Are These Spoof Requests?

There seem to be an increasing number of requests from members with no books. I recently answered one for an SF book. People chipped in but the OP (with no books as I discovered later) never responded. Are we being had?

>1 justifiedsinner: Some of the plots have always seemed so dreadful that I hoped they were ...

I'm going to err on the side of helping them, unless there's something in the request itself that just looks too outrageous to countenance ... although as >2 klarusu: points out, the thing probably exists more often than not.

I would imagine plenty of requests are from users with no books, as people do searches trying to find it, and find LT and join for the purpose of asking.

I don't worry that they're spoofs so much as I wonder whether some algorithm got changed and our little thread shows up in Google searches more when people are looking online. It's not that hard to sign up for an account here, and a lot of the 'drive-by' askers don't seem quite familiar with the group and how to ask. I don't worry so much about them not replying - if they're only interested in the book, they don't have to sign in to see the thread later on.

I will admit to wondering sometimes with the very specific ones if some author isn't testing to see if their work-in-progress is too close to some other existing plotline. That said, I have had a few very specific remembered books also, so it's much more likely that these are just random internet hunters who are desperate to fix a brain glitch.

Regardless, it's fun to see the plots and search (even though I'm generally way too slow to be of help) and when they're identified (or even just looking at the suggestions) to find interesting books to add to the TBR pile.

>2 klarusu: ...or generic romance plots that could fit hundreds of possible books.
There must be a romance site somewhere where they recommend frustrated readers to ask on LT.

Of the tiny proportion that looked interesting enough to follow up, I don't remember any where the OP hasn't come back to thank the people who responded.

I have wondered about it occasionally, but I don't think a spoof Name-that-Book request would be a very effective way to generate publicity for a book. The effort involved in either planting and tagging enough copies for us to find or creating plausible sock-puppets to do the finding would be way out of proportion to the number of people likely to look at the post and think "that looks interesting".

I have to admit, I just came across this group when I was looking for a book I'd read years ago. Apparently someone else had been looking for it as well and their request on this site came up on my internet search. I was later able to recall the names of the characters and so found the book I was looking for. I replied to the OP with the information as it was the same book. Since their request had been made a year or so ago, I doubt they have checked back. I hope they found the book in the end.

I still hope to find another book I've requested, but it is probably too obscure.

>5 RowanTribe:

I will admit to wondering sometimes with the very specific ones if some author isn't testing to see if their work-in-progress is too close to some other existing plotline.

In a similar vein, I've sometimes wondered if an author might post their own plot with a sock-puppet account, and use another account to answer the question, in order to highlight their own book. But I've never seen anything that really leads me to believe it has happened. Perhaps my own mind is too devious for its own good. (But rest assured, I would never do that -- I love LT too much!)

I have to admit I am frustrated by the predominance of romance book requests

>9 memccauley6:

It makes me wish for an oldstyle Usenet filter capability, so I could just say "Ignore any thread in 'Name That Book' with 'romance' in the subject line."

"It makes me wish for an oldstyle Usenet filter capability, so I could just say "Ignore any thread in 'Name That Book' with 'romance' in the subject line.""

YES!!

I'm the opposite. I target the romance threads. I admit to being a romance junkie and have better luck identifying them.

Like others, I found Library Thing (and this group) because I was searching for a book. I stayed because searching for lost books is a favorite hobby. I don't have any books either.

>12 juels:
I also target the romance threads but as thorold says above, some of them are so vague! My favorite is the descriptor "It's set in olden times."

>13 rarm:
I know what you mean. I'm usually laughing over the heroine/heroin issue.

>8 amysisson:

I don't believe that your thinking is too devious. If that's the case, then I'd have to admit that we both have tickets on the same ship - probably called the SS Suspicious (or something along those lines). That exact thought has occurred to me on several occasions.

I started here looking for a book as well - I've been a sucker for anthologies for years, and borrowing them from the library, I often forget which book I've read, or the stories within them.

I try to help out with finding books when possible, but I must admit, some of these story add requests can really be bewildering.

>1 justifiedsinner: that is an interesting question. I have noticed the preponderance of requests for romance book titles and it didn't occur to me that something like this group might show up as a hit on a Google search. I must admit I was beginning to wonder what it was about romance novels that made them both so forgettable and so desired to be remembered. I think the point about this group showing up in searches for forgotten books is reasonable but if that is the case then I would have to wonder about the bias with respect to book type...unless, of course, the search algorithm somehow takes feedback samples from the kinds of books requested in this Librarything group and is caught in the do loop of self referenced positive feedback.

>17 alco261: Those kind of books take zero time to read, and those who read them tend to speed through a lot of them. It's really no wonder they have trouble keeping track.

Hey Guys Mervin Here. Big favor please. new here and just wanted to introduce myself and get to know some readers and writers. I 'am very excited and hope to keep the fire going about books which for me is a passion.

>19 TimmyReyes: Hi Mervin and welcome to LibraryThing.

As a newcomer, you should check out the groups that interest you and post to appropriate threads.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/welcometolibrarythin

and since you are an author do go and introduce yourself in the Hobnob with Authors group.

Random postings aren't a good idea, you might mistakenly be seen as a spammer.

I think the suggestion that the posts are from people who found us from Google and are just here to find the book holds up better than my initial theory. It's still annoying, especially when they never come back.

I think LT should make it a rule that you have to enter at least one book in your library before you can post to a forum.

>21 justifiedsinner:
They'd just add a random book, which wouldn't increase LT's meaningful data.

Why is it annoying? Ok, the proportion of romance can be trying, but it doesn't take anything away from LT and maybe gains a few users in the longer term.

