Mooch ratio change discussion #2

For faster loading of discussions!

as suggested by bookel!

lmao! I was thinking we maybe needed a second thread :P

Link to todays post:
http://bookmooch.com/m/thread/bookmooch_blog/40#comments

Well, I guess there is little to say that hasn't been said, but I will mention that this made me giggle and shake my head:

"I'm sorry if all the economics talk can hard to understand."

I'm no economist, but it is clear that there are a lot of factors that contribute to the "bookmooch economy", and that there is no set formula that will grow or shrink the pool of books, number of users, or amount of international trade. Or perhaps what I should say is that it doesn't seem that the perfect solution has yet been discovered, as changes such as these continue to be toyed with and implemented in what *seems* to be a somewhat arbitrary way. I'm not going up in arms about this, but, well, economics can be complicated! Different interpretations of the pros and cons of economic systems and their changes is to be expected! Heck, it should be encouraged!

My two cents... haha.

For me the giggle moment was USA->Canada sending being much more expensive than Canada->USA. Someone tried to correct him in comments, but ahahahaha.

ESTHER, GO TO SLEEP. And before anyone says anything, I am going to sleep as well. PS If anyone is awake in the more westerly US time zones, it looks like there are a few requests in the angel thread for US books. I'm under angeling moratorium again.

I've come across two BM accounts in the last couple of days where people have placed new restrictions on their profiles concerning the points system change. They are concerned about continuing to send books internationally and that if they continue to do so their ratio will somehow be affected...Huh? I think people are really confused by the change....or am I? *scratches head* It is my understanding that as long as you continue to send both domestically AND internationally that your ratio should not be affected. Is that right?

This is what one person's page said:

"With the new ratio system, I have to put in some new 'rules' when it comes to mooching from me. As I need to fix my ratio but also can't send that much books out of the country, I have to make some rules."

I still can't believe that John was completely oblivious to the rates Canadians pay in-country. I really think a big part of the problem here is that HE is unwilling to ship overseas, rarely has, and therefore doesn't have a good grasp on the realities of international mooching.

I don't think he has that much to do with the everyday stuff, but is more interested in implementing new ideas, that may or may not have any bearing on the realities of BookMooching. It is unfortunate.

I've put a note on my status, too, Weelass. I'm worried that if I send out too many books internationally that I'll be left with points I can't use. I can't imagine that I'd ever turn someone down, however.

It's funny, I have no problem giving my points to my favorite charity, and part of my new ratio woes is from when I mooched extensively for BooksforKeeps before they received charity status, but I really resent being told that I can't use my points as I please, so I'm making a effort to keep my point level below 10.

#5: As a Canadian fellow and a recipient of your books, I fully support you in calling for our countrymen (persons) to continue to share.

Unfortunately, me too, I have 2 recent requests turned down for the same (expensive) Canadian postage costs.

#6: I am afraid that many will be in a holding pattern for a while. Ironically, that would be the unintended effect of the recent BM decision.

I am mooching almost anything that comes up on my list (Despite having a long list, it is actually very selective. Most just don't come up that often.. so only mooching what I really want). If I do reach my ratio, better that it happens while people still remember that they said nobody that posted in the prior thread would reach their ratio if they mooched up all their points without sending out... Let the experiment begin.

10> I am noticing that already. I had decided to go ahead and mooch whatever I wanted that had just been sitting on my wishlist to use up some points and got down to 180 points but then I angel mooched another 10 books and that put me down to 170. I just figured out that when I get all of those books and then repost them again and they get mooched I will be back up around 210 points.

I have GOT to get going (but I HAD to eat lunch too!!!! LOL).

#9 You, qforce, are a wonderful example of what I am talking about in my second comment on that thread about Canadians. You and I worked out a mooch that worked for both of us - you got the book you wanted the most (but not both of them) and I got to send a package that made sense economically. It took some time and some emails back and forth but we got it done. It CAN be done... seems like some people just don't want to put in the effort.

The second book I just removed, by the way. I had to take into account some of what the other Canadians were saying about heavy books being so expensive. Now I think to myself, "Yes, I would send this book to the States but would I mail it to BC (three provinces to my west)?" If the answer is no, I don't list it. I just couldn't live with myself if I said to a fellow Canadian, "No, I'm sorry, that book is for my American friends only".

Maybe I'm weird or totally misguided. But I'm staying on this bandwagon as long as it takes for whoever is in charge to deal with "the Canadian postage problem".

>8 RidgewayGirl:: I think it is pretty unlikely that will happen, Kay. Every time you send internationally it helps to reduce your ratio, then use the points and it will pop back up a bit. And the change in the ratio happens slowly, especially when you already have a high baseline you're adding to.

I've just had a look at your numbers (your mooch ratio is almost the same as mine) and I calculate that even if you don't send any books out at all, you can mooch close to 100 books internatioanlly or 300 domestically (if you had the points) before your ratio reaches 2.0.

So if you are sending as well, either domestically or internationally, you can use more points than that. So I wouldn't worry too much. :-)

What about the idea that we could mooch bookmarks from each other?

If someone lived somewhere where postage costs were prohibitive, I wouldn't mind mooching a bookmark or two. BUT, it would have to be a true higher cost situation. And by mooching a bookmark, as apposed to smooching someone, it would help their ratio go down.

remember that the formula is:

BOOKS MOOCHED
----------------------
BOOKS SENT OUT

so the more books you send out, the lower your mooch ratio

and since international mooches are thrice what domestic mooches are, they lower your ratio even more.

Which means

3 domestic mooches
--------------------------------- = 1:1 ratio
1 (3pt) international sent

or that's the way it should work out, mathematically.

(hopefully this makes it easier to understand for everyone, even the math-impaired. PM me if you still have a math question)

>12 momtorghj:
I just want to say that I am willing to Angel mooch heavy books from Canada to send back to Canada, if it helps at all. I have largely stopped responding to the angel threads because I got laid off last May (and I took that opportunity ;-) to retire), but I still Angel if asked specifically.

14> I would totally be willing to do that for people in countries where they are unlikely to get much mooching action.

>10 Bcteagirl: & 11:
Sorry, these came in while I was typing the other reply.
The same applies for both of you by my calculations. Mooch away and don't worry too much.

Jenn, your ratio is so low (low in the new world) and your baseline numbers so large that you could use all those points and still have a ratio below 1.5 without sending anything!

edited for b... typos again! It's so late here I can't see straight. So I'm off to beddie byes.

I understand the ratio thing. I know that I can mooch for some time without running into my limit. I am just wary of stockpiling points at this juncture. I've put on my status that I'll accept all international mooches, and will send them quickly, but reserve the right to cancel them if the points for international sending change without notice. I don't want to have several expensive packages to send out and then find that all mooches are worth 1 point or whatever, as Buckman has mentioned he is considering. With the site in flux, I'd like to not be too invested.

I'm very much hoping that everything will settle down and return to normal, without any drastic changes, especially not to the points given in international mooches, but if the one book=one point concept continues to be the supreme goal, I want to be ready.

That's smart. I'm definitely not listing anything more in my inventory for awhile, and I imagine a lot of others will do the same. So we'll have a smaller pool of books to mooch from. That'll really help BM...

17> I know my ratio will be fine. I just meant that I keep trying to use up some of these points but then I can't help myself from angel mooching which just pushes my # of points back up again.

I keep on changing my mind about how I feel about BM. I want to keep on supporting it, but these last few decsions/discussions have me not entirely trusting the site totally. Ratio wise, I should be fine, even though I have a higher ratio. I've gone on a little mooching spree (well, ask first & angel spree) to try to avoid sitting on a large stockpile of points.

My wishlist has been getting zip for hits over the past few days... most definatly odd! (Must remember to check out related editions tonite...).

Whoa - new post from JB.

Buckman's newest reply is up. There are no surprises or new information in it. We are not to question things anymore, however, as he finds it inappropriate.

I do love the people I have met through BM. I do not have any illusions left about the site itself, however it does remain the best way to trade books internationally. I'll use it as a resource, and a valuable one, but the site is clearly not intended to be a place one feels loyalty to. The community exists in the connections people make, not the place.

I don't want to post this there until I clear it here, lol. Am I not understanding something? (very likely...)

John wrote: Since the old system allowed people to mooch 3 intl books for every 1 they gave, *and* a 2:1 ratio was allowed, this effectively allowed people to mooch up to 6 books internationally and only give one.

I'm sure this is me just not getting something obvious, but wait. I give a book internationally and get three points for it. Those three points somehow add up to 6 books I can mooch internationally? Wouldn't I need 12 points (not 3) to mooch 6 books internationally?

Can you guys link to the new post? When I go to the blog I'm still only seeing the post from 23 hours ago.

It's the second to last message in the post from 23 hours ago.

#24: I think he means that if you send 2 international books, you get can get 6 domestic books.

I think its a math error on his part.

tee hee hee

Ah, a comment, not a whole new post. Thanks wisewoman!

I posted this on the blog a few minutes ago, and I'm reposting here because it's something I'd really like to hear a few other peoples' thoughts on.

"John, I am one of the people who you apparently characterise as “scamming the system” (or verging on it). I have a lot of fairly esoteric books in my inventory. Despite the fact that I didn't enter them purely to get points, my listing of poetry books is something that is now going to look fishy.

One of the things I loved about BookMooch was that there was none of this judgement before, about what books are “worthy” and which aren't. I've listed things in awful condition (with copious condition notes) that none the less have been snapped up. Other books have sat in my inventory for over a year and then suddenly found the person they were looking for. It's this eclecticism that makes BookMooching so much fun – you genuinely never know what is out there, or who will want it. I loved that. It's not all about the latest bestsellers, it's a community of booklovers, trading all kinds of books for all kinds of different reasons.

But this latest explanation (and I do get that this isn't a democracy, and I still love the place, dammit!) feels very much like two commandments: thou shalt seek out and list popular books; and thou shalt not keep thy mooches, but return them to the system.

Looking at my inventory and my bookshelves, this makes me a very bad moocher indeed."

>24 atimco:, I don't think he meant that you could mooch 6 books internationally as far as points are concerned, but rather that the ratio limit would not be low enough to prevent you from doing so (if you had the points.)

Edited to add: This can only happen if you send internationally. Sending only domestically does not adjust the ratio.

John wrote: "I make the rules, and if you disagree, then you can either operate within my rules or use another book trading site. The rules of the site are a combination of my personal views on fairness, my understanding (and research) on trading economics, the admin's experience and judgement, and what the admins and I think will make the site function best. However, at the end of the day, this is not a democracy: I make the rules to promote the long term health of the site, with hours and hours of consultation with the volunteer admins and the input of the community."

And my thought... *meekly* "yes dad"

I would like to think that we have some sway in how things are thought out. Unfortunatly not. Good Riddance, John. Saying that the community has input is crap, considering.

Edited to add: This can only happen if you send internationally. Sending only domestically does not adjust the ratio.

I'm still confused. Should we just stop sending and mooching internationally, then? *sigh*

He said: "Another possibility that I've discussed with the admins, is letting admins over-ride the 2:1 ratio requirement for specific members. This already effectively exists for charities, and could be a solution if any Canadians get unfairly bitten by the mooch ratio change."

