New LTER preference: Occasionally receive 2 books in 1 batch

We've added a new preference to Early Reviewers. You can now opt in to occasionally receive a second book.



If you want to opt in now do it here: http://www.librarything.com/er/profile

There's a long story behind it but the medium length version is Early Reviewers has grown to the point that in recent batches there haven't been enough requests on certain titles to give every single book away to a member who is a good match for it. This generally only affects books that have significantly more copies available than others in the batch. For example, a title might have 300 copies available and 600 people request it but by the time we get to giving away copy number 300 all of the requesters who are a good match have already won a title. So, in the future, instead of going all the way down the line and start giving away titles to members who are not strong matches we'll be able to give it away to members who have opted in and are a good match for the book. I'm attempting to preserve exisiting mystery around the Great Algorithm so forgive my vagueness.

So...the goal of this change is to not only be able to pair each copy with a member but that we can pair each copy with the best possible member for the book according to all the dynamics of the system.

If you want to know more about how winner picking works see the rules and conditions: http://www.librarything.com/er/profile

UPDATE: Read my followup below after reading this

UPDATE: Read Tim's remarks below after reading this

-Mike

So somebody requests a book that they think they'd like and commits to reviewing it and you are going to give it instead to someone who didn't think they'd like it enough to request it?

And you expect cheese and/or pizza?

>2 justjim:
Maybe not Jim; Mike said: For example, a title might have 300 copies available and 600 people request it but by the time we get to giving away copy number 300 all of the requesters who are a good match have already won a title.

I think they may have actually requested it, but got another requested title before this one was allocated so don't get this one which then has copies left over.... so could get a copy now, despite already receiving another; thus would in fact get two.
Is that right?????

And it is opt in so you agree to two reviews.
Is that also right????

Add: I'd like cheese and pizza please! :0

I'm kind of surprised by this considering the number of threads I see where people have discussed how long it has been since they have received a book. I just got chosen for my first book in nearly a year. Now you have the option to give some people two books in a batch while others continue to receive none at all. I understand wanting to match the books with the best possible readers but it seems like this is going to really upset people who aren't getting books.

Better to give two books to someone who's actually a good match for them than to give a book to someone who has no real interest in it just because he hasn't had a book in eight months.

ER isn't just about getting free books.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. If I were a person who did not get anything from a batch and another person got two books, both of which I'd requested, I'd be pretty irate. I only request things I think I would enjoy, and I spend time looking at the publisher's site and other sources before requesting. Reading tastes do sometimes change over time, and it sometimes takes awhile for people to accumulate the books that might be an ideal match.

No, anything but more free books . . .

I kid of course. I personally don't mind, but there is quite a bit of entitled ill-feeling about ER already and I can see this exacerbating that problem. It makes perfect sense to me that the books should be a good match for the requesting libraries, and that you would rather send a book to a good match than to a poor one regardless of other factors.

Let's not forget that this is a self-interested exercise on the part of the publishers that happens to be fun for us.

I'd rather get no books than bad matches.

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, of course I would love the opportunity to receive more than one book, but on the other hand I would feel bad about people not getting any books based on being a lesser match.

It's not about entitled ill-feelings either. I just think there are so many factors the mysterious algorithm can't measure that declaring a person a bad/no match might be hasty.

For example, I requested Laura Bennett's book in Feb. (I got another no complaints), but I knew I was probably a "bad match". I LOVED her on Project Runway, am excited to read this book, have now pre-ordered it, and will probably finish it the day it arrives, BUT I doubt that there is a single book in my library that would suggest that I'm a good match.

Also, some individual libraries may not be as wholly reflective of interests as others. For example my own library is limited to books I can physically or electronically lay my hands on. This is a deliberate decision on my part. I could choose to catalog books I've borrowed, given away, or still own but can't find (I know I still have some packed away in boxes in my scary, scary basement). I could even use a wishlist. I could add thousands this way (of books I genuinely love and have read), but that's not why I use Library Thing (and yes I could use collections, but again not my main purpose)

It's not a complaint about the algorithm, just a observation that it can't possibly be all encompassing. So I guess I would rather you exhaust perceived bad/no matches before moving on to good matches.

But of course, I don't run the show or donate the books, and I have of course signed up to receive more than one book.

If I were a person who did not get anything from a batch and another person got two books, both of which I'd requested, I'd be pretty irate. I only request things I think I would enjoy, and I spend time looking at the publisher's site and other sources before requesting. Reading tastes do sometimes change over time, and it sometimes takes awhile for people to accumulate the books that might be an ideal match.

Pretty much how I feel.

Much as I'd love to get two occasionally, I also don't want to be passed over when I've requested a book in a genre or subject area which is new to me. Since I don't want to have to finish a book in which I have no interest, I'm very careful with what I request. Are the members of ER so poor at choosing books or providing reviews that this is necessary to be sure publishers get enough appropriate reviews for the number of copies they've made available? (By appropriate, I mean: thoughtfully written and the book obviously read, not "I hated this book and can't imagine why I requested it because I knew I hated this type of book").

>9 infiniteletters: I'd rather get no books than bad matches.

Do you request books that would be bad matches?

I suspect this has something to do with what Tim had said earlier. some people have gotten books who have not reviewed 2-3 or even 4 other books, because they ran out of 'good reviewers'. I suspect that this will primarily prevent non reviewers from continuing to receive books. He did say it will be a rare occurrence. I understand the concern of many but I think we all would agree it would be better to have a good match get 2 books than a non-reviewer to get any more.

>13 readafew: Yup. I was just wondering if that was indeed the reason. Hey, I've already signed up to get two.....

I have mixed feelings about this. Such a plan will certainly generate bad feelings about ER to those who do not receive books very frequently or at all.

On the other hand, the publishers will certainly like getting better review quality and rates from such a plan.

The question is for whom are we doing this? Therein lies the answer. That is also why I can't make up my mind about this issue.

Me? I'll stick to just one book per month, thanks. There are other books I want to read and need the time to do it.

of course i've signed up to get 2! i won my first book since April 2009 (i never received that book, or the one i won before it, so the last one i got was in September 2008) this month, so I'm sure not going to say "no" to more books.

i do think there should be some way to indicate how strongly you are interested in a book you are requesting. i request a lot of books each month, all ones i know fit into my reading styles so i could give them good, honest reviews, but there are definitely ones i want more than others. i would like to able to rate my interest so that maybe, just maybe, i could get one of those books that i'm dying for.

example: Shades of Grey by Jasper Fforde was offered a while back. now, i LOVE Jasper Fforde. but i'm an honest reviewer and admitted the weakness of his last 2 books in my reviews of them. personally, i think i'm the perfect candidate to win a copy of that book. and i didn't get it. now, of course i don't know how the Great Algorithm works, but i feel like if i could have rated my interest in that book as a 5 out of 5, maybe i would have won it. and maybe someone who only wanted it 3 out of 5 but really wanted some other book 5 out of 5 would have gotten that other book, clearing the way for me to win my coveted Fforde.

obviously, people shouldn't request books they don't want but we all know there are books we want more than others. a lot of the books i request are things that i think "that's sounds interesting and kind of like X, which i have read, so i'd probably like it." it's ok if i don't win these books and i just go ahead and earmark them for further investigation. i'd much rather those books go to someone who is desperate to read them (and yet still fulfills the algorithm).

just something to think about.

i would like to able to rate my interest so that maybe, just maybe, i could get one of those books that i'm dying for.

Excellent idea!

I like the rating your interest idea as well, although hopefully a person doesn't request a book unless they have a significant interest in reading and reviewing it in the first place.

I have misgivings about this new plan. I've seen how inaccurate the "will I like it" section has frequently been for me, and I can't help be a little skeptical then about the choosing of the "best match" person for books. They might be different algorithms, but they are both LT algorithms.

However, I'll go along with whatever the new program turns out to be. You need to do whatever you think is best for the program overall.

I think being able to rate your interest would be sensational. Maybe the people with a 5 rating would get the book first. I personally, don't mind getting an extra book now and then and I understand why the publishers, who are the ones giving away the books, want them to go to the people who are best suited to review them.

Not bragging, but I have managed to snag 11 books in the 1½ years that I have been here at LT and I think that it is because I have so many books in my library and have written a review for every book that I have read since I joined. I don't own all the books in my library, but I keep a record here at LT with the RNO collection. So I would suggest if you want a greater chance of catching an ER book, make sure that your library includes all the books you've read whether they are in your personal possession or not.

Also remember, there are member giveaways posted and check the blogging world, I get at least 2-3 books a month free by entering their giveaways and those don't require reviews.

#19 - Maybe the people with a 5 rating would get the book first.

LOL, I think you just pointed out the major problem with the idea. Why would someone go to the trouble of requesting a book and then rate it a "3", knowing the 5's will get it first and there will almost assuredly be plenty of 5's!

Why would someone go to the trouble of requesting a book and then rate it a "3", knowing the 5's will get it first and there will almost assuredly be plenty of 5's

The idea is to not only get the books to the best match but also to get them to the people who most want them. I certainly would rate some books 5 while others I'd give a 3. I'd be disappointed to not receive the 5, but most likely would not be disappointed to not get the 3.

... or even just prioritize some ER books with a star (i.e. "I really, really want this particular book! He's my favorite author.").

Perhaps a lot of people would rate just the way you say, SqueakyChu. I don't really know. Personally, I don't request a book unless I'm very interested, even if some months it means requesting only one or three and likely getting zero.

>22 SqueakyChu: One star per batch, maybe, so that you don't get people going "I really, really want this particular book! And this one too! And this...", and instead force people to think about which one they MOST want in any given batch.

I'll jump in here to lend more support to the idea of allowing people to prioritize their requests. Does an algorithm -- including The Algorithm -- really know our tastes so much better then we do that? At worst, The Algorithm can use prioritizing as another factor to consider, boosting the odds of us getting something we tell it we badly want, even if another book we requested is "better match."

"I don't mind receiving two books occasionally"??? No -- make that "I would LOVE to receive two -- or more -- occasionally." As for the stars? Sure, that would work for me.

And while my rant mode is in full swing, I'll raise a very paranoid possibility. Mike said,

the goal of this change is to not only be able to pair each copy with a member but that we can pair each copy with the best possible member for the book according to all the dynamics of the system.

So, if the point is to pair each book with the best possible reviewer, why bother having us request books? Why not just say, "We've got a copy of such-and-such for you to review"?

Nearly every month it looks like some people get books they have requested but then they find out that it was not what they had expected... for example, Christian fiction that is "disguised" as a thriller. I'm assuming the algorithm would catch that it is a Christian publisher and note that requester A has a dozen other Christian fiction titles in their library versus the requester B who has mostly thrillers in their library. This book is obviously going to be much better appreciated by A than by B. It would be in everyone's best interest for this book to go to A as a second book than to B as a first. That way the publisher gets what it wants, and B isn't subjected to reading a book that is not what he/she expected.

I don't like the preference idea though (sorry)... it will have the same problems as we have now - sometimes people request books they aren't overly interested in because they want a free book (no, not *you*... some people). These people will still rate everything as a 5. And then there are all those people who only request books they are interested in, so all of theirs will be a 5. Realistically, who's gonna bother going through the list of books to put a 3 - knowing this'll mean the same as not requesting a book at all.

27> So, if the point is to pair each book with the best possible reviewer, why bother having us request books? Why not just say, "We've got a copy of such-and-such for you to review"?

Because one of the data points in deciding if you're the best possible reviewer is that you're willing to review the book, indicated by you requesting it?

#10 woodsathome - your post really strikes me. correct me if i misunderstand. You aren't using LT to its fullest potential, but yet want your undeclared interests to count by writing code that isn't necessary if the site is used to its fullest potential (those collection thingies)?

I may have overstated the part about using this preference to improve the quality of the matches.

The main goal is to deal with months (like February's extra-large batch) where we ended up not being able to match every copy.

FYI, we haven't done anything within the algorithm regarding this preference yet.

Keep in mind when I say we might give a second copy to a member (yes, a member who requested it) rather than giving it to someone who is "not a good match" it can (and does) mean many things. For example, I would say (and the algorithm might agree) someone who has no books in their library or someone who has received 3 LTER books and hasn't written a review would not be a good match... but the algorithm is a multi-tendriled beast, each one of these things is just a tendril.

It's difficult to delve too deeply into this without giving too much away. You have to have some trust that we're making good/fair/strong matches in the first place. We feel strongly that if you could see all the bits and peices that go into picking winners most concerns stated here would be assuaged.

One final note: in almost every case the second book will be an e-book because publishers aren't generally giving away over 100 copies of paper books.

-Mike

FMI - We would have to request the book before t was sent, correct?

32> We don't match people with books they didn't request. -Mike

That's ridiculous. Isn't there enough unfairness already with "certain people" getting a large portion of the books each month? Now you're going to start giving them two? It's hard for me to grumble about the ER program because I just won my first book (in a year and 2-3 months of requestion) but this is very disappointing news. :(

34>

What do you propose? Give the extra books to nobody? Give the book to someone who likely won't write a review? Give the book to someone who wants the vampire smut novel even though they have nothing in their library but economics textbooks?

Also, I'm unsure why you think certain people get a large portion of the books (it's not true). A small minority of LTER winners actually report their winnings on Talk.