>22 mart1n: It's annoying because of the time wasted helping these, often ungrateful, people out. I don't know about LT admin policies but I would have thought that have an increasing number of, essentially, dead accounts adds to storage and maintenance costs. I think that having to enter a book will discourage the fly-by-nighters and possibly involve those that are more than that. If they get involved then they are more likely to stay and become a true part of the community.

> 23 It's annoying because of the time wasted helping these, often ungrateful, people out.

Then don't bother to try! No one is forcing you to look at these threads or to make any attempt to help these people.

I would have thought that have an increasing number of, essentially, dead accounts adds to storage and maintenance costs.

Another site I'm on had numerous discussions about eliminating such accounts, and the site's owners said that they had no, or minimal, impact on site costs or performance. But perhaps someone with more technical knowledge could chime in on that.

Not all of these accounts are inactive, despite appearances. Right here above, we have example members >7 Annslib: and >12 juels: who each have a bare-bones profile but are (apparently) active members, participating in this conversation and assisting other people with finding book titles.

The group has two purposes: helping out fellow book-lovers and giving us a chance to show off how knowledgeable we are.

And yeah, pretty sure empty accounts never used again have little impact given the overall size of the LT DB.

The ones that annoy me are the brand new members who post on Book Talk, are asked to post here after reading the description and then post exactly the same subject 'Help me find this book' and message as the first time.

>27 MarthaJeanne: There is that, but as George Carlin said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

I don't think we suffer that much considering.

>24 lilithcat: Agreed!! If you're posting here for the sake of getting heaps of praise for helping someone find the title of a random book, then don't. Sure, it may be vaguely irritating to never know if the right answer was found for a query, but who cares? It is certainly not a big deal to fuss over.

Yes indeed, an empty user account should take up the most marginal of space, and Tim wants people to be able to easily join and post. Maybe they'll stick around maybe they won't, it's not a big deal either way.

>27 MarthaJeanne: YES. Along with the ones who manage to post here but STILL don't read the rules. I don't even bother clicking most of the Book Talk ones or the bad ones here. Blech.

>23 justifiedsinner: I'm sorry you've been so frustrated by the tone of our group lately. We do get a lot of posts from members who are very new to LT, and I do not find this to be surprising -- we're one of LT's oldest and most active areas. Our group is predominately prominently listed on LT's Groups page, and other groups often refer their own posters to us as needed (Book Talk group even links to us in their bio page).

I don't think it's uncommon for members to join LT specifically to post a query in our group. Sometimes they stick around and get involved with other parts of LT, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get bit by the book-solving bug and become very active in our group. I think it's worthwhile to give each new member some patience while they see if LT is something they want to explore.

As mentioned a bit upthread, if you're reaching the end of your patience, ignoring a post or poster is always an option. It might give you a bit of a break and, to be honest, the 'pls hlp' headers are enticingly easy to ignore.

LT does have some strict rules regarding spam posts. I don't believe the recent posts tip over into spam behavior, but you might wish to approach the Spam Fighters group and see if they suggest any actions.

As you are aware, LT does not at present require that members must catalog at least one book in order to be able to participate in the Talk areas. I doubt that requirement would ever go in effect, but if you feel strongly about it, you might consider making that suggestion to the Recommended Site Improvements group.

Referenced page and group links:
https://www.librarything.com/groups
https://www.librarything.com/groups/booktalk
https://www.librarything.com/groups/spamfighters
https://www.librarything.com/groups/recommendsiteimprov

ETA: All that proofing and still a typo.

No, Tim would never ever make that change. Hell he won't even put into place things that would stop new members from spamming Talk! Make an RSI for it if you want but hell will freeze over before it would ever have the tiniest chance of being implemented.
Also no, posts asking for title help are not spam and should not be reported there for flagging, that would be abuse of the flagging feature and that would need to be reported to staff. Not liking a post does not make it spam.

>31 .Monkey.:, correct! Rather than the flag feature in those instances, I heartily recommend a big fat red "X" (Ignore Topic)

I guess I'm not as saintly as everyone here in not requiring at least a smidgen of acknowledgment when one finds the right book (if they have). To me it just seems rude but then I'm getting old and the old always complain of contemporary manners.

I spent many years in IT making things as simple and easy to use as possible so I would agree with Tim's desire not to place obstacles to joining the site. But it's an old adage than anything free (or effortless) has no value while even a little effort can make of something a thing to be treasured.

I think many people who are looking for a particular title just stumble upon LT, and though they are required to set up an account to ask the question, they lack the confidence that there will be a reply, so they just keep on their way.

I did notice a few days ago, while adding books to my sister's free account, that unpaid members cannot change author data on the Work page. I had to log in to my own account to make the change. That made me think that Tim is beginning to look at tiering edit functions to keep drive-by data changes from happening.

>17 alco261: what it was about romance novels that made them both so forgettable and so desired to be remembered

I don't think it's so much that romances are forgettable, as that many romance readers are incredibly prolific - I've talked to people who read 3-5/week, year after year. With those kinds of numbers, I can see how remembering a specific title would become difficult.

For everyone wishing for a place to direct romance seekers there is a website called www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com where they (at least once upon a time I haven't checked them out in a couple of years and my work computer says no to that domain) have a feature called HaBO (help a bitch out). They don't always know the book either but the people over there have been surprisingly capable of remembering everything they've ever read and remembering the titles when they put together their collective knowledge.

Thanks >18 .Monkey.:, >35 timepiece:, that would definitely account for curious combination of forgetting and wanting to remember.