• LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

List Pollution

Talk about LibraryThing

Join LibraryThing to post.

Mar 20, 2:52pm Top

I was surprised to see this book I had never heard of, The Elephant Tree, had been included on the lists 1001 Books to Read Before You Die, the Guardian's 1000 Books Everyone Must Read, 501 Must-Read Books, and 100 Books to Read in a Lifetime, as well as 40 other LibraryThing lists. Wow, that book must be really something. I checked out the author, who had one other book to his name. Lo and behold, it too appeared on all four of these lists, plus 40-some others.

Huh, what can be the explanation for this remarkable achievement? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mar 20, 2:56pm Top

Were you able to find who's been adding the book to the lists, so we can report them for it?

Mar 20, 2:59pm Top

There are four consistent usernames associated with these and other books that have been wrongly added to these lists. I can drop a note to Loranne.

Mar 20, 3:27pm Top

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but it seems odd to me that all of a sudden there are several new reviews of that book, after no activity for a few years.

And all from brand-new members!

However, I'm sure there's an innocent explanation . . .

Mar 20, 3:44pm Top

It also got a lot better since the earlier reviews were written.

Mar 20, 11:16pm Top

I'm on it (or rather, will be soon, once I get State of the Thing out. Thanks for the note!

Mar 21, 1:03am Top

>4 lilithcat:

Funnily enough I had exactly the same cynical reaction...

Mar 21, 9:06am Top

Hmmm. There are any number of recent joiners who have added 10/11/12/14 books, and they seem to appear on each others' 'Members with xxx books' lists.

Mar 21, 11:55am Top

>1 sturlington: I was kinda curious of your criteria for the Top Rated books, for some of them to be on there. Do you have a threshold to be able to boot a few? :)

Mar 21, 1:23pm Top

>9 gilroy: Not sure what you're referring to. A list?

Mar 21, 2:16pm Top

>11 gilroy: Oh, yes, have not looked at that one in some time. I believe I was trying to locate books with more than just a few owners that had an average rating of 4.25 (or in the neighborhood). Of course, ratings change. :-) And also, other people added to the list as well. Although, scrolling down, the first several books come close to that requirement.

You can thumbs down any book you like, but you can't remove a book if someone else has added it.

Mar 22, 2:56pm Top

It's also happening with this book: https://www.librarything.com/work/19256069/summary

See this thread, message #241 and 242: https://www.librarything.com/topic/232034#5983438

Mar 22, 3:00pm Top

>13 norabelle414: I've found several other books that are getting similar treatment. Although seeing that book added to the best contemporary literary fiction list made me chortle.

Mar 22, 3:06pm Top

Very interesting, thanks for highlighting this. It's also interesting looking at all the recent members who have added that particular book. They each have about 10 books and have rated it highly. Very suspicious behavior.

Mar 22, 3:16pm Top

>13 norabelle414: Thanks for directing me here. I've sent Loranne a message, thinking these new members are sock puppets. Somebody doesn't have enough to do, eh?

Mar 22, 3:24pm Top

The author of The Elephant Tree just joined LibraryThing at the beginning of this month. Hmmm.

see members who own his books

Patterns anyone?

Edited: Mar 22, 3:45pm Top

Let me guess... All of these are self published authors that are getting this treatment? Or are they all from the same imprint?

ETA: Further research shows these to be POD books. (Hybrid publishers as they call themselves. As an author who's done his research, the authors of these books are getting taken. But that's another thread.) Multiple publishers, but all appear to have similar talking points in their websites. Can't find enough links to make them the same.

Mar 22, 3:54pm Top

>19 gilroy: I checked for that. Some are self-published and some are from a wide variety of very small publishers.

>20 sturlington: Yeah, it's pretty easy to tell what doesn't belong on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list.

Mar 22, 3:55pm Top

>21 norabelle414: Yeah, note my added research comment.

Mar 22, 4:05pm Top

>20 sturlington:

On a list that only has a limited set of legitimate entries, you can select the answer "you" to the question "Who can add books?" to prevent inappropriate entries, can't you? Is the problem that these limited sets are too large for one person to manage?

Mar 22, 4:10pm Top

>23 cpg: Probably, the original creator of the list didn't want to shut people out if they had a legitimate reason to add a book to the list. But that is certainly an option.

