From a post in "thoughts"..... Apparently the WL format from Swap a DVD is going to replace the current WL format here. I plead ignorance and hope one of you can enlighten me. I've had some minor issues with people posting to individual WL's instead of to the general populace, but I'd like to understand what the new format is going to be.

I dunno...I just read the thread you're talking about and I have no idea, but to me it sounds awful. I really like the way the WL system is now and "ranking" books sounds nuts and very complicated. What on earth is wrong with FIFO?

Cheryl

They better not do it.  I will be severely pissed. 

Ugh, I hope they don't change it. For one thing, it would be murder for me to try to rank 200 books!

Which thread are you talking about? And what do they mean by ranking?  They aren't doing away with the WL system are they?

I look at all my books on my wl as books I want. I can't pick which ones I want more, I want them all or they wouldn't be on my wl. Some are oop and very hard to find, how do you rate them? Besides that I don't have time to sit here and rate 50 some-odd books and even if I did I don't really care to have to do so. I can't imagine those that have 200 books on their wl ranking them.

Why fix something that isn't broke? Yeah there are issues with people declining books on their wish list, but why punish those of us who use the wl properly? I've saved my credits so I can cover my wl. I always order what's offered to me. I've had some book on my wl a long time and I know it will be a lot longer before I get them. I don't think it's fair that someone who placed a book on their wl, after I did, could get a chance at that book before me just because they rate it higher then me. Especially if I'm forced to rate my books. Again their all important to me or I wouldn't have them their to begin with.

I'm not going to be happy with the changes if they happen. All I can do is voice my opinion and hope R&R are listing.

.

I agree completly with Leslie.  It's incredibly unfair to people who have been waiting a long time, or have less common books on their WL. 

If they want to speed things up, maybe they shouldn't give people so long to reply to WL offers.  Cut it 24 hours perhaps?

.

 If they must make a change, then maybe just make everything on a wishlist autorequest--remove the option to make it not on autorequest. If they don't have the credits to cover it, they get passed by.

I would be happy to do that Allie!

BTW I'm sending a PM with my e-mail. I'd like to join and check it out.

As for the SwapaDVD link -

1) there was a bug in the WL system. Remember we're beta testing a new system. There are going to be problems.  You can't take what is happening there now as examples of how the system is supposed to wirk. For a while it was working on a FILO (first in last out) system. But they've fixed that bug.

2) The WL rankings are re-evaluated and re-ordered every night. So if you find yourself moving back the line for something you want and frantically move it to the top of your WL it won't show you moving back to the first in line right away.

I like the FIFO system we have here (except for the 200 book limit, I keep running up hard against that particular brick wall) but there's no question there are some books I want a lot more than others. Some are "hmmm, that would be interesting" and some are "if I was $30 ahead I'd be over at the local bookstore buying it". Most of the things I really want both here and at SwapaDVD I'm 1 of 1 so I'm first in line no matter what system they use. For those few where I'm competing with others I think I can spend 15 minutes and decide just how much I really want them without too much pain or suffering. If it means someone who really really wants a book gets it ahead of me even though I was in line first... well, I can live with that.

jan

Why do they insist on fixing things that aren't broken.  I have 200 books on my WL.  I could never rank them all.  The auto-request wouldn't exactly work for me either though because I can have several different versions of the book listed, ie hardcover, unabridged CDs and unabridged cassettes.  I certainly wouldn't want 3 versions of the same book coming out to me if they happened to pop up around the same time as offers. 

FIFO was how this site was offered to me when I joined and FIFO was the way I'd like to see it stay.

.

Ya know, people have been getting excited and worried and freaked out about this for six months now! The new PBS site came out in May and it was around that time that Robert said there were some wish list changes in the works and he might make the PBS wish list work more like SwapaCD.

Lots of people got all up in arms about ranking and unfairness and how long they'd been on the wish list and threatened to leave the site and so on, but here we are six months later ... I'll wait for the official word about what and when before worrying too much.

Well, why leave if nothing has changed yet? ;-)

Yikes, I don' t know if I can rank 100 + books either!

-

I don't want the WL format here to change to a ranking format. I like it just the way it is....it works, and I've waited months to come to the top of a couple of the waiting lists. I don't want to lose my spot.

I think the problem they were trying to correct was for the new people coming on, posting a dozen WL'd books and mailing them, only to see that they ended up 989th on all the books they put on their WL. That to me does suck. Ranking would be difficult for people with 200 books on their WL. But might actually allow a new person to get a book a little quicker by stepping in front of a few people that are higher up on the WL for other books.

My wishes for the WL are actually contrary to most, I would like to see them allow LESS on the WL. That way people would have to use it for books they really do want and put the rest on their Reminder list and watch for them. This would reduce the overall number of books on the WL and allow new members to get into shorter lines and not get frustrated and leave.

I think less on the WL would also require people to frequently update it so it would help on the slow/no response on many of them posted because they'd would be more up to date on what they want. I posted 5 WL books on the 11th in hopes to mail them out at the same time. 2 came through to be mailed on Tues., one went to a second requester and I sent today. The other is on its 6th or 7th wisher now and will mean another trip to the PO for me when it hits a wisher who actually wants it. Even auto-request didn't help because they declined it in their buyers remorse period.

IMHO they have talked without action in this for so long because it would be such a mess to implement with such large WLs and people that have been waiting for quite some time for the books.

Maybe we shouldn't have 5 days and X amount of hours to respond to ANYTHING.  24 hours - if you don't agree to send, or don't accept something offered to you, then on to the next person it goes.  Wouldn't that move things along a little quicker??

--

because our want list is getting smaller.

**BOGGLE**  Okay, I haven't been on PBS for long, but I have been reading for a long time... reguardless of where you get your books from, there's always new authors and new genres to explore. 

Personally, I'm frustrated at the current WL system because when I post a WL book I expect to be able to take it out to the post office that day, not 2 weeks later (BTDT).  I travel a lot for work, and recently had a bit of a scare when a WL book kept timing out - I thought I'd have to take it with me on my business trip to be sure I could mail it if someone finally decided that they wanted the darn thing (fortunately, it was accepted the day before I had to leave).

Really, I use my WL for books that I WANT.  I have a stash of credits, but even if I didn't, I'd buy credits for these books.  It's cheaper than buying the books!  Books that I might get if I see them in a deal or something go on my RL. 

I agree with several of the other posters... the WL should be on autorequest, and if you don't have credits then you get passed over (but don't loose your place in line?).

Denise