Early Reviewers Redesign and Relaunch, cont'd

Update:
* There is now a new gridded, covers-only view mode. See the top right side of the filter bar to toggle this on/off. The covers will scale based on available screen space, so if you have a crazy big screen you can see bigger covers.
* Many small bug fixes and tweaks to the layout at various sizes.
* Lucy also updated the logic around saving/resetting the current filter based on what page you are viewing. And she fixed a bug with the country filter.

>1 conceptDawg: I think I like the new version. Much easier to pass by the books I care nothing about. Thanks for all of your hard work!

I like the look much better.

I missed the notice that preferences need to be updated, but it's done now.

Thank you for continuing to listen to our complaining! I like these changes.

The descriptive texts are totally broken on non-English sites.

Putting the link here for easy reference:

https://www.librarything.com/ner/list

Paradoxically, since normally I avoid cover-only view in all things, I actually like it here. There's not enough text visible to be useful anyway, so either I can see two covers in the original view or ten in the cover view. It's not a solution I would have thought of suggesting, but in a twisted way it makes sense.

>5 anglemark: Thanks. I'll take a look.

>5 anglemark: Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.

I love the "Quick Look" pop-up!

Just wanted to say I'm always impressed at how much you listen to what people have to say. You don't always change things how people want them to be changed (though you'll never make everyone happy, anyway), but you listen and you do make at least some adjustments.

I add my voice to those who liked the old ways better. This is a mess. I can't even see which ones I've marked on my first pass, to go back to winnow them. The list of Requests and Wins is unintelligible. I also can't tell which books have already been published (so I can look at the Amazon Free Sample before deciding whether to request them) and which are a pig in a poke. If you found that the rate of reviews was higher on books where 30 copies or less were offered, rather than 50, does it then follow that not allowing more than 30 copies to be offered will increase the review rate? What if it was something ELSE intrinsic to the books offered in higher quantities? Correlation is not causation. Offering less books means there are less chances for them to get into the hands of people who will actually review them, so this is perverse. If enough people are unhappy with the new ways, would you please consider offering the option to go back to the old presentation, despite all the hard work you've put in on the new one? Or the two reviewer systems? Or 50 books, which allows more winners and thus, more chances of reviews?

Could you add the date that the book was/will be published, so we can easily tell whether it has been or not? I view in the 3 column manner, so if it was visible in the one column one, it no longer is when it's in three.

OK, as a general thing I don't find the new look an improvement. But since this is what we're going to get, so be it.
Never mind it was the new layout confusing me. Why is there a separate button for older requests/wins. Under the old layout you got everything from the one link with the newest at the top. Now it's a separate click. A change without an improvement IMO.

>13 Bargle5:

That's odd. I'm seeing everything.

Yep, it was me. I've edited my earlier post.

It does not seem possible to unrequest a book one has requested.

>17 Wordwizardw:

I know I've done that in the past.

Okay, checked, it's still possible. Hover over "Requested" and you'll see the option to "Unrequest".

>10 LibraryCin:

I second that. Your patience and responsiveness are impressive. Troubleshooting and making adjustments to the complex LibraryThing computer system is no easy task. I don't know how you are able to isolate and correct some of the problems so quickly.

>12 Wordwizardw: The on sale date is displayed on the detail page (e.g., https://www.librarything.com/ner/detail/44071/Sugar-and-Salt-A-Novel)

I announced this in the ER group, but wanted to be sure to mention it here as well. Some of you have raised questions about the seemingly new rule regarding members being required to have personal accounts, in order to participate.

Although we hadn't been enforcing it previously, this had always been a requirement for the program. That being said, after some consultation, we have decided to amend the policy, so that most organizational accounts can now participate. Libraries, booksellers, small historical and artistic associations, and all manner of other organizations can now officially participate in ER. The only type of organization that is still not permitted to participate is the publisher one, for obvious reasons.

May I ask for some clarification on the reasons for this change? Obviously there's never been any enforcement of organizations claiming to be individuals, or vice versa, so if the thinking is just that anyone who wants can claim to just be a person and thus there's no reason to distinguish, that's reasonable. But booksellers and libraries have always had greater access to review copies than individuals, so giving them access to one of the few avenues that non-book-professionals have to review copies seems like an odd choice.

>22 lorax: I agree that it seems odd. Why abolish the rule instead of enforcing it?

I do think there is a lot of fuzziness between personal accounts and organizational accounts but it might be better to just set clearer boundaries on what is an organizational account and anyone who doesn't fit should change their account over to "personal"

norabelle414:

Agreed, but because "personal" is the default I suspect there are more organizations that are listed as personal accounts than vice versa.

