Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Why do I keep getting rejected due to requestor conditions?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Why do I keep getting rejected due to requestor conditions?
Date Posted: 3/31/2012 7:33 PM ET
Member Since: 3/11/2007
Posts: 52
Back To Top

The only condition I place on the books I request is that they meet the PBS guidelines but I seem to be getting more and more notices stating that the book cannot be mailed to me due to my "requestor conditions".

This is what I my profile/request says:  

If the book meets Paperback Swap guidelines, then the book is okay with me.  PBS guidelines are found here:  http://www.paperbackswap.com/help/help_item.php?id=205

It seems to me that these books aren't even suppose to be listed if they don't meet these guidelines.  It doesn't make since that someone would agree that the books meets the PBS guidelines and then decline

request.  Should I just remove the note?  I only put it on there because I received a few books that were not within the guidelines by any stretch of the imagination but at this point I am thinking I should just take it off!!!

Date Posted: 3/31/2012 7:55 PM ET
Member Since: 1/8/2009
Posts: 2,016
Back To Top

Perhaps this recent thread might help shed some light: http://www.paperbackswap.com/Why-Keep-Getting-Rejected-Due/topic/259502/

I don't think all the declines mean the books were unpostable. Some members don't like dealing with RCs.

Whether you should remove the RC depends on your assessment of how it's working for you. Did your postable/unpostable books received ratio improve? Are you willing to risk getting some unpostables and dealing with the RWAP system?

Good luck and happy swapping smiley

Date Posted: 3/31/2012 8:17 PM ET
Member Since: 1/15/2007
Posts: 1,410
Back To Top

I'm someone who would decline your RC.  All of the books that I post are postable.

Your RC tells me that you may be hyper-picky and find a postable book to be unpostable.  It's a credit.  I don't need the hassle.

You might not by hyper-picky, but it's a credit and I don't want to be bothered to find out that you're not.  After all, you put an RC up that was restating rules that I've already agreed to by posting the book. 

Last Edited on: 3/31/12 8:19 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/31/2012 8:30 PM ET
Member Since: 10/26/2011
Posts: 2,110
Back To Top

Your RC tells me that you may be hyper-picky and find a postable book to be unpostable.  It's a credit.

I agree with this.  Some people will decline any RC without even reading it, but those seem to be few and far between.  But there are a lot of members who get irritated about being reminded of rules they were following anyway, and may view it as being scolded about rules they already know.  And still a lot of others will view it the was the last poster did...they you might be hyper picky and even though my book may be totally postable it will end with an RWAP that isn't founded.  But whatever the situation, all of these will likely get you a decline on that RC because the next person may not be quite as "picky" as this one seemed to be.

Date Posted: 3/31/2012 8:50 PM ET
Member Since: 7/19/2008
Posts: 15,485
Back To Top
I really try to accept RCs. After all, I have one. But the ones relisting the guidelines? Yuck. The RC is not the place to vent. And I read the guideline RCs as folks who have been burnt and are angry about it. Sorry.
Date Posted: 3/31/2012 8:59 PM ET
Member Since: 3/11/2007
Posts: 52
Back To Top

I was afraid that was the impression my RC was giving.  I know that I am not too picky; I expect the books I receive through PBS to be USED :-)  I just had a bad run of getting books sent to me that I knew I could not RE-post--

for example - novels with extreme amounts of highlighting or underlining.  I'm going to remove the RC.  Thanks for your feedback!!!

Date Posted: 3/31/2012 10:54 PM ET
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 262
Back To Top

One of the problems with RCs that re-state the guidelines is that the guidelines aren't that difficult to find. The important ones pop up every single time you post a book. If a person doesn't care about following those requirements, there's not much reason that she will care about following your RC. So I'm not sure that you will really help yourself there. And, as you've found, a fair number of people take offense at RCs of various kinds.

The good thing about your expectations is that there is already a system in place for dealing with them. You can still give RWAPs. I don't think the RC gives you any real power that you didn't have before.

Date Posted: 4/1/2012 2:18 AM ET
Member Since: 1/17/2009
Posts: 10,293
Back To Top
I don't think the book conditions are easy to find. When I joined, it took me a long time to find them, and I am a more sophisticated web site user, not less. I also think that RCs that restate the guidelines are the easiest ones of all to meet. You can just accept the request right away without even double-checking the book. Nothing could be easier. But, yes, people are probably rejecting your book request because some people are grumpy about that particular RC.
Date Posted: 4/1/2012 2:47 AM ET
Member Since: 10/22/2009
Posts: 1,452
Back To Top

Tammy--Personally, I would accept your RC...I know all the books I post meet PBS guidelines, so wouldn't have a problem.  And, (knock on wood) so far I haven't had a problem with sending books to people with RCs.  But, I can understand people being hesitant to accept that RC--especially if they've had problems in the past with people being hyper-sensitive about a book they receive. 