-Mike

i think the star idea works just fine too. although i would probably allow 2 stars per month rather than one, just for better odds for members and more choices for ER.

people request books they aren't overly interested in because they want a free book (no, not *you*... some people). Realistically, who's gonna bother going through the list of books to put a 3 - knowing this'll mean the same as not requesting a book at all.

well, i think a lot of people request books that they are interested in but maybe aren't going to run out and purchase. a LOT of books i request end up on my "keep an eye out for this one" list. it's not because i just want some free book that i have little to no interest in (i, like most of us, have a huge TBR pile to get through at some point). but the publisher's benefit from putting those exact books in the hands of people who probably weren't going to pre-order that book- they will reach a wider audience with those reviews.

i would definitely rate things a 3 and i wouldn't expect it to mean the same as not requesting it at all. it's still a book i would be happy to receive and happy to review. and i don't think there would be books that were a 5 (for me) every month.

of course it's not a perfect answer to the problem- i mean, i came up with it as i was reading this thread... but something like it is a good idea.

>29 brightcopy:
As I said, this was just taking it to one sort of extreme.

>35 ltmike:
C'mon, can it really be that hard to pick? If it is, at least write a second algorithm to figure out who has been in a lengthy dry spell that they haven't somehow earned -- if only to send out automatic don't-worry-it's-not-your-fault notes to those who should be snagging stuff but haven't.

Really, it does seem like some people have been going through long periods of getting nothing, and it can't infallibly be because they have no books or no reviews or haven't requested anything. At least let them know they haven't been forgotten. (Because if The Algorithm is forgetting people, it isn't worthy of capital letters, much less of LibraryThing.)

#30 Bookmarque

I joined LibraryThing to easily track and catalog the books I do own. ER is just I side benefit.

I completely understand because I choose not to have a wishlist or catalog books I've read I may miss out on some ER because my profile doesn't look like it matches. I'm not complaining.

I'm also not complaining about not getting enough books (I've received 3 in the 9 months since I joined).

All I am saying is that if you assume (based on the algorithm that only 305 of the 500 people who requested book X are good matches you may be missing out people who don't appear "good matches" but really are. I just gave two examples, but I think there are probably others.

From what I understand the new program will only give the book to a good match (in my theoretical example the first 305). Lesser bad matches would only get books once that list is exhausted even if the majority on that list get two books

--> 23

Personally, I don't
request a book unless I'm very interested, even if some months it means requesting only one or three and likely getting zero

I've learned the hard way to choose very few books, so that the ones I get, I usually really like.

I like the idea of one star for the most wanted book. That's even better than a rating system (1-5 stars).

I usually pick about three books, but I never get my most wanted book. This would at least give me a chance for that one special book. Most likely (but not for certain), it would get a good review.

> 31

First, let me say thanks to Mike and everyone else at LT for all the thought and effort that has gone into making LTER successful. Though I personally haven't won a book in 18 months, I do trust that the LT staff are working hard to make the awarding system as fair as can be.

On the other hand, I can understand the concerns about the limitations of the algorithm to determine who will be a "good match." Like many others here, I only request books that I have a strong interest in reading--but often my LT library doesn't reflect a connection to that book. So from that perspective, it seems unfair that someone else would receive 2 books and I would receive none.

That said, I do think that giving 2 books to someone who always submits a review is better than awarding a book to someone who has failed to review 3 out of 4 books awarded in the past.

I guess in the end we just have to trust the LT magicians to listen to the feedback here and tweak the algorithm to place proper weight on each of the factors used to assess whether or not someone is a "good match."

All I am saying is that if you assume (based on the algorithm that only 305 of the 500 people who requested book X are good matches you may be missing out people who don't appear "good matches" but really are. I just gave two examples, but I think there are probably others.

Again, I overstated the "better matching" possibilities. We're way more concerned with having more than enough people requesting the book but too many of them being disqualified because they've already won another book from the current batch. The extra copies have to go to someone.

-Mike

Would you possibly consider applying this only to books that have some high threshold of number of copies -- like 200 or more? Otherwise, I have to say, this is the worst news I've heard in a long time. People like me who carefully select which books we want (and personally, I've never had a book I'm a bad match for -- I've had bad books, but that's not the same thing) are going to lose out even more to thoughtless greedy sorts who just say "OMG FREE BOOKS!!!11!!!" and request everything imaginable? How is this supposed to be a good thing?

I'm probably in a minority here, but I think LT should be able to give these books to whomever they think is the best match. As I understand it, the reason that publishers are willing to give LT so many books is that LT is good at getting books to people who will read them, review them, and likely talk about them. If LT can provide that service better by occasionally giving someone two books (or more, from my perspective), then that is their prerogative. I am dubious about complaints that the system is "unfair." I don't think it is designed to be "fair." I think it is designed to do a good job of getting books in the hands of likely reviewers.

16>

i request a lot of books each month, all ones i know fit into my reading styles so i could give them good, honest reviews, but there are definitely ones i want more than others. i would like to able to rate my interest so that maybe, just maybe, i could get one of those books that i'm dying for.

I think the better solution is to ONLY request those that you're dying for. That's what I do. After all, I figure everyone's "dying for" one of them, and it just seems very greedy and entitled to request multiple books that I'm casually interested in when other people would bounce up and down with glee to get a copy. I think the "rate your interest" suggestion would just encourage indiscriminate requests.

After I thought about it, I wondered if this was related to the eBook situation - publishers are offering lots of copies but people don't want them because of the format. I can see giving people who have won a physical book an eBook that they also requested because the eBooks just aren't getting the requests.

It would be highly unlikely for me to get two books from a batch then because I have 3 eBooks sitting on my computer that I just can't seem to make myself read and have stopped requesting anything eBook related because of it ;-)

42>

Would you possibly consider applying this only to books that have some high threshold of number of copies -- like 200 or more?

That happens naturally due to the (secret) way that we pick winners.

People like me who carefully select which books we want are going to lose out even more to thoughtless greedy sorts who just say "OMG FREE BOOKS!!!11!!!"

See my other posts... it doesn't work that way. (:

-Mike

--> 43
I think it is designed to do a good job of getting books in the hands of likely reviewers.

I think this is the bottom line. Any freebies we get from ER is a bonus to us. To keep this program viable, LT is going to need to increase its rate of reviews. This 2-book option can only help despite cries of "Unfair!" from some who attempt to get books but fail.

>41 ltmike:
That said, it might be worth figuring out if there are other factors besides library size or number of reviews, things that shouldn't affect how many books people snag, but do seem to play a role anyway.

Granted, part of this may be genre (I almost left the program not long after I joined it simply because there were so few books I'd bother with, since I read so much history). But all the same, still something that can be looked into.

--> 48

If you game the system in that way, LT will just change the mighty Algorithm, which they continue to tweak all the time anyway, I believe.

46>

I saw your other posts, but I don't see how it doesn't apply.

If I'm match number 16 for the only book I requested, and someone else was match number 15 for the one I requested and match number 7 for another one of the twelve books they requested, (with 15 copies of each available), absent some sort of copy-threshold, aren't they going to get both of those under the new rule? How does that not encourage indiscriminate requests, if there's no longer the possibility that you might lose out on the book you really, really want because you requested one that you think might be sort of interesting? I know you can't talk much about the algorithm, but this isn't about the algorithm, it's about the multiple-wins scenario.

>49 SqueakyChu:
I didn't say they had to release what they found, just that it could possibly be worth them checking up on. Maybe I should have been clearer, but that isn't always simple when typing while doing one's day job.

50> We won't give anyone a second book until we've given everyone we can one book. Makes sense? -Mike

52>

So, only if there are no more requesters who haven't already won another book? Or no more who are even remotely reasonable requesters (i.e. they requested a history book and the only thing they have in their library is chicklit, or similarly zero-similarity cases)? That makes sense, and is a lot more reasonable than the "better matches" standard that was implied earlier. Better covers a lot of ground, including the scenario I described in #50 -- "good match" versus "you've got to be kidding me" is a lot narrower.

>50 lorax: We don't apply the picking of winners to books in such a way that is going to result in greedy folks necessarily getting extra books.

Mike just said it, but I've been composing this message for at least 10 minutes, so I'll say it again: The only time this secondary-book thing comes into play is after we've applied the usual algorithm, and because of the HUGE pool of books, don't have enough qualified* members to give the publisher. It's very much the case that we either don't go for a second round of picks, or we tell the publisher "sorry, we don't have enough people".

In response to those who are irritated that we'd give a second book to someone over you getting a first, I'm sorry I can't be more explicit with the explanation, but you have to trust that we're running the normal algorithms, and then filling in the gap. If you weren't chosen for the book-with-many-copies in the first place, it's because you didn't request it, or you're not qualified*.

*meaning that you're not currently penalized from winning anyway

In response to the side-topic of ranking your requests, this is not something we're going to be doing any time soon. We have to figure out how to deal with the scaling Early Reviewers first!

I think way to many are misunderstanding what this is for. It will happen when the pool of requesters are small in comparison to the # of copies offered.

Say someone offers 200 ebooks and say 350 people request a copy. everyone has a good chance of receiving one. so if this was the only book the 'best' 200 would get a copy. now since there are other books many of these people have also asked for, large numbers will be removed because they match a different book better, say 200 are removed after the first 50 copies are assigned to all books. So we have 150 copies left, for the 150 remaining people. These include people without ANY books, people who have won multiple books without reviewing, and maybe some libraries with zero matching books.

What this will allow is for those who were a decent match but won a different book (and thus removed from the pool of requesters), will be given priority over those who we want to prevent from getting a book in the first place.

It isn't going to reduce the chances of anyone posting in this thread as long as you are requesting the books that are being doubled.

Some might argue that the double winner should only get the left over copies not their primary win, why? They were a better match for the first book and that is how it works. The way that this works is the books with the least interest relative to the number of copies offered will be the ones most likely to be doubled up.

I'd occasionally like to receive one book. Last one was in November of 2008. I believe this change will now make it less likely I'll ever get another book. Even so I've clicked the button. Who knows, might get two March books or something.

So this is just for ebooks? I signed up, but will unsign knowing this.

I wonder whether e-books should just be a whole separate program.

Also, I like the idea of letting us star one or two books that we want most.

>56 MikeBriggs: I believe this change will now make it less likely I'll ever get another book.
Untrue. This change absolutely does not make it less likely that you'll win a book. Like I said above, we run the normal algorithm (so if you were going to win a book, you'd win one).

>57 DanaJean: So this is just for ebooks?
Not necessarily. It's for any book that has so many copies available that we don't have enough winners. You would have to have requested the book in the first place, so as long as you don't request any ebooks, you won't win any ebooks.

>58 _Zoe_: We're not going to add a starring or rating feature, at least any time soon. It's not in the pipeline.

54>

Thanks, Sonya. I'm a lot happier with "only time" than "generally", as well as with the idea that all algorithms are run to normal completion first and then secondary wins awarded; that's a lot better than my initial interpretation of "winning a book no longer removes you from the pool for second matches, and you might get two under any circumstances".

Seems really weird to me that people would get mad about this and talk about the fairness. That's not really the goal. The goal is to get books reviewed and reviewed well. If LT figures out they can do that by writing an algorithm that sends the same dozen LT users books every month, more power to them. If they figure out that it they can do it by spreading the books around and not giving anyone more than one book, again, more power to them.

Most of these (non e-) books have at least an 8 to 1 ratio of requesters to copies. Many are 14:1 or 20:1. The simple fact is, even without a fancy algorithm and just picking at random, unless you are willing to take every book available, you probably won't get one.

It seems people are just setting themselves up to be disappointed.

>62 brightcopy: I don't want to get all negative about this, when everyone on this thread obviously cares about it, but I'm having a bit of trouble not getting frustrated. If I could explain the algorithm, you'd all say "ohhh, I see." (Also, I totally need a snack. Nay, I'm getting a kick in the ribs telling me that I MUST HAVE A SNACK.)

I don't think Mike or I said this earlier, but we really do have to protect the interests of publishers insofar as we want them to continue to give away books.

I'll be frank in saying that the books given:books reviewed ratio is not great, not anywhere near where we'd like. I mentioned this in another ER thread, that I'm looking at what I can do to increase the number of reviews. Until we have stellar numbers of reviews coming in, I'm not comfortable offering up copies of books to people whose catalogs don't have a similarity (one way or another).

Did I mention Mike did tweak the part of the algorithm where we run outside with 500 dies and scatter them down the street, then assign each member to each dice?

Seems really weird to me that people would get mad about this and talk about the fairness. (#62)

I'd be willing to bet that this will be much less of an issue now that things have been cleared up -- until Sonya clarified in post 54 that the second book thing wasn't going to give people two books while denying any reasonable matches to those who requested them.

I wonder whether e-books should just be a whole separate program. (#58)

I would not disagree with that, but I suspect it won't happen.

I just got to this thread, and I'm just piping up in favour of the idea. Seems totally reasonable to me and it seems really clear to me that it's not unfair and is a kind of 'exceptional circumstances' thing. Go right ahead, you have my permission ;-)))

Did I mention Mike did tweak the part of the algorithm where we run outside with 500 dies and scatter them down the street, then assign each member to each dice?