And really, at the small end of organizations (a school or church library, for instance) I'm fine with having them participate. Booksellers are the ones that really made me raise my eyebrows.

I was awarded a copy of iPhone 13 Photography by Vincent Black. I indicated on February 15 that I had received a copy. Today I went to post my review and ran into a problem. I went to the ER page on wins and clicked on the Review button on the right side of the page for the book. That opened a text box apparently intended for reviews, but the box contained the statement, "You do not have the book in your catalog." The system did not allow me to overnight this statement.

I then went to my list of books and the book is listed there. I posted the review, saved it, and went back to the ER Wins page. The "Review" button still opens a text book with the message the book is not in my catalog.

>26 Tatoosh: There was a combination issue. Your copy is now reunited with the rest of the books. The ER symbol should appear when LT run their reconciliation script.

I agree with >22 lorax:, booksellers and libraries should not be part of the ER program.

timspalding,

I don't know if this was already noticed/mentioned (it's a long thread), but...

It appears that at least some of the cases of won-and-reviewed books showing up in the "wins and requests" list as won-and-not-reviewed is because the giveaway listing now points at a different work-listing than it did originally.

E.g., I won and reviewed https://www.librarything.com/work/19350264 (where my review appears) but the "wins and requests" listing now points at https://www.librarything.com/work/19223177 (where my review does not appear). Should these two be merged?

Question: Do books won from what is now labeled as "Legacy Member Giveaway Batch" count (in terms of being reviewed vs not-reviewed) in affecting future chances of winning?

I noticed that a few "Legacy Member Giveaway Batch" books in my "won" list that I haven't yet reviewed do not have did-not-receive buttons, including the one that I never did receive.

>29 Thogek:
>Should these two be merged?

Yes, those two did want to be combined together. I have gone ahead and done that, does your wins/requests show correctly for it now?

>30 Thogek: No, they do not.

Question: Do books won from what is now labeled as "Legacy Member Giveaway Batch" count (in terms of being reviewed vs not-reviewed) in affecting future chances of winning?

They do not HURT. But they do help (slightly). So if you have Member Giveaway books lying around you forgot to review, reviewing them is good. (It's good anyway.)

The March batch is now posted with 170 books. However, whenever I select one of the filters (format or genre) it shows me the books in the closed February batch.

>34 Tatoosh: I think that I have resolved this issue now; the February batch was being stored in some users preferences, but now I'm clearing it when you're looking at the current batch. Let me know if you see again going forward.

It is my understanding that books listed in each Early Reader batch are ordered in terms of the number of requests. If correct, that means the list is reordered from time to time (daily). An undesirable consequence of that approach is that members must go through the entire list in one sitting to be sure they see all the books offered. My practice is to go through the list part by part when I have a few minutes to spare. It is not often that I have the time or inclination to read 170 summaries at once.

>35 knerd.knitter: Yes, that seems to have resolved the problem. Thanks for your help.

>31 Nevov:
Yup. All connected now. Thanks.

I am not happy with the new format for early reviewers. In the Wins and Requests section, a number of books I have reviewed are not marked reviewed and in a few cases, the review is shown but the book is not marked reviewed. I still don't know how to mark that we did not receive a book. I feel that these errors possibly worked against me winning books in February. I wish I knew how to fix these problems.

>39 Shookie: Can you provide specifics on books that you reviewed not getting marked as reviewed or the review showing and not being marked reviewed? Were they Member Giveaways? As far as the marking Not Received, there should be a button under the giveaway information. However, you cannot mark Member Giveaways as Not Received, and they do not count against you for review rate.

>39 Shookie: >40 knerd.knitter: I actually looked at your Member Giveaways and did find 2 you had reviewed. They needed work combinations, so I did that. Another looks like maybe you put the review in the tag?

>41 knerd.knitter:

If you mean Animals Rule Club, I noticed that, although the reviews for it have the heading "This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers", the work itself is not showing as an ER book.

>42 lilithcat: That is because it was a Member Giveaway book, not technically an ER book.

>43 knerd.knitter:

I see. A bit confusing when the reviews say it was an ER book!

And didn't the MG books used to indicate that on the Work page? Or am I misremembering?

>44 lilithcat: You are not misremembering; those were removed recently. We are currently discussing how we want to indicate reviews for Member Giveaway books.

>45 knerd.knitter: Updated the reviews to now display as being Member Giveaway reviews.

>44 lilithcat: >42 lilithcat: Yes, it should not have been referenced as being a LibraryThing Early Reviewers book. I think I have it straight now!