So, if we play by John's rules, and we go over 2:1, then we can still play in the sandbox. The ratio can be overridden, or may be or will be or won't be... whatever. I'm not going to worry. I'll send & I'll mooch. I'll mooch from members who have ratios getting close to the limit, then post them here if I don't want them.

We will be ok. We will work together.
We will survive this & anything else that comes to pass.
We are LT moochers.

Well, my impression of John is now that he is a giant jackass. I'm very glad I never 'gave a little' and that I only have 7 points. If I can use those 7 points, I will, and then I am outta there. When the subject of book swapping came up in the past I would try to point people to BM instead of PBS. No longer. Now I won't mention BM at all, unless to dissuade them from joining.

""I agree that Canadian territories should be counted as different "countries" for the purposes of mooching -- I think that would solve the problem of their within-country postage being too high.

This is another intriguing, novel and helpful suggestion.

Yes, absolutely, each Canadian province could be treated as separate Country, especially if that more accurately reflects postage rates in Canada.

-j ""

Oh please, pretty please!!!

I'm from Saskatchewan, and probably would actually see a decrease in the amount of "in country" mooches, but overall, based on the cost of postage, that would be *Wonderful*

Keep those peace offerings coming...

>33 atimco:

For example, if you only sent domestically and you sent 100 books and you mooched 110 books, then your mooch ratio is, straight up, 110 divided by 100, or 1.1 to 1. Because you got 10 extra books when all is said and done, and that's 10 percent more than the 100 that you gave. If you never gave away another book again, and only mooched (let's pretend you have the points) then you could mooch up to a total of 200 books before the 2:1 ratio limit would stop you.

So in the end: 200 books mooched to 100 books sent. Can't go further. 2:1 ratio.

Now, let's say you live in a tiny tiny country and all of your outgoing mooches are international, and you sent 100 books. Each of those books is worth 3! So it's just as if you sen 300 books! So, now, how many books will it take before you reach the 2:1 ratio? 600!
becuase 600 divided by 300 is 2.

So in the end: 600 books mooched to 100 books sent. Can't go further. 2:1 ratio (adjusted).

That's the point I think he's trying to make. Whether you get the points for it is another story, but the more you did it, the more points you would be accruing.

You make it better :)

Wow. I had pretty much the same reaction as Devourer (35).

I am feeling a tiny more hopeful. As much as I felt slapped in the face by John's comment like others above, I am feeling slightly more heard as an Canadian.

I finally got Aunt Jen to cough up a list of mystery/suspense/thriller books she would like to try so I could be more active mooching on the site. I focused on contacting US people who have mooched from me but who have their status set at "Only in my country" and asked them if they would support a "Only in North America" button instead. Haven't had a "no" response yet! I'm starting to feel positively giddy! And Aunt Jen is starting a new series by Alex Kava (hope she likes it after all this!)

A North American button would make all the difference for me personally. Treating each province like a country would be Christmas/Easter/Hallowe'en/Valentine's Day all wrapped into one. I can't bear to hope...

None of my questions have been answered on the blog. John apparently just ignores posts that are inconvenient.

I noticed that! He seems to be answering questions left right and center but skipping over the inconvenient ones.

Okay, I've requested enough books for my toddler that I've used up all my points. Hopefully they're all accepted and sent.

My newest post echos your questions as they are also mine:

I really appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions, I think communication is very important here. Going to try to be extra-nice since you are taking the time to explain things to us. I would like to echo a pair of questions a Wisewoman asked if I may:

"Ok here is why it is *not* retroactive:

No, it *is* retroactive. Your reasons explain why you think the retroactive nature of the change is good, NOT why it isn't retroactive.

Since the old system allowed people to mooch 3 intl books for every 1 they gave, *and* a 2:1 ratio was allowed, this effectively allowed people to mooch up to 6 books internationally and only give one.

I'm sure this is me just not getting something obvious, but wait. I give a book internationally and get three points for it. Those three points somehow add up to 6 books I can mooch internationally? Wouldn't I need 12 points (not 3) to mooch 6 books internationally? "

I can understand the arguments as to why the changes are necc, but also am having a very hard time understanding these. Like some other members, I will be receiving but not sending books for a while.. I am concerned about what other changes may be coming given this precedent. Can you please address the concerns expressed above? I would really appreciate it, thanks in advance.

So I read John's follow-up #2 (http://bookmooch.com/m/forum/bookmooch_blog/#message_40) and was feeling slightly calmer. My mooch ratio is higher but it's not the end of the world, I am not a bad moocher, it's all ok and I will continue to use bookmooch as I have in the past.

And then I saw his later post (http://bookmooch.com/m/thread/bookmooch_blog/40#comment_88)

"because I feel that anyone who receives *more* than 2 books for each one book they give is abusing the system. I don't care if they earned the points before the old system, I still think it's wrong."

So I checked my stats and I have received 260 books and given 129, most of which were sent overseas and some were angel mooches. I didn't think of myself as gaming the system and I didn't mean to abuse the system but it seems that I did :-( But my mooch ratio under the new system is 'only' 1.37:1

I'm left with 27 points. Should I stop requesting books? I'm so confused and feel rather guilty.

Sorry to whinge, I know a lot of you are in worse ratio positions following the change but ugh. I think I need to go back to not reading all the blog posts.

And very excited about the Canadian provinces changes mentioned - yay for Canadian bookmoochers!

Thanks Bctea. I'd love to get answers! I don't want to bail on BM, but stuff like this just makes me so nervous to build up any points.

>45 souloftherose: That's exactly how I feel. And why I posted here as well as on the blog. One person (nicely) saying that no, she doesn't think I'm a bad moocher, doesn't exactly undo the little knot of anxious, angry misery I'm feeling. John's silence is especially bad.
:-(

46: That's what I'm feeling... nervousness. What happens if my points are suddenly worthless?

Ironically, I was at my highest points total in a very long time when this all started. I wasn't planning on mooching as many, to conserve points. Now I'm doing the exact opposite, and mooching wishlist books that I perhaps could wait to get, but don't want to have a huge (to me) pile of points. Sigh.

The Canadian thing is great news, but once I got over my initial high, I am now very much not holding my breath. History's telling me that changes such as those could be a long time coming.

48: I hear you! I actually spent about $180 the *day* before this was announced, mailing out what I hoped would turn out to be 90% of my points for at least a year. The day before! I imagine we are in the same position, having accrued plenty of points to guard against the Canadapost postal price increase, only to find our points my be devalued on the other end :(

>32 Mareofthesea: Wow! That is the most unprofessional statement I've ever heard and coming from a businessman?? He mentions about consulting with the admins. Aren't they volunteers with no real vested interest? I personally know that some of their jumping to incorrect conclusions has hurt a lot of good people including myself.
>45 souloftherose: That idea about treating the Canadian provinces as separate countries seems a very good solution. I'm sure if John opened things up for discussion many good solutions would be brought forth.

>35 DevourerOfBooks:, I'm right there with you.

All of this stuff is just ugh! I'm trying to use up my 30+ points, but there isn't a single book available from my wishlist- I've been suffering a dry spell for months now. I found a few from my save for later. I'm only going to be posting non-postables for PBS on BM from now on and probably selling some books on half.com, Amazon, or ebay too.

Quaisior - I put most of my unpostables on PBS (acceptable condition etc) on Amazon at low prices and I find they are snatched right up unless they are ones with lots of copies already listed then I usually give them to my thrift shop down the street.

Seing all the weariness and anxiety about the distinct possibility of having our current (and well-earned) points taken away by another retroactive change, I just think aloud here about a potential solution.

Called it a variant of the Angel system or a Swiss-bank-account model, let's deposit/park our points with someone trustworthy (i.e. the angels) for future use. Any thought on this?

If you can figure out a viable system of the 'swiss bank account' idea, qforce, I would be willing to actually donate points to keep books going abroad without penalizing our Canadian and small country members.

#53 - qforce, I too would love to hear of an idea whereby I could give my points to help support other Canadian members. I've been so nasty to some recently, demanding that they mail domestically, that I would love a chance to show them I'm not as much of an ogre as I seem!

I have met John once. My impression is that he is very enthusiastic about BM and has many ideas how to improve BM and keep it international. Just now we can't give him high points for diplomacy, but please don't judge him too harshly. The goal of the change is to ensure that BM stays alive and well, even if it hurts a bit.

I still love BookMooch, and will continue both sending and receiving books (mostly internationally both ways). Anyhow, I admit that the sudden ratio change and ongoing discussion have made me bit nervous, so I will go for a mooching spree and reduce my points significantly before adding next batch of books to my inventory. (Yes, I know I'm evil. ;) )

This all seems so overwhelming!! Please, please everyone take a few steps back. I understand that such a change without warning was poorly done, as are some of John's responses and lack of responses to certain questions.
But I just do not understand; where is evidence that people will have points taken away, that angels will be penalized? The ratio change does not seem that unreasonable (other than the tacky way it was done) and from the posts I've read, very few if any moochers will be able to reach the 2 to 1 stopping point. Even if a prolific angel were to do so, I honestly believe that exceptions would be made. However poorly John has handled things, I believe that he wants BM to thrive.
I love BM. I am saddened, and frankly more frightened of losing it because many here seem to plan to leave and to stop recommending the site, as we all have loved doing in the past. Can we wait a couple of weeks to see what happens? John has been hammered and pushed against the wall. Let's let things settle a bit and then make decisions on whether to stop mooching. I believe things will be worked out. I have 200 plus points; I give and mooch internationally quite a bit, and I still have a low ratio. I don't believe that my points will be removed.

And by mooching spree, vivir means having me mooch 20 books for her. ;)

It sounds like many of us are going on mooching sprees as a result of our concerns about this change - myself included. I'm sure that we're not the only ones. The funny thing is that in doing so, we may actually be providing John with evidence that yes, this ratio calculation change is stimulating the BookMooch "economy"!

Oh, John, John, John, please do not chastise someone in one response for not being "civil" and then damn us all in the next post by telling us you're going to give us a week to "gripe" about new ideas... I get the feeling you are a wonderfully intelligent person with great ideas and even better computer skills and I love what you are doing for me and others but I wince a bit at your people skills.

My husband is starting to seriously think about committing me (which he could do quite easily as the head of a mental health unit at a hospital) because I'm spending all my free time on the Internet, browsing book mooch, library thing and related websites but I just WANT this to work so much...

New post? I don't even want to look anymore...

Just got back from the used books store. They had not seen me in a month or so as I had been posting books here (Before the postal increase). Took the less beat up books out of my inventory to sell there. The good news is that they had some new Dr. Who books for me! So that is something positive at least. :)

I think we all want things to work, but have learned in the past few days to be very cautious about stockpiling points or mooching internationally. That's not a bad thing for the individual moocher at all.

BookMooch is Buckman's personal project and as such he gets to do whatever he wants. We also get to do whatever we want and I know that I want to make sure that I'm not investing too heavily in something that can be taken away at any time.

I think that he and I see my points differently. I feel I earned them by sending out books, often internationally and he feels they belong to him because it's his site. I hope very much that everything returns to a happy state eventually, but I know that I will behave a little differently based on the lessons I have recently learned. Whether or not the changes I make in my BookMooch activities are what Buckman intended by these carefully thought through changes (based, apparently, on a single article) is really not my concern at this point.