Seriously? I thought he used tea leaves and mouse entrails ...

There are many parts to the algorithm.

Mouse entrails are too large. I heard it was cricket droppings.

>68 clamairy:
Crickets don't eat brie, but aren't mice fond of cheese?

66: the mouse participation depends on the cheese supply.

We can't have any mice near the LibraryThing cheese cave!

So, I need to reiterate what Mike said—but not initially—and be much clearer. This isn't a common thing. Not at all. The problem happens when we literally can't give all the copies away.

Mike spoke of being qualified. While we reserve the right to completely disqualify an absolute LTER deadbeat, this problem can and did happen even if we don't. So, even if we allow deadbeat members, who've received 10 books and not reviewed one, we still get this problem on a small number of ebooks that have few interested parties, most of whom are better matches for another book—and will win it—and many, many copies.

To explain how this happens: We allot books in a round-robin approach. That means each book "picks" the member that's best for it from the stock of members who haven't won anything that round. When we run out of a book, it stops being in the circle, until we're just allocating to a single book. In the case of some ebooks, at the very end every single member who wanted the book is either getting it already or won another book that month. (This means, by the way, that a lot of you won books!) So, what do we do?

We could do two things:

1. Make the fact that you asked for the ebook deprive you of the book you are better suited to you. That is, we can yank books away from people until the ebook is perfectly subscribed and, well, you wouldn't know it. Other, less fit readers would get the book we took from you. But this seems both grossly unfair and really bad for publishers. Publishers should get the best readers possible to read their books.
2. We can allow members to ask for a second book, and if we have some left over, and they want it, we'll give it to them.

So, please, is there ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?!

#72 Tim No! Nothing wrong at all.

72: sounds good to me.

Give someone two books or return a bunch to the publisher? For me it's a no-brainer. Go ahead, this is the perfect solution - even better than the dice method Sonya mentioned!

62>

Until Sonya's clarification, it was a reasonable interpretation to read this as matching people to two books because they were a slightly better match for book #2 than someone else, and the second person not getting any books. Given that, as you note, getting even one book is dicey -- even if you're a pretty good match you won't always get it -- this struck people as being tremendously unjust. Sonya's clarification that this will never deny anyone a book they're a good match for should allay a lot of people's concerns -- it certainly did mine.

63>

I'll be frank in saying that the books given:books reviewed ratio is not great, not anywhere near where we'd like. I mentioned this in another ER thread, that I'm looking at what I can do to increase the number of reviews.

I hope you have good luck with that -- it bothers a lot of us who do write reviews, too.

72 > that's pretty much what I understood from the beginning.

--> 54

or we tell the publisher "sorry, we don't have enough people".

Eek! We can't do that!

--> 72

So, please, is there ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?!

No.

Until Sonya's clarification, it was a reasonable interpretation to read this as matching people to two books because they were a slightly better match for book #2 than someone else, and the second person not getting any books. (#76)

Exactly. Prior to it being greatly clarified, the kerfuffle was a reaction, rather than an overreaction. Carry on.

Thanks Mike, I'm back in the pool. :-)

Interesting problem. Would the problem of matching had happened if the ebooks had only 25 copies offered instead of a 100 or more. There are some (many?) LTers who don't request ebooks yet but that is what the publishers tend to offer many copies of. Were any physical books under requested in the Feb. batch for good matches? As more and more ER books go ebook I can see it changing the ER program. It sounds like most of the second books awarded would be ebooks at this time? Or maybe someone would win two ebooks. But very few (if any?) would be getting two physical books from the same batch?

Sorry for any confusion. My explanation was not clear in a bunch of ways but mostly I tried too hard to explain how the new preference *might* play with the larger parts of the system. More importantly, as Tim clarified, the preference is in place to deal with a problem that would exist regardless of how cruel or lenient the algorithm is.

Turn the knob all the way up or down and the problem is still there. So why even mention the knob? Lesson learned.

-Mike

Would the problem of matching had happened if the ebooks had only 25 copies offered instead of a 100 or more.
No, at least not with the February batch. We're entering new territory, as far as scaling Early Reviewers goes.

Were any physical books under requested in the Feb. batch for good matches?
No.

If we would have implemented the changes for the February batch, the only secondary wins would have been ebooks.

It has to do with the vast number of copies, not the format, so if in the future there were a few paper books with enough copies to invoke the "secondary win", we might give away secondary wins of paper copies.

>82 ltmike:
While a little more clarity up front would have been nice, I can't lay the blame entirely on you guys here. I can only speak for myself on this, but as someone who had some concerns about multisnags before it was fully explained, what really stung was someone (not Staff!) suggesting people with such concerns were overreacting -- even if/when we only had concerns before how it would work was better explained.

83- Thx. Vast # of copies makes sense. The pools of requesters are probably different sizes.

Requester pool for ebooks= n

Requester pool for physical books= n

Have fun working on the problem. It looks like you're making good progress.

84> I don't think it was surprising for people to be "concerned" or have questions. Hell, I have an opinion on just about everything so I'm definitely not one to quell that. I just thought it was odd that people would use words like "irate" or "unjust" or "unfair" when we're talking about them giving away books. It's like if a guy walked up to me and my friend on the street and gave me $5 because I have brown hair but didn't give any to my friend, who is blonde. I would be puzzled if my friend got irate or complained about fairness. I'm not making a judgment on those people or calling them names, just saying I found it all a bit weird.

Tim said, "That means each book "picks" the member that's best for it..."

Wow! I'm so flattered that the book chose *me*; and here all along I thought it was that darned algorithm... ;-)

I like the dice approach, too, though.

It's like if a guy walked up to me and my friend on the street and gave me $5 because I have brown hair but didn't give any to my friend, who is blonde. I would be puzzled if my friend got irate or complained about fairness. I'm not making a judgment on those people or calling them names, just saying I found it all a bit weird.

What if you were walking down the street with that friend and a man came up to you with 2 books. He says he'll give each of you a book, just tell him which one you want. You're friend picks Book 1 and you pick Book 2. The man nods, and then hands both books to your friend and walks away. Would you be upset if your friend kept both books for himself, instead of giving you the one you asked for?

Anyways, I agree, a free book is a free book. I just like to gripe about the algorithm from time to time. :)

88> The problem with that analogy is that LT never told you you'd get a book. It said you might get a book.

87> Next you'll be claiming the wand chooses the wizard. ;)

88>

We would only give you both books if, after all requests were in, we discovered that your friend hadn't requested any books. If Book 3 was in play and your friend only requested Book 3 (not 1 or 2) you would also get books 1 & 2.

At the very least we're way more fair than brightcopy's crazy friend who gives out money based on hair color.

-Mike

Just found the thread.

I think it is basically unfair to give 2 books to one person As long as there is 1 person (not DQ'd for failing to review) who requested a book and got nothing. I don't see any other way to look at it.

The response is I am sure to talk about the algorithm and 'Good' or 'Better' matches. If the algorithm is so good at picking, then there should almost never be people who don't review their books. Yet non-reviews and their impact on publishers and the program seem to be a constant concern.

Just as people are unhappy with book recommendations based on some segment of their library that is not a current reflection of their taste, I am sure the book picking algorithm does the same. I realize that the algorithm has to use something to run on, and it has no way to know what is in someone's mind. But with excess books perhaps its an opportunity to go beyond the algorithm ?

The other issue is that the algorithm can only focus on what is entered on the site, and that can lead to being pigeonholed for one type of book, or it can mean being denied a chance with a book that you are interested in, but the algorithm has no way to measure it.

It would seem these excess books would be a way to take a chance on a non-traditional match. I would go even further and say that it would be worth tracking which population did a better job (in terms of writing a review) the good/better algorithm match or the random excess match.

It would seem to me that what you are doing is pitting the human ( by making a request) against the algorithm and saying you side with the algorithm, to such an extent that you are willing to give 2 books to some while others have none ?

I realize if every non-DQ'd person has a book and there are still books left, then a second round seems sensible and the problem solves itself.

I am not sure it will really solve your ebook problem since many may not want an ebook.

What I think is a problem, is running a second round to give some people more than one real book by using exclusionary 'good/better match' algorithm measures, when there are still eligible people who have won nothing.

I would also say if drive-by requests are a problem, or you don't want someone with no books in their library to win, then set up the rules of ER that you have to have been on the site for X amount of time, and/or have X number of books in your library before you can join.

91> Do yourself a favor and read the messages sonya linked to in the first post.

I don't understand all the fuss! This is a free book give away that asks for a book review in return. Tim, Mike and Sonya have explained it quite clearly, as far as I am concerned. They are just looking for a solution to a problem. This is their solution so that books are not returned to publishers and so that publishers will continue to give away books via LT. I say trust them on this. I have opted in.

>93 rjmoren: To be fair, we explained it clearly ... eventually. Today I learned a whole lot about explaining something fairly technical, where I can't give all the details, to a big group of people.

93>

The fuss was from BEFORE Mike and Sonya explained it.

Sonya, have you ever considered establishing a firm deadline (say 60 days after notification) by which a reviewer must have posted a review (or emailed you that the book has not arrived) or they will be unable to request new books.

What I'm envisioning is a greyed out button similar to "not available in your country" but saying "cannot request - overdue review".

It would serve both as a reminder and incentive to post timely reviews. I suspect many (though certainly not all) "dry spell" members are actually non-reviewers who haven't put two and two together yet.

#95 - Some of the fussing still appears to be 'in progress.'

#96 - "I suspect many (though certainly not all) "dry spell" members are actually non-reviewers who haven't put two and two together yet."

I doubt it. Not if you're referring to the people who post regularly in this group, anyway. All one has to do is click on the 'Books you've won' link to see if a review is due.

>96 woodsathome:
It would have to be 60 days after receipt or something, or you would be penalizing members when publishers don't send the books in a timely manner. You can't mark a book unreceived until 60 days after notification.

97> :-D

91>

Your post makes me think we're not on the same page. I say this because twice you say "someone gets 2 books while another is getting nothing". That doesn't happen unless the person getting nothing didn't request the book in question.

-Mike

96> "It would serve both as a reminder and incentive to post timely reviews. I suspect many (though certainly not all) "dry spell" members are actually non-reviewers who haven't put two and two together yet."

I wasn't going to comment but the above and other comments in this thread lead me to note that all the books I have won and received have reviews. One book never arrived and is marked as such. Long dry spell.

I was going to leave off commenting, but the quote is something I seem to see several times in this thread.

I doubt I'll ever get a second book, since I never request ebooks, but I've signed up anyway. :)

>16 leahbird:
I had something similar happen. The Poison Eaters was being offered and I LOVE this author so much! I think I made sure to only request that book that month, since I wanted it so much. I own all of her books (except for one). I have a bunch of YA fantasy and urban fantasy. I figured it was a sure thing. But NO!

At least I'm somewhat comforted since I heard that the non-reviewer copy has two extra storie in it.

I would have really liked a star system or something for that batch, since I really really really wanted it ...

But with excess books perhaps its an opportunity to go beyond the algorithm ?

No, the point is that we have actually run out of people requesting the book at all. There's no "excess match." We are out. Finito. Empty. We've reached the bottom of the barrel and there's nothing there. Everyone who asked for the book has already been picked--they got it, or something else.

Again, we can solve this by changing how we match books to people. We can decide that, although person A is the best reviewer for book 1, he won't get book 1, because he also requested an ebook, and the ebook doesn't have enough matches. Sure, someone else will get book 1, but I think it goes against the whole point, which is to match books to good readers.

Besides, even if we were able to do that, there's still the theoretical possibility that a book can't be filled. We're getting more and more ebooks, in larger and larger quantities. This makes sense, because the margin cost for producing an ebook is zero. If you're a publisher, it makes sense to create buzz, and if there's no cost at all for producing it, why not?

#101 - I only quoted that statement to point out that I doubt its validity.

103> Agreed. And really, this is probably detrimental for most people who sign up for ER. If I thought my requesting an ebook would knock me out of the pool for a paper book that I would have been picked to get, I'd never request another e-book again.

ETA: The "this" in "this is probably detrimental" does not refer to how they are planning to make the system, but an alternative way that would be more "fair" in that it try to give everyone one book, even if you one book was some smelly ebook that they quite literally couldn't get most people to take for free.

Right. That's the best way to put it. In order to match readers to books without doubling up, requesting an ebook might knock you out of contention for a paper book. That's not something I want. Indeed, I suspect it would backfire, as people fled from ebooks the more!

> 100 and > 103

But there are probably still people who have requested books and gotten nothing, even after you have exhausted those who requested the book in question. I am not advocating taking books from those who have won them, rather spreading the wealth to those who have none.

I don't mean awarding books to unsuspecting people, but perhaps some way asking the luckless if they would be interested in this book which is excess (since they didn't get the book of their choice) ? A rare second round ?

Or explicitly telling people they can request more than one book without it doing bad things to their chances of winning. In the threads people often say they only picked one because they didn't want to spoil their chances. If more people picked multiple books wouldn't that help you find the excess a good home without doubling up?

You want to find all the books the best home, in a quick and efficient manner. The 2 book option may seem like a solution, but I think you will just increase the ill will around the program when some are getting nothing, and some are getting 2.

95: The fuss was from BEFORE Mike and Sonya explained it.