>40 knerd.knitter: Ah yes, I remember being told about not being able to mark Member Giveaways as not received. Old brain. I went back and looked and found that the reviews not noted were also Member Giveaways. I did not realize that I had received so many Member Giveaways as opposed to LibraryThing monthly batches! So sorry! Thank you for your patience!

Just a note to thank all people, both staff and fellow readers, for so patiently explaining, pointing out errors, etc for me. I feel quite foolish for my many mistakes and misunderstandings. I truly love LibraryThing and am attempting to become a bit more active - hopefully I will get new things right the first (or second . . .) time!

I too had an issue when I tried to review the book With or Without Me that I won through the Early Reviewers program. I clicked the review button and got the message that the book was not in my catalog. I had to manually add the book because there is no longer an option to add the book on the books I have won page. I reviewed the book and when I went back to the books I won page and it does not show that I have reviewed the book. It also shows the same "book not in catalog" message when I clicked the review button again. What am I doing wrong and how can I get it to show that I reviewed the book.

With or Without Me

there is no longer an option to add the book on the books I have won page

There never was. You have to add books from the "Add Books" page.

I see you just added and reviewed the book today; it may take a bit for that to show on the "books won" page.

Feedback on the algorithm: I received a book this batch despite having 13 (thirteen!!) received-but-unreviewed books from previous batches. This keeps happening! I keep winning books whenever I fail my roll against the batch, even though I am so terrible at reviewing them! It was a book with relatively few requests, but I still should have had only 50% odds *without* the algorithm. No offense to your algorithm, but somebody with my abysmal record probably shouldn't be winning anything that has more requests than offers!

I suspect it's partly that my library is so large and various that I probably score very high on whatever you're using for "owns similar books" on pretty much everything. If that's the case, I would like to suggest you put a bigger correction for library size into the algorithm - I shouldn't score higher on similarity for a music book on flutes and whistles for having 3/8000 flute and whistle books than somebody who has 1/200 general music books but a much better record of actually reviewing things.

Either that, or put in some kind of hard limit where if you've got, say, 10+ unreviewed ER books, your odds of winning exponentially approach 0 until you catch up some.

>52 melannen: Have you considered just not requesting anymore books until you catch up on your reviews?

>52 melannen: If you don't want to win any more books, I'd recommend what >53 rosalita: is suggesting, until you can catch up! I hear you on the algorithm part, though. The devs have seen your post so I'm sure they'll take it into consideration, thanks!

>52 melannen: So if you do not want to get books, why are you asking for them? I am really confused here - it is not like you automatically get entered into a pot or something - you ASKED for the book.

>54 kristilabrie: I have tried not requesting more books (I had managed a several-years streak before this thread lured me back in), but the problem is I keep getting these enabling messages sent to me telling me about all these great books on offer, and then I go ahead and request books I would love to read, figuring that since I've gotten way behind on reviewing I won't get them anyway. And then I do.

I've asked several times if there's a way to stop getting the new batch messages while still being able to continue catching up on reviewing books I already have, but I don't think there is one. A way to unsubscribe from the "new batch" notices without completely leaving the program would also help me with my particular problem, although I still think the algorithm should be rebalanced too!

>55 AnnieMod: Oh I WANT to get books! I am super looking forward to trying out my new whistle book! I just think I don't deserve to. But I don't have very good willpower around free books.

And the descriptions of the program create the impression that I shouldn't be getting them anymore, or at least very rarely, and yet I seem to still have a higher win rate that most people, so something is out of balance with the program as well.

>56 melannen: Why not just leave the program? Why not set up an email filter that sends every email containing the words "LibraryThing Early Reviewer" to the trash? Why not set your account country to one that rarely has any books available? There seem to be many solutions to your problem that don't affect other people's ability to win books.

>58 norabelle414: If I leave the program, I can no longer review the books I already have and get credit for them (and help LT's stats for the program as a whole.) I asked about that first thing when I started getting behind. Leaving the program removes any ability for me to ever catch up. IIRC even if I leave and then return, the books I had before I left can't be updated. Adding in the ability for people who have left the program to still leave ER reviews for books they've received would also be great, but I think that would require much bigger code changes than tweaking the algorithm or adding an unsubscribe option.

If I change my country then my LT Local gets messed up.

But I'm not actually asking for this just for me, I think in general if someone has 13 unreviewed ER books they shouldn't get any more. There are people who punctually write really good reviews for every book they win and they should actually have much better odds than people like me. If other people are also in my situation, I would like them to stop winning books too.