Mar 22, 5:51pm Top

>23 cpg: Some of the lists pre-date that option, and others probably wanted to benefit from crowd-sourcing as >24 norabelle414: says. Up till now, I've seen one or two cases of authors adding their own book to a list or two, but nothing as widespread as this, so it didn't seem to be a problem.

Mar 23, 9:41am Top

Hi there. I think I can answer some of your issues here. I recently moved over to LibraryThing and have been advocating it to my Twitter followers as well. With currently 132k Twitter followers some have now joined LT and I would expect will continue to do so. There may not have been much activity with my books on here as I was previously unaware of the site. If you take a look on Goodreads you'll see my books have been rated between 15k -20k times each.

Many of my followers are authors of small press or independently published titles, so I expect some of them have also just become aware of the site and in turn tweeted to their own followers.


Mar 23, 10:03am Top

>26 RichardRonald: Are you or your followers adding books to lists where they clearly don't belong? That reduces the value of lists for everyone.

Mar 23, 10:04am Top

It's like people who throw trash out the windows of their cars. whatever else they do in life, they can't redeem themselves from this useless destruction. yeah, it's extreme, but I can't find anything positive in it.

Mar 23, 10:17am Top

I haven't added books to any lists. I've yet to look at them other than when I received a message about being on the dark fiction list.

Mar 23, 11:55am Top

You might want to notify your friends that inserting books into lists where they obviously don't belong is NOT good advertising, as it convinces discerning readers that the book is poison, and can't make it on its own merits.

Edited: Mar 23, 1:18pm Top

Notice: We've detected a spam issue with some of the material here. We are working on it. (It's going to take a little time to suss it out. But crime doesn't pay, people.)

Edited: Mar 23, 1:30pm Top

DavidFerrers, author of Swap also joined this month, and his book has been added by 103/ nope now 105 new members in the past weeks.

And added to 24 lists.


Edited: Mar 23, 1:46pm Top

Lin_Wilder, joined this month and has added 10 books written by self. Two titles have been added multiple times by other new members and added to lots of lists.


Mar 23, 1:54pm Top

>33 2wonderY: Lin_Wilder, joined this month ...

Author of Secrets to Email Marketing!

Mar 23, 2:03pm Top

blueprinttowealth joined in February. All of a sudden 108 new members have added his book, Blueprint to Wealth, and added it to 23 lists

Mar 23, 2:31pm Top

The author in >26 RichardRonald: tweeted a specific link to a LibraryThing list, which I'm guessing is how all of these people found out about the list feature on LT because it's not a particularly visible feature unless you know where to look.

To be fair, it looks like most of the list spam is being instigated by just three or four users. (Many others are up-thumbing the works but there's no evidence they are the ones who added the books to the lists)

Mar 23, 3:01pm Top

>36 norabelle414: This is being investigated by LT staff.

Mar 23, 3:20pm Top

>37 sturlington: Yeah, I know. But I thought I would point out that none of the authors who have joined recently are actually the people adding their books to lists.

Mar 23, 3:22pm Top

>38 norabelle414: Sock puppetry.

Mar 23, 3:34pm Top

Member author uclasny has one book listed since joining Jan. 2015, which has suddenly become a favorite of over a hundred new members.


Mar 23, 3:47pm Top

Author T L Henry joined LT this week, and though she hasn't added her books to her own account, 52 other new members have, and added one to 27 lists.

Mar 23, 4:16pm Top

Thanks for the links, everyone. We're still working on it, though I've got a good handle on the scope of the issue now. We should have things taken care of tomorrow, if not sooner.

Mar 23, 4:23pm Top

>42 lorannen: Thank you.

Mar 24, 12:30pm Top

What I find rather interesting about this one https://www.librarything.com/work/19256069/members is that the vast majority of the "members" who have added it have a member name with either 2 numbers and then a presumed first name last name, or the first name last name and then the 2 numbers. That's an awful lot of people with a similar pattern for a member name. I know a lot of members on LT and none of them have member names like that. :-)

Mar 27, 1:27am Top

Just popping by to say we're still working—Tim was out at ACRL the latter part of last week, so we didn't get a chance to coordinate just yet. Thanks for your patience!

Mar 27, 10:07am Top

Yeah, I can't promise this gets handled today. But the fish are in the barrel.

