Discussion Forums - Questions about PaperBackSwap Questions about PaperBackSwap

Topic: Wish list expansion possible?

Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
Page:   Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership.
Subject: Wish list expansion possible?
Date Posted: 3/10/2010 2:24 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

Is it posable to have an option to expand the wish list from 200? I did not think it possible but I have struggled finding "only" 200 for the list. My remember list grows drastically the more I'm on the site. It would be so awesome to have the option to expand the list. Maybe a paied service? Once a year or a lifetime, ETC?



Last Edited on: 3/10/10 2:25 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/10/2010 2:28 PM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I think this is one of the features that PBS has on their list of things to do. I don't think they'll charge for it, though.

I actually checked out the Library Things website yesterday and was shocked that they want you to pay to add more than 200 books. Goodreads is completely free and you can have way more than 200 on their website. I wonder that anyone even bothers with Library Thing.

I wonder if many people here would be willing to pay to expand their WL?

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 2:46 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

I would pay. Something like $3 for a lifetime. LOL I dont know. I just think it would help getting books moving, ETC. I have several on my remember list that are actually ready to be ordered. I just tend to forget about them because of the hunt for ones not yet available.

And I just figured that if I could put them all on my wish instead of my remember then I would likely have 50 books OTW to me. Wow would that be cool. LOL

 

So, what is good reads? Another trading site?

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 2:56 PM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I think Goodreads does have a trading system set up but I never used it.

Both Goodreads and Library Thing are websites where you can add books you want to read, have read, etc. You can rate the books and write reviews for them. Basically, a way to organize your books online instead of writing up a spreadsheet or something.

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 3:15 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

Ah, I see. So not really trading but for your own organization. I dont use the remember list for that. But it might be a good idea. It would be great to keep a list somewhere automatically cross referenced so I was not requesting books I already have. Done that just recently. Its frustrating.

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 3:15 PM ET
Member Since: 8/23/2007
Posts: 26,510
Back To Top

They've been workign on an unlimited WL for quite a while now. Who knows when it'll finally get implemented. 

Ronda (RONDA) - ,
Date Posted: 3/10/2010 4:33 PM ET
Member Since: 3/3/2009
Posts: 415
Back To Top

charging for expanded wish list might drive some people away from PBS as they might consider it unfair. 

Charging for anything on the internet can drive users away so you definately have to think about what you are going to do.

I actually paid for my lifetime membership at librarything & like it a lot.  I wouldn't have if it were an ongoing fee.  I tried goodreads when many people here recommended it, but I like the way librarything looks and works.  I also have looked at a persons wishlist on shelfari and really don't like how that website looks.  It is probably mostly a matter of tase, but I think my librarything membership was worth it.

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 6:38 PM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,597
Back To Top

PBS used to have an unlimited wishlist, for a couple of years after they started up. There were some people who had literally thousands of books wishlisted, and they did put the 200 limit on it...it was hard at first, I had about 350 on mine when we had to downsize, and I screamed bloody murder. LOL I've gotten used to it though and now find that most of the time I'm between 190-200.

They are talking about the unlimited wishlist as part of the wishlist reformation where you will need to do ranking and all that, (set up like the WL at the sister sites SwapADVD/CD) and it would combine the WL and RL....the RL books would simply be WL books on hold, I think. They've been talking about all these changes for a long time, and it seems that they've been graduatlly making small changes in preparation for it, like the wish list individual book hold feature, auto-request as default instead of having to mark each individually, etc.

I will go with the flow, whatever they do. I've done it before. LOL

Cheryl

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 7:50 PM ET
Member Since: 7/10/2009
Posts: 17
Back To Top

"There were some people who had literally thousands of books wishlisted..."

I don't quite see how that could be anything other than a good thing.  As long as folks are using their credits when wishes are fulfilled rather than passing on lots of things, then it seems like long wish lists would make it easier for people to swap their books.   