>57 melannen: The system is designed to find the best reader for a book. If your library is so much better/closer to that book than anyone else's, the black mark from "not reviewing" apparently get ignored or reduced in importance. And that's how it SHOULD work - the point is always to find the reader for the book not the other way around.

If you do not want to receive books, don't request them. It is as simple as that. Any time you ask for a book, you are pledging a review. I am behind on my reviews so I had stopped asking for new books until I get that under control.

Requiring LT to change how they find the best reader for a book or to do more development because you have no impulse control is... not very mature :)

>60 AnnieMod: I don't think 3/8000 is actually a better match than 2/200 though? That's why if that's how it's been counted, I think it should be tweaked.

If I have 800/8000 and they have 2/200, then sure, rank me higher and give me the book anyway. But if that's how it's counted I don't think I should be the best match on many things.

I actually did stop asking for several years, I'm being a bit melodramatic for effect :) I put in requests this time partly to test the newly tweaked algorithm to see if it would actually stop giving me books. But also while it's true that LT isn't responsible for my willpower, they advertise that the program will penalize people who don't review, so they are saying they will enforce willpower on people! I just want them to live up to promises. (And also, as above, I think it's generally bad for the program for poor reviewers to keep winning. I doubt I'm the only one who keeps winning without reviewing, just possibly the only one who sees it as a problem.)

(Thinking it through, it's possible I actually was super low priority for this book, because everyone else who requested it also requested lots of other books and won them instead, so I was the only one left. If that's the case I retract my complaints about the algorithm.)

>61 melannen: You don't know what is considered similar though - so the ratio may be nowhere near 3/8000. Neither we know if books which are not related count at all so the 8000 may be irrelevant. The algorithm is unknown really - but if you have 3 books which are very very close in topic, and it is not a very common topic, I'd expect you to win. All we had ever been told is that it is looking for readers for books (and not the opposite), that similar/close books help and that not reviewing harms you (and there is a boost for new users). Not reviewing was never a "block" per se - it just gives you some negative points in the final count.

Anyway - algorithms like that are always finicky - there will always be outliners (and considering the "find the best reader for a book" base, it will almost always be where books which are in uncommon areas/topics are presented/offered and there are not too many requests). And as I said - I expect it to be so - if there is a book say about the Tudors art, I'd expect Tudors art heavy libraries to get it even if they had missed to review the last 3 thrillers they asked for (as opposed to sending the Tudor book to someone who has never heard of them because they happened to write the reviews of the 4 thrillers they asked for) - these are arguably a better match for the book. But as I said - we don't know what the algorithm does exactly.

>59 melannen: I don't know who told you this or when, but at least right now, that is not true about leaving the program. If you go to https://www.librarything.com/ner/settings you can deactivate your account. At that point you won't be able to access the Wins & Requests page on the sidebar anymore, but you can still go there directly using https://www.librarything.com/ner/yourrequests (you can bookmark it) and see your progress. Posting a review for a book that you won will still show it as an ER review. If you see a problem with this, let us know, but I'm pretty sure that you should be fine deactivating your account until you are caught up on reviews if you choose to.

>62 AnnieMod: Right, it's possible I'm completely wrong about how the algorithm works, I'm just going based on the kinds of books I have previously won. But if I have two books on Tudor art in my ludicrous library (I have at least six, mostly inherited from my grandmother) that's still less than .1% of my library and doesn't actually mean I'm more interested in Tudor art than someone who has 200 books entered and one of them is Tudor art and two of them are general art history, because that's a way bigger focus of their reading than mine.

The thing is I probably have 3 books that are very very close in topic to pretty much any topic, because a wide spread of topics is part of how I've built my library. That doesn't make me a better reviewer for a book on the topic than somebody who has a smaller but more focused library (or a just plain smaller library.) If my just having a large library is enough to balance out my poor reviews record, I think that's a bad algorithm design.

Gotta say, I expected a lot more responses excoriating me for being a bad reviewer and a lot fewer people arguing that I should keep winning books. ;)

>63 knerd.knitter: Oh, that must be a change in the last several years, good to know! I will try that and see what happens.

Bug

When looking at my wins and requests page, I noticed several of my unreviewed books have Reviewed in the review date.