Mar 27, 10:12am Top

>46 timspalding: So we're talking dynamite, not fishing pole or pop cap gun?

Mar 27, 10:16am Top

>46 timspalding: That it's being handled at all is terrific--no rush. LT is the one site I visit regularly that has not been decimated by gobs of spam, ads, and trolls, and that's a major reason why I love this site.

Mar 27, 10:19am Top

More "members" continue to join.

Mar 27, 3:06pm Top

>49 2wonderY: Yeah, I see them, and am keeping tabs. Thanks!

Mar 28, 11:30am Top

Hi. I'm just checking back in on this thread again. So am I to think I shouldn't recommend LibraryThing to any more of my followers? The pinned Tweet I posted a while back has been seen by over 100k people now, the understanding that many of them would like the site and sign up for themselves. I'd previously never heard of the place until someone sent me a message about it, but this sounds like you aren't welcoming new members. That's fine if that is the case, I'm happy to remove the Tweet and send them to Goodreads instead. This does seem rather bizarre though. I completely get that you wouldn't want books added to lists they don't belong on, but other than that I'm not sure what the issue would be.


Mar 28, 11:38am Top

>51 RichardRonald: Wow. You clearly don't understand what is being said here. They are simply asking you and your followers not to add your books to other people's recommended read lists. That doesn't at all say anything about not welcoming new members.

Mar 28, 11:48am Top

Goodreads now prohibits authors from adding books to lists to prevent the list pollution mentioned here. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep their friends and followers from adding books indiscriminately.

Edited: Mar 28, 11:50am Top

>51 RichardRonald: No, that's not what's being said.

What's being said is that this place is not like Amazon and GoodReads. It doesn't need to be gamed, worked, or in any way twisted to make books seem like they're from a top tier writer. Sock puppetry is against the terms of service and is what we think we're seeing.

We're here for cataloging and discussing, not selling books. If all they're looking for is a place to sell, this is not a good choice.

Mar 28, 12:32pm Top

>51 RichardRonald: Any of your followers are welcome on LibraryThing as long as they follow the terms of service, which prohibit misusing site features and using LibraryThing for advertising. (https://www.librarything.com/privacy#terms)

Your book was added to the "Dark Fiction" list by several accounts that are adding lots of books (yours and others) to dozens of lists that they do not belong on, so maybe don't pin that tweet.

If lots of your followers are authors, maybe they would appreciate a tweet directing them to "How Authors Can Use LibraryThing" (http://www.librarything.com/about_authors.php) or the group "Hobnob with Authors" (http://www.librarything.com/groups/hobnobwithauthors) where they can talk to other authors about their books.

Mar 28, 1:45pm Top

>56 timspalding:

But we can't see that account because it's been suspended!

I must say that's one of the best obits I've ever read.

Mar 28, 1:50pm Top

* Loranne is marking a large number of accounts as spam.

* I'll be marking around a dozen authors with the "Stanek mark." (See http://www.librarything.com/author/stanekrobert) This mark--only used once before--is not in itself an accusation of an author's fault, but of our inability to separate false data from any true data that might exist.

* Loranne's hand list is limited, although long. I'll be working on marking more accounts as spam, and, with that, improved spam-spotting techniques to keep up with the latest tricks the spammers are employing.

* RichardRonald. I don't think this is the right site for you, and invite you to leave, together with any real readers you have here. I cannot, of course, prove that you made, or paid someone to make, all the fake accounts that added your books. But the pattern of fakery is clear as day and is, quite simply, dominant for the books you wrote. Goodbye.

Mar 28, 2:02pm Top

Ah. Sorry. Loranne acted fast. The account used the guy's picture. I'm glad his relatives aren't going to stumble on someone creating an account with his picture, three years after he died, in order to pump up the online reviews for their book.

Mar 28, 2:11pm Top

Marks added to authors. I reserve the right to add more or, in theory, remove some. They aren't added to works yet, because some are split authors and the current mechanism isn't split-aware yet. So, more work later.

Mar 28, 2:14pm Top

>60 timspalding: Thanks so much, Tim!

Mar 28, 2:20pm Top

It's a little odd (and maybe a tip-off) to see "a LibraryThing Author, an author who lists their personal library on LibraryThing" with no books cataloged.