On Swap a CD, I have a wish list of about 1,400 jazz CDs.  Most of them will probably never get posted by anyone.  I get a wish-granted email about once every few months.  Thus I'm so glad I'm allowed to have such a long list, as so many of them are longshots.  

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 8:28 PM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,167
Back To Top

"There were some people who had literally thousands of books wishlisted..."

The disadvantage is that wishlists would be much longer, and some are already very long (they've at least doubled since the recession).  If each of us could add another 200 books (or more) to our wishlist, at least some of them would be the same book which would add many more wishers to already long wait lists.

My wishlist is always full, and my reminder list is even longer.  But I really hope TPTB don't change the wishlist length, even tho I'm an active member and would probably benefit from the change.  IMO the additional backlog of wishers just isn't worth it.

Date Posted: 3/10/2010 9:47 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

I think it can only be beneficial. You would get to keep your spot on those very long lists but not have to give up those "long shots" in order to wish for one that you may very well be the only wisher.

I actually have Several books where I am the only one looking. If I had to delete that book and put it to my remember list I my never get a hold of it. All my wishes and remembers could fit in a limit of 500 and still have room to play. I think it could be very helpful. I think remember list should be for those books that are available and plentiful but that you are not ready to spend your credits on yet. Or to remind you of books you want to look further into without yet committing to a wish.

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 4:51 AM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,167
Back To Top

There's already unrest about new and less active members, and how maybe it's unfair that they end up at the end of long waitlists.  The situation would only get worse if 300 or 400 more of us were able to wishlist the same book(s)...the line for other members and newbies would only be that much longer.  Then they would probably leave, and take their books thus decreasing the wishlisted books posted FIFO...an unplelasant downward spiral.

And what happens if the wishlist ranking goes into effect, do you have the time to regularly rank a wishlist 500 entries long?  I don't.  There's already extensive wishlists for many books that don't move much...tradesize, erotica, arts & crafts, and some other genre.  I honestly can't imagine how lengthy wishlists could become if thousands of PBS members each add hundreds more books to our wishlists.  Not more books into the system, just alot more congestion on the waitlists.

So yes, when batches of upcoming releases are announced by my favorite authors (like this weekend) it can be painful to re-arrange my wishlist.  But the way I see it, the benefits outweigh the frustration.  The present number of 200 seems to be working fine, if it's not broken why fix it?

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 9:15 AM ET
Member Since: 8/10/2005
Posts: 4,597
Back To Top

I would agree that the 200 is enough for me. I can't even begin to imagine the number of WL books that I post that will roll over from one person to the next, to the next, to the next to find someone who really wants the book if people are allowed to have thousands of books wishlisted!! I mean, some of the excuses people mentioned for declining wishlist books when it's brought up are "I didn't have a credit" or "I don't look at my wishlist often enough to keep it up to date, so I forgot that I meant to delete that one." That can only get worse with a huge wishlist...I mean, if you can't maintain enough credits to support a 200-count WL or manage 200 wishes to be sure those are books you really want, how is having MORE space going to help you?

I do think though, that a lot of people who want the longer wishlist want it for a few reasons: 1) to be able to wishlist multiple versions of the same book so they don't miss out and 2) to WL the more obscure books that nobody else would want but that currently have to reside on their reminder list and require checking the RL frequently to see if it's been posted and 3) to be able to add those marginal books that they aren't clamoring for but would like to have if it came along.

All of the top 50 wished for books have 650+ wishers....I don't think those numbers would skyrocket if the WL expanded. People who want those books are already making those a priority to wishlist NOW even with the super-long wishlist...can't see the amount of wishers on those jumping by 500 overnight. The increases will come in those more marginal books that right now have maybe 30 wishers...they're the books that people might wishlist if they had more room. 

Cheryl

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 9:55 AM ET
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,601
Back To Top

My TBR is probably already too big for me to finish in my lifetime, so having a bigger WL is probably not a good idea.  I edit it all the time. 