>64 melannen: It depends on how specific the topic is :) For some topics (probably not "Tudor Art" which is very very wide but "Tudor Art in Chinese sculpture" for example will be a very narrow niche), even 3 books may make you the best qualified library - and it is only compared to the libraries of the people who asked for the book. Try for one of the thrillers or something else that is more common - you won't get these most likely :)

As for the not reviewing... throwing stones, glass walls and all the other sayings in that direction ;)

1. The system penalizes, but it also forgives. Your last win was in 2016—six years ago.
2. We'd rather tell a publisher we couldn't give out all their books than give them to people who won't review. It's a balance, especially for low-demand titles, but the system is slowly getting less forgiving.
3. You probably had the absolutely last call on a book, but not enough people requested it (who hadn't won something else).
4. Enjoy your book—and review it!

>68 timspalding: I will try. :D Thanks for the response.

So taking a few years' break from requesting helps my odds when I come back, even if I never caught up? Good to know.

So it doesn't consider that there might be people that don't review here on LT but talk about it elsewhere, and if won a book, they'd certainly write a review here as requested?

>66 amanda4242: That was a temporary bug that should be resolved. My apologies.

>71 knerd.knitter: Thanks!

Have you given thought to adding a "Reviewed" notice to the list of unsuccessful requests? I was looking through the list of books I requested but did not receive and saw that I reviewed at least half of them on LT. I often secure unsuccessful requests from another source and post a review on LT.

>70 ScarletBea: So it doesn't consider that there might be people that don't review here on LT but talk about it elsewhere, and if won a book, they'd certainly write a review here as requested?

I'm confused. If you win a book, you have to review it on LT. We do not look at whether or not you review it elsewhere.

>74 timspalding: my understanding is that >70 ScarletBea: says "Usually I don't review books on LT, but of course if I participate to ER and win a book I will review it here. However, since I usually don't review books here, the algorithm penalizes me".

>75 .mau.: But that is not true? Only the reviews for ER count - both as negative (if missing) and as positive (if they are there).

>76 AnnieMod: I don't know... that was my understanding, given the last sentence «they'd certainly write a review here as requested». I don't know how the algorithm works, I just know that usually when I participate I win :-) (but I write a lot of reviews, albeit in Italian if the book did not came from ER)

Oh my understanding of the process was as >75 .mau.: described. I hadn't realised that when you talk about reviews in the algorithm it's only for books already won. Thanks!

The number of Not Recieveds I'm listed with seems WAY too high. Are they being counted against me? I didn't win any books in March, which is unusual. However, I did have a unique problem with the last book I won, THE UNFORGIVING MINUTE by Straker. The press sent me a book labled THE UNFORGIVING MINUTE, but that wasn't the actual file. I wrote them two or three times that they'd sent the wrong book, but never heard back. Could you please help me get the correct book from them? The wrong file was something unrelated and unappealing. And could you also make sure I'm not penalized from now on by nonexistant Not Recieveds? I'm also missing the feature that used to show me which books I have marked as REQUESTED for a month. I go through the list marking possibles, then winnow them down. Now I have to scroll to try to find them. Also, I removed some requests, only to find them still marked later.

>AnnieMod, >TimSpalding
Do I understand correctly that a mysterious algorithm that no one comprehends tries to match people to books based on their (listed) libraries? Because I have never made any effort to list the thousands of books I have in an eclectic variety of subjects. That would be a pain. I couldn't possibly. I only list books I win from LibraryThings/Hidden Gems/authors or whatever other books I choose to review, since it's convenient to write reviews on the LibraryThings form before posting them elsewhere. It doesn't reflect the many books I own or that I borrow from the NYPL. The NF books (for example) that I request may be similar to others I've read and enjoyed, but how could LT know?

>81 Wordwizardw: Do I understand correctly that a mysterious algorithm that no one comprehends tries to match people to books based on their (listed) libraries?

Yes. Or, not match them to books, but help decide who gets the book.

Because I have never made any effort to list the thousands of books I have in an eclectic variety of subjects. That would be a pain. I couldn't possibly.

Listing 6,000 books when I first started using LibraryThing worked for me. It took a few months, but wasn't insurmountable. You can also list just the few hundred books you think represent your taste in books best.

>81 Wordwizardw: "I have never made any effort to list the thousands of books I have in an eclectic variety of subjects. That would be a pain. I couldn't possibly. "

That's the whole point of this site though.....

>81 Wordwizardw: Yes. LT is not a “get a free book randomly” site - ER is really part of the whole thing and the site is mainly a “list your library” site. That’s part of what makes it different - at least in theory, LT is better at finding people who actually want the book as opposed to clicking on it because it is free.

>80 Wordwizardw: See the Wins & Requests page and select Requested from the first dropdown to see books you have requested. The Not Received count indicates the books you've marked as not received. They do not count as unreviewed.