107: The 2 book option may seem like a solution, but I think you will just increase the ill will around the program when some are getting nothing, and some are getting 2.

So much for that. ;)

108>

Well, okay, MOST of the fuss was from before Sonya explained it. I think most people are fine with the policy, now that we've actually been told what it does instead of vague and overgeneric hints about what it might possibly do.

Or explicitly telling people they can request more than one book without it doing bad things to their chances of winning. In the threads people often say they only picked one because they didn't want to spoil their chances. If more people picked multiple books wouldn't that help you find the excess a good home without doubling up?

This is why I think it might help to do e-books completely separately, or allow starring of the books we want most, or both.

People want to get the book they're most excited about. Even people who might be happy to read and review an e-book might avoid requesting it if they wanted something else more. It's always a possibility that you'll be in the top 25 people awarded the e-book, and get kicked out of the running for the book you want most--so some people don't request very widely.

Another possibility would be to run the extra books as a bonus batch, where everyone could request again.

Another possibility would be to run the extra books as a bonus batch, where everyone could request again.

That seems fair all around to me!

>111 SqueakyChu:

The logistics are hard. We tell publishers we'll get them all the data together. A second round would be a drawn-out thing, or would be unfair for not being so. Anyway, the result of a second round would be exactly the same as allowing people to receive two books, if a book had run out of potentials.

A second round would be a drawn-out thing, or would be unfair for not being so.

I'm not sure why a month is needed for this process. You could do the main round in two weeks, with a week to process the results, and then the second round in one week. (edit: and give the results to the publishers at the end of the whole thing.)

Anyway, the result of a second round would be exactly the same as allowing people to receive two books, if a book had run out of potentials.

No. People would be more likely to request the book in the second round, when their most-wanted book was already out of the running. I think it's quite common to restrict your requests to the few books you want most, which is why you're not getting enough requests for the books with massive quantities available.

vague and overgeneric hints about what it might possibly do

For what it's worth, Mike doesn't interact with members as often as Sonya and I do. He didn't realize he had one foot in quicksand—quicksand with alligators and piranhas! Following our standard practice, he was attempting to avoid saying too much about how the algorithm works. This is a good principle and in playing it safe, he was following our general practice. In this case, while I would have preferred to be vague, members' concerns made is necessary to be more explicit.

>113 _Zoe_:

It wouldn't need to be a month, but it would need to be some time. Four days? Five? More work for us. Slower stuff for the publishers. Besides, we'd be singling out the books that aren't getting excitement...

:o/ Poor Mike. You should take him out for a few cold ones. :o/

*shakes head in disbelief* I really don't understand all the fuss here. Do people really think the "secret algorithms" are biased or unfair? Honestly, I have complete faith in the secret algorithms, so that when I don't get picked for a book for months at a time, I'm not upset because I have faith that others who did get picked deserved it.

I saw this announcement and thought "heeey, good idea!". Maybe I take it for granted that the algorithm is fair? Do most people not believe that? 'Cause otherwise I can't see a reason for all the fuss.

The algorithm is fair. That is why so many people don't like it. If someone wants to have the best shot a winning a book, they should pick one that is similar to books they already have listed. Should not expect the algorithm to select a book based on the fact that one really, really wants it. You will not win the Buddhist Vampire love story unless you have books dealing with Vampires, Buddhism, or better yet ,"Buddhist Vampire" books.

If people want 'fair' they can go to Member Giveaway where books are given out to random winners, algorithm free.

#117/118

"Honestly I have complete faith in the secret algorithms"
"The algorithm is fair"

This is illogical, without knowing what the algorithm is you can't possibly know this. You also can't know that it is biased or unfair, but it is certainly up for speculation either way if it's secret. I trust people to try and make it fair, but that's not the same thing as trusting them to succeed without any proof. It's like electronic voting systems. Sure the idea is that they function properly, and I'm sure the designers try to make sure they do, but without a paper trail, who's to know?

That's not to say I think the algorithm needs to be public, but I think as long as its secret the speculation surrounding it is reasonable, natural and even good. (As a philosophy, I think people should be questioning not blindly accepting what they are told with no supporting evidence.)

119: Oh, I understand the fail-ability of technology, but I was thinking more along the lines of, if *this* is people's automatic response to this kind of change, are they thinking that the admin aren't being fair regarding the algorithm?

Like, I have faith that the admins wouldn't make this change, and wouldn't have the algorithm they have, if they didn't feel it was the fairest way they could do it. I'm just wondering if some people don't have the "blind faith" that I have in them.

#119
I suppose 'fairness' is how one defines it. The program does select certain peoples libraries over others when deciding what books to award. The program knows nothing about the person requesting a book. Only what is in the member's library and the reviewing history of the member. If you have books matching what the publishers believe is a good measure of a fair reviewer, then your odds are increased. The system is not perfect, hence the tweaks that are applied to improve the process.

When I was choosing books based simply on what I wanted, I came up empty. Once I started to compare the ER books to what I already owned and selected only those books that I felt matched my library did I score a book. Then I had to admit to myself that the algorithm probably does work and is 'fair'.

That is why people don't like it. The program does not magically choose the books that people want. If you love a certain genre and want to review books of that type, then add your favorite books from that genre to your library.

It's hard to scrutinize the algorithm because they keep it hushed up, but I have two major issues with it and it seems to be the general consensus that both of these are true:

Bigger library is better. Hypothetically speaking let's say some person is, oh, a World War II buff. Let's say he doesn't own any books because he can't afford them, and only checks out books from the library. He's been keeping track of what he's read for a year now, and has read 75 books in that time (his library is 75 books on Librarything.) He has read 15 books on the subject, and reread them all several times each and he knows everything about the war. Let's also assume this person reads 1-2 books per week, and 75-90 books per year. (but has only kept track of them for 1 on LT) He's the perfect candidate for a WWII novel.

Now let's say another random person who has all the money in the world to spend on books and owns 4,000 of them. He has never read a book on World War II, but one day he goes out a purches 50 books on the topic and lets them collect dust on his book shelves. He has no plans on reading them, but he wants to own some WWII books so he goes and buys them all. He of course, enters them all on his Librarything account as well. He only reads 4-5 books per year, he's a busy man, but he certainly owns a lot of them.

One day a WWII book get's offered up. Who has the better chance of winning that book? The 2nd guy does. He has a bigger library and more WWII books. Because he has a bigger library, he's probably won more books in the past and thus has a better review history, while the first guy who actually reads books has no chance.

You just can't look at someone's library and think of that as an accurate representation of what they have read. Owning books and reading them are two different things. Hey, I'm not saying it's bad to own books. Who would say such a thing? I only wish I could own lots of books, it's just that giving someone a book strictly by their library size and not their reading habbits seems silly.

Another issue is diversity. The more diverse a reader you are, the less chance you have of winning. If you own 500 books and 90 percent of them are Horror, you'll win just about any horror book you see. If you own 500 books and you have 25 fantasy, 25 science fiction, 25 horror, 25 biographies, 25 science, 25 math, 25 historical fiction, etc...you have next to no chance for anything. You don't own a lot of books of each genre, and each genre makes up only a small percentage of your library.

This of course, is a very broad generalization and probably hugely speculative, it's not like all it takes to win is a big library. Obviously the algorithm is much more complex than that. But this really does seem to be a major factor, and this is why some people with smaller libraries tend to think it's a little unfair.

But, at the end of the day, if you don't win you can make yourself feel better by getting free books from the library like myself! :)

#122
I am not sure if the total size of your collection is as important as you might think. My library as compared to many other LTER members is quite small at a mere 250+ books. However I manged to win an ER book due to the fact that I own a fair number of 'Modern Wizard' themed books which matched my ER choice.

As for your example goes, you are right. The rich guy probably does have an advantage at first glance. But if the poor guy who goes to the local library decided to enter the books he read into his LT account then the chances of winning start to even up.

25 books seems to be the fewest number of books given away for any particular title last month. Assuming a similar number of WWII is available and the poor guy has entered his read books from his local library, then he is in good shape to snag a copy.

Diversity of books does not matter. As far as I have read from Tim and Sonya, having non-matching books does not count against you. At least half of my books are either philosophy related or college textbooks having nothing to do with wizards.

122: There are no restrictions on what you add to your account; it doesn't have to be things you own.

122> realistically, the process is (and has to be) based on books you have cataloged. it can't read your mind and it can't track or take into consideration books you read that you don't catalog here. This is like people who try to bluff playing online poker- it just doesn't work. The computer (however smart it is) relies on the data that you input.

I was just in a long ER dry spell. did it make me a little sad? yes, of course. Did it make me doubt the process? No, not really. I just figured other people were a better match for the books. I don't have an issue with folks who have bigger libraries matching to more books because it makes sense to me that folks with big libraries who interact a lot with the site might be the best match for an ER book.

There's also another factor here. I'm assuming that the active LT userbase continues to grow every year, and I'm assuming that overall participation in ER grows every year. I'm also assuming that the number of books available through the ER program is not growing at a rate to match that. Any of these assumptions may be wrong.

But if they're all true, then every month that goes by, you're going to be even less likely on average to win a book that the month before.

>126 brightcopy:

Except that users drop out and, more importantly, they wimp out—they don't review a book (or books) they were asked to review. Also, as this month shows, LTER has been growing.

The odds are still pretty good.

127: I have to say, LT as a whole (not just ER) has made me review books more. I used to blog-review, before LT, but not often. Now, every single book I read, I review it. It's automatic now.

#122: "Another issue is diversity. The more diverse a reader you are, the less chance you have of winning. If you own 500 books and 90 percent of them are Horror, you'll win just about any horror book you see. If you own 500 books and you have 25 fantasy, 25 science fiction, 25 horror, 25 biographies, 25 science, 25 math, 25 historical fiction, etc...you have next to no chance for anything. You don't own a lot of books of each genre, and each genre makes up only a small percentage of your library."

In my experience, this is not true. I have pretty diverse tastes. In the two years or so that I've been requesting ER books, I've won eight -- two young adult (one historical, one contemporary), two Christian fiction, one fantasy, one chick lit/romance, one children's mystery, and a book of comic strips. Now, granted, my library is fairly large . . . but I won 4 or 5 of those pre-Collections, when my library was a good bit smaller (I didn't add read but unowned books until after Collections came along). I'm not saying that your premise would not be true for everyone -- just that it doesn't hold true for me.

>117 Heather19: Exactly what I was trying to say before without really saying it. I think it is fair, too.

>122 Ape: I have a small library (160, I think) and have won books fairly consistently over the past few months. I have not gotten one every time but I am really not buying the "size" of your library. It really does seem to be what it contains. At least in my case.

Won them, and reviewed them—you're a machine! :)

I think Zoe pegged it (@110&113): “it might help to do e-books completely separately. ... People want to get the book they're most excited about. Even people who might be happy to read and review an e-book might avoid requesting it if they wanted something else more. It's always a possibility that you'll be in the top 25 people awarded the e-book, and get kicked out of the running for the book you want most--so some people don't request very widely.” and “People would be more likely to request the book in the second round, when their most-wanted book was already out of the running.”

I've only been in the program for four months now, and have won three books so far. I request only one per batch. As for your “New LTER preference: Occasionally receive 2 books in 1 batch”, my fear is that if I also marked an ebook (which would be my ~second~ choice), that it would preclude any possibility of winning my first choice. Although I've seen some ebook titles that I would be interested in, I've never read any 'books' in that fashion, so don't know how it would go for me. Definitely interested in taking a shot at it, but not at the cost of potentially losing out on my preferred choice. For now, I will continue with only one request per batch. If you decide to run the ebook batches separately, I will definitely add a request there, as well.

BTW, is there an easy way to get to the “Books you've won” link? I always bumble around my profile and home pages looking for it, then click around on the tabs there, not finding it. Then open up the ER group page. Four links show up there: 'sign-up page', 'list of available books', 'ER FAQ', 'claim it as unreceived'. Click the 1st link - sign-up page – not there. Click the 2nd link - 'list of available books' – not there, but more links, including 'FAQ'. Clicking on that FAQ took me to the HelpThing for ER, where I found a list of many links, one of which was “I can't remember which books I've won!”, and from THERE, I got my win list. Oh, now I see that fourth link on the ER Group page which reads 'claim it as unreceived' is actually my list of books won. I never would have guessed that! That could be made more clear, I think. (Though I am of the older, fairly computer-illiterate persuasion. So forgive me if the answer is easily found and I've just missed it.)

I wholeheartedly agree with wrmjr66/43 and brightcopy/62. “ The goal is to get books reviewed...” LT provides a great service to publishers, and I am grateful to be able to participate in it, whenever the mighty algorithm chooses my inclusion.

Agree, also, with woodsathome/96. 'What I'm envisioning is a greyed out button similar to "not available in your country" but saying "cannot request - overdue review"'.

Thank you for a great program, Tim, and Mike, too, for your part in it. Sonya, I am thrilled with everything you're doing with ER, and hope you've gotten your snack by now and have weathered our grumbling unscathed!

>133 countrylife: - The bumbling around was happening for me as well.

There is an easy way, though. From your home page, click on Library Thing Early Reviewers on the right (in the dashboard), then at the top left of the LTER page, there is a link called Books You've Won.