I do like the new Wish page that pops up when I'm adding to my WL because it shows multiple versions and how long the waiting list is along with whether any had been posted in the last week.  I've worked my way up to #1 and #3 on a WL book, but unfortunately (this book has very long waiting list and more than 7 versions), I managed to wish for 2 versions that don't move as fast as a couple of others.  Not going to the back of the line (#127) of another version now.  I'm thinking of changing strategy and leaving one or two slots in my WL tobe able to check this page regularly.

I also tend to put mostly books to be released on my WL as well as the HTF and OOP books that are long-shots.  So in some ways it would be nice to have a little more room for books in print but with a fairly short waiting list.  But I'll bet that WL (for me) are like purses ... no matter how large or small I'll manage to fill it up!  ;D

Ruth

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 12:57 PM ET
Member Since: 1/8/2009
Posts: 2,016
Back To Top

I think it can only be beneficial. You would get to keep your spot on those very long lists but not have to give up those "long shots" in order to wish for one that you may very well be the only wisher.

As already mentioned, letting (some) members have a longer wish list is going to be detrimental to the site. It will lead to longer WLs for each book. Perhaps you are thinking of how it would benefit your specific situation as if you were the only one with that wish list expansion ability. If everyone had it, the WL would grow.

Actually, I gave it some thought a while back when those "new WL" debates flared up. The proposal I drew up had the goal of reducing WL wait times. It looked something like this:

(1) drastically reduce the WL limit for members to 50 or 100

(2) existing WL would be "grandfathered" down to that lower number. (eg once you delete or got a wish fulfilled, you can't add another ISBN to that slot.) this would less painfully get someone down to the new limit

(3) everything will still work via FIFO. no "points" or ranking your WL.

(4) if you want a higher WL limit, you "earn" additional slots by posting WL books (that aren't RWAPed)  let's stay I want 60 wishes instead of the new limit of 50. I would have to earn those 10 slots by posting 10 WL books into the system. Those 10 additional slots won't be permanent. Once I pick an ISBN for that slot and the wish is fulfilled, that slot goes away. this would help people who want (lots of) rarely posted books.

This is basically a compromise between then anti-ranking, FIFO-is-the-only-fair-way opinions and those who want WL books faster and/or don't want huge lines to scare away prospective new members. I actually sent a five page document to the PBS team with a positive response. But no, I don't think they are thinking of implementing this. Please don't start any rumors. 

Sianeka - ,
Date Posted: 3/11/2010 1:33 PM ET
Member Since: 2/8/2007
Posts: 6,630
Back To Top

I don't want to see the new WL added.

I'd like an expanded WishList, but I hope they NEVER get around to implementing the changes involved.  I do NOT want to rank books (nor do I think the "auto-ranking" function will work optimally for me, although I will utilize it rather than try to rank things on my own), and I do use my Reminder List for a separate purpose, so I like them separate.  FIFO is the fairest method, IMHO.  Why would I want to benefit "potential new members that may be scared off because of long WL lines" over the veterans of the site????  (That's blatantly unfair to the long-time loyal members who have sent out millions of books to other members already!) The benefits of being able to add more than 200 books to my WL do not out-weigh the problems that ranking,combined WL/RL and WL position jumping to me...



Last Edited on: 3/11/10 1:36 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Date Posted: 3/11/2010 2:31 PM ET
Member Since: 8/15/2007
Posts: 3,044
Back To Top

I'm with those who say they don't want to rank their WL. I do that on SwapaDVD and I've only got 1 dvd from my WL that way. Even having a dvd at #1 for months on end (6+ months) I barely moved up in the line and sometimes moved backwards! It's why I don't do much business over there. I have few dvds posted and the ones I want I can't seem to get without a year or more wait even when the dvd is ranked is #1-5 the entire time. I much prefer FIFO. At least then if I wait a year or more I know it's because there are many before me and/or it isn't posted very often. With SwapaDVD I don't really know what's going on with my WL.