I understand that he is frustrated that we don't all shut up and accept that he knows best and that that is reflected in his regrettable tone and refusal to actually answer many of the questions, but he's a grown-up and will get over it. The tone has been upset, concerned, worried and even a little panicked, but not really uncivil.

(ElizabethShorley, just want to let you know I very much appreciate and support your posts over on BM.)

I really, reallly, *really* want to cut John some slack, because I have a feeling he is just as upset about all the backlash as we are about the change. It sure seems that way. But he seems to be acting more and more like a child, doing the whole "if you don't like it then leave" bit instead of staying calm and explaining things neutrally. Which I'm sure is hard to do when most comments are not calm, but he is a businessman and leader and should work harder on that. Imo.

copy/paste:
NOBODY ON THIS FORUM IS BEING CAUGHT BY THIS CHANGE. Not a single person has said that their ratio is over 2:1 and they can no longer mooch. So far, the only people who are over 2:1 are those that that have acted (I and the admins feel) in bad faith, and none of those people are on this forum.

I have to take offense to this whole "acting in bad faith" thing. We are allowed to mooch two books for each one we send out. That is *not* "bad faith", it is how BM is supposed to work. No, I personally am not over 2:1, but I *do* have friends who's ratio is very very close to that limit. They have *not* "acted in bad faith", and I feel it is very unfair of you to generalize that way.

As I have stated before, I do personally know people (and will not post their names because that would be rude) who are very close to the 2:1 limit because of this change. They have points saved up that they *cannot use* without going over the limit. The *only* way they have "acted in bad faith" is by mooching internationally freely, which until this change was *completely okay by BM rules*.

I will not leave BM because of this change. So maybe I should just shut up. I do appreciate you continuing to post and speak with us, John, it just frustrates me when it seems like my main concerns aren't getting addressed. There *are* people who are seriously affected by this change and are unable to use all their *earned* points without going over the limit. That is unfair, imo, since they have paid for those points.

Wow... so now anybody who is affected by the retroactive change 'had it coming'?? Yeeergg... going to avoid the new blog post, at least for a little bit.

#63 - Heather, I appreciate you and all the others here so much! I don't think anyone really has been "uncivil" but I'm the eternal diplomat (born out of being an non-Christian in a thoroughly Christian extended family). Believe me, without the input and support of all of you, I would be either a crappy book moocher or off the site entirely. It was all of you who taught me not to list everything I own (yet I still got into trouble), force receive, leave negative feedback for every little thing, and explain delays continuously, not just at the time of the initial mooch. John doesn't know just how important all of you are in supporting his site. It may be "his" site but it would be an awfully lonely place without you!

Just been back and read the latest updates on the blog. Thanks for your gesture of support Elizabeth. Have to say I'm feeling a combination of shock, fury and something else that I can't manage to put words around. Am just barely resisting the urge to reply in a manner that shows John what “aggressive” comments actually sound like. Not a happy moocher. About two seconds away from closing my account. I've had a gutsful of all this.

joannasephine, your tone was not uncivil, but Buckman has shown in the past that when he gets upset, he is no longer able to see things clearly. It really hurts to be singled out, especially so unfairly, when so many of us are making comments and asking for answers.

I think he's a {insert your own favorite insult words here} for not responding for so long and then being all astonished that the comments became more and more bewildered and angry. Especially comforting to me was the statement that he would give us a gripe time before doing whatever he damn well wants, dammit. Do you think he'll even bother to read these "gripes"? I don't feel that he read the comments we made and that I'm sure we all worked very hard on to clearly communicate our concerns while remaining civil. He certainly didn't bother to answer many of the questions asked.

rectal orifice?

I'm not reading the blogs on this topic anymore because it has devolved into the tone argument and that's always the last straw for me.

I want to echo all the thanks to everyone here. You guys rock. I don't know what I would've done/thought these past few days w/o your posts.

And thanks to LT for giving us a safe space to talk w/o being called out.

John just stated that he would *NOT* make any points changes retroactive. Thankfully... But he did not say that he wouldn't *make* any changes to the points system.

What is somewhat concerning for me personally is that I leave for a week in Mexico really soon. It's entirely possible that I could miss this '1 week' warning on further changes. Drat! I was planning on cutting myself off of the internet completly, but I can see a mid-week check. lol.

RWG, you make a good point. JB has shown in the past that when he gets defensive, he looses all claims to diplomacy and degrades down into the "I'm the boss and what I say goes" mode. While I despise making excuses for people, this is one of JB's weaknesses, and sometimes taking that into consideration helps read his posts a bit better.

He's responding now, whoopie. I find his responses condensending, and I'm still struggling with the way this whole thing went down. And saying that he'll give us a week's notice to GRIPE before? Come on. That's just tactless.

I'm going to take this week off as a chance to think about how I view BM and how I use BM. I enjoy it, and love, love, love the people and friends I have made here. I don't think I could give up BM completly, but I can see a major reduction in my habits.

And will somebody please post something that's on my wishlist?!?!?!? lol

Glad I am not the only one sitting here refreshing my wishlist :P
Enjoy your trip, it sounds fantastic!! (ps- which books are you taking??)

>41 atimco: & 42:
Yes, and when someone posts a comment he agrees with, it is a "well stated message".

>45 souloftherose:: souloftherose, you can quite validly keep mooching right up to when your ratio hits 2.0. You are not abusing the system. John has a problem sometimes (often) stating exactly what he means, and is more often than not rather tactless in the process. You have sent most of your books overseas and that is precisely what he is encouraging people to do. That's why your ratio is 1.37 and not 2.0. He should be patting you on the back. That is his incentive, so go ahead and use it. Mooch away sister! :-)

Aren't you kind, Mareofthesea, to think that the tone of my comments on Buckman's reaction was to defend him! Given his position of absolute power, it was a serious criticism. But you put the nicest of interpretations on it.

I've already run into a book that I couldn't mooch because of new restrictions placed by the book owner to protect her ratio. Can't say I blame her.

I also easily found two good, responsible international moochers whose ratios are above that which Buckman promises will only happen to deadbeats and scammers.

72: Thanks, I'm hoping to spend a lot of time relaxing... I'm taking a few books with me :)
Olive Weston by Peter Fenton
Neil and Me by Soctt Young
The Deep Blue Sea for Beginners by Luanne Rice
Blackfly Season by Giles Blunt
Sarah's Key by Tatiana de Rosnay
Stones into Schools by Greg Mortenson
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne... and..
The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Picking out my books was the most stressful part of planning the whole trip, I swear....

dupicate...

>74 RidgewayGirl:: RWG, I just don't understand how not sending can protect anyone's ratio??? It's requesting that increases the ratio, not sending. Can you please explain it to me... Ta. :-)

Hmmmmm, has it occurred to anyone else that there could be a rise in 'off the books' exchanges? After all, just books mooched and given count in the ratio, not smooches given.

Just thinking out loud, nothing I think could REALLY happen, but couldn't there maybe be a 'shadow angel network' of 'off network' exchanges?
(there's a short story in here, I'm sure of it - if only I were a writer!)

But on the other hand, when rules/regulations/taxes become too difficult for law abiding people, it results in .....Robin Hood!
;)

>78 momtorghj:: You're not safe if you also mooch lots of books internationally, and mooch many many more than you send. That is precisely what John is trying to prevent.

However, I can't see why it matters where the book comes from in terms of the requestor. Obviously it's right to earn more points from sending internationally because it costs more, but why should it cost more to mooch? It would certainly increase international trading if all books cost one point. But I guess it adds to his pet points 'inflation' as in printing money.

ETA: In the last bit I'm talking points, not ratios. Confusing...

79: I have a feeling there will definitely be more "off the books" exchanges to bypass the ratio-worry. I know some people, especially some LT-BMers, already make wonderful deals with people who don't have enough points to mooch each book... It's only natural that we will start skipping around and finding ways to dodge the ratio worry as well.

(and dangit, I *am* a writer, and "shadow angel network" sounds awesome to my brain!)

I have seen an account above 2:1 successfully mooch a book, so it's not a hard barrier right now. I believe 3:1 is, as I have seen an account over 3 where the ratio is red.

What if BMer "Alison" who has a wonderfully low ratio mooched a book for BMer "Ziva" who has a high ratio. When "Alison" mooches the book, she puts "Ziva's" address instead of her address in the SEND TO:! "Ziva" can then smooch the point/s to "Alison". "Ziva" would let "Alison" know when the book arrived & what feedback is appropriate.

(names are fictitious to protect the letters A & Z)

83: I did basically that before Melaney got Books For Keeps the charity-status. It worked just fine.

83: makes sense... until Alison gets tired of lending out her ratio. But in principle, yes.

John's talk of "junk books", and him doing what he likes because it's "not a democracy" is quite distasteful. I feel sorry for those of you who have a big investment in BookMooch and have been "giving a little". To the UK residents out there who's had enough, try Greenmetropolis.com instead. (I'm "Trimmus" on BM)

Yes, the whole "it's my sandbox" thing was really the last straw for me. There are things you just don't say to your patrons.

It did amuse me, however, that Buckman thought giving us a blog post as a forum to "gripe" in was being magnanimous. Fortunately, the internet is a big place and there are plenty of sandboxes to gripe in!

Did anyone else try to read the article these recent changes are based on? Buckman's link leads to a site where you can't read the actual article unless you buy a subscription.

The link he provided is to a pdf sourced from jstor, not jstor itself. The article is readable.

Here we go....

http://bookmooch.com/m/thread/bookmooch_blog/41
http://bookmooch.com/m/thread/bookmooch_blog/42

ETA: Just wanted to give a brief overview so that I don't cause more heart attacks (sorry Mare ;) )

The first one says that the .1 for marking received will go away next week.

The second one says international mooches will start costing 3 points instead of 2 starting in April.

91: My heart stopped when I read your post. What next. Extreme nervousness before I click on either of those links.

Do I want to know? Sigh...

This just isn't as much fun as it used to be...

I am cautiously optimistic. I've thought the .1 point for marking a book received was overkill for awhile now. As for international mooches costing three points — of course we all like a lower price but unfortunately to make the system keep working over time, this just makes sense.

93: I so agree...

I am forseeing a short term spike in international mooches as everyone rushes to get as many books as possible before April. I then see a dramatic decline in the amount of books mooched, as everyone reads what they have stockpiled, and avoids spending points on the more expensive int mooches. Finally, I would see an eventual slow growth period as people post books again to get points, but many many people only mooching within their country.

I can also forsee a lot of individuals just giving up the site altogether.

As whether or not this is a good thing, or bad thing, or something else altogether, I have no opinion. Just a feeling of sadness.

Change may be good, but may I suggest a '6 month' boycott while this change is undergoing review???

Buckman says 6) This should help cause more Angel mooches, since Angels will now get even more value out of helping books get to other countries.

I can't see how. It seems like it will be exactly the same amount of points total. Am I missing something?

Mare, I've already changed how I see and use the site. It's now just one resource among many, and not the favored one. I can't see mooching internationally unless I really can't get the book any other way.

I can see myself sending more internationally, but only mooching internationally when I cannot get the book domestically, and that also means via PBS.

The only exception to the mooching internationally will be to help out LT moochers who have higher ratios. Although there are quite a few LT moochers here who regularly have books I want to mooch.

The only problem I may have is if JB ever goes to the formula

Books Mooched
-------------------
Books Sent Out

without taking into account international mooching.