Mar 28, 2:20pm Top

>60 timspalding: I've said it before, but it can't be said often enough. Thank you for being the straight arrow fellow that you are, and for providing us all this pleasant home. You improved my day, today. XXOO

Mar 28, 2:23pm Top

>52 Darth-Heather:

Oh, he completely understands. He's just making a passive-aggressive threat; "Let me promote myself on LT by having my friends add books to inappropriate lists, or I'll tell my "100K followers" not to join LT."

Mar 28, 2:29pm Top

>59 timspalding:

That's worse than spam. I don't like, but get, an author trying to pump up reviews. But using a dead guy's image is just disgusting.

Mar 28, 2:35pm Top

>65 lilithcat:

No doubt not intentional--some automatic program picked it up, perhaps from another site, like a Facebook profile, although tineye gave that as the only place online with it. Still, it brings home the nastiness of this sort of thing. Real people are surely behind lots of the fake pictures added in this recently batch of spammers. (Adding pictures is fairly new. It takes time, and previous spammers haven't been that into it.)

Mar 28, 2:36pm Top

>66 timspalding: Yeah, credit where it's due (? I guess?), they were pretty clever.

Mar 28, 2:44pm Top

>60 timspalding: Wow. That's sad when someone gets lumped in with Stanek...

Mar 28, 3:17pm Top

>64 lorax: 100k followers, all of whom are entirely real, because nobody ever bulk-bought twitter followers to make themselves look more popular.

On an unrelated note, I'm sure his books are actually very good - after all he has lots of 5 star Amazon reviews from people who felt so strongly that they haven't reviewed anyone else's books before or since.

Mar 28, 3:35pm Top

Don't miss the fact that he posted links to his twitter. Twice.

Mar 28, 3:38pm Top

>69 mart1n:

Precisely, which is why "100K" was in quotes.

Mar 28, 3:38pm Top

So once those profiles are removed, their book ratings won't count, right? I noticed that many used the same titles of good books as cover for their activity and consistently rated them poorly.

Mar 28, 3:39pm Top

>58 timspalding: Wow! Thanks for all the hard work.

Mar 28, 4:00pm Top

>72 2wonderY: Bingo. That's exactly right. In fact, their copies won't even exist on LT anymore, much less their ratings. I'm in the midst of Early Reviewers spreadsheets today, so I won't get them all knocked out today—might take me through the end of the week, given how many there are.

Mar 28, 6:04pm Top

I truly miss the days when one could only get an author account if x number of books had been cataloged.

Mar 28, 7:27pm Top

Passive aggressive? I only became aware of this site a couple of weeks ago, and the only recommendation I have made is the pinned Tweet I previously posted for your perusal. Whatever. This is my last post on the matter. There aren't enough hours in the day for whatever the issue is here.

Mar 28, 8:44pm Top

>75 PhaedraB:

They would just fill the site with nonsense.

Mar 28, 11:09pm Top

>77 timspalding: Is that what happened in the olden days? At least my library and my spouse's were legit before we got our author badges.

Mar 29, 6:19am Top

>78 PhaedraB:

If someone's willing to create dozens of fake accounts, complete with profile pics and 8-12 random popular books to get some illusory standing, they're willing to import 1,000 bogus books for it.

More generally, I don't think author status should require having a large library in LT. Large libraries aren't the only way to interact with the site. A minimum would scare people off, pointlessly.

Mar 29, 8:52am Top

Once the accounts have been marked as spam, will their votes on the lists be automatically removed?

Mar 29, 9:40am Top

>80 norabelle414:

Yes, hopefully.

I did a bunch of work on this tonight, using a new detection algorithm I wrote. It fingered all of them and, blessedly, hasn't found any others I'm sure of yet. But it's still running. Then I'll kill accounts.

Mar 29, 9:44am Top

>79 timspalding:

I don't think author status should require having a large library in LT.

I find it extraordinarily odd that there are authors who join LT to advertise their books in the forums, and yet cannot be bothered to catalog any books at all, not even the one their pushing.

It's very strange.

Mar 29, 10:13am Top

>82 lilithcat:

What's so strange about it? They're interested in advertising and not in cataloguing, which is hardly unusual. They're different from spammers who bump into a discussion of knitting to advertise penile enlargement only in choosing their targets with a bit more thought.