Date Posted: 4/1/2012 12:02 PM ET
Member Since: 9/25/2008
Posts: 5,025
Back To Top

I'd accept you RC as I post postable books. You might want to rephrase you RC and state that you do not want stained, water damaged or books with highlighting etc as some might be denying because they need to go to a link. I was denied the other day though as I have a similar RC and the member wrote the front and back covered was stained. So in that case my RC saved me from getting an unpostable book.


Date Posted: 4/2/2012 8:34 AM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

All RCS like that do is pass a potential offender onto the next person who may not care enough to RWP them and help get them off PBS.

Date Posted: 4/2/2012 8:54 AM ET
Member Since: 7/12/2010
Posts: 4,177
Back To Top

Restating the Guidelines is the turn-off no doubt.  Really no need for that because if you get a book that doesn't meet the guidelines just RWAP it.  I have no RCs and I've only had one RWAP since I've been a member; and it was resolved with no problem.

Get rid of the RC, and I think you will be happier.


Date Posted: 4/2/2012 10:25 AM ET
Member Since: 4/24/2008
Posts: 310
Back To Top

Your RC sounds a little condescending to me.  It's like you don't think people who post book are intellingent enough to read the guidelines so you have to remind them.  Whenever I post a book I am reminded by the site with statements saying Are you sure your book meets the guidelines?  With the site reminding me about the postability of a book I don't need other people telling me this too.  I am one of those who would probably reject this RC since I don't really like the tone of it.

I'm sure that is not want you intend to sound like but to the people reading the RC that is how they take it.  These are probably who have been burned by picky people so they don't want to take a chance.

Date Posted: 4/3/2012 3:30 AM ET
Member Since: 3/14/2009
Posts: 66
Back To Top

I would have no problem with your RC. I would assume you had received a bunch of problem books that clearly didn't meet posting guidelines.

Date Posted: 4/3/2012 10:26 AM ET
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Posts: 288
Back To Top

The problem with the RC is that no one is going to go read the rules in response to seeing you ask them to go read the rules. The people who post postable books know them, and the people who post beat-up books either don't want to spent the time to learn the rules or don't care. So i don't see that it helps and it definitely hurts, if only with posters who decline all RCs out of hand. Once you include others who are inferring your intent is o be more selective than is typical, it probably significantly reduces the number who accept it.

Last Edited on: 4/3/12 10:27 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/3/2012 12:26 PM ET
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Posts: 1,644
Back To Top

To me, it gives an indication this is going to be a super-picky receiver. Before I posted the book, I had to click that it met the guidelines. Before I agree to send the book, I have to click  that it meets the guidelines. Your RC gives me one more place that I have to click that it meets the guidelines. It wouldn't stop me from sending the book, but more and more folks are blanket declining any RC.

Date Posted: 4/3/2012 12:39 PM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,603
Back To Top

I fail to understand the advantage to you in having an RC re-stating the PBS guidelines. If someone is going to post an unpostable book, they are likely going to post it anyway. It doesn't really matter whether it goes against your RC or simply against the PBS guidlines--the process for you as the receiver is the same--to mark it RWAP and ask for a credit back. The person gets the same black mark (and the same opportunity to resolve the problem) whether it's because it didn't meet an RC or whether it was simply unpostable by PBS standards. All it does for you having that RC is exactly the problem you are having--to end up with lots of rejections.

I have taken to rejecting those RCs that simply re-state the PBS guidelines because of a bad experience with one of those...all my books meet the PBS posting guidelines so I figure "no problem" when accepting an RC re-stating them. Then I got an RWAP on one because of an ex-library book--which were NOT mentioned in the RC at all. It was eventually resolved, but it just left me with the idea that people who have RCs are pickier than the average bear and I don't want to deal with it again.


Date Posted: 4/14/2012 3:53 PM ET
Member Since: 3/11/2007
Posts: 52
Back To Top

Kay - I definitely didn't mean to sound condescending but I am glad to know that my RC might seem that way!  

I went ahead and removed my RC based on the feedback I received here.  