Then I'm doomed.

Sigh... I somehow always knew that it was too good to last forever. If it had been this way from the beginning things might have been different but I do see many moochers with limited points choosing to wait for domestic books instead of mooching internationally...
I guess I'll just try and forget that we used to have a bonus and see what happens, I understand the economic implications of "printing" too many points, my country did suffer from serious hyperinflation and all the brouhaha in the 1980s... Hopefully things will work out and we've had some warning.

>96 RidgewayGirl:

Agreed. This in no way helps the angel mooching system. It means those requesting the help of angels now have to pay quite a bit more and will be less able to use the system.

Right now angel mooching is somewhat "fair" because it costs the requestor 2 points and basically costs the sender 2 points once you subtract the point they spend mooching the book. Now it will cost the requestor 3 points but the sender is still only getting two.

SO before, an angel moocher could then turn around and use those two points to request one book from abroad. Now for each angel transaction, I do not receive enough points to request a book from abroad unless charity or smooching is involved.

I think in the short term, it will be fine as many of us have points saved up, but over time the angel system will dry up as people are losing more points than gaining.

As people stop being angels, it puts more strain on those of us still willing to give it a shot until eventually no one can afford to be an angel anymore.

Well, I've cleaned out my BM inventory except for books that are non-postable on PBS. I don't wish to accrue any more unusable points.

I think what Buckman fails to understand is that BookMooch is not a closed system. Yes, there are a few people for whom BM is their only resource, but they are in the minority. Most people get their books from a variety of sources and if one becomes less attractive, the others will be relied on more heavily.

He may also be missing the importance of how BM users feel about the site. Vaguely disgruntled users will be less likely to mention the site to others and will be unlikely to donate or to make an effort to get books into the system. The last six books I had set to put into my inventory have all gone straight to PBS instead and I'll be adding to my BM inventory only when I need the points. New users are important and inflation may well be a problem, but I remain unconvinced that alienating very active users and scaring others was really the wisest decision.

After yesterday, I've put my account on vacation as a protest, so I haven't been following the blog posts. (It's a toothless, impotent little protest, but a protest none-the-less.)

The really stupid thing is that there's a simple solution to the “too many points in the system!” – ask those with an excess to donate them to a blackhole charity. (Similar to what South Koreans did to help their economy out of the toilet a decade ago – ordinary people voluntarily gave their jewelry, gold and anything else fungible to the government.) It's one of those stop-gap measures that actually does deal with the problem, even if only briefly. And it can be repeated as needed.

Of course, an action like that is only possible if there's goodwill around …

OK sorry, this is largely a repeat of my post above, but here is what I posted on the blog and I brought up a lot of new points at the bottom.

John, I am sorry, but your math skills stink. I angel a LOT of books. I also enjoy mooching international books and sometimes use angels myself. Let me spell it out for you:

When someone asks me to angel a book for them, I request it from someone else. This costs me one point. When I send it abroad I get 3 points. My net gain is 2 points (excluding the .1 bonuses, which I am fine with removing).

Currently, I can use those 2 points to request one book internationally. A 1:1 ratio, since you seem to be big on ratios lately.

Under the new system, I will be unable to use my gain from the angel transaction to request an international book. Yes, I can still request two domestic books from the transaction like I could before, but over time, angel transactions will bleed my points dry if I try to request a similar number of international requests unless charity or smooches are involved.

Angels will have to either require smooches/charity or cease their services. Those who require heavy use of angels will face either being able to mooch much less than they send, or will simply run out of people willing to angel to them. As the number of people willing to angel decreases, those left will be faced with an increased burden and be less able to afford it ourselves.

Here's a crazy idea... maybe point inflation has NOTHING to do with what's wrong with the site. Maybe a lack of marketing to bring in new customers is a big factor. Maybe you need to be hitting the Facebook ads and fan page to generate fresh blood at affordable prices instead of lamenting the fact that you're not getting as much press attention as PBS.

And here's a crazy idea... we all WANT new members because it means more books for us. Maybe more people would "give a little" if it was for a specific ad campaign.

Maybe you're not getting new people to sign up because the site looks like it was cobbled together in 2002 and new people don't feel confident that it is trustworthy.

Maybe you're not getting good retention because the site does a poor job of teaching newbies how to properly package a book, of giving them incentive to list the condition, and of preventing abuse by new members. Many members join for a time and get burned by bad transactions and leave as there is basically no recourse for them. One area you SHOULD consider copying PBS is their help documentation and how easy they make everything which prevents a lot of problems before they start.

I have a feeling I will be mooching internationally like a mad woman until April.

Ah, it was good while it lasted.

Personally, I think we need to be encouraged to have good manners (I mailed out five books to the same US member recently and they were received today with positive feedback but no "Thank you" which really burns me) and I would rather give up the .1 to list a book after the first 10 or something.

The three points to mooch will not encourage more traffic, it will discourage. But I honestly don't care anymore and won't be posting on that blog. I have enough in my TBR pile and if something comes in on my wishlist over the next two months, great, but I'm not going to drive myself crazy finding new authors and mooching for the sake of mooching. I'll keep on offering to angel when I can and posting my three new books a week.

There were tons of great ideas generated by "griping" but this is what he chooses? Nope, not buying it anymore.

On the plus side, BM is now the third most active LT group this week.

*cheers*

***sigh***
I guess I will phase myself off BM and start giving books to charity again. I used to stop and think "Do I really want to spend 2 points on a little paper back I could buy for a penny on Amazon?" and lots of times, the answer was No. I can't imagine spending 3 points, unless it was something I simply couldn't get any other way.

Personally, and this is just my tiny opinion, I think JB is getting the site ready to sell. He needs to make it capable of producing a profit in order to do that, so some changes have to be made.

I agree 100% with iwillrejoice -- this just isn't as much fun any more.

All these changes and heated discussions pro and con are making this discouraged old lady tired....very very tired. So I am going back to bed and read. The best thing right now for me to do is get Lost in a Good book PUN intended.

Does anyone want this book when I finish???

Me!

Second post I made to the blog post:

I will also add, to counter John's argument that this will encourage and increase angel mooches...
If I get two angel requests and do not require or receive a smooch, I will earn two points each.

If I want an international book that requires an angel and a smooch, it will cost me four points. So sending two angel books without smooches will equal receiving one angel mooch with a smooch.

If John wants to kill the angel system, that's fine. It's his site and his right. I choose to angel and I can choose to stop any time. I am spending extra money out of my pocket to do something that benefits him.

I am only pointing all of this out because John stated, "This should help cause more Angel mooches, since Angels will now get even more value out of helping books get to other countries" This does nothing to increase the value that angels get.

okay, qforce, It's yours!!

I've been following these threads even though I haven't contributed but it has made my mind up about whether to continue on Bookmooch or not. I've tried other book swap sites but I found Bookmooch the best, both in terms of number and quality of books available and the 'accounting' system.

I've only been active for two years, though it seems longer, and I've received some lovely books and I've sent a lot too but having accrued over 200 points I'm now finding it difficult to spend them. There are various reasons for that some are my fault, some are not.

Up to now I haven't minded this imbalance - I'm fortunate in not having to watch every penny so postage costs haven't been an issue and I very much like knowing that my books are going to people who want them rather than into an anonymous charity shop - but the recent changes have definitely soured things. As iwillrejoice said, this just isn't as much fun as it used to be.

I'm not leaving in a huff - I'm sure I'll still look in on Bookmooch threads to see what you're all doing. However when all my current transactions - in and out - are completed I shall smooch away any points I have left and step out of Bookmooch.

96: good spot on the Angels maths :)

I agree :)

I'm sad that the changes over the past few weeks have caused so much upheaval - in the end it will affect me very little except that I will mooch internationally even less than I already do.

Just wanted to say here that I am more than happy to spend the next few months Angelling lots and lots and will happily fill boxes over here in the UK and send when the points change over.

Griping does happen - it's not a bad thing. There have been great advances that have come out of griping - if we were happy with everything...what would be the need for improvement?

CDVicarage & others who are going to quietly (or not quietly) going to leave BM:

Please, leave yourselves open to staying, even if in a reduced capacity. A book or two that you want might come available. A friend on BM might want a book you have & although you would probably give it to them anyway, you can let them free some points, too.

I know by leaving we think John will be hurt, but you will also hurt those who have to stay. Those who don't have the good charity bookshops or libraries or other swap sites to go to for books.

This isn't about John. It isn't about me. It isn't about you.

It is about people who love, need & are addicted to books.

Everywhere.

#116: Cricketgirl, that's the spirit of this BM community, one of reaching out and sharing, one that will be sadly missed once many quietly bow out like CDvicarage (#113)

I would venture to say that regardless of what you plan to do eventually, we still have this LT forum to continue this spirit. Let keep on bookmooching, with or without BM.

skittles, that's a nice sentiment, but it's abundantly clear that this site is not about sharing books with people who need them. It was once, or at least we thought so.

I am staying as long as I see myself as getting something I want from it. Another resource, as I said before.

I wonder if we here could set up some informal way of getting books to people who don't have access to them. I'd be willing to list books that I'm willing to send to people here. It's not a rare thing for people to send books to each other outside of BM. There are always other options and I don't think anyone should feel guilty for leaving.

I've taken down my inventory for now, only partly because of the all the changes. I've also got to get my life back together again and I'm still dealing with my mom's massive hoard of stuff (she wasn't a hoarder like on the TV shows- she was very organized, but she had tons of stuff!). I'm also getting quite desperate to have a baby- like right now! So my family has to come before my book addiction. LOL I'll probably be back in the spring, by then I'm sure I'll have the funds for mailing again, but right now between heating costs and the gas we've been using going to and from my mom's, I don't have much left for anything else.

But WE (the LT moochers) ARE about sharing books.

and, yes, we can do it without BM, but I'm just asking that we leave the door open a little bit.... just a little bit.

I am saddened by these changes, but I am encouraged in the fact that many people will be staying and becoming even more creative in getting books to people.

qforce, skittles, you are right. It is about the spirit of sharing, of the love to read, and the friendships we have formed.

I no more want to see BM fail than any of you. However, change is not always a good thing. Banding together, we can make sure the Angel Network survives, even in a different capacity.

I travel a lot, so I can always meet a happy angel for coffee along the way, and pick up a box or two. By changing my address to that of the angels, the angel is using no points of their own, rather is just a "mailbox" for angel mooches. Smooches could pay for this service. And the only person whos ratio is affected is the person who's picking up the books.

Keep the ideas coming. New ideas thread perhaps?

I too am saddened by the changes, and will probably slow things down a little in my mooching, at least until I get a feel for what the changes will mean to my mooching, but I'm going to stick around.

Bookmooch is a lovely community of book lovers. I enjoy the contact with people here, and will miss any of the "regulars" who feel that they need to leave.

118 Skittles

I have to say, I completely agree with RidgewayGirl in 120. I'm much rather send a package of books somewhere without remuneration than continue participating in BM. I already removed it from my 'also on' section on LT, because I didn't want to be associated with it any longer. Once I can mark received all the books I mooched yesterday, I'm gone. Perhaps enough people leaving over this will force John to make some changes. I don't think it is particularly helping anyone for people who feel strongly about the change to just continue business as usual.