Hope that helps!

#103 "This makes sense, because the margin cost for producing an ebook is zero"

Hah. I wish. If it were then ebook prices would be considerably cheaper. Unfortunetly it costs about as much to produce an ebook as a pbook. Actual material costs are minor, it's the human cost editing and formatting et al that costs. And each ebook version/format needs those costs anew. And it's an area publishers are loathe to spend money on, as you can see from a few very bad versions that are for sale. Some long discussions on MobileRead.com about this with input from all areas of the book producing teams.

Granted it doesn't cost anymore to send another copy of the file, or store the original - but they do still need to recoup the same initial overhead costs.

136> I think that's what Tim was referring two as "margin cost" - the cost of producing two ebook copies versus one (aka marginal cost.)

In other words, he's pointing out that it makes no sense for them to be stingy with copies of ebooks, since they've already sunk the majority of the costs in the additional creation. What's left is the paltry costs of distributing another chunk of data.

Thanks, rjmoren/135! That DOES help!

You're welcome!

I commend the whole LT & ER gang for doing their best. It surely can't be easy pleasing everyone. If you don't like what's being proposed, you're welcome to drop out of the program. I think it's great that everyone has their own opinion & shares feedback, but at some point people just need to chill out & relax. Accept things & be grateful that you get the opportunity to participate in the program. Kudos to all the hard work you do -- Mike, Tim, & Sonya! :')

We are not planning on separating e-books into their own separate Early Reviewers program.

my fear is that if I also marked an ebook (which would be my ~second~ choice), that it would preclude any possibility of winning my first choice

I'm going to clarify that what countrylife is saying is that if she requests an ebook that she'd be willing to take as her second choice, along with the paper books she really wants, it's possible that we'll choose the ebook for her over all of her other choices (and give her no second book).

That's certainly possible. I guess you have to weigh wanting a second book over getting the ebook over your other choices.

Sorry to be late to the discussion...just found this thread. I've been a member for not quite two years, and have gotten ER 12 books--different genres, some I liked better than others. ( I even got an E book that doesn't show on my list) . There were two others I never received.
I'm convinced the point is to REVIEW the books, and I've reviewed them all but the one I just got last week. Since joining LT, I've reviewed and entered EVERY book I've read, using collections to differentiate those from the library and those I physically own.

I think the LT ER program is a terrific benefit--not an entitlement--and if publishers are willing to give LT books in exchange for reviews, LT has an obligation to get those books to people who will review them. So if I don't have any VAMPIRE books in my library and suddenly request a book, how is LT supposed to know I've decided to try one to see if I might like it? I'd have a better chance if I read a few, reviewed and entered them, and THEN requested a vampire book.

The 2nd shot is a good idea as long as it doesn't cut out someone from a 1st copy. And I love the idea of greying out eligibility to request until reviews are posted. A little bit of extra "gentle reminder" might not be a bad idea.

LT--Mike, Tim, Sonya---you're doing a great job. Thanks for letting us whine (perhaps you could serve cheese) and thanks for helping us enjoy our membership in this terrific group.

141> I guess you have to weigh wanting a second book over getting the ebook over your other choices.

And I guess you (LT) have to weigh wanting people to request ebooks and not having oodles of copies left over that you're desperate to find reviewers for. ;)

My thoughts are this, If you utilize LT to the fullest potential, meaning collections and logging all the books you read, writing reviews, etc.. then you give yourself a better opportunity to win books. If you by your own admission don't log all the books you own or have read and then are upset at the fact that LT doesn't match you up with a book, then you should rethink your anger and accusations.

I love LT and the ER program. I look forward to the end of the month to see if I have sangged any new books. And when I do it is very exciting!

Keep up the great work LT.

Seems really weird to me that people would get mad about this and talk about the fairness. That's not really the goal. The goal is to get books reviewed and reviewed well.

(And similar sentiments.)

Not to be contradictory, but actually the goal is to make you happy! We don't charge publishers for LibraryThing Early Reviewers. It's not a "profit center" for us; it's just an expense.

Rather, we do it because it makes members happy, and if you're happy, you're going to enjoy LibraryThing, and tell your friends, etc. To that end, if you like LTER, please don't be silent about it! :)

Now, to get that result we need books to give out. And to have books to give out we need to make publishers happy. And to do that we need to give books to the right people—the people who will review them. The system needs to work for the publishers, or, soon enough, it won't work for members either.

But, ultimately, you're our customer here not the publishers.

meaning collections

FWIW, I can state definitively that members who avoid using collections are not penalized. It's not a metric we use. I won't state definitively that we won't use it in the future. But I don't see why we would.

FWIW, I can state definitively that members who avoid using collections are not penalized.

This isn't entirely true. The point is that collections lead people to enter more books. I could enter 2000 books in a wishlist collection, and then I'd have a much better chance of winning books than I do now.

Speaking of keeping members happy... how about some real separation of that wishlist? ;)

#146 - I would imagine that the same people who would enter a 2,000 book wishlist merely because the collections feature had been added would not have scrupled to keep those books out of their regular catalog previously. In other words, any members who are now using collections to game the system most likely were gaming it before that in some other manner.

Me, I have been very blessed by the algorithm... long may it yield its hallowed output.

I would like a pony, please.

>147 clamairy: I'm not saying that people are trying to game the system, but I do think that some people have honestly entered massive wishlists.

@149 If they've honestly entered the books on their wishlists, then what is the problem? Aren't the books I want to read as good an indicator of my reading interests as those I have (or, at the very least nearly so)?

>150 ulfhjorr: My point is just that the decision about whether to use the wishlist collection can have a huge impact on your chances. People who choose not to enter a wishlist are effectively penalized because other people's chances of success are drastically increased while their own chances remain the same. So Tim's blithe claim that collection use makes no difference, while technically true, is totally false in practice.

>151 _Zoe_:
(Isn't it fun to try to reverse engineer the hidden algorithm). On the other hand, wishlisted items are probably unlikely to have reviews, so the "fraction of catalogued books with reviews longer than XXX" would probably fall, which might affect things.... so to game things more effectively you might put dummy reviews on books in a "fool the ER Algorithm" collection with dummy reviews. One would want to avoid them being considered "not a review" or "breaking TOS for copyright", so it might be tempting to write a program to read the existing reviews, and mash and mangle them into a new one.... while paying attention to robots.txt and any other TOS restrictions...

Or maybe I should just try writing some reviews!

#152 Tim's been pretty clear in the past that reviews on non-ER books make zero difference. ditto tags et al. It's having the required titles in your catalogue that's key.

>153 reading_fox:, so I had better finished entering my shelves :) (and actually asking for an ER book might help too...)
Thanks!

I wonder, out of the 10,000+ members in ER, how many have bothered to enter hundreds or thousands of books merely for the chance to win a free book? To do so first they have to pay for a membership, and then spend hours if not days adding books, and it can't be just random books since that won't help them win specific ones, so in the end, I figure if someone wants to spend that much time and money to get a 'free' book, more power to them.

#155 - My sentiments exactly.

I am just not seeing huge wishlists. (Not that I've been looking for them.)

As a person who has a rather large wishlist I can honsetly say it has been built over months on researching books on here through recommendations and on amazon as well. i also like to have a list to go to once my TBR pile is low. I utilize it for my own benefit and if it helps me with the ER program then that is just a bonus.

#151: But does having more books really help? It certainly changes the profile of the library, but I suspect the impact of any one book or small set of books on the ER algorithm is less the larger the library is; that people who have small libraries have a fair chance to get books they match.

But does having more books really help?

it has been stated yes. if you have 20 'cozy' mysteries and I have 50 'cozy' mysteries I have a better chance of getting a 'cozy' mystery than you, even if you only have 30 books and I have 3000. It has to do with how many good matching books you have, not the percentage in the library. Of course they are tweaking the algorithm all the time so a '%' could conceivably be added as a small part, but it has been specifically stated it doesn't matter in other threads.

149>

Oh, I know, but the most massive wishlists I've seen were entered before Collections; it may just be that they're more noticeable now that they're clearly separated out (or, of course, that you're looking at different libraries than I am; I guess I should just say that there were definitely some people who had massive wishlists pre-Collections). From my perspective, Collections are separation enough that I'm now comfortable entering mine (and I know they aren't separated enough for your liking, here); so at least for me, they've leveled the playing field a bit. (Not by much, presumably, since my wishlist is only about 140 books compared to almost 2000 in my Library, but a little.)

Aren't the books I want to read as good an indicator of my reading interests as those I have

No, not at all. I, for example, have never read a book on egyptian mythology. However, I find the subject interesting and, if I made a wishlist, I'd probably include tons of egyptian mythology books. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to review a book on that subject just because I wish to read books on the subject.

I wonder, out of the 10,000+ members in ER, how many have bothered to enter hundreds or thousands of books merely for the chance to win a free book?

Let me repeat, I'm not talking about people gaming the system and entering massive wishlists for the sole purpose of winning ER books. No, I don't think that would be realistic.

But people can enter massive wishlists because they're actually interested in all those books. The result is the same.

>160 lorax: I have no idea what percentage of large wishlists were already catalogued before Collections, but given that Collections has encouraged people like you to enter a wishlist here, I assume some people with large wishlists also experienced the same effect.

Weill I do have a large wishlist (by many standards anyway) of about 370 books, the vast majority of theses books are for authors or series I've read a bit of and would like the rest. So for me all it is doing is giving a slight magnification to the interests already present in my catalog. I don't think it's necessary to use wishlists and I thought it was a little weird when he announced they were counted but I don't think it's important enough to spend the effort to discount them. If he changes his mind and removes them I'll be just as happy.

Ape - but if you had a load of Egyptian books in your wishlist it would show a large interest in the subject.

No matter what (reasonable) criteria is used or ignored, I am sure we can find examples both pro and con for using each piece of data. Tim has pointed out that the Algorithm is a many tentacled thing with many weights and measures, it's even possible that wishlists are given half points, but Tim has gone the route of security through obscurity for his special sauce. I suspect he takes a lot of lumps from ER people saying "it should do this' and 'it shouldn't' do that' when it's possible these things are already being factored in.

We have always said that there are factors besides matches between your books and the "similars" set down by the publisher. We have not said what those factors are.

>161 Ape:....WHOA,That doesn't mean I'm qualified to review a book on that subject just because I wish to read books on the subject.

Last year I read AND REVIEWED 160 books. Some were on subjects I'd never read about before, others were in genres I read all the time. Just because I'm not a subject matter expert in electricity or Africa, doesn't mean that I can't do an excellent review of a book about a village's quest to bring electricity into a rural area on that continent, and that I can't thoroughly enjoy reading about it. I could no more reconstruct what happened in that book than I could grow corn in my backyard, but that doesn't mean I'm not intelligent, literate and educated enough to read the book and do a good review.

Is my review going to be as meaningful as the electrical engineer? Maybe. Maybe not. Might even be better because often the SMO isn't able to write a good review in plain English (or whatever the language of the reviewer is.) The point of book reviews after all is to give people who may want to buy/borrow/read the book an idea of whether they'd get anything out of it. Just because I was a Math major doesn't mean I can't read, understand and enjoy books about history from ancient Egypt to the Iraq war, and maybe my admission in the review that I'm not an SMO may encourage others to branch out and pick up something they might have otherwise ignored.

And Yes Zoe, I do enter books more in the wishlist now that collections are available. Since I got my blackberry, I find it incredibly useful when I'm out in some used book store to be able to see if this is one I particularly have marked as wanting to add to my collection. Sure beats spreadsheets (and after a hard drive crash last month where one of my biggie spreadsheets got dumped, I was truly greatful for the wishlist collection feature )

>163 readafew: I'm not making a judgement about what the algorithm should or shouldn't do, I'm just trying to clarify what's already the case.

Another member said, If you utilize LT to the fullest potential, meaning collections... etc.. then you give yourself a better opportunity to win books.

Tim responded, FWIW, I can state definitively that members who avoid using collections are not penalized.

As far as I can understand it, Tim means that the algorithm is looking at All Books--it doesn't care about collections per se. And yet people who use collections, particularly Wishlist, are likely to have more books catalogued, and therefore are more likely to have matching books and succeed in ER requests.

Tututhefirst, Last year I read AND REVIEWED 160 books. Some were on subjects I'd never read about before:

Great, then you agree with this comment:

Give the book to someone who wants the vampire smut novel even though they have nothing in their library but economics textbooks?

???

I'm just confused. Do you want books to be given to people who are a good match or to just anyone who requests them because anyone can review any book regardless of topic?

I'm just saying the wishlist isn't a perfect indication of whether someone is a good match or not.

>166 _Zoe_:

Provided that we consider only the match-count that, for example, matching one book is equally beneficial whether you have 100 books or 5,000. And it assumes similar books only produces positive matches, not negative ones.

I am a late-comer to this thread and it is fascinating. LOTS of passion. The publishers who utilize LTER should be pleased at having a very big pool of people who care so much about new releases. And maybe there is hope for our society, after all.

I don't presume to have the first clue about how the "secret" algorithm goes about its work. The explanation, for me, had enough of a nugget of plausibility wrapped up in a fog of impenetrable techno-babble to seem fairly trustworthy. It seems like a lot of thought has been given to trying to be "fair" to everybody here.

Of all the comments here, I think the most insightful might be from wrmjr66 (#43) that the program is a function of the publishers' willingness to supply the free books and their desire to get feedback and generate buzz. It's longevity is, I presume, dependent on it's ability to produce satisfactory results. If a handful of super-active readers will generate more reviews than the same number of books spread out over five times as many people, then that's where it will go, it seems to me.

I have received, and reviewed, one book so far. I felt pretty lucky to get a hit after only a few months in the program. I look on anything that comes my way as a pure gift, what New Orleaneans call "lagniappe."

LibraryThing is such a fantastic, feature-rich service that it leads me to trust you folks to figure out a pretty equitable way to balance the benefit of the "freebies" with the need to produce results. I love this place.

Just read Message #161. Holy Cats, tututhefirst, 160 reviews last year?

Jeepers!

Ape...I guess I'd have to say that if you want to read a book about Vampire Smut, but have NO indication, either in wishlist, read but not owned, or any other collection that you are interested in this subject, then (and I'm only guessing here) the algorithm might not see you as a good match. However....

I was only addressing your comments about people's ability to review competently, not whether the ER program is "fair" or "unfair". I've tried to stay out of that debate, because I think people who look at the ER program as an entitlement or a contest are the ones who are being the most disappointed. If you look at it as an added benefit that's nice if it happens, and is ok if it doesn't (there are after all plenty of places to get copies of free books to read----they're called libraries), then the disappointment factor (or the "she got a bigger piece of pie than I did" mentality) can perhaps slowly melt away.

Provided that we consider only the match-count that, for example, matching one book is equally beneficial whether you have 100 books or 5,000.

Right, but you had told us in the past that this was the case. Of course the algorithm can always change, but plenty of people are still interested in knowing what's been said about it.

If you are taking into account the number of books, I wish you would consider our Library rather than All Books. I have 400 "Childhood Books" that consist mostly of Babysitter's Club, Nancy Drew, and Sweet Valley, in a collection that doesn't count for connections or recommendations. I'd rather not have those lowering my chances.

Negative matches are an interesting thought.

I'd rather not have those lowering my chances.

They won't, he's said many times, having books listed won't ever be a negative to receiving an ER. it will only increase your chances of getting a Nancy drew like books should you ever decide to request one.

Zoe, I've entered a massive wishlist -- in a separate account, under a different username, that will never be a member of ER.

Ape, your post at #161 implies that you are uniquely "qualified" in some way to review books while others are not. Like tututhe first, I disagree with that -- on many different levels.

And, tutu, I'm in love with you because of your post at # 171!

Tim, keep up the good work. I'm more than happy with my piece of this pie. ER books are just an extra.

They won't, he's said many times, having books listed won't ever be a negative to receiving an ER.

Um, then what do you think Tim's message #168 was about? I said having more books is always better, and he mentioned a couple of possible ways in which it might not be.

Karen, I'm really tempted to enter a wishlist in a separate account. I just wish there were an easier way to deal with multiple accounts.

175 > I guess that is not how I interpreted that post, more like saying there are loop holes such as not all matching books are equal, for what ever reason the algorithm deems. Different collections, recent addition, edge of 'matching' list, some other criteria I haven't thought of. I certainly didn't read it as 'the wrong books will count against you'.

Ah, the fun of dissecting Tim's words!

I thought his reference to the assumption that "similar books only produces positive matches, not negative ones" actually meant there was a possibility of Unsuggester-type books taking away from your overall match score.

But I didn't read it as a strong assertion that these things actually are part of the algorithm now, just as a suggestion that they could potentially be.

This makes me wonder: I know there's a wiki page of entertaining Tim quotes, but is there a collection of his statements on site-related issues? It's too bad that Stalking group was abandoned.

Here's what I want to know about the algorithm:

Does requesting more than one book hurt or help your chances of receiving that book (or any book)?

both, neither. Requesting more books increases your chance of receiving a book, however requesting a second book CAN decrease your chance of get the first book if you match higher on the list. meaning, if you are match 10 on book one but 5 on book 2 you will most likely get book 2 all other things being equal.

180>

fig2,

I guess it depends on unknown factors. Your overall chances might increase by requesting two books because if you are only in the running for one book the algorithm wouldn't be considering you while we pick winners for each copy of the other titles. But maybe one of the titles has 10 copies available and 10 other people requesting it are somehow considered a better match by the algorithm... are you actually increasing your chance of winning by requesting it?

By the way, like thejazzmonger said, "Lot's of passion"... it's pretty awesome.

-Mike

I'm finding out that I am a "primitive" member of LT. I have been putting in the books I own, one by one and still haven't finished that. When I buy a book (rarely) I put that in. But I have NO IDEA what "Collections" means (nor what a "wish list" is . . . I do not have a fairy godmother so I do not wish). Each time I have gotten an ER book I have reviewed it. I have gone many moons without a book (tho I'm due for one now). Recently I was disturbed by "green stuff" on my library page. Was this the collections data you talk about? Can you tell me what it means? Does it really matter?) Sorry. . . .

#183 - Esta, you can find your Collections at the top of your Profile page, right under you name or on the bottom left of your Home page. You can also sort books into Collections while viewing 'Your library' (what used to be called your catalog) one at a time by using that small brown folder icon with the black arrow on it. That's in the last column all the way to the right, in the middle of the 5 icons there.

Edited to add: As to what it means, it's an easier way to sort stuff than by tagging it, in my opinion. People here on LT use it for a bunch of reasons. For me it meant, among other things, that I could add all the library books or borrowed books I've read, rate them, and still keep them separate from the books that I own. To use another example, at some point I plan to add my husband's postal history books, and I can keep them in one 'Collection.'

184 posts later...

Okay, off topic a little, but what is a tag? It seems important because I saw it getting discussed up there somewhere, but not what it is. I know that it asks me when I add a book to my collection, but I don't know what it means.

Secondly, a wishlist. I have 33 books in my wishlist, that might be a huge number (?), but that's the books that I am interested in owning. It's also on my amazon wishlist, but it's easier to keep track of here (because my computer hates amazon, I'm still running on dial up here in the middle of nowhere)

I'm not using my wishlist to 'game' the system. But now I want to know, am I hurting my chances of getting an ER book by having a wishlist? Especially since I read the descriptions of all the books in the giveaway and add the ones that I want to own –someday- to my wishlist. Should I not do that? I don’t want to be ‘gaming’ the system, so should I put that list somewhere else?

I guess I'm just really confused.

Also, on my wishlist, if you look I buy from that once (or twice) a week, and then add more because I can't shop for a book and not find something else I want...so it changes it's contents often.

#185
The algorithm does not care how a book is listed in your collections. Having books not relevant to your ER selection will not hurt you. The only thing that seems to really negatively influence your chances is to not review books won through Early Reviewers. (If I'm wrong, I am sure that I will be quickly corrected.)

Think of a tag as a label you can add to a book in your account.

Some examples from other catalogs: location (bedroom, New York), specific conditions (signed, damaged), genre (fantasy, science fiction, mystery), type of binding (hardback, paperback, trade paperback).

Really, a tag can be any word, number, symbol that you want to use as a label.

Having a wishlist will not hurt your chances of winning an ER book. Additionally, having a copy of a book republished as an Early Reviewer copy or adding Early Reviewer books to your wishlist will not hurt your chances either. Don't worry too much about gaming the system; it's rather hard to do since we don't know the books in advance.

# 187
So I can tag them all under lollipop? (Kidding!)

I mean after we find out. Like...I just read the books in the March batch yesterday and there are about 14 that I would like to own someday (no I didn't request them all). Can I put them in my wishlist now without looking shady or should I wait till the end of the month?

188: add them in- the system has already taken a snapshot of your books to use when allocating the ER books.

>188 OodsAteMyDingo: No, go ahead and put them in now. The algorithm only considers books you had in your library before the current batch was announced, to prevent people gaming the system by adding a bunch of related books after they've seen what's on offer.

Also, adding ER books to your wishlist is pretty much the only way to keep track of what you've requested after each batch closes.

Good to know! Thanks everyone!

Also, adding ER books to your wishlist is pretty much the only way to keep track of what you've requested after each batch closes.

Though I'm ever optimistic that they'll eventually see the value of a books-you-requested page.

Zoe, I thought I would like to see that, too, until I started to type this message and now I'm not sure it would do that much good. Hmm...

The wishlist account I've started includes books that I want to read from the ER lists but I don't request every one I'm interested in. Some may be just a passing fancy and others I may not want to read badly enough to move to the top of the pile for timely review purposes. I suppose what I really need to do is tag my wishlist...

OTOH, there's no way I could possibly remember all the books I've requested in the past so, I've worked my way back around to hoping for that feature.

192> While I see the value in the feature, I can't really say it's worth it unless they're just sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing else to do (yeah right!). If I actually want a book, I'm putting it on my wishlist. But I just request an ER book because it sounds interesting, for a free book. I have yet to run across one that I thought I would cold buy at a bookstore. I'm sure that's not everyone's experience, but I bet it's a lot of people's experience. So I'm not really sure what that list of old requested books would bring to the table for most folks.

>194 brightcopy: Alternately, I (and I suspect a fair number of others) use my wishlist as a "want to read" rather than a "want to buy." I wouldn't cold buy a lot of the books from ER either, but I like having a list of the ones I thought looked interesting for when I'm at the library.

195> Yeah, that's what I use my wishlist for, too. I think what I said would still apply for that as well. Counting my wishlist and my books that I own but haven't read yet, I have scads of books that I know I want to read. While I'd probably check out more of these ER books than I'd buy, I'd say the number is still somewhere in the ballpark of 1 out of 10. I'm only requesting it because 1) it's free and will be in my collection afterwards if it's any good and 2) I want to participate in the ER program. Borrowing a book gives you neither #1 nor #2.

I use my wishlist as a "I want to read/or buy this book" or the "this sounds interesting" lit. I actually made a new collection for ER requests so I know where I found the book. This way also at the end of the month when the books are distributed I know which books I was interested vs. which book I recieved (if I'm lucky enough to receive and ER book that month.)

I do see the benefit is the "books I've requested" page. Often throughout the month I will refresh myself on the choices I have requested and I find it a bit tedious to scroll through the whole page finding the ones I marked. I wish you could search by "requests" like you can for country etc...

195 fyrefly

Yes, my "wishlist" collection is definitely my TBR list rather than a list of books I specifically want to buy. I try to tag the books I want to actually on "to buy" or something like that (I forget exactly) in case some nice person decides to buy a book for me ;) It seemed a reasonable fit.

I wouldn't be opposed to a list somewhere of "books I requested". It would be useful since I'm not going to add them all at once (I tend to look at the ER list early in the morning or late at night for some reason, which is a fine time to request books but not a time I'm going to add a lot bunch of books to my library).

197: To search for books you've requested in the ER list, do a ctrl-F ("find") and type "requested". Depending on your browser, you should be able to repeat the "find" and work your way down the list, seeing the ones you requested.

199: true, however, I still can't get the one(s) I requested in December...

Right now, I am writing them down as I request. There has to be a better way!!

197>> You are a genius. Worked like a charm! Thanks for the hint.

200> Why wouldn't you just add them to a collection?

Why wouldn't you just add them to a collection?

I don't use the wishlist collection at all because it can't be kept fully separate from my real collections. A lot of things are still based on All Books, and even the existence of All Books is irritating to me.

So I'm not really sure what that list of old requested books would bring to the table for most folks.

Honestly, I don't care enough to keep track of previous ER books. But I'd look at the list occasionally if it existed. This would be good for the publishers; it would generate more lasting interest in their books. Happy publishers mean more books for us.

>202 brightcopy: - I just realized that I can do that so I have begun to put them in my wishlist collection! I really didn't know about it until this discussion brought it to my attention.

A few late thoughts, mostly in agreement with one post or another above:

1. A little grayed out "you're not eligible since you haven't reviewed your last book" would be nice.

2. I realize it's not currently in the pipeline, but I love the idea of starring. Maybe only one or two per batch so it's not abused. It'd be nice to have the ability to say, "I'd rather get Book B, which I'm the 10th best fit for, over Book A, which I'm the 6th best fit for.", and a star could give that option.

3. Post #169 was great, and completely agree :)

4. If the algorithm goes in a round-robin style, wouldn't it seem that the books with lots of copies (ebooks mostly) wind up getting the worst members, since all the good reviewers were picked in the "real" books?

5. Also in favor of a "Books I've Requested" page. Currently, I request the ones I think I'd enjoy reading, and bookmark the ones I'd really want to be added to my wishlist later. (Thanks for pointing out that I can add them immediately without affecting current chances. I hadn't known that before.)

205>

Yes, your point 4 is correct, and is in fact the entire point of this change (so that people can receive a many-copy book even if they're also receiving another book.

I realize it's not currently in the pipeline, but I love the idea of starring. Maybe only one or two per batch so it's not abused. It'd be nice to have the ability to say, "I'd rather get Book B, which I'm the 10th best fit for, over Book A, which I'm the 6th best fit for.", and a star could give that option.