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 3:09 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

Perhaps you are thinking of how it would benefit your specific situation as if you were the only one with that wish list expansion ability.

 

No, I was NOT thinking of just me and my own selfish desires. As for longer wish lists. I cant see the point there.

Lets say there are 400 people wanting the new popular book.  200 of us put it on out wish list. The other 200 have it on their remember list. Once they move something out of their wish (bought it, got or changed their mind) they then put this popular book on the wish list. Either way you still have the same amount of people WANTING the book and they will eventually wish it. I cant see how wishing now or next week changes anything. Your still going to have to wait your turn and the more lists your name is on the more likely youll get some of them.

And I dont thing "rewarding" someone with WL slots for posting particular books is fair.  People should let books go when they are ready, no remorse that way. Not feel an obligation to let them go. By having a longer list one does not have to frequent the site to "watch" as much. More time spent reading. So, for those that dont want it for them self they should have the option to keep it small. For those that do want it we should also have the option.

I also agree that ranking them is not a fair way to go about it. If your on the list it should be First come First served. That way you have a better idea how long it will take and your not pushed out by all those desperate for just that one.

I have a long list but that list serves 11 peoples interests. 200 just does not go far.

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 3:16 PM ET
Member Since: 8/27/2005
Posts: 4,123
Back To Top

I am one of the people who has a lot of obscure books on my WL, so I would love to be able to put more books on it.  The fact that more people would be wishing for the books is okay, I would rather have a place in line even though I had to wait longer, than to not be able to put the book on my list and maybe miss multiple copies being posted that I don't know about.  It would also not bother me if I posted a WL book and it took longer for someone to accept it--I've learned to be really patient with PBS, and if it took a couple of weeks for someone to accept my posted book I wouldn't care.

Of course, if the ranking system also goes into effect it would negate the "place in line" idea, there could be many copies posted and I would never be guaranteed to get one because someone else could rank the book higher.  So, I vote for a larger WL but no ranking!  By the way, it doesn't have to be a choice of 200 books or unlimited books--a limit, but higher than 200, is possible too.

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 3:22 PM ET
Member Since: 8/27/2005
Posts: 4,123
Back To Top

Firethorn, regarding your example:  if 200 people have a book on their wishlist and the other 200 want it but don't have room on their WL, so put it on their reminder list--it may be a while before they can move it from their RL to their WL.  In the meantime, members with smaller WL may decide they want the book, so put themselves on the WL, thereby making the list for that book longer.  So, the person with the smaller WL can decide they want the book a month after the RL person does, but they will get the book first.  If you look at it like that, having a WL with a limit is already a way of "ranking" your WL books, because if you have 300 books you really want, you have to choose the 200 that you want the most.

I just think it's fairer and simpler to say, first come, first served, always. 



Last Edited on: 3/11/10 3:23 PM ET - Total times edited: 1
Ms K. (MsK) -
Date Posted: 3/11/2010 8:14 PM ET
Member Since: 10/1/2005
Posts: 119
Back To Top

(full disclosure: I'm a member of another bookswap & I catalog my books at LibraryThing)

I would love a longer wishlist. I'd be willing to pay a fee to expand my wishlist to 300 or 400.  If I didn't have the money at the time, then I'd keep my list at 200. If I want a 'premium' membership, I'd be willing to pay a yearly subscription fee.

Currently, for some books that I want that don't have anyone waiting for them, I have them on my reminder list with a tag.  I search my available reminder list books for that tag. When a tagged book comes available, I grab it, just as I would if it came available on my wishlist. I have books on my wishlist that have been there since the year I joined PBS... never posted, but I'm still hopeful.... and patient.

On the other swap group, I have a large wishlist 600+. Whenever a book appears, I request it... no "I'm sorry. No credits" or "I forgot to remove the book"! If it is on my wishlist, I request it, even if I did forget or don't want it anymore. I request it & repost it. My fault, my foul.

PBS & the other swap both have things I like & things I don't like. But it balances. No place is perfect. Both have great swappers & stinky swappers.