#108 - dkhiggin,

I've been thinking that, too. (That he's getting it ready to sell.)

re: 108, in which the poster said he/she thinks JB may be getting the site ready to sell. I wonder if enough Amazon referrals could add up to enough to make the site profitable? It doesn't seem like it could, but the progression of events in the past few months does make one wonder.

I think my biggest problem with 3 points is that now it's not fiscally sensible for a lot of users. Consider the US (largest user base): If an average (not out of print) mass market paperback costs between eight and ten dollars brand new online or at a bookstore, and an average BookMooch point costs around $3 if you consider postage + mailing materials, then what incentive do most US moochers have to mooch a mass market paperback from another country? Since mass markets are generally the least expensive books to mail, this means that moochers outside the US will probably see a decline in the number of people requesting smaller books. And more stuff, but I just can't keep going.

It keeps extra points from being created in the system for sure, but people in countries where you basically have to rely on international mooches are going to suffer for it.

On the other hand, the 0.1 thing is totally fine for most moochers (some will always have so few points that they need that extra 0.1), and the blog post was clear and concise rather than confusing the hell out of me!

Adding: For the three of you who will understand this, I've been having LJ/DW debate flashbacks and they are not pretty.

>125 DevourerOfBooks:

I feel the same. It's gone – in such a short period of time! – from being something I loved being part of, to something I can hardly bare to think about. None of us have any power here, except for leaving or vacationing ourselves. It's pretty clear that John doesn't pay any attention (other than getting in a huff and taking a swipe at people) to what gets said on the forums.

The killer irony (for me at least) is that there has been a sudden surge of people asking me to angel for them, and a couple of new Kiwi moochers who've come and said Hi! Great to meet a fellow countryman here, isn't it great?

Sigh …

(edited for spelling)

>128 chelonianmobile: - I've been feeling those flashbacks too, only without the snarky user icons.

I'll still be hanging around and actively using Bookmooch. I'd already cut back a bit, but it's mostly been because of post-holiday wallet shock and because lately the public transportation has NOT been playing nice with me and I spend sometimes up to 2-3 hours a day waiting in the cold for buses that never come and so therefore I don't really want to detour to the post office.

I'm taking the position, at this point, of just sitting back and watching how it goes. I'm a long-haul kind of personality, so I'll be here because I still have boxes of books for mooching hiding under the bed.

There have been periods of time where I wasn't mooching internationally 'cause of low points. And where I wasn't sending internationally because of low income. It hurts me that I can't mooch freely anymore, but I'll deal.

I'm sticking with BM for now, if only because I still have over 200 books in my wishlist and no other possible way of acquiring those. I still love you all, all of the BMers that I've come to know and care about, which is another big reason I'm staying. But I'm no longer an enthusiatic BM-encourager.

What worries me the most isn't just these recent changes, but the way John seems to be taking the site. The site seems to be moving more and more away from the encouraging, freeing, carefree community I used to love. These changes are doing more and more and more to discourage and alienate international users. It seems to be more and more about business and "BM economy". That is not the BM I loved.

*siiiiigh*

Thanks skittles, geo, mare, and macs! I feel better now that I know not everyone is going to bail. Not knowing John personally, I will put my faith in his words and actions and believe that he continues to want BM to thrive and grow. He's definitely not perfect, but he has tried to make amends and change some of his behaviors. Sharing my books and receiving new ones(to me) from all around the world has been a great pleasure for me, and I will not give up on BM.

I'm not bailing on the site! I've invested enough in it that I want to see it succeed long-term. I'm only fired up about the changes because I think most of them will have the opposite effect of what John intended. I think he's totally missing the boat on what is _wrong_ with the site and how it could be better.

I might have to stop angeling after the baby comes in March though. My husband HATES that I trade books, he thinks it's a big waste of money (even though I have given him quite a few cool books). He's asked me several times to stop trading. A large part of the problem is the ever-increasing quantity of books in the house. I need to make a purge sometime soon.

133: Oh wow. My mom complains when I spend lots of money at the PO, but she also loves the books I mooch for her and is starting to understand how many friends I've made on BM, too. I couldn't imagine living with someone who hated it! *hugs*

and, regard the whole "missing the boat" thing, I posted on BM:
Imo, John seems to have this tunnel-vision about BM's "economy" and how things need to change because the "economy" needs to be better, grow, etc. It doesn't seem like he is taking into account the many, many *other* reasons for lower BM participation, especially the Real Life economy. No change he could possibly make to this site can increase BM participation in users who simply don't have the money to send, and that has become more and more common with the economic crisis the past few years. It seems like John thinks that tightening up BM "points" will somehow fix everything, but it doesn't fix real life. Nothing he does can. And real life is, unfortunately, a huge stumbling block when it comes to people's BM participation.

>132 KAzevedo: – Not fair. I'm not bailing. I'm not closing my account, but I am staying out of it for a while. I'm sick of getting angry and horrified reading posts, and sitting here staring at the screen with tears running down my face. I loved BookMooch, and maybe the new version will be great too, but I can't bear to watch the butchery in the interim. And there is so much ill-feeling going on, it makes my stomach churn. Life's too short.

I did write a comment after swearing I wasn't going to. I'm just so disappointed. There were so many great ideas and THIS is what he choose?

I'm turning down more international mooches now because it's not worth the hassle to chase people down for the second mooch... but it goes without saying that you guys can mooch as you like and I'll do my best to get a book to you. The harshness on my bio is not for you!

There's a new blog entry about a charity for angels. I donated 10 points and I'll donate more when I see it being used. I can think of two people on bookmooch that seem to do the majority of my angeling for me and when they are rewarded I know that this is being used for its intended purpose.

There's also this comment on the previous blog entry:

QUESTION: since this change seems to be less controversial than I feared, would people be ok with my implementing it in ONE MONTH rather than THREE MONTHS?

-john

Please post and say no. I did. I had more to say but I blanked. I might go back.

I receive the forum posts via email but I can't log on to BookMooch from work.

Which thread is that in? Link? I shut all my windows in despair yesterday.. I have a feeling the reason it was less contreversial was because there *was* warning. Ugh....

Please check John's new blog post and mine here on LT,

Some have suggested these recent changes may make it less likley they will be acting as angels, so as we have long discussed a way to fairly compensate all the extra work an angel puts in, there will be a new fund set up for just this purpose :)

#141 It's in the one titled:
Coming: 3 point intl mooches

Link to the blog post where he asks (In the comments mind you, not in the actual post) suddenly to switch it to one month:
http://bookmooch.com/m/thread/bookmooch_blog/42

To the one month: No no no, dear G*d please no! And that is me being polite/non-hostile. The reason it seems less angering to people is because you are giving us such long notice. The three month gives people a chance to use up points, rather than *Devaluing points they had under the old system and paid good money for*.

The question of whether this change should be made in one *needs to be a seperate blog post* if you are serious about the inquiry... otherwise people may miss it among all the other posts, and your data is worthless. Since you are so keen on research I am sure you understand this ;) The post above me (Posted after your post) even says 'in April', rather than the sooner change your proposed.

So NO it would be a very *Bad* thing to make this change in one month. Not only that, you *Just told us* it would be THREE months. Not everyone reads the comments here.. many of the members will now be going on your official post of it being three months, and would be very surprised to see a post a few days later stating it was now one month. Morale in BM is already low, I am afraid suddenly going back on your word would be the last straw for many people :(

Let's support each other whether we choose to go or stay, now or later. We all respond differently to conflict and stress and we must do what makes us most comfortable.

Whatever happens in the future, it doesn't change all the great fun we had in the past.

*sends good cheer to joannasephine in post 135*

Whichever change/blog-post is spurring it, I've gotten three international requests in the past 24 hours. Wow. I guess people really are mooching while they can.

Joannasephine, I didn't single out or name anyone in particular for bailing (perhaps a poor word choice). I was celebrating those who have stated their intention to work through the changes and continue their participation. I had been feeling very blue from reading all the posts of those who are so angry or despairing, and reading those I mentioned in 132 made me feel better.

I apologize if my post came across as an attack; it was not my intention. And, I absolutely support whatever decision each of us makes. I am just so sad to lose, or even partially lose, anyone.

Sorry Kasey, I know you weren't. I didn't choose my words carefully enough.

This has been a b*tch of a week – my grandmother died on Monday, and we've just had another swarm of aftershocks (just shy of four thousand), which were the first I've really felt for a while. I'm pretty thin-skinned at the moment, and John's garbage has just been the last thing I needed. I've enjoyed BM so much for so long. Even making my little protest feels like some sort of disloyalty, but it's the only way I can keep my sanity.

Joannasephine - I am sooo sorry to hear about your Grandma! :( {{hugs}}

I'm so sorry for your loss, Joanna. :::Hugs!:::

Hugs, Joanna.

>Joannasephine - My thoughts are with you. It's terrible to lose anyone and I'm sorry for your loss.

>Kasey, I also know you meant nothing by it. I just knew that we've all been feeling on edge, myself included, and I just wanted to make sure nothing sparked. I'm glad that my sticking around has helped you to feel better.

#143
"Whichever change/blog-post is spurring it, I've gotten three international requests in the past 24 hours. Wow. I guess people really are mooching while they can"

I have noticed that as well, seems to be an increased willingness for internationals in both directions in recent days ....

Sorry to hear about your loss.

Thanks guys. It was a blessing really – she was 104 and incredibly frail. She hasn't wanted to be alive for the best part of twenty years, so the old cliché “a merciful release” definitely applied.

But it's nice to get the hugs, all the same. You guys are amazing, and even if I did eventually bail on BM, I'd still be haunting this group. (You have been warned … ;-) )

>143 Jenni_Canuck:/153 – me too, which makes the timing all the more ironic!

I find it odd the way so many changes are being rushed into implementation at once. How on earth will the relative merits of each change be measured if the 0.1 feedback is one week after the ratio change and then the 3pts for an international change in a month?

I've already found a profile where she states that she'll only send to people whose ratio is less that 1:1.

> 156 Wait, can she do that? That doesn't seem right to me.

156: Abuse. Definitely report to Abuse.

I love it how two days ago during discussions about the mooch ratio change John says: "There is no change in the points at this time: an international mooch costs 2 points, but the sender receives 3 points. However, there have been suggestions (on the previous blog entry, for instance) that this 2/3 disequilibrium (I call it an "incentive") should be removed, and there is logic to that argument, but that's not something happening now."

And two days later, guess what . . . it's happening!!

I really think that the 3 point system will discourage moochers. i have trouble sometimes with people who won't send to Canada and who want two mooches. (not happening after April). i believe that the new system will have the opposite effect that John wants. Now I find that I do more international giving and mooching- I wonder what will happen after April. There may be more " mooching meetups" ( thank you Jenni Canuck for organizing two in Toronto). I also found that the cost of postage for heavy books is becoming too costly. ( my last surface mail to Ireland- $14 Canadian) But who will want to spend 3 points for a slim book from Canada? I am waiting to post one such book in April and will find out!

I pulled John up on a point in the Followup 2: intl mooch ratio change blog thread and he said I was correct. However the conversation hadn't finished as I had more to respond when that thread link appears to have disappeared from the News links on our home page. Does anyone know where to find the links to older blog posts?

Anyway, I thought I'd post it here as most people won't see it.

