the book at that time, and the more recently posted book will get requested for me since the system should never let me order the one that doesn't meet my RCs. The hard part is knowing if the 1 means that that copy isn't gone, or that one is gone and a new one has been posted since I last checked. I am pretty sure that nothing will happen (no notifications or anything) and we just need to watch the system.

If this person told you specifically how the book does not meet site guidelines, I'd send a note to R& R regarding the book. They may not have time to deal with it, but they may contact the other person to remove the book from their shelf if it doesn't meet site requirements. 

Date Posted: 2/16/2008 12:47 PM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top


Last Edited on: 12/31/09 12:53 PM ET - Total times edited: 1