>82 anglemark: Wow! This view and the comment from norabelle14 certainly express different views than mine. I too have thousands of books, the majority of which are so old they do not have a scannable ISBN number. I've never seen LT as a place to list my entire library and I don't know how I would ever find the time to do so if I wanted. At least in my case, LT's is using a flawed approach to decide what books I would/could review. For example, my library includes a ten volume set of the complete works of Shakespeare, a 20 volume set of the Harvard Bookshelf, an eight volume set published by the Great Books foundation, hundreds of books on psychology, over 100 books featuring the works of internationally acclaimed photographers, and on and on. Almost none are listed in my library on LT. I request an ER book only after careful consideration, and LT would be accurate in concluding that I am capable of reviewing every book I request.

>86 Tatoosh: I'm curious do you know all the books you have and that's why cataloguing them seems like a waste of time, or it just isn't important to know of the top of your head? Most people here would get anxiety without any sort of catalogue of their books, haha. On a practical level, it's important because you easily check on your phone when buying new ones whether you have it already and if so what edition. Tags also make it useful for searching your library for any and all criteria that might be relevant to you. Want to know which of your books feature photographs by Diane Arbus and where they are located? You get that info in a sec if catalogued and tagged. Hence, most of us find the time spent on cataloguing worthwhile.

>86 Tatoosh:

I request an ER book only after careful consideration

But not everyone does that. Some people want to grab any free book on offer.

and LT would be accurate in concluding that I am capable of reviewing every book I request.

But if you don't catalog your books on, say, photography, how is LT to know that that is a subject which would interest you and that you would be likely to review a photography book? LT needs some way to make sure that ER books, which are limited in supply, go to people who will appreciate and review them. "Trust me" is not sufficient.

>86 Tatoosh: It's admirable that you carefully consider each ER request and only do so if you are confident that you can review it fairly. However, I'm sorry to say you may be the exception to the rule — I know people who request every single book that looks even vaguely interesting to them. And that's perfectly fine with LT, because the algorithm prevents winning multiple books in a single month (with some rare exceptions often relating to ebooks). *

I'm sure you can understand that given the volume of requests that are made each month, LT simply does not have the capacity to reach out to each requestor and interrogate them on why they chose to request a particular book. So adding books to your catalog that you think are at least a representative sample of the types of books you would request is pretty much the only way for you to be sure you are getting a match.

* I should also say that the algorithm, mysterious though it is, does not operate strictly on matching to your catalog. There is weight given to how recently you've won a book, how many received books you have not yet reviewed, and no doubt other pixie dust calculations. So choosing not to catalog your entire collection will limit your won books, but it probably won't completely eliminate them. Although that is just speculation on my part — no inside knowledge here.

>87 SandraArdnas: I'm here mainly for cataloging...even the old books that don't have an ISBN. Those take a little more effort to add to my catalogue.

...my name is fuzzi and I'm a book-a-holic...

>90 fuzzi: You're in good company here among other book-a-holics

>86 Tatoosh: Yeah, every member is a unique individual. I find the concept of ER books rather uninteresting. I am here because I needed to catalog all my books so I know what I have and don't buy too many duplicates.

>92 anglemark: Oh, yeah. Buying duplicates by mistake. I manage to do that one every few years it seems.

I have my main catalogue over at Goodreads because I prefer their way of organizing, but I do add things here every so often. I need to do more.

Bargle, another book-a-holic.

Wordwizardw:

Do I understand correctly that a mysterious algorithm that no one comprehends tries to match people to books based on their (listed) libraries?

No. A fairly straightforward algorithm that LT staff understand in detail, and the rest of us understand in general terms, attempts to match people to books based on their listed libraries.

You are far from the first person to complain that your listed library does not reflect your actual library. Rather than expecting LT to read your mind, or to abandon a method that works (award books to people who are actually the target audience) in favor of random assignment or first/come first/serve, you should probably actually add books to your library.

Rosalita, Lorax: Like Tatoosh, I request carefully. I go through the list of ER books and winnow them down to perhaps two or three I think are most appealing, looking at the Amazon or Smashwords or author's free samples (though in the beginning, I didn't do that winnowing, simply requesting a large number in my favorite genres), and often get one—usually in Speculative Fiction, but not my NF requests. Even if I spent the rest of my days recording it, my library would still not reflect the books I've read that I don't own (and the time it would take would eliminate the chance to actually READ anything). Should I list the NYPL as an extension of my personal library? Or list books I have out or on hold at the time, perhaps removing them from my library once I return them? I feel that my review rate of 100% received should be sufficient. This discussion suggests that one might game the system by adding books one does not own in order to get an intriguing book being offered. Perhaps it might make more sense to limit the number of requests each month, to encourage people to choose more selectively? I've found it rewarding to limit my requests only to books I'd be excited to get (OK, collections of stories are a gamble), even SKIPPING a month if there are none, but I blush to admit that it simply didn't occur to me to do that at first. Why not suggest that to ERs who haven't thought of it yet? If everyone is encouraged to target their requests more carefully, that would save the algorithm from guessing or needing to read our minds. Or perhaps the algorithm could take into account how many requests someone has made in a given month to judge how targeted their requests are? That's doable.