---------------------

You are correct, someone wanting to scam BM could do this. However, I have to strike a balance between preventing potential scams and mistakenly preventing honest people from doing things that are quite reasonable.

Ah . . . so NOW we are getting closer to the reasoning behind this ratio change. It is to try to reduce the international scammers, and those of us who mooch internationally on a regular basis are the ones who will be ‘paying’ for this new security measure by means of our mooch ratio.

John, in a previous thread you stated:
I've received many emails from people who have noticed that certain users have hugely imbalanced mooch/give numbers. Often, they would be mooching hugely more books than they were giving. They'd be mooching and giving internationally, but with the old ratio system, you could give as few as 20 books internationally, and receive 120 books internationally (2:1 ratio at a 3x bonus point).

Well you can't do that now of course, but you CAN still give as few as 20 books internationally, and receive 120 books domestically (2:1 ratio at a 3x bonus point).

So the imbalance is still there, the inconsistency is still there . . . only now the only people who can take advantage of it are those in countries with a large member base and a very large volume of books, so that they have no trouble finding what they want domestically. In other words, the good ol' US of A!!

In your original post on this thread you stated:
That didn't seem right, so I added the concept of a "mooch ratio" so that BookMooch is mostly about #1 above (you send a book, you get a book), with an incentive to add books to your inventory, but a limit of "2 books received for 1 sent" no matter what you do to earn points.

So now it works for some and not for others. Once again members in non US countries are disadvantaged.

And again: So, the current ratio seems like it will work well in preventing actual abuse we see but allowing enough leeway so that honest people can go about doing what they do.

The 'honest' people in the US can go on mooching six domestically for one sent internationally, whereas the rest of us who are forced to mooch internationally have obviously been bordering on abusing the system and must be curbed!

Frankly John, as well as being grossly inequitable, I find this insulting.

And don't tell me I can also mooch six books domestically for every one sent internationally, because I can't. They are just not available. If you do not understand this, you understand nothing about your own site.

(edited a number of times for typos and formatting)

This is my first reaction here and also my first reaction on the Bookmooch blog. The whole ratio thing sort of passed me by, because there were few people who would get into trouble and it didn't affect me at all. The new point system will! I haven't been a moocher long, and I don't have tons of books I want to get rid of, but I will be sorry to stop posting books on BM. I have pasted my message from the BM blog below, with the calculation why I will stop mooching with the new point system. Maybe more responses with exact calculations will help change the owner's mind! I really do hope so, because I like BM!

I am reacting here for the first time, because this development will take away the reason I joined. I joined Bookmooch because it would allow me to get rid of books I don't want anymore and get something in return. Almost all of my mooches have been and will be international, because I live in the Netherlands and read only English books. I have been able to do that because I also send books internationally. The new points system will stop that. I will give actual numbers to illustrate why I will stop offering books here.
Currently, I get 3 points for sending a book, which costs somewhere between 6.30 and 10.00 euros. That is on average 2.50 per point. That means I spend 5.00 euro to mooch a book. In the new system, I have to spend 7.50 for a book, which I can probably get new at the book store for the same amount or less. In that case, I would rather give away the book to a friend and buy the new copy. I hope you will reconsider this change and think about your small country moochers!

Ok BM'rs I have a question!

If I attempt to mooch a book to auto-vacation someone (Yes, I would rather have the book, but not holding my breath) in another country, and wind up cancelling after the 2 weeks, will my ratio go up? Is there any way to avoid that?

If ratios go up, how would we go about auto-vacationing someone who logs in sporadically but does not send without potentially harming ourselves??

>163 Bcteagirl: I thought only completed & pending transactions counted, not not ones that were canceled. I will check my own stats and see if that's the case.

Thanks... the book is sitting there driving me crazy. I think the rules on cancelled transactions might have changed recently, but I could be wrong...

Bcteagirl

Ok, I counted up all my sent transactions in excel. My 577 books sent in my stats does NOT include:

-Books people mooched from me, and then canceled
-Books I rejected
-Books lost sending
-Books I forced received

Of a total 594 outgoing transactions, only 577 were completed successfully. On the profile they list separately the canceled, rejected, and lost numbers, but not the forced receives.

Incoming, the 611 books received in my stats does NOT include:
-Books I canceled
-Books where I was rejected (46 times? really has it been that much?)
-Books lost receiving

and I would assume books forced received, but I've never made anyone have to do that, so. I just imagine that it would be symmetrical.

Good... are any of these cancels since the new changes started? Thanks so much for the help with this :)

>167 Bcteagirl: This is all definitely the way it has been. I watch my take/give numbers like a crazy person. The only difference is that the mathematical adjustment for international books RECEIVED has been altered to match the adjustment made for international books SENT. This is why the people who've seen the biggest jumps are people who receive proportionally more books from overseas. And if you never mooched a book overseas at all, nothing would have changed.

Ok thank you! :) Going to take a chance on one international mooch then, and cancel before the 2 weeks is up if I need the points.

I feel like I'm missing a big part of the explanation of why any of this is happening, and that is: what is John getting out of changing the point or ratio structure? IOW, if he doesn't get additional income from it, what is the benefit for him? Does he just not like things to be as they were, or is there something I've missed? (Others have suggested he's planning to sell the site, which might cause him to make changes, I guess, but what else?)

(And I mean this in the nicest way - I'm just trying to make sense of it all.)

Ack, LJ ate my post.

http://www.librarything.com/pic/225797

I uploaded a pic I drew quickly here at my desk about how the new ratios affect different types of moochers. It's a little sloppy, I apologize, and LT shrank it so let me know if it's too small to read and I'll upload the bigger version someplace else.

That is just too awesome for words. Thank you for posting that! :)

Now... off to mark stats exams!

The bit that I have gotten is that he's trying to make the ratio more "fair" and that he's trying to encourage international sending. However, the main thing he seems to be doing is _discouraging_ international mooching, which is not at all the same.

If he wanted to encourage international sending, he could increase the ratio bonus for sending or increase the intl point difference further, not balance it.

>173 infiniteletters:

What she said :)

International sending & mooching has to be worth it for people to do it when they don't absolutely have to, and it has to be worth it for both parties.

Previously if I mooched a book from someone overseas, I figured to some extent I'm helping them get points, and sending to me helped their ratio so they didn't have to worry. I don't remember if, given the choice, I've ever chosen an intl book over a domestic book, but I can think of circumstances where I would (book condition, other inventory contents, feedback history).

And previously if someone domestic was 'my-country-only' and took advantage of a 2 for 1 deal I was running I might not require the person to mooch all books directly, because if I refunded them points they couldn't really use them if their ratio was high. I didn't need their help with my own ratio because of all the intl sending I do. So it was win-win all around. I have to reconsider now how to proceed so I don't cut myself unnecessarily short.

OK, an idea for international moochers who have a ratio problem.

Let's say that Vanilla in Antarctica mooches a book from me, but in that same package, I can include 1 or 2 more highly wishlisted books for Vanilla to list in his inventory. He can smooch me the points for those books & it won't affect either of our ratios. This way someone not in Antarctica can mooch those books from him & decrease his mooch ratio by increasing his books sent.

or we can send him BM bookmarks & cards for people to mooch from him. This will again increase his "books" sent numbers.

175> I am soooo naming my next child Vanilla! ;)

Posted by John (Good news!):

I will stick with doing this 3 month's from now, as originally stated in my message.
- J

And it's not "fair", as I keep banging on about! ;-)

The best way to encourage international mooching and thus international trade is to make ALL mooches cost one point. He wouldn't do this of course - I have suggested it to him in the past and was ignored - because he'd say it causes so called points 'inflation'.

But you could leave the ratio allocations as they are now. That would stop members mooching too many internationally if they don't send internationally. And they won't be able to use those extra points unless they start sending internationally.

And those that do send lots internationally (because now they have more requests coming their way) won't have too much of a problem using the extra points they may accrue from mooching internationally.

If people have too many points, then there is all manner of ways they can use them, as we are discovering from recent discussions. They'll be more generous as (international) mooching is cheaper.

So he's gone the wrong way IMO by increasing the cost to 3 rather than decreasing it to 1. But who am I to know . . . ??

I have received 2 Mooches today from UK Moochers - both of whom have empty inventories. I can only assume they are using up their points and then they are off - looks like the rot has set in already.

I'd do the same but I have far too many points to use up as I've been stockpiling points prior to a postal increase here - more fool me!!

Regarding the 3 point intl mooches

Now this will stop the international angels - it does not matter in USA/Canada but for a lot of the European countries, it is cheaper to send inside of Europe. So a lot of the moochers from there will set their status to Ask First and pretty much never send outside of Europe. Which with the 2/3 points system was not a problem - when I was in Bulgaria, I was getting these books for 2 points, sending them off to USA/Canada/Australia/whatever (getting 3 in the process) and everyone was happy - the book found a new owner, I got some points against the money I spent for sending it... If the points change, these books will remain trapped in Lithuania for example (I got at least one book out of there with above way to go about that) - it is cost prohibitive sometimes to get these books all the way to USA (or at least cost prohibitive for the member).

I kinda understand why it is done but it will be a bit negative on people in the smaller countries in Europe.

Just my 2 cents.

Would a Regional 2 points to mooch/receive area in Europe work like some are proposing for North America? After all, it is less expensive to send within the EU/EEA/CH... I know that every country has its own postal system and I don't really know how big the difference is between sending to other countries compared to within the continent for everyone but would like to know other people's opinion on this...

.... So how many of you have read the "followup to points discussion" post? Or maybe I should ask how many are avoiding it?

*sigh* It feels like every single day I'm losing more and more of the faith and love I used to have for BookMooch.

copy/pasted comment:
(I'm typing this as I read John's OP, so please excuse me if it sounds a bit disjointed. I really, really hope John is actually reading these comments (saying that yesterday he read through all the comments from a blogpost 11 days ago doesn't make me too optimistic))

John, are you saying that there will soon be a change that basically "nags"/"reminds" us to re-list wishlisted books? I think that *sucks*. For the exact same reason I go nuts when people claim that I am getting a "free" book so I shouldn't complain about condition: I paid for my points. I pay *a lot* at the post office in order to get those points and be able to mooch those books. Once a book is sent to me, once a book is in my hands, it's rightfully *mine*. I have unread books in my To-Be-Read bookcase that I know are wishlisted here on BM. Those are my books and I can take however long I want in reading them, and I can keep them if I please. I *paid* for them. If BM starts "nagging" people to re-list wishlisted books, THAT will be the thing that finally makes me leave. I will *not* put up with being nagged to give away *my own books* that I *paid for*.
(I really, really, *really* hope I simply misinterpreted that part. Reaaaalllly hope.)

re "wishlist incentive": A lot of people do what you suggested in point 3 already. I have, multiple times, posted an offering of more points for a certain book I really really wanted. I know other people do that sometimes as well. I think an automatic bonus for listing wishlisted books could backfire in two major ways: one, people might not list a book until it's wishlisted, which you already mentioned. Two, people might list wishlisted books they don't actually own, in order to get that bonus. Scammers already do that on a regular basis, I think this would just make that problem even bigger.

Heather, I am looking at the post, but I don't see where he said that?

"I have always asked for a change to be made in "keep it forever:" due to the fact that you may not keep forever BMjournals mooched, but if you prefer people to recycle popular books it might be better to suggest "you do not have to relist all books in your inventory but are encouraged to recycle wishlisted books and BMjournals promptly."