Edited: Mar 29, 10:17am Top

But often their book isn't on LT, so it would make sense to have at least their own entry.

>83 AndreasJ: If you had two and they were enlarged to be long enough, maybe you could knit with them?

Mar 29, 10:25am Top

>84 MarthaJeanne: Isn't there a one needle knitting approach now?

Mar 29, 10:29am Top

It has a hook on the end.

Mar 29, 10:31am Top

There's plenty of species with hooked penises, so maybe their mistake is to advertise to humans?

Mar 29, 10:59am Top

>83 AndreasJ:

It's strange because often it means that there are no copies of the book on LT. You'd think they'd want it here for people to see!

Mar 29, 11:02am Top

>84 MarthaJeanne:, >88 lilithcat:

Yeah, that aspect is strange.

Mar 29, 12:01pm Top

>88 lilithcat: I'd say that is just their misunderstanding of the site. They only think advertise.

Mar 29, 3:53pm Top

There's plenty of species with hooked penises, so maybe their mistake is to advertise to humans?

This is the best "LibraryThing Without Context" quote ever.

Mar 29, 4:46pm Top

Yay! I'm seeing profiles disappear.
What about all these private members:


Mar 29, 4:55pm Top

>92 2wonderY: As I mentioned in >74 lorannen: I'm still working on it, and will be for another day or two. Thanks for your patience!

Mar 29, 5:32pm Top

Sorry! I got a little excited.

Mar 29, 7:11pm Top

This must be new! Is this part of the battle against the sock puppets?

Mar 29, 7:17pm Top

>95 Collectorator: See >58 timspalding: * I'll be marking around a dozen authors with the "Stanek mark." (See http://www.librarything.com/author/stanekrobert) This mark--only used once before--is not in itself an accusation of an author's fault, but of our inability to separate false data from any true data that might exist.

Mar 29, 7:20pm Top

>95 Collectorator: Are your referring to the "Stanek mark?" See >58 timspalding:.

Mar 29, 7:33pm Top

I don't know. I guess.

It seems like there ought to be a better name for it? carry on...

Mar 29, 7:47pm Top

>95 Collectorator: I found that as well in a trawl of the bad stuff, and noticed that the other Gary Stone was caught in the crossfire.

Mar 29, 7:50pm Top

That's how I found it; when you split it! :-}

Mar 30, 12:06am Top

Ah, bug then. Will fix.

Mar 30, 5:02am Top

>101 timspalding: What bug? If you're referring to the to and fro between Collectorator and me, then it's hardly a bug that I split an author after you'd applied the mark. I wouldn't expect that you'd let a general thingamabrarian re-allocate the mark to one author or another after a split; that would open a path to finessing the system. It seems adequate that the mark stays at the top level, even if it delivers a small amount of collateral damage.

Mar 30, 12:09pm Top

>102 Noisy: I disagree. If there are two completely unconnected authors who happen to share the same name, one should not have their author page on LT hidden due to the bad behavior of the other (or, as seems to have been the case, bad behavior of a promotion company, on behalf of the author).

Edited: Mar 30, 12:20pm Top

Noisy wasn't saying the mark shouldn't be applied to the correct author, but that when a user splits a marked author, the user shouldn't be allowed to decide which author gets the mark. If a user could do that, the nefarious author could split his own page, put his own books and info on (1), and move the mark to (2).

It's not a bug that the mark is currently on the disambiguation page. But it should indeed be moved to the appropriate author - by a staff member.

I don't know how you would then prevent the nefarious author from moving everything to a different split. Perhaps once a split is marked, the books on that split could be permanently assigned to the split, with no way for a normal user to move them.

Mar 30, 12:32pm Top

>104 r.orrison: Oh, yes. I do think that's probably the right approach here. I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

Mar 30, 12:57pm Top

It's not a bug that the mark is currently on the disambiguation page. But it should indeed be moved to the appropriate author - by a staff member.

We should assign it to the right sub-author. Either way, it shouldn't percolate to the splits.

Mar 30, 2:05pm Top

What's a sub-author, if not a split?

Edited: Mar 30, 2:07pm Top

>108 r.orrison:

I think the relevant distinction is not "sub-author" versus "split" but singular vs. plural - having the mark be assigned to all splits is clearly sub-optimal.