>95 Wordwizardw: This discussion suggests that one might game the system by adding books one does not own in order to get an intriguing book being offered.

I have a vague recollection that the algorithm only takes into account books that were catalogued prior to the current month's batch of ER books being released, to avoid just that sort of gamesmanship. But I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly.

>95 Wordwizardw: Should I list the NYPL as an extension of my personal library?

Many of us add some of the community library books we read to our catalogs, along with the books we own(ed). For my library borrows, I use a "Read but not owned" collection that might have been a default selection.

For books of interest that aren't yet owned or read, the Wishlist is a(nother?) default collection. A few books there could make a difference.

The point made in posts above is that you don't have to document everything if you don't want to. You can maximize your chances of getting the ER books you want by ensuring the books you have in your catalog are similar to the books you request. Just show the algorithm that you really are interested in the genre, series, or author. That gives you an advantage over members who don't bother to add any works except for what they get through ER (if even those).

The additional benefit to LibraryThing for having similar books of interest in the ER members' catalogs is that there's more data, possibly more works for recommendations across the site. I think that's fair, because of the primary purposes of this site.

If you really are only interested in acquiring free books in exchange for reviews--and not at all in cataloging--then perhaps a different site is better for you. NetGalley and ProlificWorks are two with minimal requirements.

>96 rosalita: I have the same recollection - it is evaluated against the library at the time of posting the batch. But that may have changed of course.

>95 Wordwizardw: The idea is to record the books that make up your library - it can be the books you had read, the ones you own, the ones you like - it define your own library.

The problem is that people can click on as many things as you want them to - some will still ask for any books that looks remotely interesting. And LT looks for best reader for the book, not vice versa. Which means that they need data - and “I promise I really want it and can review it” is to low of a bar. Even if you request one book, if that book is because you want to try a new genre, you are probably not the best reader for it. On the other hand a library heavy with books in that genre shows a reader who actually can compare the book to others from the genre and is part of the expected and targeted readership of the book.

If you rather prefer a random choosing, there are a lot of programs out there you can chose from. Asking for LTER to be changed so it is better for you because you do not like how it works is a bit unkind.

This is primary a cataloging site, not a book distribution site. The distribution of review copies are a nice bonus, but the primary service being provided here is a platform for cataloging one's books. So I don't find it particularly onerous that this cataloging has some effect on other aspects of the site.

I also don't think that whatever weighting is done towards one's own library is that heavy. I've been given books that had nothing to do with any books in my library multiple times.

>97 aspirit:

Many of us add some of the community library books we read to our catalogs, along with the books we own(ed). For my library borrows, I use a "Read but not owned" collection that might have been a default selection.

I do the same thing. When I first started cataloguing my books, I didn't, but on second thought, it made sense. One of the reasons for my catalogue is to avoid acquiring books I already own or have already read, so that collection helps.

I'm trying to add books to Wishlist, but it also keeps adding them to My Library, and I can't fix it except to Delete from All Collections. It won't let me add only to Wishlist. What gives?

>102 Wordwizardw: When adding books, check the list of collections under "Add to collections" (click "Show all" to get the full list of your collections). If "Your books" has a checkmark the book/s you add will be added to that collection.

>97 aspirit: indeed I add books borrowed from my local library. They stay in a separate collection, but they are "mine" in a sort of sense.

>102 Wordwizardw: After you add the book you can edit the collections (either from your catalog or the book page) to check "Wishlist" and uncheck "Your Library"

I confess that I would love to have a complete catalog of my library but I lack the time and the willingness to subject myself to the mind-boggling tedium of entering the data. Perhaps I can find the motivation to add a few items to my catalog, and like others, I list library books on LT as read but not owned. But the LT algorithm will still have to rely on an unrepresentative sample In deciding whether I would be a suitable reviewer of a requested book.