I like your suggestion and will do it shortly.

(Like I said, I may, possibly, be getting worked up for nothing. I may be misinterpreting it. And I'd be very glad if I am.)

I read that as only for BM journals, if I will try to notice if I see any further posts that indicate anything different.

My main concern with is post is the assumption that more multiple mooches = less cost per mooch. If this means less points given for multiple mooches this would mean that people in Canada and Australia (And other countries?) may start rejecting multiple mooches based on the fact that they aren't being compensated fairly anymore. Unless they are light books multiple mooches can be the same cost per book. For example in Canada they go by both size and weight when figuring out how much to charge you.

Again, based on the US system rather than the world system....

Yes, that's another point that I forgot to touch on in my comment over there (I was too worked up about the other stuff to remember!). John seems to be focusing more and more on US moochers and less and less on international members (contrary to what he *says*; his actions say different). Yes, multiple mooches are a godsend with US FlatRate Shipping; I can fit up to four paperbacks in one of those envelopes, for the exact same price as one paperback.

That is definitely *not* true in many other countries. Countries that have no flatrate option are not getting their money's worth with multiple mooches. I don't know tons about other countries' mail situations, but even I know that.

I was interpreting multiple mooch discounts as the moocher side, not the sender side.

187: Keep in mind his focus on 'point inflation' and giving away too many points...

Re multimooch discounts: In the blog entry "Followup to points discussion", John wrote:

"I don't agree with these comments against multi-mooching.

To recap : the idea behind multimooching is that the 2nd mooch from the same person would cost you less (perhaps .8 pts) and BM would make up the difference, so the book giver still receives 1 point.

This helps save the book sender money in postage."

But it doesn't. Help save money in postage. Not for many international users, at least.

#190 My post was about the multimooch discount. I don't recall that the details about how he envisioned it would work had been posted previously. If it was, I missed it completely.

I am confused about the discount idea, though. As BCteagirl said, John's been talking (a lot!) about ways to minimize surplus point creation, and this would create surplus fractions. It might not add up too much, but it's still point creation.

A lot of people give back points for multi-mooches anyway. I don't particularly see any need to give an incentive to mooch more than one book. I do wish we could give partial points back, because then I could give back on domestic multiples without losing a whole point. That would probably encourage more people to give a little "multi-mooch discount" on their own. It could also be helpful in mooch cases where a full point back is not really warranted, but a half might smooth things over a bit. None of that would create extra points, either.

Though now I'm not sure if those are my thoughts, or from the pink elephants in tutus dancing in front of my eyes. Perhaps it is time to sleep!

Joanna, sorry to hear about your Grandma and that you are considering leaving. We have done some fun mooches together - including our 'Amazon' mooch system! :-)

I'm shocked that someone has spotted a status saying they will only send to people whose ratio is less that 1:1.

I've been a member for 3 years now and have become friends with a lot of people on BookMooch/this forum who I also talk with offline about all things BookMooch and the feeling about the site is at the lowest I've ever known it.

The international aspect of the site has been so positive in the past and being part of the Angel Network has been wonderful, I hope we can all stay positive and try and keep this alive.

For a long time my status has said "I ♥ posting outside of the UK and am a member of the BookMooch Angel Network as so many people have helped me to get books from outside of my country that I really want to return the kindness!" it will be interesting to see how things change with these new announcements.

I haven't been to LT or BM lately so all this discussion completely passed me by. So sorry for the tl;dr.

I just logged on one day to find out my ratio had raised by 1 point and have been trying to catch up. Granted, I have mooched far more books than I mailed but most of my sending is international and so is my mooching. There was a time when I mooched the same book twice because I used a dedicated Angel's address and mooched it once for one point domestically and then mooched it from the Angel when they listed it again, a practice which inflated my ratio and has now come to bite me in the behind.

Anyway, what this has kind of made me think is that the new ratio change and 3 points per international mooch will be beneficial to big countries, mostly the US. US users can still send internationally and get mooches from most of us who can only really mooch internationally because we're looking for english books and the US/UK/etc. have the most inventory of it. But now that mooches are worth 3 points even we international moochers may have to think twice. And considering the rate of current or popular available books being shipped internationally from those big countries is already low, it's hard to use up points anyway unless you use the Angel network.

The problem I see is with users from other countries. These changes aren't going to encourage people from overseas to mooch from us. Why should they when they can get 3 books domestically for the price of 1 international mooch? And without those mooches, we can't contribute to international sending or get points to mooch from others who do send internationally.

Also, the new point policy isn't really going to encourage sending internationally; no more than it used to, at least. I mean, the sender isn't going to be getting more points than before this change. There's no extra motivation. They still get 3 points, same as before. The only difference is that what used to be an extra given point to encourage the international sending is now coming from an international moocher's 'pocket', not from the system. Sure, this helps free up the point inflation, but it's no more encouraging than it used to be. Those who didn't send internationally aren't going to start doing so now.

Mooching internationally, though, is going to be affected because a lot of international moochers depend on international mooches and people from countries with the bigger book inventories will probably rather mooch 3 books domestically than spend it on one international mooch. Before they could still justify it on the fact it was just an extra point. Not anymore.

So, I'm not quite sure how the new ratio and points policy will encourage international trade. Honestly, postal prices have done more to discourage international trade than any points policy.

For the record, I personally haven't had problems getting international mooches. I buy a lot of books that I read and then list on Bookmooch and a good number of them are even quite popular and wishlisted. With the new policy, though, I'm not sure even popular books will be incentive enough for someone to spend 3 points, especially if they're from a country that has a good book pool for domestic trade.

Hello all!

I've been a devoted reader of the Bookmooch forum here, but only now gathered enough courage to actually post something.

I've been thinking long and hard these new changes and even while I kind of (sort of) understand the logic and need behind the changes, I can only see how they are going to negatively impact those of us who are forced to do most of their mooching & sending internationally (I live in Finland, which represents its own unique problems when talking about domestic mooching). I think the new 3:3 system might actually have some negative effects on international trading that TPTB may not have even considered.

Here's what I mean: I calculated how much my point would cost on average on the batch of books that I was going to list on Bookmooch before all this economy talk started. (Right now I'm actually going the other way and emptied my inventory...) I wanted to see how much it would cost me to mooch a book with 3 points in the future.

I reached the following conclusions: 1. There's going to be little incentive for me to post any heavier books on Bookmooch. Even within Europe most of them will cost me 6,50 euros to send, generating points costing about 2,15 each. For that money I can get brand new books elsewhere. 2. I'll have to be very discerning when picking books to mooch. With my points so costly, there's not much use to mooch especially the mass market pb's, since with the same price or about a euro more I can in most cases, again, get those books brand new elsewhere.

If enough people are going think like this, it'll cause a very interesting dilemma. There's going to be a supply of light, small books that are going to be cheap to send, but which many people might not want to mooch, because they can get them cheaper somewhere else. There might also be a demand for more heavier, costlier books (hardcovers etc.), because mooching those will make sense money-wise, but not much supply for them since they can be very costly to send. Luckily not everyone thinks like this, but it's definitely not something that -promotes- international sending.

# brigneti. I've been thinking about the introduction of the regional settings as well. I can see how that would make sense in Northern America, but at least for me a European region might actually be the last nail to the coffin that is my BM "career" in the current/upcoming situation. With the regional 2 point system the cost of my point would actually go even further up.

With the 3:3 system, in order for me to continue sending internationally, I might have to change my setting from "worldwide" to "ask first" and only post my books within Europe. Since postage -is- cheaper within Europe, I could push the cost/point to as low as I can and thus still be able to get books with 3 points at a reasonable cost. If the 2 points/region was introduced, it would mean the removal of that perk. The cost of my point would actually go up, the average 1,4 euros would rise to 2 or even 3 euros.

This would force me to mooch all of my books within Europe, because spending 3 points, that is 6 to 9 euros, on a used item when the new one costs the same is just plain foolish. It would mean I'd have even less books to choose from in a situation where the supply isn't that great to start with.

The other option for me would be to mail all of my books -outside- Europe (because that would actually be cheaper when thinking about cost/point), which is just crazy. And lets face it, most of those books would go to the US, creating yet again an influx of books away from non-US countries and to a region that has enough books as it is IMHO.

And don't even get me started on the multi-mooch option...

I'm sure for many people things aren't quite this black and white but at the moment, at least for me, it certainly feels so.

Sorry about the long post. I guess I post sparingly but when I do I have a lot to say :) I hope all of this will somehow blow over and we can all continue where we left off. At the moment though I feel very set against listing any books in BM, because I feel I should be making some kind of statement to these changes with my own actions. (In the meanwhile, where on earth do I store all those moochable books that are piling up here??)

Thanks for listening

Riikka

My own personal theory (which is probably fictitious, but might be true) is that Buckman got together with some friends and SF moochers and they expressed concern over the way that books are flowing out of the US and how people who only send domestically are disadvantaged, points-wise. Remember, Buckman himself does not send internationally and so has no first hand experience of that.

Of course, the idea that BookMooch is somehow a closed system is laughable. Yes, some of the books I've put in my inventory have been remooches, but (with the exception of angel mooches) this is probably less than half. The US will always have a glut of inexpensive English language books.

Wording things so that people feel that they have to put BM books back in their inventory would have caused me to leave BM quickly when I first joined. I was mooching in part to get "keeper" copies of books I'd really loved and even then felt that maybe this was wrong. Telling me to relist books quickly would have had me move over to PBS as soon as I heard about it. As for me now, if they start sending emails "reminding" me to put a book in my inventory, I'll just push the delete button and ignore it.

I've been following these posts carefully over the last few days, and I just get more and more discouraged. I think all these changes will simply "kill" BM because the joy has simply gone out of it.

I don't think these changes will help anything. I agree with Riikka. I will think long and hard about spending 3 points for an international mooch when I know I could get the book cheaper elsewhere. I thought I was doing a favor when I mooched multiple books from international BMers, but now I find that was not necessarily the case. I sincerely didn't mean to be the cause of extra expense!

One thing that JB never seems to realize is that we have no control over who mooches from us. I have mooched slightly more international books than I have sent, but I would have sent more internationally if I had been asked! Thus keeping my mooch ratio closer to 1:1. I didn't know it was "bad" to mooch so much internationally...I thought I was giving my international moochee an extra point! And I frequently looked at their inventory to see if anything else would possibly interest me, just to give them a multiple mooch. And, consequently, making my mooch ratio even worse.

I guess I've been doing this all wrong. But I don't think these changes are going to help anything. I fail to understand what is the big deal about stockpiled points, perhaps because I don't have a lot, but how is BM actually hurt by that? It seems that it is the members with the extra points that are hurt. Are they the ones clamoring for change?

And, like RidgewayGirl, I mooched lots of books for keeps. They are for research or to replace books I had when I was little or to complete collections. Some of the books I've mooched I don't intend to ever put back up for mooch. Others, I will, but I guess I don't read fast enough! My husband hates this whole BM thing and wishes I would stop. I have received more books than I have sent, and he doesn't like the Mount TBR piling up! My sons say I should quit, too, because JB doesn't really understand economics and making people so upset with his "it's my site and I will do what I want with it" attitude is just wrong when he should be trying to make members happier!

