Dear Mole...

Just a thread to let our dear Mole know about mess-ups that could be fixed easily.

Dear Mole,
ever wondered why the recently released The Life of Thomas More is selling poorly? Because it's not listed under any of the categories on the website - neither under "Biography & Memoir" nor "History" - one couldn't stumble upon it while browsing. I even forgot Folio published it last spring - until it showed up today among Editor's Choices. Fix it.

Well done, Mole, that was quick. Now some more spring-cleaning to do:
If you click on the Spring Collection banner from the from page, it takes you straight to new titles, which is good. But if you're browsing already and click on "Spring Collection" at the top of the list of topics on the left, it will take you to the page boldly titled "THE SPRING COLLECTION", but only the very top book is new; the rest are a random selection of older titles - Chaos, The Illustrated Man, etc. You'd have to click on New Titles - a newly expanded menu item that wasn't available before and easy to miss - to see the new titles. Please tell your web developers that people clicking on "The Spring Collection" actually want to see... titles from the Spring Collection.

Dear Mole,

Those of us in the US also would like a copy of The Diary of Anne Frank. I have the original one you printed and would love a backup, since I read it every year. You offered it to us last time around. Why not this time? That doesn't even make sense. Why priority of books for some countries and not all? I would imagine your business would do quite poorly without sales from the US. Decisions like this reek of self-destruction.

>3 Lady19thC: Decisions like this are actually made for good reason: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/18/anne-franks-diary-caught-in-fierce...

>2 elladan0891: That is because the Spring collection actually includes every book Folio Society is offering this spring, not just the new titles. This is intended behaviour and has always been.

>5 Fierylunar:
While it's debatable what exactly "the Spring Collection" is, either way it's most certainly not the intended behaviour. Sorting books in random order (not alphabetical, not by release date) cannot be intended. A click on the "Spring Collection" banner leading to the new books while a click on the "Spring Collection" link under "What's New" leading to old books cannot be intended design.

If you look at browsing hierarchy, it's going to be What's New -> The Spring Collection -> page displaying books like Animal Farm, which has been in print for decades. Definitely wrong.

It might be ok to display all titles available after clicking on "The Spring Collection" under "What's New" despite inconsistency with clicking on "The Spring Collection" banner on the webpage, but then the new books most certainly must be listed first.

>6 elladan0891: apart from the first 4 books not being listed alphabetically (the rest seems to be) there is nothing inconsistent with previous releases. Every collection for the last few years has had a "The... Collection" page with every single title listed. If memory serves, the banner on the front page has always sent you to the New Titles page, whereas the Spring collection header under what's new has not. If you only want the new books from there, you go further to "New Titles".

While you may not like the logic, it is actually as it has been for years and seems to be the way Folio likes it and intends it to behave.

Being broken for years doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.
The fact that it has been that way doesn't meant that obviously buggy display of titles and inconsistent functionality are intended and desired by Folio, it just means that nobody really bothered to test how it works (not untypical sloppiness for FS, I might add).

... lol

Dearest M, the new 'food and humour' category on your website's main page shows none of your David, Grigson and Fisher titles.

Has there been any news from Joe Blundell?

Dear Mole,
Eleanor of Aquitaine is not listed anywhere - neither under Biography nor History. You can only find it if you type it explicitly into search. You're welcome.

Midnight's Children is incorrectly showing up under the 'Children's Gift Ideas' section.

>14 venkysuniverse: At least I am Legend doesn't appear in the Mythology section.

>15 cronshaw: Hahaha

Two of the Summer new releases (South Polar Times, A Tale of Two Cities) have no page count in their description.

From the email received earlier today from Folio announcing the Summer Collection, "Marvel at the first-ever illustrated edition of the counterculture classic Steppenwolf". Oh dear, the Helmut Ackermann illustrated LEC of Steppenwolf currently on the desk in front of me must be a figment of my imagination then!

>18 HuxleyTheCat:

It's not the first time Folio have incorrectly claimed theirs to be the first illustrated edition. I believe they did so with Lolita until Cronshaw challenged it and Folio quickly amended the description on their website.

>18 HuxleyTheCat:

On the website they're calling it the only one currently in print.

>20 SF-72: That's all right then, lying (sorry, misspeaking) is ok in marketing emails.

>21 HuxleyTheCat:

It's not the first time something like this has happened and I find it rather embarrassing, to be honest, even when they catch their mistake (or are caught in it) and then twist it a little to still make their book sound 'great' without outright lying. Their editions are usually very good quality, so why not be honest about what they're actually offering? And why try to make it sound more than it is? 'The only illustrated edition in print'? It's not like there's no market for out-of-print books. If I were them, I'd simply go with 'illustrated edition' and let the quality speak for itself.

>22 SF-72: I completely agree.

>22 SF-72: Exactly

>25 EclecticIndulgence:

To be fair, in that instance they say "this monumental text has been lavishly illustrated for the first time", and the last text they were referring to was "Robert Fraser's masterful 1994 abridgment" which presumably hasn't been presented before in an illustrated edition. Claiming alternatively that the LEC version wasn't lavishly illustrated wouldn't get them far, as other previous publications include "The Illustrated Golden Bough": apparently very lavishly illustrated, though also very abridged.

I can't find any such excuse for the Steppenwolf claim, unless books that weren't published in the UK don't count in Folio's universe.

FS is trying to ignore LEC's existence

Should I have the feeling that the advertising/promotion staff work in a cubicle separate from the editorial staff?

>27 harvestRoad:

It's dismayingly easy to be oblivious of the LEC if you live in Britain, don't cross the Atlantic, and steer clear of LibraryThing: I managed it myself for fifty-odd years. But, yes, a small research department, or just a couple of interns with a little time on their hands, should be able to save the FS from such errors.

