Unlock Forum posting with Annual Membership. |
|
|||
How about check boxes in a list ...(that would remove any hint of attitude)...put a check box where the dots are.
I'm sure ya'll can think of a bunch more....R&R what do you think?
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
I suggested that a while back and got the impression from the reply that they didnt feel it was needed. Last Edited on: 8/14/07 8:29 PM ET - Total times edited: 1 |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
That's too bad Chris. I think that would be very helpful! Sheila, how could you forget "no bookcrossing books"? |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
"Must meet PBS guidelines" Wouldn't include this - gives the option of NOT meeting the guidelines to some! Do think that it could be a 13 monkey limit, however...LOL...loved that one! |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
File me under the "I don't think it's necessary" crowd. If you word conditions appropriately you will get what you want. If people don't want to send to me because I have conditions, so be it - no skin off my teeth. :)
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
Oooh-- I forgot about potential 17-day monkey exposure. Gotta go fix my conditions... I personally like the check box idea, but it's the sort of issue where you'll never be able to please everyone... |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
I LOVE the checkbox idea and I have thrown in my name to the hat that wants it, but for some reason I think the founders don't want to do it. Some conditions I've seen are silly, there should be limits, but whatever... |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
I'd like to see the more common conditions made into checkboxes like this - and then also have corresponding settings in accounts, so I could, for instance, indicate that my books were exposed to dogs and cats in my house. Requests with a "no dogs or cats" condition could then automatically skip me. |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
How about "No dog-earred pages"? I got that one for the first time last week, and turned them down. I don't bend pages when I read, but I don't have the time to check every page to make sure no one else did. Interestingly, this was the only condition the requestor had. Katrina |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
The checkboxes are not a bad idea, but somethings are too subjective for it; smoke and "like-new" being 2 of them. Although I can handle books that have been around smoke, I cannot handle those that you can smell across the room. I don't have to have "like-new" books(thought I love getting them) I do want a book better then "just readable." I also like my spines readable which means to me that although there maybe creases, there are not so many that the spine looks like a pad of paper.. Guess I would have alot of "others" lol. Dog-earred pages would be a nice one(I just want them undone if you see them lol) |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
It seems that many of the complaints about Requestor Conditions are related to the way the requestor stated their conditions..having check boxes would take the emotions out of it. |
|||
![]() |
|
|||
I'm with the group that thinks the general, published guidelines prevail. Anything else needs to be specifically stated by the user. For allergy related requests, like smoke or pets - I scrupulously assure my books meet the condition or pass on the order. For personal preference requests, I'm less inclined to spend extra effort dealing with them. PBS is a used book site with well-defined parameters. Each user certainly has the right to specify additional conditions. But I have the right to decide how much time I want to spend catering to special conditions. I just had a request from someone with conditions that (very nicely) explained she only wanted new or almost-like-new books. My book probably satisfied her condition. I bought it new and have been the only reader. But I don't have the time (or inclination) tonight to pull the book and verify how "new" it looked after being stored. Thus, I passed over that requestor and let the transaction go to the next person on the wish list. I worry that having the check boxes would encourage people too get too picky. Plus there seem to be such a range of needs - smoke exposure being a good one, people would still find it necessary to explain exactly what their requirements are. I don't see that the checkboxes would save much. Last Edited on: 8/15/07 7:57 PM ET - Total times edited: 1 |
|||
![]() |