I guess this cuts both ways - I put the RC there because I received a number of unpostable books in a short period of time and  I was reacting to that.....others have had trouble with super-picky members who have trouble understanding that this is a site for swapping USED books and their reactions to my RC are based on those experiences.  I guess it is just a matter of perspective! lol

Thanks for all the replies!!!!  It has helped.


Subject: Re: Forum post about your RC
Date Posted: 4/14/2012 4:36 PM ET
Member Since: 7/24/2005
Posts: 356
Back To Top

Hi, Tammy -  I just wanted to add my two cents worth:  when you do receive a book that does not meet PBS's posting guidelines, please do not be shy about marking the book Received With A Problem.  While I'm aware that some people might unwittingly post a damaged book, particularly if they haven't read the book or  did not examine it closely,  most of those  unpostables in the PBS library are quite deliberate.  People post them thinking, well, it's readable and this is a used book club, so why not......... For someone to send a book which has unquestionable water damage or covered with stains or has a broken spine or any of the myriad of factors that make them unpostable is completely inexcuseable.

 All the books that I get  on PBS are re-posted by me; I do not keep them.  So when I receive one that is unquestionably unpostable, I do not hesitate to mark it RWAP and ask for a credit refund. .   That is the only way PBS will be able to weed out those bad-faith members.

By the way, I also have an RC in place asking for dust covers for hardback books and for the original boxes/containers for the audio books I order.  And I get turned down a lot by people who just reject RC's outright and by some members who misunderstand the RC.

So hang in there -- and good luck!!



Last Edited on: 4/14/12 4:38 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/14/2012 6:36 PM ET
Member Since: 4/7/2008
Posts: 15,690
Back To Top

Totally agree with Jan. Don't be afraid to RWAP when you get unpostables even if you don't need the credit back. RWAPing is the best way to make sure that people follow the rules.

Date Posted: 4/14/2012 7:06 PM ET
Member Since: 10/6/2007
Posts: 460
Back To Top

I agree with Jan, too.  I've received well over 500 books and have only had to RWP maybe 5 times.  But when it's necessary, it's necessary.


Date Posted: 4/14/2012 7:18 PM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,177
Back To Top

I like your RC Tammy, and have considered using something similar myself.  Which can tell us that these things mean something different to each member that reads the RC.  I triple check all my books for postability before sending, so I do not feel guilty or oversensative over a brief statement with a helpful link (a long rant would be something different). 

I agree with Sara, the swappability guidelines for book conditions are not easy to find.  I've been requesting some classics & literature titles to donate to a local school...an increasing number are arriving in unpostable condition.  I hope it's just a temporary wave that will pass...I've RWAP'd at least 5 already this year sad  And these were not small imperfections, but stuff like a band of water damage through most of the book, writing/highlighting on a couple dozen pages, cracked spine with pages that fell out the first time I flipped through the book (luckily before I logged it in), etc.


Last Edited on: 4/14/12 7:20 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 4/16/2012 8:13 AM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,603
Back To Top

I totally disagree that the "swapability guidelines" are difficult to find. They pop up each and every time someone posts a book into the system, and they have to click through it to actually post the book. I don't know how much more "in your face" it could be! I would think anyone, but especially someone new who doesn't really know how things work, would read every word of that.

While the golden rule seen at posting doesn't cover some of the oddball details (like the 'textbook' rule, or PMing for stained cookbooks), it covers the items that you most often see RWAP for--it asks you to verify the ISBN, that there is no water damage, writing or stained pages, big rips or missing pages, to verify the format and that it's not an ARC, etc...and there is a blue link in the 'golden rule' description saying "good condition" which when moused over, describes in much more detail...including the fact that cover art need not match, ex-library books are ok, hardcovers do not need their dustjackets, etc. The information is right there if only people would actually READ it.


Date Posted: 4/16/2012 10:07 AM ET
Member Since: 8/31/2008
Posts: 84
Back To Top

Good chance I am one of the people that rejected your RC.  I recall a similar RC recently, and declined it for restating the basic rules of PBS which set off an alarm bell that the person may be someone I do not want to swap with.   It was a like new condition book with a large wish list, so I knew I would get a no RC request as soon as I rejected the RC.  I respect people's right to set a RC, I hope people respect my right to reject almost all of them.

Date Posted: 4/16/2012 5:57 PM ET
Member Since: 2/11/2011
Posts: 3,097
Back To Top

I only decline these if they have a problem with pets.  And  I can understand people getting declined because they don't want books from people who smoke.