Good Books Happen... that's all that matters to me.

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 9:47 PM ET
Member Since: 1/8/2009
Posts: 2,016
Back To Top

No, I was NOT thinking of just me and my own selfish desires. As for longer wish lists. I cant see the point there.

I re-read what I wrote, so I apologize if it came across as I'm calling you selfish. That wasn't my intention at all.

Lets say there are 400 people wanting the new popular book.  200 of us put it on out wish list. The other 200 have it on their remember list. Once they move something out of their wish (bought it, got or changed their mind) they then put this popular book on the wish list. Either way you still have the same amount of people WANTING the book and they will eventually wish it. I cant see how wishing now or next week changes anything. Your still going to have to wait your turn and the more lists your name is on the more likely you'll get some of them.

Firethorn, you are still analyzing the situation from the same perspective, i.e. someone who has more than 200 books that she wants to wish list. The effect for you (the generic you in the same situation, not specifically Firethorn) if and only if you or a very small number of people in the system were allowed to have more wishes is beneficial. You won't have to keep juggling what you want more, hoping your wishes get fulfilled faster to free up spaces and more things over from your RL. All fine and dandy, right? 

But if many people (or every member) were allowed to have an expanded wish list, then one would have to expect that many people will let their WLs go over that 200 limit. That will make the the line for any given book (but especially the more popular ones) much longer.  Everyone will still have to wait his turn but the line would be shorter the way it is now.

Actually, the probability of anyone getting any wish book is only marginally related to how many lists he is on. That probability is determined much more by the probability that a WL book is posted into the system.

And I don't thing "rewarding" someone with WL slots for posting particular books is fair.  People should let books go when they are ready, no remorse that way. Not feel an obligation to let them go.

 "Rewarding" people with WL slots gives people an additional incentive to post WL books.  There's no obligation -- there's a difference. Currently the only incentive to post WL books is if you need credits quickly. It's meant to directly tie the prolonging-wait-time effect of creating more WL slots with a get-more-WL-books-in-the-system effect.

PBS is based on the principle of 1 book = 1 credit. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say: You want more spots to wait in line for WL books? Post more yourself. IMO--but I'm biased-- it's better (fairer?)  than the solution on Swap-a-DVD: the Movie Moguls program gives someone 2 credits if she posts a dvd in the Top 25 most wishlisted list into the system. (one credit from the requestor, one "bonus" credit from the site)  

 

By having a longer list one does not have to frequent the site to "watch" as much. ... So, for those that don't want it for them self they should have the option to keep it small. For those that do want it we should also have the option.

Your having that option will impinge on those having shorter WLs by choice. Sorry, I don't want to wait longer because you want to watch the site less often. Especially since that's the only benefit you'll receive from having that option-- we'll each be waiting our turn, but both of them will be longer.  

Date Posted: 3/11/2010 10:34 PM ET
Member Since: 11/16/2009
Posts: 195
Back To Top

I think this is a dead issue. We will have to agree to disagree. My point simply is what works for some does not work for all. And for the record "watching" the site does not bring the books to me faster. If its wished its auto in my list. So I dont have to do anything. I dont have anything on my list that I would have to think about. When its ready for me Im ready to receive.

Date Posted: 3/12/2010 12:03 AM ET
Member Since: 1/8/2009
Posts: 2,016
Back To Top

I'm fine with closing this discussion.

You were the one that mentioned "watching the site" By having a longer list one does not have to frequent the site to "watch" as much.

You do realize that paying for an expanded wish list is analogous to paying for the right to wait in a line to buy a lottery ticket, right?

Date Posted: 3/12/2010 12:32 AM ET
Member Since: 12/28/2006
Posts: 14,167
Back To Top

I'll agree, this subject has been rehashed numerous times in the last several years, along with wishlist ranking. 

Accurate observation Sophia 



Last Edited on: 3/12/10 12:34 AM ET - Total times edited: 1
Page: