Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: RCs that restate the guidelines

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: RCs that restate the guidelines
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:01 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

Some thoughts on RCs that restate the guidelines.  What is the goal of a person’s RC when it simply restate the guidelines?

1)     getting the sender to not post unpostable books?

2)     getting the sender to move on and send unpostable books to someone else?

3)      just frustrated with receiving unpostable books

I can’t think of any other goals, really I can’t.  If you goal is #1 we have a better tool to accomplish this.  When we as a PBS community start marking a members books as RWAP/unresolved then that account is on it’s way to being flagged as a problem account.  We can do this without any RCs.  An unpostable book is an unpostable book.  And as a bonus some senders will learn their lesson immediately, return your credit, and the transaction can be marked resolved.

If your goal is #2 then you should think about supporting the PBS community by adjusting your goal.

ETA: just frustrated with receiving unpostable books



Last Edited on: 5/25/09 9:12 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:06 PM ET
Member Since: 9/27/2008
Posts: 370
Back To Top

I think they just want to have an RC but can't think of anything that really bothers them except things already covered by the guidelines, so they figure a little redundancy can't hurt. 

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:19 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 25,000
Back To Top

Up until recently I had an RC that restated the guidelines. It was very long.

I was under the delusion that reposting the guidelines would serve either as a convenient reminder to those that were attempting to pull a fast one by sending an unpostable or as a heads up to those that have never read the actual guidelines. I myself had not seen them until someone posted the link. You have to dig a little bit to find them.  

My core reason for an RC is that maybe by posting the guidelines I would greatly reduce the odds of receiving an unpostable. It hasn't. People don't read, they want a credit, they send a piece of crud.

Remarkably even with my old ridiculous RC I've only been turned down twice out of my 46 requests so far. With all the feedback I received about portions of my RC in this forum, I am surprised that so few have turned me down. I would have expected everyone to smite me. They haven't. Eithe they don't read, or they dont take RCs as a personal insult.

Despite receiving a few clunkers, I've received far more great books and several almost new books.

Kate -
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:21 PM ET
Member Since: 8/28/2008
Posts: 534
Back To Top

Just to preface, I don't have any RCs. But if there was something specific that really bothered me, like highlighting, I could see mentioning it in hopes that the sender would be reminded of that rule and check the book more carefully. That's the only real benefit I can see. I wouldn't restate the whole posting guidelines, or expect the RC to dissuade someone who really doesn't care about the rules anyway. I've gotten some books with less obvious damage that I think was probably just overlooked by careless senders. If they knew I particularly hated, say, highlighting or water damage, maybe they would have checked more carefully for that specific problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by #2. We can't control what gets sent to anyone else. If a sender turns around and gives the book to someone else, knowing it's unpostable, that's on the sender. We're not responsible for their actions. Ideally an RC would remind them of that rule or remind them to check the book carefully, so they wouldn't send it to anyone at all.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:25 PM ET
Member Since: 7/19/2008
Posts: 15,441
Back To Top

I think many people start doing the guideline RCs as an expression of frustration in getting an unpostable book.  A method of venting.  At least that is what I try to think when I get one of those RCs.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:26 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 25,000
Back To Top

#1 getting the sender to not post unpostable books?

We have better tools to accomplish this.

Like what that doen't involve doing the reporting RWAP and arguing thing?

A better tool is to prevent having to be one of the many who help "build a case" against a rogue member. It's costly for those who have to report. It takes time, costs credit(s), and is a PITA.

I'll argue that an RC is less than perfect, but it may help.

Geri (geejay) -
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:29 PM ET
Member Since: 9/2/2008
Posts: 9,094
Back To Top

I had a request from someone who was restating the PBS guidelines.  I accepted and then PM'd because the rc's were so involved beyond the PBS guidelines that I wasn't positive my books were good enough.  I told the person I'd be happy to cancel if that's what they wanted.  I got a reply stating that my books were fine.  They just had that RC restating the PBS guidelines because they had received so many RWAP books they felt they had to restate the guidelines because people evidently didn't know them, understand them or pay attention to them.

Geri

 

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 7:58 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

Oh I guess I didn't take into account  the plain old frustration factor.

If you don't mark unpostable books RWAP then the sender will likely keep posting unpostables.  Someone has to call them on it.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:08 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

Kate; I meant if the book is wishlisted it goes to the next person in line after refusal.

Kate -
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:25 PM ET
Member Since: 8/28/2008
Posts: 534
Back To Top

Yes, I got that. I didn't really understand why you were suggesting that as a goal, since I seriously doubt that anyone thinks "I hope my RC causes this book to get dumped on the next person instead of me." I doubt anyone wishes for someone else to get a bad book, and I also don't think we're responsible for what the sender does after finishing with us. I don't think it hurts to remind anyone of a rule. If they want to be a jerk and send it anyway, I can't stop them. All you can do with an RC is influence what gets sent to you. Like you've said before, marking things RWAP is how we protect other members.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:44 PM ET
Member Since: 1/15/2007
Posts: 1,410
Back To Top

I only post postable books.

I usually turn down RCs that restate the PBS rules.

I am one of the ones that gets irritated that a member is nagging.

Follow the rules.  Mark RWAP as needed.

IMO marking "RC not followed" when it should be RWAP does nothing more to the member.  What's worse? Marking RWAP for missing basic rules or not going "over and above" the rules?



Last Edited on: 5/25/09 8:46 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:45 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

Kate; Well, maybe an unintentional goal.  But with the same effect.  I think Emily's reason is more likely.