I really do believe he is getting the site ready to sell, and then it will not be what we have had for so long at all. It will need to make a profit. I wonder if Amazon is not the one interested in it? They seem to have dictated some of the other recent changes...

PBS also "encourages" you to return your books into your inventory/bookshelf... with reminders & 'books on hold' and a variety of other ways, both good & also irritating.

More than 'recycling' my mooches & swaps, I look for books to put into my inventory. Between Library book sales, friends giving me books to go to other readers & books that I no longer want, I've put LOTS of books into the BM system.

So, should I have just "recycled" my mooches and NOT gotten 'new' books for my inventory? If we all did that, there wouldn't be any new books in the system.

And I worry too that with all these changes at once to curb point inflation that everything is going overboard in the other direction. There won't be enough extra points to provide freedom to mooch - freedom to smooch, you know? If points are too scarce, too hard to get or too expensive - people will not want to spend them as easily. I already know I'm like that. I guard my PBS points with viscious teeth and will stare at books and think, if I mooch that book with my last point then tomorrow that book I REALLY REALLY want will be available and then I have to buy an extra point from somone (quickly). Needless to say this had not been a problem on BM. Also I would take a chance on random books which I know I will not do under the new system.

I love being generous on BM, but with money tight it will be harder to be so. (My other half has been unemployed for almost 2 years now and is one of the reasons I looked at BM to begin with.)

> 198

I agree, Skittles, I too tend to mooch books that I want to keep. (If I just want to read it once, I get it from the public library).

I also get fresh books from booksales to add to my inventory. Our library always has a "friends of the library" shelf where people can put donations, and other people can buy them cheaply, with the money going to the library. (It's a great place to dump those former bestsellers that stagnate on the inventory). I've found some treasures there (of course they may be just another person's trash). ;-}

At the moment, I have a pile of books set aside that are intented to eventually add to my inventory, but I'm just "waiting for the dust to settle", to see what the new ground rules are. (They seem to be changing daily at the moment). ...and of course postage has just gone up again here, which doesn't make me want to rush in and add stuff.

> 199

And I agree with you too, Macsbrains. I like to be able to be generous to people who have done favours for me. Under the new rules things will be much tighter.

Well, new policy will discourage smooching!!

Now if you smooch someone, you take the chance that their ratio will go too high when they use your smooch!!

(I want to thank everyone who has smooched me, I love it... it is like a virtual reality smooch/hug/smile! and really makes me feel good!)

Several people have made these points but dkhiggin puts this very well:
I fail to understand what is the big deal about stockpiled points, perhaps because I don't have a lot, but how is BM actually hurt by that? It seems that it is the members with the extra points that are hurt. Are they the ones clamoring for change?

I doubt it. But I bet you were joking, right?

And, like RidgewayGirl, I mooched lots of books for keeps. They are for research or to replace books I had when I was little or to complete collections. Some of the books I've mooched I don't intend to ever put back up for mooch. Others, I will, but I guess I don't read fast enough!

Oh, me too. I have well over 100 mooched books I haven't read yet. Many of these would have eventually ended back on BM, but for now I'm holding off adding to my inventory until I see how this will shake out. The last thing I want to do is spend more money and get more points and find I can't use them - it would be cheaper to give my books to a local charity. Since I've been on BM I've gone to some wonderful book sales and picked up many titles to list. (All new additions to that "closed system".....) I ended up with over 200 points and was quite willing to keep it up. Now I'm mooching anything from my wishlist I can find and have gotten down to 160. When the next booksale comes up I'm going to have to think twice before picking up anything to offer on BookMooch.

Regarding who owns our points and what we decide to do with the books we mooch, I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think they aren't OURS. As someone else said, I paid for those points, and the books I've received have become mine, and many are now permanently in my collection. To assume that books must be put back in BookMooch circulation assumes that the only books BookMooch has for trade are those no one wants to keep longer than to read. Uh... wrong! Even for the highly-wishlisted books, if I start getting emails hassling me I'm out of here. BookMooch has been a lot of fun, but not worth getting spammed for: I can get emails for overdues from my local library for the very same books.

I don't see how the BookMooch site and administration is supposed to be anything but a conduit. As I said earlier, what is John getting out of alienating people? How does it hurt him or BookMooch (the organization) if there is point inflation?

202: "How does it hurt him or BookMooch (the organization) if there is point inflation?"

That's one of the things I really don't understand. Until all of these changes and blogposts, *many* people had no idea anything was "wrong" with the way the points were. I see absolutely no evidence that *points* were hurting BookMooch; John posted graphs that show a slow-down in activity in certain places, but that has nothing at all to do with points in general; I'd bet my life that the majority of decrease in BM-activity is simply because of the Real Life Economy. I don't understand how point changes are supposed to change *that*.

Has it moved on to any serious discussion about sending out reminders other than for BM Journals?

Between everything else here and finding errors in the key I was given for marking (ugh, just re-caught up now!) I have been avoiding the blog...

what blog?

is it important?

prolly not...

going to bed now...

g'night.

Heh. I am going to soak in the tub. Taking 4 books with me. After consideration I opted not to take the Kindle.

One fun thought occurred to me. If there is any sort of incentive to post highly wishlisted books added into the system, that may alter some of the negative feelings people on the blog seem to have towards people with 'overly high' wishlists. Those wishlists might mean more points for their books!

Just a thought.

We can make our own incentives.

If I wanted to request a copy of a book, let's say For All The Tea in China by Sarah Rose, I could say that I would be willing to smooch an extra two points, whether domestic or international, and that would be allowed.

Apparently, it has always been allowed, but not promoted. We could use our own Book Search Among Friends thread or use one on the BM forum!

and, yes, I want that book & would be willing to smooch extra points for it.

Yeah, people often offer to smooch/charity extra points for certain wishlisted books.

I'm against automatic incentives for listing wishlisted books because it would no doubt lead to even *more* people listing tons of wishlisted books that they don't actually own or never plan to send. Scammers already do that, let's not give them more reason to.

208: Or asking friends to wishlist specific books. :P Although that sounds like it would be a lot of work for little reward imo.

How does it hurt him or BookMooch (the organization) if there is point inflation?

I guess the reasonning is that if someone has loads of points, he or she won't feel the pressure to add new & wanted books to his/her inventory.
If every member has a 100 points to spend, members won't add new books to their inventories because they'll want to spend their 100 points first. Tons of points, no books to spend them on, the system slows down, etc.

Not sure if it's true, but I think it's the idea behind the changes.

I have to admit I haven't read all of the above so if this is repeating someone else, my apologies.

Has anyone noticed the diametrically opposed posts on the blogs? The first blog about the point/ratio change was to "improve" the health of BookMooch but then in the "Not Much Junk on BookMooch" John states "Books added to inventory tend to get mooched, and there are lots of recently added books (50,000 in the past two months)" and goes on to say "This makes the BM inventory of books look pretty healthy."

So I guess my question is, if the inventory is healthy, 50,000 books have been added in the past two months, why all the upheaval and changes?

It's rhetorical but was just wondering if anyone else had noticed the mixed messages in the first blog about the bad "health" issue then the message on the "Junk" blog about how good the inventory is?

Sigh, I just wish the inactive, on vacation, possibly inactive accounts that still show inventory, still show active wish lists and have books pending would get cleaned up. That would go a long way to me being less uncomfortable with all the changes.

My two cents, at the moment. . .and well with inflation and the health of my economy that might, maybe, possibly, in the future mean. . . :))

Yeah, the health thing . . .

I think two things we can do for the health of BookMooch right now (aside from posting more books which many of us can't really afford to send atm) are 1) a vacationing campaign, and 2) a stealth smooching campaign. Both volunteer efforts, of course. Some of us do mooch books in order to vacation accounts, but I don't think there's really a coordinated effort. Say, vacation those who have not been on for a year, and then contact admin to have accounts removed that have been inactive longer than that if they don't respond to requests. Vacationing doesn't do anything about wishlists, but at least it gets inventories out of the way, and we would be making sure that people really are gone as opposed to just forgetting about the site.

Stealth smooching just makes people happy. Unfortunately, with points becoming more dear, smooching probably won't happen as much from individuals, but maybe we could set up a charity account kind of like the account for angels. Why not have a pool of points to smooch, say, international newbies who are one point shy of being able to mooch a book? Or people who seem to be in good standing but only have one point? It's a nice surprise, would encourage people to mooch books, might encourage sticking around, and doesn't need paying back the way the Bank of BookMooch does. I have seen active accounts (logged in within the last week, etc) with only one or two points but fifteen available titles on their wishlist, where people are in fact willing to send to them. They're just afraid of spending those last points. That's very discouraging!

Well, since all the turmoil over points/and ratios, I have gone on an angel mooch and mooching spree. In one week, I have gone from 2.15 books sent for each book mooched to 1.70 books sent for each book mooched.

wow what a change.

Now I am waiting on 52 books to be sent to me ... for me, that is a record!

If others have done what I have, I would have to say that Bookmooch must be looking pretty healthy to John right now... lol

I have been trying to go on a mooch spree.. I have also removed a # of books from my inventory and taken them to the used bookstore (So I don't use more points that I actually have, it removes that .1 point).

I have gone from 200 to about 170 I think? (Once I take into account upcoming angel mooches).

So 15% down! 85% to go. *sigh* I have an almost 1,300 wishlist.. I just keep watching new inventories as well.

I have 72 books pending coming to me of which 21 are angel mooches. I have gone a bit mooch crazy lately too, it seems.

Well, I can't keep up with some of you, but I now have 42 books Pending. Woo-hoo!

Not sure where to cut this off. On the one hand, I want to keep some points, but on the other, I no longer trust JB...

Thanks to JB, we now have a small taste of what it looks like living in a Third World country with unstability (rule changes) and high inflation (points).

A small detail I just noticed on the ratio issue, which has not been brought up anywhere before.

The ratio changes not when books are sent internationally, but when they are received. I still have 32 + 16 international mooches (outgoing) pending, so my ratio will be much lower by the time those books are received.

Yes, but it will go higher again when your international mooches (incoming) arrive.

OMG! I've been not following neither this forum nor BM blog for a month or so and I can't believe what's going on. It seems I've got many posts to read to figure out how is this going to affect BM usage and user-friendliness...

For me BM has never been a cheap way to get books (it's cheaper to keep all my books and buy new ones in BookDepository) but a wonderful place to exchange books which is what I thought was the whole point of the site.

Now of to read all those posts :S

I've just received 5 books I mooched internationally before this all began, and they've counted towards my ratio as if I'd mooched 15 books (5 + 2x5 adjustement). This is what I can't accept. To penalize people who mooch internationally by not only having their mooches cost 3 points now but also count as 3 books to your ratio?

Yep, same here.

So much for waiting 3 months.

Wait - was the 3 month wait for the extra point charge? I guess I got that confused with the ratio change. Geez...

Ratio change happened immediately. Point change is in April.

Yeah, thanks. Somehow I got confused for a minute.

I hate this. Especially since I think he's killing the site. :-(

3 months on both would have been really really nice.

225: Sorry for any confusion but I meant the overall changes that have been done (ratio) or are coming (3 points per international mooch).

New post needed?

New thread:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/108428

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!!
THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!!
THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!!
THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!!

thank you!