I'm going to repeat my support for this as well, despite the fact that it's not currently under consideration. The other recommendations algorithms on LT aren't perfect, so there's no reason to suppose the ER algorithm is either (I know, it's blasphemy to speak against the algorithm. Too bad.). Plus, even Tim has acknowledged that the similar books the publisher provides aren't always a particularly good match.

Basically, I think we know more about what we want to read than LT does. Pretending that the algorithm is infallible and will always give the books to the best match ultimately just rewards those people who request every book on the list.

Late to the conversation: LOL to the person upthread who said something like "Can I have a pony." But seriously, I think that poster is on to something. I'm delighted that I have the chance to get just one book every once in a great while. The offer of 2 is wonderful. Worrying about how, why, etc seems like asking for the moon (or a pony) to me. Isn't it just pretty cool that we ever get any of these books at all?

Thank you susanbooks!

Personally, my biggest concern is weighting and how it affects newbies like me. I just joined the site recently, written a few reviews, added a few titles, and told dozens of fellow readers about it. I've signed up to do reviews, something I really like doing, and I'd really like the opportunity. How does all this effect new entrants? I'm rather omnivorous in my reading tastes, but I only make a point of marking books that sound appealing to me. You said that every "member who wanted the book", so does that mean you include the newbies, so we get our first chance at doing a review?
Thanks much for hearing me out. Cat

Mike has posted this in New Features

It might be helpful to direct all new posts there.

I have only won 4 books in all the time I've been signed up. The first was from the Jan 2009 batch and the last was from the April 2009 batch. I'm not sure how that works in your round robin selecting, except that I am in Canada.

Your location does affect which books you are able to win... unfortunately for you, the vast majority of the books do seem to be offered in the United States. I often do not get selected for the books I'd like to read. Usually my non-selection happens for other reasons than my location; still, I have also missed out on one or two books that sounded good to me because they were only offered in Canada.

Skimming through this thread I kept thinking that at least those unhappy, distressed, worried, angered about their "droughts" were eligible for ER books. Then I read #213. Amen! Absolutely! Here in Canada, very few copies are available.

It's more than a little frustrating to see the site broken down into more- and less-privileged groups based on real world geography. Then, of course, there are those who live in countries where there are never copies available who'll tell me to "suck it up". True enough.

Maybe one day ER will be as international as the rest of LT.

Oh well, they are free after all, and I'm not lacking for something to read. Cheers!

> 214 "It's more than a little frustrating to see the site broken down into more- and less-privileged groups based on real world geography. (...) Maybe one day ER will be as international as the rest of LT. "

This has nothing to do with LT. The issue you have is with the publishing industry. Release dates are "purchased" from what I understand through reading various author blogs. The publishers (in some weird regulated system) dictate when and where books are released. Books are not released at the same time in different countries and often have different covers or other variances aside from language. Since the ER books are supplied by publishers, it only stands to reason that the distribution of them is equally subject to that bizarre publishing system, not to mention shipping issues.

So LT has nothing to do with what publishers choose to make available to Early Reviewers or to where geographically that distribution might be made available.

Don't shoot LT ER program for simply being the messenger.

215:

Pointing out that ER isn't as international as the rest of the site, is neither a critique nor unfair. It's simply a reality - if you live in one country, you have a much better chance of getting books than do other LT members.

As my last sentence (in #214) demonstrated, I'm not crushed by this intrusion of real world geography. Rather, in a gentle way, I was reminding those who complain about their droughts to be thankful for being, at the very least, eligible to receive review copies.

Cheers.

216> I think it's quite unfair. They get books for free from the publishing industry. The publishing industry wouldn't give them books for free if they didn't distribute them according to the publishing industry's region plan.

To suggest that LT could one day change the way they limit books to specific regions in ER without saying anything about how the publishing industry will need to change first is quite an omission.

"It's more than a little frustrating to see the site broken down into more- and less-privileged groups based on real world geography. (...) Maybe one day ER will be as international as the rest of LT."

Authors and agents sell rights on a per-country basis. Publishers buy rights on a per-country basis. Very often a book will have one publisher in one country, and another in another, and even if the two publishers have the same name, they usually have completely different offices, marketing departments and so forth. Most critically, books are often published at very different times, and with different covers. For example, most of the world got the third "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo book" some time ago, but it has yet to come out in the US. If that were a LTER book, it would make no sense for the British publisher to send it to Americans. First, it would probably violate their contract to do so, and would expose them to being sued--the American publisher wants the buzz, but not the confusion that would come with it. Second, they'd be creating buzz at the wrong time, over the wrong cover.

You guys have to believe me on this stuff. We aren't segmenting books by geography because we think it's cute. We're doing it because publishers demand it, and they demand it because it's a legal requirement.

"We're doing it because publishers demand it, and they demand it because it's a legal requirement."

It's still stupid though - it means less sales for the author. If I can't have it now, I may not think/want it in the future. It's especially stupid when you can buy the book online and have it shipped to you from anywhere. It's even more stupid when it's an ebook that you're prevented from buying. And then publishers wonder why there are ebook pirates.

/derail.
/rant.

And no I don't know how to fix it. Global contracts?

219> It's still stupid though - it means less sales for the author.

Well, yes and no. This happens with all kinds of products and media. One of the main functions is minimizing the capital investment as well as the risk. Global publishing and marketing would be a tremendous investment. And if it flops, it's a tremendous loss. Breaking it down like this and staggering release dates makes it make more financial sense, even if from the consumer's point of view it's just a pain in the ass.

ETA: Oh, and that's mainly from the publisher's point of view. If the artist was signing with a global publisher, there's the distinct possibility that it would be worse for them. First of all, one company would have rights to their work all over the globe. There are frequently bad apples in the business who screw up an author's work (look at Solaris). At least with different publishers in different markets, you don't have all your eggs in one basket. It means that it's more likely that some market will get screwed up, but at least it's not all or nothing.

>219 reading_fox:: The fact is that you cannot just buy a book from anywhere and have it shipped to you, or download it if it is in digital format. I know I've had this issue with MP3s of albums that are not ever going to be sold in the US. Amazon, for example, recognizes where your payment originates from or your ISP and you are blocked from purchasing the content from outside of your region. I've tried purchasing items from UK sites and also been blocked because of my location being unavailable.

As for it being stupid, the publishers are the ones that pay for the ER books, including shipping or digital distribution (employee time investment). So a US publisher is not going to pay for someone in Canada to get a book for which they do not own the sale rights in Canada, particularly if you can't even get the book in Canada otherwise. Even if it was legal, it is bad business. As much as you might want the book and refuse to buy it if you don't have a chance at an ER, what is the point of them offering a review copy if you can't buy it in your market anyway?

Beautifully logical, Vivid!

221> And before someone points it out, I might as well. Yes, you can order from sites and not be subject to this blocking. I've ordered books from Amazon UK that are not available in the US. And I have an order on the way from The Book Depository (a UK-based seller with free shipping worldwide).

I have no idea if they have any kind of internal system to fit a contract with the original seller, or if it falls under an exemption because the volume is low, or if it's just a technical hole that they haven't figured out how to plug yet. I think VividConfusion's point is still applicable, though. We're talking about the mass market, not the much smaller percentage of people who may order from a website in another country.

>223 brightcopy:: Yes, you can order from sites and not be subject to this blocking.

I've resorted to this once before. I requested a book shipped to the States from an Australian distributor because I had fallen so in love with the author's one short story that had been published in my country but the book in question had only ever been published in Australia and I couldn't even find a copy of it used on BookMooch. With shipping included, I think I ended up paying a hardcover price for a skinny little twig of a trade paperback. But I got my hands on the book. (Written in Blood. Acquiring it was worth the trouble.)

>223 brightcopy:

There have always been imports. Books don't come with contracts printed on them declaring you can't bring it to another country. But authors don't necessarily want imports. They tend to cost a lot more, because of the extra steps involved in their sale, but none of the extra goes to the author. And they may impact the local market for the rights to the book.

For example, my friend's mother recently wrote a very entertaining book but, so far, it's only been picked up by Viking Canada. In theory, it could be sold in the US and elsewhere as an import. But I doubt it's getting many such sales. What she really wants is for someone to pick it up within the US or Britain.

I think books are going to see the same "globalization" as movies, which have gradually synchronized their release dates and marketing campaigns internationally. Indeed, such a move may well be happening now, but it's got a long way to go.

225>

There have always been imports. Books don't come with contracts printed on them declaring you can't bring it to another country. But authors don't necessarily want imports. They tend to cost a lot more, because of the extra steps involved in their sale, but none of the extra goes to the author. And they may impact the local market for the rights to the book.

I have actually seen, though not since the rise of Amazon, books with "This book not for sale in the US" printed on the cover. (And bought a couple of them, in the US). Prior to the easy online availability of books this channel was low-volume enough that the publishers didn't really go after the stores selling those imports, though. That's probably still true with Amazon.

I recommend anyone unfamiliar with the concept of regional rights read this post by an author describing the sale of "foreign" rights.

225> Yes, there are have always been imports. There have also always been contracts with major players, one of the terms being that you won't sell lots of product outside your region. Otherwise, you don't get the sweetheart deal.

brightcopy, other than that you're unhappy with the situation, it's unclear from your description in #227 exactly who you think is at fault. You realize that the way the sale of publication rights works puts authors in the role of "major players" in your little scenario, pulling the strings and making the demands, and publishers in the role of those who need to play by the rules or not get the "sweetheart deal", right?

By and large, the system is practical, and most of the time books are in fact published or at least available via imports in both regions (where I mean the US and the UK; non-English translations are a further complication). Remember, you aren't talking about not getting the book at all; we're talking about publishers not sending out free review copies to areas where they won't stand to profit from any sales, because they can't sell the books there.

Boy, this group l-o-v-e-s doing reviews. We have gone from reviewing books to reviewing the workings of the publishing industry. By my estimate, they are coming in at around one star, so far.

Doesn't look like I got one this month. Rats!

228> Huh? That's news to me (that I'm unhappy). Most of the time, I really don't give a flip. It was a little annoying recently to have to order some of Neal Asher's books from the UK, but it wasn't that big of a deal. I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't there.

Also, in 227 I'm talking about the publishers contracts with the sellers, such as B&N, Amazon, Borders, etc. My main point there was that while there's nothing legally keeping a book from being sold in every region, other barriers tend to make that not happen in terms of mass market.

What's weird is that your last paragraph seems directed at someone else completely. I was actually trying to explain (in that post and the preceding ones) why we get this system - mainly because it is more practical than trying to do things globally all at once with single publishers getting the contract for the entire world. I think we agree far more than you realize.

I think we agree far more than you realize.

I suspect so too.

228> Perhaps the confusion was in my saying in #220 that "from the consumer's point of view it's just a pain in the ass". I wasn't speaking for myself, but about what I hear frequently in these kinds of discussion (especially so in DVD region discussions), including similar points in #219. All people seem to focus on is about how they can't easily get the item they want and simply see the barriers being put up to stop them. They don't see the other side, which is the commercial reality of the money and risk going into publishing.

They simply tend to see it from the point of view of after popular content has been released, rather than from the point of view of all the content that turned out to be not so popular.

232: Well, it's also a pain to obtain semi-popular books that have a limited publishing area. I know that I and a few other people want some things from Australia. Australians want things from the US and UK, etc.

It is a pain. As noted already, trying to find Neal Asher's stuff in the US can be frustrating. I got hooked on Patrick Ness's trilogy that began with The Knife of Never Letting Go. The third and final volume comes out in 33 days (May 3rd) in the UK and I'll probably get it from the Book Depository there rather than waiting for the US release date currently pegged at Sept 28, 2010.

My main point there was that while there's nothing legally keeping a book from being sold in every region, other barriers tend to make that not happen in terms of mass market.

Well, yes, but those "other barriers" are imposed by the contracts between the author and the publisher -- the author will sell North American rights, or European rights, to a publisher, rather than worldwide rights -- rather than between the publisher and Amazon.

235> rather than between the publisher and Amazon.

As I said in #223, I don't really follow it a lot so I can't tell you how the deals normally work. But it's already been stated that Amazon will not always sell you stuff depending on what region you are in. Why would it make any sense for Amazon not to sell you things unless they had a contract that limited them? Just doesn't add up.

236>

The publishers aren't allowed to sell books in some regions. Because Amazon is an international entity, they are thus allowed to sell particular books in some regions and not others. You don't see this at your local Border's, because they don't get the books they aren't allowed to sell in the first place.

Did you read the post I linked to up in #226? I'm not just making this up.

237> Yes. Did you read any of my posts?

You said: Well, yes, but those "other barriers" are imposed by the contracts between the author and the publisher -- the author will sell North American rights, or European rights, to a publisher, rather than worldwide rights -- rather than between the publisher and Amazon.

Emphasis mine.

Are you now saying that one of the barriers is contracts between the publisher and Amazon? Or are you saying it's not contracts but international law? Or are you splitting hairs because the author and the publisher sign a contract, and then the publisher and Amazon sign a contract based on that previous contract? Or is it something else entirely?

Am I missing something? Because I can't figure out what your arguments are from one post to the next. Like I said, I don't think we're actually disagreeing, at least not on some of the bits where I can figure out what your point is.

Er, yes, I emphasized that part to emphasize that AMAZON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Which I've been saying in every single post.

Here is what I am saying.

There is no international law saying "No publisher is allowed to sell books worldwide".