On rare occasions, I do buy a copy of a book I already own from the Friends of Mukilteo Library or a used book store. That's a minor disappointment but not awful. I'm only out a couple of bucks and I donate the book to the Friends for their book sale. I seldom buy books anymore as our six floor-to-ceiling bookcases are crammed full. Instead, I rely on the public library for books I want to read but feel no need to possess. Each year there are 20 or so books I really want to own and those arrive as gifts from my wife and daughters on Father's day, my birthday, and Christmas.

I am a slow reader and I try to be judicious in selecting books. The list of books I want to read is now over 40 and would be much longer if I didn't show restraint. Each month I review the list of ER books and request all I might like to read. Then I research them online. LT lags behind GoodReads so that's one useful source of information. Then I "unrequest" those that seem less interesting. I may still get them from the public library, and if so I post a review on LT. But "requested" books I receive via LT go to the front of my reading list and I post a review of every awarded book I receive.

So, at least in my case, LT would make a more informed decision by looking at my 100% review rate. If I ask for it and I receive it, I will read it and post a review. No algorithm can beat a 100% hit rate.

So, at least in my case, LT would make a more informed decision by looking at my 100% review rate. If I ask for it and I receive it, I will read it and post a review. No algorithm can beat a 100% hit rate.

The review rate is part of the algorithm.

I'll just leave this here... https://www.librarything.com/topic/341449

When I try to look at my Previous Wins and Requests, it only shows what I won, not what I requested.

>109 Wordwizardw: https://www.librarything.com/ner/yourrequests At the top is a red drop-down menu that says won. Click on it and select "Requests" to see what you requested.

I don't generally look at the ER list on my iPhone, but did today, and I have to say it was extremely difficult.

Because everything that was above the list of books took up more than half the screen, I could see very little of the actual information about the book without constant scrolling. Would it be possible to provide the option to close that section?

>110 lemontwist: Nope. Not so.

>112 Wordwizardw:

That's odd. It should be there.

You might want to post in Bug Collectors. Be sure to include how you're accessing the site (desktop/mobile/tablet), along with your browser and OS.

Tatoosh (#106):

I confess that I would love to have a complete catalog of my library but I lack the time and the willingness to subject myself to the mind-boggling tedium of entering the data.

LT is, first and foremost, a cataloging site. While you're more than welcome to use other subsets of its features, you shouldn't really expect the primary focus to be sidelined to suit your use-case.

Look at the libraries of many of the people in this conversation - most of us have 1000+ plus (many of us 2500+ or even 5000+) books added to our LibraryThing accounts. Arguing that it's impossible to add a library that size isn't going to hold much water with us!

It took me nearly three years once I joined the site to get all of my initial collection in, adding a few a day, and since then it's only grown. But having that full list is really valuable and most LT members would agree! (And fifteen years later I'm still finding more from the initial collection that were missed, although hopefully the ones we found neatly stacked in the rafters of the back corner of the laundry room this winter are the very last.)

As others have said, this is primarily a cataloging site, not a review copies site, so the review system is going to reflect that. Try adding some books, maybe you'll like it.

>115 melannen: I cataloged our first books on 12/27/2008, and added the last volume from our prior catalog (a word processing file, alphabetic by author) on 11/26/2013 - so almost five years. Since then, our LT catalog is a positive mess, but relatively MOL complete, whereas the "backup duplicate" word processing catalog is ... well ... let's not go there.

The ONE thing I worry about LT? Because it's on a central server, and not entirely within my control (not that I'm asking, mind you!): what happens to our catalog if (Heaven forbid!) LT ever goes away or becomes inaccessible to me/us?

There ... I've said it. The elephant in our rooms.

>116 jasbro: You can regularly export your catalogue, so having your own copy at all times is not a problem. You can't import back the same file, which is long standing RSI

>117 SandraArdnas: But I think you can only export information at the book level, not the work level?
And it's the work level information that is a time-consuming labour of love to enter.
I do worry about LibraryThing's succession plans, if Tim were to fall under the proverbial bus.

>118 kleh: You mean CK? I don't think that's exportable and I doubt it's in the plans, so yeah that part depends on LT be alive and kicking

>119 SandraArdnas: Yes, CK, plus author details, cover photos , series ...

>117 SandraArdnas: Thanks for the reminder. To my periodic chagrin, that's on my long-list of backburnered stuff to figure out, along with lists. Until then, however, I'm just making like an ostrich with my head in the sand ... (Do they really do that?)

>118 kleh: " ... , if timspalding were to fall under the proverbial bus"? Bite your virtual tongue!

>121 jasbro: I'm just making like an ostrich with my head in the sand ... (Do they really do that?)

No, ostriches don't. By chance, I was explaining this to my child yesterday.

https://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/do-ostriches-really-bury-heads-in-sand.h...