Mar 30, 2:08pm Top

>108 r.orrison: "What's a sub-author, if not a split?"

Jules Verne, Tom Clancy, etc.

Mar 30, 2:25pm Top

>106 2wonderY: Yeah, he was on my original list that should get that mark. Suspect Tim's still finishing that up.

Edited: Mar 31, 5:33am Top

>104 r.orrison: Thanks for stepping in to clarify. I think the needed mark is that the spamming is in regard to the work(s) (although the obvious benefit is to the author). To that end, marking should ONLY be in relation to the works and not the author. (Stanek is a different case.)

>107 timspalding: To that end, I'd only apply the mark to pages with the work appearing on them, and I'd change the wording from :
"Extensive spam activity on behalf of this work and/or author have rendered it impossible to present accurate or representative information. To discourage further promotion, this page is only visible to logged-in members, with this warning."


"Extensive spam activity on behalf of one or more works on this page have rendered it impossible to present accurate or representative information. To discourage further promotion, this page is only visible to logged-in members, with this warning."

In that way, unaffected authors that have been split (as in the 'other' Gary Stone - http://www.librarything.com/author/stonegary-1) would not have the mark showing.

Mar 31, 5:52am Top

>106 2wonderY: From the look of it, when you were having the discussion after he first arrived a year ago, he seemed like a real person (although obviously in it for self-promotion). (It's only a guess, but) the recent spamming is possibly associated with a publishing outfit, and if so, the individual authors may not have initiated the activity. If my assumption is correct, I'd only apply the mark to the author page and not the user page.

Mar 31, 10:50am Top

The various authors are all fingering an outfit called "Celtic Book Promotions." How much they knew about it is anyone's guess.

Mar 31, 1:45pm Top

>114 timspalding: You means this bunch: http://www.celtictreepromo.com/ It looks as if their website (with a host based in Slough, UK) has been around for about a year. Not much to be gleaned from the website. There are a couple of threads from people saying they've been approached and offered an 'expensive' service to do the promotion. On that basis, I may roll back and say that the spam marker should be applied to the user page as well. On the other hand, they may have been doing a test against LT to see if their tactics worked, and trying to establish a reputation for successful activity.

Mar 31, 2:32pm Top

>114 timspalding: "Celtic Tree Promotions" that is, as >115 Noisy: pointed to.

Apr 7, 12:12am Top

Okay, spam-members' contributions removed from lists.

* First, their votes no longer count and names don't appear.
* Second, works added by someone subsequently marked as spam, and not added by anyone else, have been removed.

Apr 7, 6:47am Top

Apr 7, 9:13am Top


Apr 7, 9:16am Top

>117 timspalding: Great work. There's an artefact that's still visible. Going to the page of a work that no longer exists - https://www.librarything.com/work/19256086 - you can still see the assigned ratings. If someone genuinely adds this work and rates it, will the ghostly ratings re-emerge?

Apr 7, 12:34pm Top

>120 Noisy: It looks to me like that work still exists. There's still one valid member with it cataloged: https://www.librarything.com/work/19256086/members, and they're the member who has applied that rating.

Note: we didn't completely remove all copies of all of these works. Some of them did have valid copies held by long-time LT members.

Apr 7, 12:38pm Top

>121 lorannen: I see lots and lots of ratings on that book.

4 - 93
4.5 - 13
5 - 24

May just not have caught up yet, but 130 ratings on a book with one member looks strange.

Apr 7, 12:38pm Top

Yeah, probably hasn't caught up. Give it a few days.

Apr 19, 4:32pm Top

Ratings still seem to be adhering to the works - at least on the work pages.

Apr 19, 4:43pm Top

>124 Noisy: Give me an example, please? Some of the works in question did have valid copies cataloged, and ratings will stick to those copies (like my example in >121 lorannen: ).

Apr 19, 4:47pm Top

Posts >18 norabelle414: and >20 sturlington: have lists of examples.

Apr 19, 4:55pm Top

>126 Noisy: Yes, I checked a few of those at random—they all seemed to reflect ratings on actual copies still on LT.

Apr 19, 5:28pm Top

Eh? The first one in >18 norabelle414: has one member and 126 ratings. The others are similar.

