BookMooch logo
 
home browse about join login
Bcteagirl : forum comments they have written
?



BookMooch Blog : John's official BookMooch Blog

re: Coming: 3 point intl mooches

I would like to gently request an update on how things are going. I think there has been more than enough time to get an idea as to whether the changes have helped or hindered international mooching. If the downturn others are experiencing is real, what changes can be made to improve it? I do seem to recall you saying that you would be evaluating how things went and that the changes were not *necessarily* permanent. I would feel better about that if you would at least make public any analysis you have done. I am concerned it was said to quell the outrage, and now that the changes are in place, the promise has been so quickly forgotten :(..............

Bcteagirl
2 years ago
re: Followup to points discussion

Thanks for the post, and for reading through/working through some of our input.

I would just like to reiterate that it is *not* always cheaper to send 2 books per point in Canada. Canada goes by both sized and weight (And they measure each cm believe me!). It is not usually a matter of putting them in separate envelopes if they are above usual letter thickness. I am not sure how putting them in separate envelopes would 'save money' anyway, would this not be like sending two separate parcels? And sending together for anything but the tiniest books will not necessarily save any money here. I wholeheartedly agree that it would make much more sense for Canadapost to handle it this way, but sadly they do not.

So, multiple mooches does NOT necessarily save money. I just want to make sure that is very clear in case further changes are planned. This would be another change based on what works for the US system only.

Thanks for listening.

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Coming: 3 point intl mooches

I would like to agree with Devon and Ridgewaygirl... why not a larger span of time between all these changes to see what the effects of each are? Otherwise attempting to tease apart all the individual effects will be a headache indeed. For example if after 6 months things have gotten worse.. does that mean this change will be repealed, or will it be due to the other changes and 'general economy'?

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Coming: 3 point intl mooches

To the one month: No no no, dear G*d please no! And that is me being polite/non-hostile. The reason it seems less angering to people is because you are giving us such long notice. The three month gives people a chance to use up points, rather than *Devaluing points they had under the old system and paid good money for*.

The question of whether this change should be made in one *needs to be a seperate blog post* if you are serious about the inquiry... otherwise people may miss it among all the other posts, and your data is worthless. Since you are so keen on research I am sure you understand this ;) The post above me (Posted after your post) even says 'in April', rather than the sooner change your proposed.

So NO it would be a very *Bad* thing to make this change in one month. Not only that, you *Just told us* it would be THREE months. Not everyone reads the comments here.. many of the members will now be going on your official post of it being three months, and would be very surprised to see a post a few days later stating it was now one month. Morale in BM is already low, I am afraid suddenly going back on your word would be the last straw for many people :(

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup 2: intl mooch ratio change

I really appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions, I think communication is very important here. Going to try to be extra-nice since you are taking the time to explain things to us. I would like to echo a pair of questions a Wisewoman asked if I may:

"Ok here is why it is *not* retroactive:

No, it *is* retroactive. Your reasons explain why you think the retroactive nature of the change is good, NOT why it isn't retroactive.

Since the old system allowed people to mooch 3 intl books for every 1 they gave, *and* a 2:1 ratio was allowed, this effectively allowed people to mooch up to 6 books internationally and only give one.

I'm sure this is me just not getting something obvious, but wait. I give a book internationally and get three points for it. Those three points somehow add up to 6 books I can mooch internationally? Wouldn't I need 12 points (not 3) to mooch 6 books internationally? "

I can understand the arguments as to why the changes are necc, but also am having a very hard time understanding these. Like some other members, I will be receiving but not sending books for a while.. I am concerned about what other changes may be coming given this precedent. Can you please address the concerns expressed above? I would really appreciate it. Thank you in advance :)

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup 2: intl mooch ratio change

I agree with the posters above whose main concern was and is that this was applied retroactively. Changing the rules while the game is ongoing is one thing, punishing people for playing by the previous rules is another. Please address this and let us know what your plans are with concern to this issue. I would also like to echo Ridgewaygirls question of whether or not we should expect more retroactive changes in the future?

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup : intl mooch ratio change

I think what some posters fail to understand is that we have invested real cash (Large amounts of it especially those of us outside of the US) that may be tied up and risk becoming useless with this new system.

I have about 190 points (and 57 books winging there way around the world as we speak). . Say somehow I manage to spend all but 40 without screwing up my ratio (unlikely). In Canada that is at least $3 a point, but more likely 4 or 5 (Overall). This is taking into account the .1's. That means that I would have between 120-200$ of my own money (prepaid!) trapped in the bookmooch system due to these changes. Posting more books is simply cycling in and out new points, it would not help me access $200 worth of banked but potentially useless points.

Even if there is some way to eventually gain permission to use our points, people may behave 'punitively' if they think my ratio shows that I am taking more than I give. People are already refusing to send internationally to those who will not, therefore this is certainly a real risk.

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup : intl mooch ratio change

Emmy: It is not that it is 'so few', but rather that it is so specific. While the non-us members may be fewer than the US members, that does not mean that making sudden rule changes that will make life much more difficult for them is ok. The largest proportion of the negative effects of the changes will be borne by a very specific group

I think a large chunk of the anger come from the fact that these sudden changes are made retrospectively. As someone else has mentioned, it is a bit like trying to charge someone more money after the fact, or changing a points system so that you now need to spend more $$ to get the points, and taking away points retrospectively. While no points were literally taken away, effectively many might be. Many international users may find themselves unable to use the points they have accrued. Points they accrued under great expense with a certain understanding. If they had known what changes were coming, many would have behaved differently. That is where I see the anger coming from.. many will have spent a large amount of money on points that may become useless to them. The fact that this is not happening to the majority of users (In the US) does not excuse it.

Perhaps people are reacting strongly, however they may feel that they are not being heard. The responses to the past two blog posts may be leading them to conclude this. I sincerely hope that they are wrong and that we are being heard. I understand that John wants to keep the site running well, and that he puts in a lot of hard work... I sincerely hope he wants to keep the site running well for everyone (And not just the US members, or 'the vast majority' according to Emmy).

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup : intl mooch ratio change

I would like to add that Belladonna is an extremely well respected member of bookmooch... Singling any one person out is bad enough, but why not highlight someone who is actually abusing the system, rather than berating one of your best members? For springing this on her as a surprise frankly you owe her an apology at the very least.

Also copying this post to librarything.

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
re: Followup : intl mooch ratio change

Another idea: Before these changes had been made retroactively, I would have been willing to send a voluntary donation to a pool that could be used to by a large bulk quantity of whatever book is on the most wanted list and is easily shipable (or shipable from the manufacturer). The donation would have to be voluntary of course, but it would result in an influx of wishlist books, and a decrease of surplus points all around.

Bcteagirl
3 years ago
OLDER -