Is this spam? #8

This is NOT the Spam Reporting Thread.

This thread is to discuss whether a particular post/profile/group is spam.

Posts/profiles/groups should NOT automatically be flagged based solely on someone asking here whether they are spam. READ THE DISCUSSION and make a considered judgment first.

Thank you.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/4721#5318044

This comment yesterday from a brand new member just doesn't fit anything I remember in the thread. Linking to it here so as to check back later to make sure it's not a delay spot for spam.

That's...odd. It's possible they saw "weird" and didn't pay any attention to the "book" part, but, yeah, one to keep an eye on.

Okay, I did a search for 'bataille' and someone had mentioned Georges Bataille up above. Still, a non sequitur.

Taking a look this morning at new profile pictures, I came across this profile:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/greenhouse1246

I started poking around in her catalog, because it's a fascinating mix of inventory and real books.

Interestingly, there are multiple members (who have joined at various times this past year) who share both inventory and titles.

For instance, there are 5 other members listing Georgina Goodman Nelson Womens Size 8.5 Purple Regular Suede Platforms Shoes

Funny, touchstones only gives me one of the other catalog listings.

Anyway, these members share many listings

http://www.librarything.com/profile/joseclaudio1959
http://www.librarything.com/profile/cindy816
http://www.librarything.com/profile/zahn (Ha! The washing machine drum paddle is listed in boating books collection!)
http://www.librarything.com/profile/avrilspirit
and an older member
http://www.librarything.com/profile/cajackow

Thing is, there doesn't seem to be any active sales work being done, but their entries seem to be tangling into some of the valid works.

For instance, Ca 1-Part 7 Lincoln has 26 members, but possibly because of an isbn assignment match.

And because of this overlap in entries, the recommendations listings are leaning heavily towards other items in their catalogs:

http://www.librarything.com/work/7494676/book/68361604

take a look at the tags that make no sense too.

And this combination potential:

http://www.librarything.com/combine.php?work=15448294

So, greenhouse1246 has been suspended, but not the others. Who flagged the account? (I didn't) Has staff stepped in?

Is this a research project that I should continue? It gets pretty messy. I'm see many accounts that are very similar, and data on real books is being trashed.

What you described sounds awful fishy, but seems like something more for staff to delve into, so I personally just wandered away from it all. No flagging from me.

PS
Back in the day I used to go to Jeremy directly with accts that were clearly doing sockpuppety things. I know Loranne took over a lot of his duties but I don't know if that's one of them? Presumably there's a particular staff member that a line can be dropped to to get these kind of things looked into with more than we have access to on our end.

>9 .Monkey.: I think Lorannen did take over those duties. I was advised to alert her when I had a large list of spammers.

Then yeah someone should probably point her in this direction and have her look into it. Staff doesn't really monitor these threads, it's up to us to let them know when there's particular stuff going on.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/202158 <--That "popcornreads" blog that's always posting in the promotional group, has decided to advertise having written a review for the OLOB title, in the OLOB group. They didn't actually post the review, it's a blatant attempt at trying to drive traffic to their site from an official LT group, and personally I think it should be flagged into oblivion. But I will put the question to the rest of you.

All their reviews are also just teasers ending with a link to their own site. I agree with you.

Reviews that are just links to other sites are allowed.

Yeah, though I also disagree with that being a review. But it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about starting a thread in the OLOB group solely to scrounge up blog traffic.

Yes, it was just a remark. I know those 'reviews' are allowed.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/202237

I'm not going to flag this, but there are probably people who would.

They're asking about donating it, not selling, I don't think that should be flagged. Not unless they go posting everywhere.

It got flagged to oblivion. I placed a counter flag...

I counter-flagged as well. I know the account looks like it's set up as a promo account, but one post asking for advice on donating isn't spam in my books.

I also counter-flagged.

It needs two more counter flags, if anyone is hanging around and feeling kind. Often, when people see visible flags on something, they'll flag it reflexively (I've been guilty of this myself). If it had two more, then there would be none visible, and it could fade into obscurity, no harm, no foul.

>22 Lyndatrue: I counter flagged but someone else red flagged so there are still 2 flags.

No more flags now.

This isn't spam yet but it's an odd post so probably bears watching to see if this user does anything spammy.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Nagesh42
http://www.librarything.com/topic/202512

The message was posted in a clearly spammy group. I flagged the group, the message and the profile.

For info, I rescued this one from the Spam? area as it's an author posting in the correct place for this kind of thing so not Spam:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/203136

http://www.librarything.com/profile/dejvidgejl
Not sure if this is author spam or not.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/203212
http://www.librarything.com/topic/203180

>28 MarthaJeanne: After looking closer, I think it is spammy. The books she's recommending are cataloged by three members who all joined in April with approximately the same book list. One of those members is the author. The poster may be a sock puppet.