ETA Kate



Last Edited on: 5/25/09 8:46 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:48 PM ET
Member Since: 2/13/2009
Posts: 227
Back To Top

I suspect the majority of RC's come from frustration.   Folks have had experiences that they want to avoid again.

I just had an exchange with a VERY long time member who plans to continue the use of Scotch Tape.  I felt ridiculous reminding this member (who has quite a few years on me here) that the guidelines state "no Scotch Tape".  How could they not know, right?  Well, the argument is that this member feels that its just as sticky as the mailing tape.  I suspect its been many years of packages sent with Scotch.    

This person is not following guidelines despite being aware of them.   I suspect this member is not alone.   Not to mention the ones that don't know about posting guidelines at all.  The RC's may be the first time they learn of "water damage" or "highlighting", etc.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:50 PM ET
Member Since: 9/27/2008
Posts: 370
Back To Top

You don't have to dig to find the guidelines.  Everytime you post a book, a window opens, lists the guidelines and encourages you to doublecheck the book to make sure it meets them, then gives you the option to post or not post it. 

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:53 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

My point is (like NewRuth said) is that marking RWAP as needed is the solution that benefits all of us.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 8:58 PM ET
Member Since: 8/18/2005
Posts: 7,977
Back To Top

If you goal is #1 we have a better tool to accomplish this.

I agree with Laura. Getting someone to re-thing sending out a book that doesn't meet guidelines is much better than dealing with a problem that's already happened.

Another good reason is to inform people that there are guidelines. So maybe they need to check them out before mailing anything.

Yeah, I know, people are supposed to read all the guidelines. But I've run across a few that had no clue there were any. There have been some more instructions on book condition added to some of the pop-up forms, but that's been fairly new. And I'm sure there are more than a few people who don't read those, either.

And some people belong to various book trading sites, and they all have different rules. So it can also be a second's reminder about what site they're on, so they don't get them mixed up.

So, if it works on just a few people, and they have to sit and think "hummm... if they're concerned about posting guidelines, maybe I'll give this book another look-see to make sure it's okay. Just in case..." then that can avoid a lot of disapointment for both parties if they find that they missed something the first time. Let alone maybe getting someone to realize there really are rules that they may need to find and READ.

People shouldn't be getting any unpostables, but they do. So the site warnings just aren't enough sometimes.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:08 PM ET
Member Since: 8/19/2007
Posts: 4,269
Back To Top

I have an RC that basically restates the PBS guidelines regarding - stains, water damage, mold, etc.,  I did this because I received several books in a row that did not meet PBS guidelines, and although it might be redundant, I haven't received any books since then that don't meet PBS guidelines, and I've been turned down a couple of times, so obviously the books weren't postable, and probably went on to someone else.  Pat

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:21 PM ET
Member Since: 1/28/2007
Posts: 765
Back To Top

Thanks for the honest post Pat.  :)

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:22 PM ET
Member Since: 1/15/2007
Posts: 1,410
Back To Top

so obviously the books weren't postable, and probably went on to someone else

 

Not "obviously".  If I got your RC, and I was in the wrong mood, I'd decline and all of my books are postable.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:31 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 25,000
Back To Top

marking RWAP as needed is the solution that benefits all of us

I dread the day I have to report a RWAP. I can just imagine some knucklehead trying to give me some baloney about cigarette odor being subjective and their nose doesn't work so kiss their grits.

An RC is just an added precautionary measure, s'all.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:31 PM ET
Member Since: 2/19/2009
Posts: 8,592
Back To Top

so obviously the books weren't postable, and probably went on to someone else

Not "obviously".  If I got your RC, and I was in the wrong mood, I'd decline and all of my books are postable.

I'd probably decline too.  All my books are postable.  Restating the guidelines just feels to me like haranguing.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 9:34 PM ET
Member Since: 3/27/2009
Posts: 25,000
Back To Top

If I got your RC, and I was in the wrong mood, I'd decline and all of my books are postable.

LOL. That'll show her!

.

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 10:12 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

I do believe that this is a result of frustration.  I frequently am amazed that people will just click that their books are postable when they obviously aren't and send them on to me (and other members).  I even had a book that was the wrong book sent to me out of a mix up, but was unpostable due to water damage.  The sender wanted me to send it on to the right person.  I wouldn't and told him why.  He then insisted that I send it back to him because the other person was getting impatient.  So I knew he was going to ignore the conditions of postability and this was before the "change" allowing us to offer unpostables for a credit on the BB.  I argued with him about it and he got really huffy with me.  This incident made me appreciate that we don't rate the members who send to us because I would have gotten an undeserved bad rating from this guy.

Ruth

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 10:24 PM ET
Member Since: 1/29/2006
Posts: 54,837
Back To Top

and I've been turned down a couple of times, so obviously the books weren't postable

Definitely not a generalization that you can make here. There are a lot of people who turn down these RCs on principle and some who will deal with certain RCs (like allergy issues) without any qualms but  won't touch an RC that restates the guidelines.  You simply can't assume any given book didn't meet the RCs, only that the person wouldn't send it because of the RCs; these are not the same thing.

I agree that I think frustration originated the RCs restating the guidelines, but I know some people also add it because they "think it's a good idea" once they hear about it or see it.  I am not convinced that they serve their purpose particularly wall simply because I think the people who blatantly ignore the posting guidelines are also really unlikely to read RCs very carefully. (if at all...)

Date Posted: 5/25/2009 10:37 PM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

Conversely, the most likely members who read and accept the RC's are members who only post postable books!  LOL!! 

I wish we knew a way to make sure members knew or realized that postable books do meet certain conditions.  It just seems impossible since even here - a book site - people do not read (instructions/warnings)!!!  It is a problem!

Ruth

Page: