1knerd.knitter
Do you want to win more free books? Who wouldn't, right? But there's a catch!
We've made a change to the Early Reviewers program. Now members can register to win up to 4 books per batch! But the number of books you can actually win is based on a newly calculated Reviewing Score.
Your Reviewing Score is calculated using wins and reviews from the last two years.
Wins from the last two batches are excluded from your win count, but as soon as you have reviewed them, the review will count in your favor. (So there is no penalty for not having received a recent win, but you do get credit for reviewing recent ER books promptly.)
On your Wins & Requests page, you may see a different number of Wins and Reviews than is used in the Reviewing Score calculation since only the last 2 years of wins are counted and the last 2 months of wins are also not counted.
Go to https://www.librarything.com/ner/settings to update your preferences!
We've made a change to the Early Reviewers program. Now members can register to win up to 4 books per batch! But the number of books you can actually win is based on a newly calculated Reviewing Score.
Your Reviewing Score is calculated using wins and reviews from the last two years.
Wins from the last two batches are excluded from your win count, but as soon as you have reviewed them, the review will count in your favor. (So there is no penalty for not having received a recent win, but you do get credit for reviewing recent ER books promptly.)
- At 90% you can win up to 4 books per batch.
- At 80% you can win up to 3 books per batch.
- Below 80% you can win up to 2 books per batch.
On your Wins & Requests page, you may see a different number of Wins and Reviews than is used in the Reviewing Score calculation since only the last 2 years of wins are counted and the last 2 months of wins are also not counted.
Go to https://www.librarything.com/ner/settings to update your preferences!
2AnnieMod
How is that influenced by:
- The book was never received - will these still count as won for the percentages calculation? I expect not but... that may end up an easy way to trick the algorithm at least temporarily?
- The book was never received (And was marked as such) but you buy/borrow it and add it to your catalog? If you add a review, will it still count as an ER review (as it did before the changes) and thus as part of your percentage? Or will marking the book as not received kick it out from your list completely?
- The book was never received - will these still count as won for the percentages calculation? I expect not but... that may end up an easy way to trick the algorithm at least temporarily?
- The book was never received (And was marked as such) but you buy/borrow it and add it to your catalog? If you add a review, will it still count as an ER review (as it did before the changes) and thus as part of your percentage? Or will marking the book as not received kick it out from your list completely?
3timspalding
The first is covered.
The second—I don't know. Lucy is watching this topic. So perhaps she can look into it.
The second—I don't know. Lucy is watching this topic. So perhaps she can look into it.
4norabelle414
The RSI for the second situation is here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/304404
5AnnieMod
Thanks!
The "If you ever win that book, we will always mark your review as ER even if you add it years later, in a different language even" had always been an annoying side effect of the program....
The "If you ever win that book, we will always mark your review as ER even if you add it years later, in a different language even" had always been an annoying side effect of the program....
6timspalding
>5 AnnieMod:
No, I think that's the correct behavior. People aren't going to remember to go back and mark an ER book as received; they'll just add it. Are you saying that if you mark as it unreceived, you shouldn't get credit for reviewing it?
No, I think that's the correct behavior. People aren't going to remember to go back and mark an ER book as received; they'll just add it. Are you saying that if you mark as it unreceived, you shouldn't get credit for reviewing it?
7AnnieMod
>6 timspalding: "Are you saying that if you mark as it unreceived, you shouldn't get credit for reviewing it?"
Yes. If you want the credit, you can always go and mark is as received. But if I buy the book or borrow it from the library, marking the review as ER is misleading - I did not get the book from the publisher/author so tagging the review with "This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers." is incorrect really.
Yes. If you want the credit, you can always go and mark is as received. But if I buy the book or borrow it from the library, marking the review as ER is misleading - I did not get the book from the publisher/author so tagging the review with "This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers." is incorrect really.
8rosalita
>6 timspalding: I am a petty person. In at least one case I ended up borrowing from the library a book that I won but never received from ER because I really wanted to read it. I wrote a review and published it elsewhere, but I haven't posted it here on LT because I don't want to reward the (major) publisher for failing to follow through on their end of the bargain. No ER-provided book, no ER-branded review.
9SandraArdnas
>7 AnnieMod: But the reviewer is the only one being penalized, even though the omission was by the publisher. Marking as as received even though you never did is misleading, not the other way around
10AnnieMod
>9 SandraArdnas: Both are misleading - but LT has control only on one of those. Showing that a publisher participated into ER and sent the books when they did not, is failing to penalize the publisher for not following up on their part of the deal.
And if you looking at the review page of the book, the received/not received is NOT mentioned anywhere. So it does not matter how you marked it there - it looks as if you marked it received anyway because you reviewed it for LTER.
And if you looking at the review page of the book, the received/not received is NOT mentioned anywhere. So it does not matter how you marked it there - it looks as if you marked it received anyway because you reviewed it for LTER.
11AnnieMod
PS: If you want an example: Inland was never sent by the publisher. But if I ever read and review it, the review will be marked as an ER review. Of course I can so something like this https://www.librarything.com/work/22688025/reviews/173443919 or https://www.librarything.com/work/22688025/reviews/172580910 for example but I would rather have LT just not mark it as an ER review to start with.
12knerd.knitter
>2 AnnieMod: If the book marked not received is later reviewed, currently that makes it ignore the not received indication because it assumes you just finally received it.
13coprime
What if we don't receive something, acquire it later ourselves from somewhere else, then write a review that doesn't fit the ER guidelines? Some of my personal reviews are less than 25 words, would that count against me because it's too short even though I'm not reviewing the book through the ER program?
14.mau.
I agree with >8 rosalita: and >10 AnnieMod: - there should be a way to penalize the publisher when they did not sent a book which we eventually found and reviewed by ourselves. (Disclaimer: in the last two years I received all the books I won, so this is not a problem of mine). Actually I don't know what happens if I create a different edition for the book and then it is later merged with the one from LT, however.
16lemontwist
Yes, please allow us to read and review books that we "won" on LT but never received from the publishers without the LTER label. That's all we're asking. A publisher never sent us something, it's been months or years, we borrowed a copy from the library, the LTER banner should not appear on our review, and we should be able to read and NOT review that borrowed or purchased book without an LTER penalty.
17lorax
timspalding (#6):
I think the current behavior as a default is fine, but people should be able to explicitly mark a reviewed book as still unreceived.
I think the current behavior as a default is fine, but people should be able to explicitly mark a reviewed book as still unreceived.
18lilithcat
>15 Bargle5:
You don't need to do that. You can star the topic and then just look at your starred topics.
You don't need to do that. You can star the topic and then just look at your starred topics.
19aspirit
>2 AnnieMod: How is that influenced by:
- The book was never received - will these still count as won for the percentages calculation? I expect not but...
>3 timspalding: The first is covered.
What's covered? That wasn't clear in the response.
I've found my calculation and confirmed that unreceived "wins" that have not been reviewed are removed from the calculation.
>12 knerd.knitter: If the book marked not received is later reviewed, currently that makes it ignore the not received indication because it assumes you just finally received it.
This is convenient to us reviewers who are given books late!
However, I think that if I were able to find a copy of one of the books awarded that never arrived, I would put my review in the comments field here or only review offsite. Maybe it is petty to prevent the review as counting for the program, but I agree that providing the publisher the public review on LibraryThing after they completely fail to deliver on their promise feels wrong.
- The book was never received - will these still count as won for the percentages calculation? I expect not but...
>3 timspalding: The first is covered.
What's covered? That wasn't clear in the response.
I've found my calculation and confirmed that unreceived "wins" that have not been reviewed are removed from the calculation.
>12 knerd.knitter: If the book marked not received is later reviewed, currently that makes it ignore the not received indication because it assumes you just finally received it.
This is convenient to us reviewers who are given books late!
However, I think that if I were able to find a copy of one of the books awarded that never arrived, I would put my review in the comments field here or only review offsite. Maybe it is petty to prevent the review as counting for the program, but I agree that providing the publisher the public review on LibraryThing after they completely fail to deliver on their promise feels wrong.
20aspirit
Because someone said above that they've received all their wins in the past two years, I'll also point out that unreceived ebooks aren't rare. I've been given only about 80% of my wins in the same time period. (And yes, I check my Junk, Spam, and Deleted boxes and filters regularly).
We're not penalized in the calculation but do have to go through extra effort watching and planning for the books that don't arrive. Those also shrink the total of wins, making every received book count more, allowing for less wiggle room if the received books have problems (unexpected triggering content, late arrival, formatting issues that have to be worked out with the publisher, etcetera).
Anyway, those unreceived books cause sore spots in the program.
We're not penalized in the calculation but do have to go through extra effort watching and planning for the books that don't arrive. Those also shrink the total of wins, making every received book count more, allowing for less wiggle room if the received books have problems (unexpected triggering content, late arrival, formatting issues that have to be worked out with the publisher, etcetera).
Anyway, those unreceived books cause sore spots in the program.
21timspalding
So, I am pretty dead-set on not changing this:
1. People aren't going to remember to go back and mark an ER book as received; they'll just add it, thinking that's enough. So a lot of books that came via ER are going to be missed.
2. I don't really see the notice as "credit." If anything, the notice is a warning that he reviewer didn't buy the book and maybe wouldn't have. See #3.
3. The notice is a legal requirement. LT is very clear that you don't get books for GOOD reviews, but any "compensated" review needs to be marked as such. So if we're going to err, I want to err on the side of legal labeling.
1. People aren't going to remember to go back and mark an ER book as received; they'll just add it, thinking that's enough. So a lot of books that came via ER are going to be missed.
2. I don't really see the notice as "credit." If anything, the notice is a warning that he reviewer didn't buy the book and maybe wouldn't have. See #3.
3. The notice is a legal requirement. LT is very clear that you don't get books for GOOD reviews, but any "compensated" review needs to be marked as such. So if we're going to err, I want to err on the side of legal labeling.
22.mau.
>20 aspirit: keep in mind that - since I don't live in the US or in UK - I always won ebooks. Moreover, there are not a lot of publishers which offer books I am interested in, and these publishers are dependable.
(Coming out: once it happened that after three months a book I won was not sent yet. I kindly asked the person who sends the books if there was some problem, and indeed there was. I know I should have gone through LT, but I kind of knew him...)
(Coming out: once it happened that after three months a book I won was not sent yet. I kindly asked the person who sends the books if there was some problem, and indeed there was. I know I should have gone through LT, but I kind of knew him...)
23aspirit
>21 timspalding: If anything, the notice is a warning that he reviewer didn't buy the book and maybe wouldn't have.
Except that, no only are some ER members buying or having their public libraries buy the books they were supposed to receive for free, they appear to be reviewing copies they did not get.
The notice is a legal requirement.
For compensated reviews. I think the point many people here are making is that the label has been misapplied in the case of books the reviewers had to go outside of the ER program to acquire.
I don't think the system needs to change. In my opinion, the reviews for these books should not be posted in the review field on LibraryThing. But I also understand the frustration. Reviews put in comments are harder for the reviewers to find later, and reviews with the ER make the reviewer dishonest while the publisher looks more reliable than they actually were.
Except that, no only are some ER members buying or having their public libraries buy the books they were supposed to receive for free, they appear to be reviewing copies they did not get.
The notice is a legal requirement.
For compensated reviews. I think the point many people here are making is that the label has been misapplied in the case of books the reviewers had to go outside of the ER program to acquire.
I don't think the system needs to change. In my opinion, the reviews for these books should not be posted in the review field on LibraryThing. But I also understand the frustration. Reviews put in comments are harder for the reviewers to find later, and reviews with the ER make the reviewer dishonest while the publisher looks more reliable than they actually were.
24aspirit
>22 .mau.: Good to know.
Looking more closely, I think my country's politics are playing into what books I don't receive. Many of books I want to read contain content that gets blocked by the email service providers (which the publishers have no control over) or are discouraged from distribution by anti-publishing groups (which is risky for the publishers to face). This is why I can't simply ask a public library to buy the ebook for its collection. The purchasers aren't likely to get a copy, either.
Still, even though my situation is different than someone who just goes out and buy all the unreceived books they want, every time with the books I don't receive, there's up to 20 to 50 of us potential reviewers who have to keep checking in for months for books that never arrive, and we don't know for sure why. It makes me more sympathetic.
Looking more closely, I think my country's politics are playing into what books I don't receive. Many of books I want to read contain content that gets blocked by the email service providers (which the publishers have no control over) or are discouraged from distribution by anti-publishing groups (which is risky for the publishers to face). This is why I can't simply ask a public library to buy the ebook for its collection. The purchasers aren't likely to get a copy, either.
Still, even though my situation is different than someone who just goes out and buy all the unreceived books they want, every time with the books I don't receive, there's up to 20 to 50 of us potential reviewers who have to keep checking in for months for books that never arrive, and we don't know for sure why. It makes me more sympathetic.
25Heather19
>21 timspalding:
"The notice is a legal requirement." While I understand why that would make you want to err on the side of caution, to me that just makes even more of a case for *not* doing this. You are putting notices on reviews that do not apply to those reviews. Legal-requirement notices, that do not apply to those reviews.
If the review-label was worded differently that could help, I'm getting stuck on the fact it says "This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers". FOR Early Reviewers. The review was written *for* a specific program where publishers send books to you in exchange for a review. That's just.... Not accurate at all, if the book was never received and we put in the effort to get it ourselves and want to review it. The review has absolutely nothing to do with ER in that case.
Since you seem against changing this, would it be possible to at least give us the *option* of marking our own review as a non-ER-review? So people who finally receive the ER books and review them but forget to mark as received will still get credit, but those who never receive them can still review them without an inaccurate label and association.
"The notice is a legal requirement." While I understand why that would make you want to err on the side of caution, to me that just makes even more of a case for *not* doing this. You are putting notices on reviews that do not apply to those reviews. Legal-requirement notices, that do not apply to those reviews.
If the review-label was worded differently that could help, I'm getting stuck on the fact it says "This review was written for LibraryThing Early Reviewers". FOR Early Reviewers. The review was written *for* a specific program where publishers send books to you in exchange for a review. That's just.... Not accurate at all, if the book was never received and we put in the effort to get it ourselves and want to review it. The review has absolutely nothing to do with ER in that case.
Since you seem against changing this, would it be possible to at least give us the *option* of marking our own review as a non-ER-review? So people who finally receive the ER books and review them but forget to mark as received will still get credit, but those who never receive them can still review them without an inaccurate label and association.
26lemontwist
I currently have a book borrowed from the library that I never received through LTER, and am not going to get at this point. It's past the point at which anybody from LT will contact the publisher about it.
I am going to read it and catalogue it on my Goodreads page, but not here. I will not catalogue it here because (1) I don't want my LTER page telling me I haven't reviewed it, if I don't care to review it or (2) I don't want the review to have a banner crediting the publisher for giving me a few copy of the book, if I do care to review it. The publisher did not give me a free copy, therefore the banner does not need to be there.
I am going to read it and catalogue it on my Goodreads page, but not here. I will not catalogue it here because (1) I don't want my LTER page telling me I haven't reviewed it, if I don't care to review it or (2) I don't want the review to have a banner crediting the publisher for giving me a few copy of the book, if I do care to review it. The publisher did not give me a free copy, therefore the banner does not need to be there.
27melannen
>17 lorax: >25 Heather19:
I think this is the right solution - defaulting to the assumption a reviewer did receive the book is probably correct, but there needs to be some way for people to correct that default assumption if it's wrong (presumably either on their ER page or the review form.)
Even just making it so that reviewing a book you'd marked unreceived automatically flips the checkbox on your ER page, and manually flipping it back removes the ER message on your review, would help.
(Also I feel like if you review an ER book you didn't receive after months you should get double credit in the algorithm I think, as a reward for dealing with the unreceived book and going to the trouble of getting it.)
I think this is the right solution - defaulting to the assumption a reviewer did receive the book is probably correct, but there needs to be some way for people to correct that default assumption if it's wrong (presumably either on their ER page or the review form.)
Even just making it so that reviewing a book you'd marked unreceived automatically flips the checkbox on your ER page, and manually flipping it back removes the ER message on your review, would help.
(Also I feel like if you review an ER book you didn't receive after months you should get double credit in the algorithm I think, as a reward for dealing with the unreceived book and going to the trouble of getting it.)
28Bargle5
>18 lilithcat: Gah, I always forget about that.
29lorax
timspalding (#21):
I don't really see the notice as "credit." If anything, the notice is a warning that he reviewer didn't buy the book and maybe wouldn't have.
The issue here is people who were awarded an ER book, did not receive it, and later purchased the book and reviewed it. I don't think anyone is arguing against the notice in cases where the ER book actually was received, or against the "review equals marked as received in general", but some people are asking for the ability to override that indicator. Are you saying that the fact that the notice is a legal requirement in cases where the book was actually received means that it can't be overridden in any circumstances, in case someone does so incorrectly? I could actually understand that, but since you don't seem to be addressing the actual issue here I want to make sure that's actually what you're saying.
I don't really see the notice as "credit." If anything, the notice is a warning that he reviewer didn't buy the book and maybe wouldn't have.
The issue here is people who were awarded an ER book, did not receive it, and later purchased the book and reviewed it. I don't think anyone is arguing against the notice in cases where the ER book actually was received, or against the "review equals marked as received in general", but some people are asking for the ability to override that indicator. Are you saying that the fact that the notice is a legal requirement in cases where the book was actually received means that it can't be overridden in any circumstances, in case someone does so incorrectly? I could actually understand that, but since you don't seem to be addressing the actual issue here I want to make sure that's actually what you're saying.
30reading_fox
Can we see our Reviewing Score anywhere?
Is this necessary? How many books are currently failing to find reviewers? Is a broader base of people who'll review anything better than a narrow focus of 'top hit' reviewers? I could see arguments either way.
Is this necessary? How many books are currently failing to find reviewers? Is a broader base of people who'll review anything better than a narrow focus of 'top hit' reviewers? I could see arguments either way.
31norabelle414
>30 reading_fox: It's at the top of the "wins and requests" page
32reading_fox
>31 norabelle414: - thanks. Things change so fast I still can't quite keep up.
Regarding reviewing books you've sourced from elsewhere: It gives you an extra boost on your reviewing score! The score is reviews/received But if you mark is down as not received, and review it anyway you end up with Reviews+1/Recieved-1 and so I have a Score of 103% (Contra to https://www.librarything.com/topic/339835#7823990 you can have a greater than 100%).
I'm not sure this is the intended behaviour
Regarding reviewing books you've sourced from elsewhere: It gives you an extra boost on your reviewing score! The score is reviews/received But if you mark is down as not received, and review it anyway you end up with Reviews+1/Recieved-1 and so I have a Score of 103% (Contra to https://www.librarything.com/topic/339835#7823990 you can have a greater than 100%).
I'm not sure this is the intended behaviour
33knerd.knitter
>32 reading_fox: The reason you have greater than 100% is not because of your not received item but because you've reviewed something from March, which does not yet count toward your wins; if you mark it as not received and then review it, it doesn't count as not received anymore.
35timspalding
>27 melannen: I think this is the right solution - defaulting to the assumption a reviewer did receive the book is probably correct, but there needs to be some way for people to correct that default assumption if it's wrong (presumably either on their ER page or the review form.)
I agree. This would be the best option.
I agree. This would be the best option.
36lilithcat
>1 knerd.knitter:
Your Reviewing Score is calculated using wins and reviews from the last two years.
So I got a message saying: Your Early Reviewers score is 33%. Your score could use some improvement. Submit those missing reviews!
You have won 3 giveaways in the last two years. You have submitted 1 review, with 1 still outstanding.
Shouldn't my ER score be 50%, since one of those three books was never received?
Your Reviewing Score is calculated using wins and reviews from the last two years.
So I got a message saying: Your Early Reviewers score is 33%. Your score could use some improvement. Submit those missing reviews!
You have won 3 giveaways in the last two years. You have submitted 1 review, with 1 still outstanding.
Shouldn't my ER score be 50%, since one of those three books was never received?
37knerd.knitter
>36 lilithcat: You have the book that you've marked as not received also marked as received, and that's used instead of the not received. You should reach out to AbigailAdams26 if you need that fixed.
38lilithcat
>37 knerd.knitter:
Okay, I went back and found the Books Received thread, and apparently I did receive the book, but for some reason I didn't get it properly catalogued.
I have no idea why it got marked both "received" and "not received". Weird.
Okay, I went back and found the Books Received thread, and apparently I did receive the book, but for some reason I didn't get it properly catalogued.
I have no idea why it got marked both "received" and "not received". Weird.
39AbigailAdams26
>38 lilithcat: We can remove the not received time stamp, if you would like. Is this for The Dark Library?
40lilithcat
>39 AbigailAdams26:
Yes, it is. Do please remove the "not received" stamp. Thanks, I'm glad I got that figured out! I was very confused. ;-)
Yes, it is. Do please remove the "not received" stamp. Thanks, I'm glad I got that figured out! I was very confused. ;-)