There is international law regarding respecting contracts.

Authors sign contracts with publishers, selling them some fraction of the rights. For example, they may sell North American rights to one publisher, and UK rights to another.

Those publishers are then BOUND BY THOSE CONTRACTS. The US publisher doesn't get to sell books in the UK, and vice versa. This includes selling books via Amazon, as well as in brick-and-mortar bookstores. Now, some publishers are more careful about this than others, which is why you don't always see this -- but if it's there, it's because the publisher is being careful about their contract with the author about where they can sell books, not because they are forbidding Amazon from selling books in regions where they (the publisher) have rights to sell them.

I really don't know how I can make this any clearer. I've been saying the same thing every post, and you seem to get something different out of it every time.

I don't use Amazon.com any more for other reasons (Receiving packages from outside the EU has become terribly difficult and expensive since 9/11) but back when I did use them regularly, I never had a BOOK purchase refused because of living in Europe.

And if you think the book situation is ridiculous, the DVD market is totally crazy. Create a medium that allows you to make a single disk for multiple markets (multilingual) and then create special formatting that makes that impossible. At least books, you can get sent to you, but if you live in Europe, and want a DVD that is only available in the US, you are out of luck, becuse you can't legally get a player that will play it.

#226 there's nothing in that post explaining why there's such a huge delay. I don't care who I buy my copy from. But I'm only going to buy a copy at the time that I hear/think about it - ie when the gloabl interent hype (which usually means US) is thinking about it. Making it unavailable to me for 6-18months = lost sale. To my mind authors and publishers really need to wake up very quickly to the fact that this is a global internet age of short attention spans. Just because for the last 50 years it was conveninet to stagger markets and marketting doesn't mean it's still a good idea. And I should probably point out that I'm actually not much of a technology junkie and one of the less connected people I know, but even I have realised that the world has changed.

Stepping into this, and hoping not to get my head blown off. I'm just going to focus on the US and UK as the two biggest English language markets.

Firstly, its not authors who impose the split in the markets, its the publishers themselves. Although its historic, the publishing markets developed very differently in the two territories mainly due to differences in copyright laws, there are still some good reasons (to the publishers) why they split the markets:

1. Differences in markets, some books are just too parochial to be marketed outside their home territory, or are targeted at a particular audience - MC Beaton for example was seen for years as a British author writing for the foreign market, it was only when Hamish Macbeth was made into a British TV series that the books were first published in the UK;
2. The differences in culture taste, language, spelling and grammar between the UK and the US - JK Rowling is a prime example, even her first book, which only sold respectably, was 'translated' for the US, with a change in title, change in language, eg. 'trash' for 'rubbish', 'sidewalk' for 'pavement', imperial measures for metric etc. Plus the change in title and different covers. I appreciate that most LT readers may 'get' this, but apparently publishers do get lots of complaints about this in both the UK and the US;
3. Differences in rights - as an example, often UK publishers will acquire certain radio rights as party of their deal as getting a new book on R4 for 'Book of the Week', 'Book at Bedtime' or as a dramatisation really promote sales. There isn't a similar market in the US, so its custom and practice to leave these rights with the author;
4. Audio it seems that each territory will want to produce their own version with a local reader (again JK Rowling and Stephen Fry (UK) and Jim Dale (US))

I should add that as someone who works in TV and film, TV and film rights are generally carved up with different distributors in the US and UK taking responsibility for getting the film into theatres and onto DVD and TV. There are lots of reasons for this, but generally it comes down to money, eg. a distributor may not w.ant to pay for the US or UK rights as they may have concerns about how the film may translate into a particular market - as an example the Swedish film of 'The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo' has been doing very well in UK cinemas and is on general release. Even so it is unlikely to be released in the US (other than in festivals and in the odd art house) because subtitled and foreign language films tend not to do that well in the US. Which is sad.

#242 - "Firstly, its not authors who impose the split in the markets, its the publishers themselves. "

This is not completely correct as the link in 226 makes clear. The author could sell global rights to all formats to one publisher, but they tend not to. As you say even if they had such rights the publishers may not choose to proceed with equal global distribution - but without the inital global rights released by the author, they can't. Hence why I included both author and publisher in my 241.

It is certainly very complex with lots of competing interests all round. But it often feels like the publishers (and authors?) don't care about some market segments - which leads to readers in those markets not caring about publishers and hence the spread of piracy, which harms the authors sales.

>242 riverwillow: Have to say that the link in 226 is written from one perspective only, if I had the time I could probably find many articles that took a completely different perspective as like everything everyone has an opinion.

The point is that the markets are split, authors are often represented by different agents in different territories, even publishers like Random House which have imprints in several territories only acquire rights by territory.

So selling a book worldwide is not down to the authors, ultimately every writer I know wants their work to be read, by everyone on the planet if possible and its a frustrating process. The bottom line is that this is business and if a publisher doesn't think a book will sell in a territory they won't pick the rights - they need to be sure that they can cover their costs and make a little money. So, even if the UK sales returns are off the charts, if an agent can't convince any US publisher to pick up the title, what is an author to do?

Also, if a US reader wants to read the book and buys it from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.co.uk ship the book, that's not piracy as the publisher, the agent and the author will all get their shares of revenue as Amazon.co.uk will account on the net back to the author.

239> Alrighty then. Still doesn't explain why Amazon won't sell certain product to you if you're in other regions. The publisher isn't selling direct to the consumer. The publisher is selling to Amazon, who is selling to the consumer. So amazon is preventing sales. Why would Amazon prevent sales on their website to anyone? The most logical conclusion is because they have an agreement with the publisher. This doesn't preclude the publisher from having an agreement with the author.

I don't know how I can be any more clear, either.

245> Is the confusion that you don't agree that Amazon ever prevents selling you something simply because you are in the wrong region? Maybe that's it. If you thought that Amazon always allowed you to order from any address on the globe (to which it otherwise ships), then I can see how you'd think there was no contract between the publisher and Amazon as well as the copyright owner and the publisher to limit the regions in which it was sold.

I think that part of the confusion here is in looking at Amazon specifically as one company who does business globally. The reality is that when you buy from Amazon in your region, you are buying from a company licensed to do business in that region. Those companies are all owned by a single umbrella organization "Amazon". But they are still regional companies that the consumer purchases from. They are limited by international business and commerce laws.

Those companies have export/import limitations. Likewise, there are export/import limitations in certain industries and countries. Music is the one I'm most familiar with since content availability is clearly restricted by region. Just try to buy an MP3 of a European Released song from Amazon.co.uk while you live in the US. You can't. Unless it is released in the US Market, you have to buy a physical copy and pay exorbitant import costs--IF you can get it at all.

Rather than dealing with the import/export restrictions and fees--and paying an employee to be an expert in processing the forms required--I imagine some companies simply opt out of what is technically possible if they were to throw a wad of money at it.

It all boils down to international business law, locations of where companies are licensed to do business, import/export restrictions, and laws governing international commerce.

This whole Amazon conversation is confusing. I've never had problems getting something through Amazon that is sold only in a different region of the world. Granted I might have to be on Amazon.co.uk, or Amazon.ca, or Amazon.jp to get it, but I still can get it (and they deliver it to me here in the USA).

248> I think it's actually more likely with ebooks, movies and music than printed books. I think printed books usually get more of a pass because there is so much more of a cost associated with shipping them that it keeps the masses from ordering all their books from another country. I'm not sure how The Book Depository manages the free shipping thing. Maybe their prices are usually higher (don't know), but what I ordered was actually cheaper than ordering it here in the US.

249> I've only tried printed books. My system would not let me play movies from other regions, and I do not read ebooks. I have bought imported music before, but as an imported cd on Amazon.com. I do not recall why I didn't try to get that specific import cd from Amazon.co.uk.

People! Please remember you are wondering about the fairness of FREE BOOKS. I am thankful to get any books. I only request the books I KNOW I will love. I wouldn't want to review something I didn't like, even if I received a free copy. Actually, I really hate giving a book a bad review. It was someones hard work. I know I could never publish a book of my own. I think everyone in charge of the Early Reviewers is doing a great job. REMEMBER: If Early Reviewers didn't exist, you wouldn't have a chance of getting ANY free books from ER.

251 cursivesmuse

If I only requested books I knew I would love, I would have requested only one or two books in the entire existence of the program, because they were by authors I already knew and loved. There is no way for me to tell from the paragraph on the page if I'm going to like a book or not, and I have no problem giving a bad review to a book that I think merits it. Doing work doesn't make a person (or their work) above criticism.

That said, I certainly agree with your last couple points - the people who run the ER program are doing a fantastic job, and I enjoy occasionally trying out authors and books I probably would never have hears of otherwise.

Post 252 -- yep, there are usually only a couple a month I hit the request button on. And sometimes if I'm undecided, I look at the number of other people who would like to read it, and I think "okay, I don't need it, one of the hundreds of others can have it." Sometimes I can't resist hitting that request button though. :D

I didn't say a couple a month, I said a couple ever.

63>

I'll be frank in saying that the books given:books reviewed ratio is not great, not anywhere near where we'd like. I mentioned this in another ER thread, that I'm looking at what I can do to increase the number of reviews."

To me, that's shocking. If a person asks for a book and gets it, he's obligated to review it. If he doesn't, I know what I would do to the algorithm. It's a very simple solution.

254>> oh okay. I misread. There are too many other books I want to read for me to request books I probably wouldn't like. Sometimes if I'm undecided about requesting a book, I see the number of people requesting, and would rather have another requestor receive it.

I did a bit of an experiment. Initially, I said (@132) that I was afraid to use the "occasionally receive 2 books" option, even though I'd seen some ebook titles that I was interested in, for fear that requesting an ebook might result in not winning my first preference of a paper book. Still afraid of that. :) So I tried that option for requesting more than one paper book for the April batch. Previously, I've only requested one book per batch (and won 4 out of 5 months).

My April result: I still only won one book, though I was a good fit for the other requests. Lest you misunderstand - this is not a complaint! - it is just an observation. I think that "occasionally receive two books" option will likely work best for the 2nd book being an ebook.

Has anyone using that option won 2 books in a batch yet? Were they both ebooks or paper books, or one of each? Just still highly curious! :)

Someone posted in one of the April threads that she was getting two books.

If I understand correctly, for the time being, the only books which have such a large number of copies and relatively few requests (from people who haven't already won a book that batch) are ebooks, so those are the only ones which will be given out as a second book.

258: I saw that comment but noted that one of them at least was in fact a Member Giveaway - nothing to do with the ER 2 books thing, I'm sure.

v

@257: In March, I received two books--both eBooks--that were up for ER. HOWEVER, it was the Publisher that sent out copies of both books to all those who won either of them. LTERs still officially received only one of the two.

The May batch didn't require seconds.

For me personally , I only choose books that I know I will read and leave the ones that I do not think will interest me for the people that it will .
Now with that being said, I signed up for alot of books thinking the odds were against me for winning a copy and in the past month Ive won 4 books. Now I am freaking out because I feel obligated to read them and review them and I will, but it is going to take me a little bit of time. I feel bad for the ones that have gone with out a book for so long so I plan on not requesting anything else until I am done with the 4 I have won. ( still waiting on 2 in the mail , got 2 by ebook through email)

Melanie, where did your 4 wins come from? Were any of them Early Reviewer books? Or were they all Member Giveaway books?

Yes I won an early reviewer book, it is Sidney Sheldons After Dark, wich im really excited about getting. The others were Lexical Funk by Daniel Clausen , that one is coming from the author himself , he is a writer for early reviewers I guess. The other two are "Permanent Obscurity:Or a cautionary tale of two girls and their midadventure with drugs and.. " that is by Richard Perez. And the last one is Dirty Little Angels by Chris Tusa.

265: The 2 books in 1 batch is for Early Reviewer batches, which are (generally) offered 1 time per month.

The other 3 books you won are Member Giveway. Those are offered multiple times per month, not once, so you have no need to feel guilty about "the people who have gone without a book for so long".

And while we're on the subject, see RSI: "More separation/distinction between ER and MG" - http://www.librarything.com/topic/90248

I am new to the lingo on this site so I am not sure what you mean when u say 2 books in one batch? I didn't even realize there was a difference between books. I am a newbie to librarything =) I Understand now there there are give-a-ways and early reviews. And im pretty sure that the Sidney Sheldon is an early review. Am I right ?

Yes, it looks like Sidney Sheldon's After the Darkness was an April ER offering. And I'm assuming infiniteletters/266 is right (as s/he usually is!) about the other 3 books being Member Giveaways. And the confusion is not your fault, Melanie. Member Giveaways is a fairly new Thing here. I think the way it works (not) in relationship to Early Reviewers needs to be tweaked. This is just an example of how it confuses people.

PS: And Welcome to LibraryThing! In no time at all you'll be speaking the lingo in your sleep. Happy LT dreams!

Early Reviewer books are offered on a monthly basis. Before this thread, people could only get one book from that monthly batch; this thread let people win 2 books in certain circumstances. Your book, Sidney Sheldon's After the Darkness, is from Early Reviewers.
http://www.librarything.com/work/9655770

Another program, Member Giveaway, offers individual books, so people can win multiple books per month.

It's all right; everyone's new once. :)