The House at Pooh Corner doesn't appear in the "Children's Books" section.

>5 Fierylunar:
Our dear Mole certainly listened, as they did fix it for the new Summer collection - clicking on The Summer Collection displays only the new books. Well done, FS.

Actually, they addressed everything we brought up so far - even the Steppenwolf issue, as the web description doesn't make claims about anything "first illustrated" anymore.

>31 elladan0891: Actually, they addressed everything we brought up so far - even the Steppenwolf issue, as the web description doesn't make claims about anything "first illustrated" anymore.

And they've removed the slipcase for the anthology. Well done Mole.

They're still showing James Campbell as sole author of The Anglo Saxons, when in fact he wrote only a third of it, in addition to being editor. He's no longer around to correct the claim, but he'd be the last person to claim someone else's work as his own.

>32 folio_books: Not all, Midnight's Children is still incorrectly showing up under the 'Children's Gift Ideas' section.

>31 elladan0891: The web page wasn't the issue with the Steppenwolf claim, it was the marketing email, about which it is too late to do anything.

>30 bookcravings: It's not in the Food & Gardening section either.

>31 elladan0891:
According to >20 SF-72: it was - that's what I was going off. And SF was specifically contrasting the verbiage with the email you quoted, so...

>37 elladan0891:

It still says "the only illustrated edition of Steppenwolf in print" on the website, and did so when I looked at it minutes after the page was first online. I guess at some point between the writing of the text for the email and the collection going live, someone noticed that it's not the first illustrated edition and tried to still make it sound 'grand'. Which is not a good idea in my opinion. I guess it's also possible the website and email were written by different people, one of whom knew more than the other or got something wrong - who knows.

>38 SF-72:
Oh, yes, you're right. Agree with your theory, and agree that they probably should have just taken the snippet out altogether.

Mole ... when you go to browse the books by the Religion category, there are some that do not show up (despite showing up when using the search function for the book title), e.g., Bhagavad Gita, Confucius’ Analects, Fear and Trembling, The Gnostic Gospels, The Book of Psalms (although it shows up under Philosophy and Politics), and I am sure there are probably other books.

I hope "no question is a stupid question" will apply here... who is Mole? A person? pun? reference? I like the thread but have no idea who or what we're referring to :)

>41 bacchus.: There is a long-standing suspicion that the Folio Society is spying on ("monitoring") this LT group and has a "mole" reporting back.

It is pretty much proven that this is the case since, when people here point out mistakes or issues, they are usually quickly addressed.

In various conversations I've had they don't even try to deny it. It's pretty much a fact of life and something to be welcomed, in my opinion. It's good they try to take the temperature from members customers first hand.

>41 bacchus.:

It is generally believed that Folio monitors this forum. The member(s) of staff that does the monitoring is the mole. This thread is an unofficial direct line to Folio to draw their attention to errors, omissions, glitches and gremlins that FSD members encounter on Folio’s website and in their marketing mailings.

Folio usually make things right pretty quickly.

This thread is not used as a wish-list or a general complaints forum.

>42 groeng: >43 folio_books: Thank you for putting this into context; made me chuckle I find this funny.

I will take a moment and thank Mr. Mole for whispering our concerns.

What if there are a colony of moles?

>46 treereader: Perhaps a labour of moles :)

Take your pick:

The collective nouns for moles are a company of moles, a labour of moles, a movement of moles, an arbour of moles.

>48 bookfair_e:

Seems odd that there's even one collective noun when, as Wikipedia relates, "Moles are solitary creatures, coming together only to mate".

I'll just think of Miss Mole unless and until he or she is unmasked.

44>
"This thread is not used as a wish-list or a general complaints forum."

No, not this thread... just all the others!
(You are a hard lot!)

>50 StevieBby: Hard because affectionate, I think ;)

Perhaps there are 6.02 x 10^23 moles on here.

>52 Betelgeuse:
I see what you did there ...

I am the mole, or are one of you the mole, in a way we are all moles for the mole. Without us, no mole, no hole, no mole. Mesdames et Messieurs, we are all moles in a hole ..

`If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
- And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that`

Four thousand moles in Blackburn, Lancashire...

'My family and other animals' is not in the humor section.
'A Clockwork Orange', 'Lord of the flies' are in the history section.
'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' is not in the Children's section.

58
is that a riddle?

"A Tale of Two Cities","Oliver Twist","Steppenwolf" are in History

Their categorization is terrible. Basically useless. Every section has errors and holes.

The name of the artist Petra Börner is misspelled in both the book descriptions and the "Filter by...."-list

The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea are listed under children's books.

Unless it sold out, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz doesn't show up at all.

>64 HermeticHermit: I was looking for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as well, and noticed it was sold out on the old site.

>65 ReadTree: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. I will have to order a secondhand copy.

Please correct Cyrano de Bergrac to Cyrano de Bergerac on the new site.

Dear Mole,

Literally the entire website is a dumpster fire of terrible. What was your organization thinking when they launched this before it was even remotely ready?

Mole must be looking, Bergrac has been corrected ;-)

Dear Mole,
How is Ratty? Please give him and Badger my regards.
A. Reader
P.S. I like your books

M.R. James' Ghost Stories incorrectly lists Charles Keeping as the illustrator.

Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie. The images of this book on Folio’s website show both editions: the out-of-print first edition 2002 with the leather title label and the new second edition 2017 with the redesigned title panel blocked onto the spine.

A little late, perhaps, since it's now after 6.02 (at least in the UK), but Happy Mole Day :-)

>73 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Avagadro's joke