Apr 19, 5:37pm Top

>128 Noisy: Oh! I see now. I was looking at the section at the top of the page, and here: https://www.librarything.com/work/19256137/members. Had completely forgotten about the "Rating" box on the right-hand side of the page. Definitely looks like those are still stuck. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for reporting.

Apr 19, 5:50pm Top

Running the process that should correct. I'll see if that fixes it.

Apr 22, 4:37am Top

Looking good now. That must have taken quite an effort, Tim; we really appreciate the work to hold back the tide of scum.

Apr 22, 5:12am Top

Yes, much better.

Apr 26, 10:03am Top

Some of these authors are showing up on the Zeitgeist page under "50 top-rated authors (Authors with at least 50 ratings)". Is this just because the Zeigeist doesn't update very frequently?

Apr 26, 11:16am Top

Gawd. Probably.

Apr 26, 11:22am Top

Okay, running the process that should recalculate it.

Apr 27, 1:59pm Top

Run and done. Thanks.

Apr 27, 5:34pm Top

>136 timspalding: Thanks :-)

I don't think this is related to the original problem on this thread, but this user: https://www.librarything.com/profile/Mario.Johns has been adding all the books by this author: https://www.librarything.com/author/nuitnatasapantovic to several lists including "1001 Books to Read Before You Die"

Apr 27, 5:44pm Top

>137 norabelle414: There was some spam about this in Talk the other day.

Apr 27, 5:55pm Top

>137 norabelle414: Ah, I'd missed the lists thing. Prior to that, they hadn't quite crossed the line. Definitely not related to this initial cluster, though. I'm not seeing it in Spam Fighters thread (where was that, bernsad?), but it's probably time to spam them.

In general, new lists spam can go in Spam Fighters. We've got this group taken care of.

Apr 27, 6:12pm Top

>139 lorannen: I don't think it made it as far as Spam Fighters but a very new members was posting about this author a couple of days ago and now I think the member has disappeared from the site or at least removed their copy of one of the books.

Apr 27, 10:37pm Top

Just read this in the logs:
blueprinttowealth saved Gary Stone with "Split the author."

Does this mean the spammer is active on the site or is staff just busy adjusting his account?

I'm sorry I have not kept up with all of what's going on with this issue.

Apr 28, 5:22am Top

So, we can't say he's a spammer. We can say that there was spam activity around his books. If he was one of the Celtic Tree Promotions people--and I suspect he was--then he should have contacted us, because we're allowing those people to lose the spam marker, if they come clean about the situation. Our feeling is that they were unaware of what was being done on their behalf. (Meanwhile, however, the Celtic Tree Promotions people who continued to lie about it publicly, will never lose the mark.)

Apr 28, 3:06pm Top

>137 norabelle414: >139 lorannen: >142 timspalding: I'd have put this on the spammers group, except we're on the topic here, that I've noticed https://www.librarything.com/author/nuitnatasapantovic is also, or associated with, http://www.librarything.com/profile/Artof4elements, who is "friends" or has as an "interesting library" with other members already squashed/mentioned in this thread for list spam activity. One of the interesting libraries is http://www.librarything.com/profile/elena.trintas who doesn't even have any books cataloged (that must be some "favorite library") but has added faux published reviews, recommendations, etc. to the author/members I've linked.

Apr 28, 3:14pm Top

>143 rybie2: The elena.trintas account was suspended for spam activity at one point, but was reinstated, after I had an email exchange with the member explaining why. I'm guessing they deleted their books recently, as they certainly did have books from that author in their library at one point.

Where are the published reviews you're seeing? I don't see published reviews on any of that author's book pages.

Edited: Apr 28, 3:32pm Top

>144 lorannen: You don't see them because I finished off a spammer that was linked to all of this.

ETA: For your reference, it was one of those in Spam with books (the new trick they're trying to keep from being spammified).


(It did make me laugh, though, to see something so close the Jennifer Aniston)

Apr 28, 3:37pm Top

>145 Lyndatrue: Ha! That is funny. And thank you for knocking that one down.

>143 rybie2: I'll keep an eye on that author/publisher situation for further activity.

Group: Talk about LibraryThing

142,364 messages

This group does not accept members.


This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

You are using the new servers! | About | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 115,162,445 books! | Top bar: Always visible