>28 MarthaJeanne: & >29 2wonderY: Yep, I saw that earlier but didn't pick up the additional accounts. Sounds dubious.

I checked the other groups she's joined and her posts in Non-Fiction Readers are identical to one of the others:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/197171#5331866

Technically, a member can do that, but it sure raises the spam flag higher. I'm going to flag the posts.

>28 MarthaJeanne:, >29 2wonderY:, >30 klarusu: What is interesting is that the user posted in dormant groups.

I don't see anything overtly spammy; but the user is worth watching, at least.

All her posts are pushing the same things and they're very randomly posted. Definitely spam. Someone should drop her the ToS/Author links, if nothing else.

That user is gone now, as well.

I'm not flagging this profile, just recording it here for future checking

http://www.librarything.com/profile/LimitlessLegacy

Not sure if this qualifies as spam--someone soliciting votes for some sort of publishing contest, evidently: http://www.librarything.com/topic/203275

As a topic, I think yes so I flagged but not the user.

>35 2wonderY: I have no desire to check their URL, but they did put on the About me that it's the "Official LibraryThing Page for Limitless Legacy" so, I'm guessing it's some sort of group that wants to use the site. I've never seen marketing pages say such a thing.

I did google their URL and it is a commercial enterprise, but there was no blatant marketing there either. In fact I couldn't tell just what their purpose is. Motivational seminars or advertising, one or the other.

If they do motivational stuff that could certainly include books.

Why is a member I don't know inviting me to join a private group without even saying what it is about?

https://www.librarything.com/profile/Smiler69

She must be feeling particularly thankful towards you. I confess, I feel the same way.

I had a similar message. Not a new user. Very odd.

It could be that the account was hacked.

>41 MarthaJeanne: There's nothing nefarious in it & no hack, I can fully assure all of you. Just something 'under the radar'.

Well, I'm not interested in anything 'under the radar'. I have blocked that member. At the very least there should have been some sort of explanation of what it was about. But I still would not have joined a private group.

>46 MarthaJeanne: It wasn't anything that I was involved in - I just know, because I joined as I recognised the member, that it's not a hack/Spam thing. It was a well-meant one-off so not something that would be a repeat issue as far as Spam patrol goes.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/203442#5339420

The book is not cataloged, therefore, no review on LT. I checked out the blog and other than a lot of advertising I'm not sure what it's about.

I have not flagged yet.

>48 MsMaryAnn: Post is spam, flag away. Not the user, though someone may want to point out to them that trying to get blog traffic with spam posts is a no-go here.

>49 .Monkey.: Thanks, already flagged. I will leave a comment and direct them to the Freebie, Giveaway, Contests group.

Someting weird is going on with http://www.librarything.com/work/5819044/summary and I can't work out whether some accounts have been hacked, or whether something else is going on. Other users with this work have some odd things cataloged, and the work description doesn't match the work well. Odd looking ISBN as well.

>51 rodneyvc: It's odd, but I've seen plenty of odd things here on LT. I *did* remove the "description* though, because it was clearly something lifted from Into the Woods (the play, or perhaps the film). It had absolutely nothing to do with license plates. One of those users added it back in 2008, and appears to have added nothing since.

It might be a mystery, but I'm betting it's going to be unsolved. I don't think it's spam (but can't say for sure). It's certainly a strange one.

Follow to Amazon, and it gets even wierder.

Yes, and if you google the isbn and look at abebooks it is also weird. Other users with the work have a lot of Electrolux spare parts! This leads me to wonder if their accounts have been compromised.

That's the sort of thing I was reporting up at >5 2wonderY: through 8. There are a whole series of members who have listed things that appear to be inventories for sale, and they've assigned ISBNs to them so that they auto-combine, mostly with Italian works, because of the low isbn numbers.

They have also added things like Physician's Desk Reference and other popular works, and then a whole series of obscure works sub-titled Mycological papers.

Here's an odd one: http://www.librarything.com/work/3657535/book/119619759 If you look at the 40 members who have that one work, you start seeing how similar their very odd catalogs are. I messaged both Loranne and Tim, but never heard back from either of them.

I've concluded that there is a lot of spam work going on, and that these members have been corrupting Amazon et al as well, trying to use these platforms to market washing machine parts and the like.

I've been picking at it, trying to tease the real works from the bullshit and trying to isolate the bullshit, using the editions pages.

But it's a spiderweb. Perhaps we could take it on as a group project? If so, we can start a separate thread on just these member catalogs that need examined.

Tags and recommendations get very weird on anything from these collections.

>55 2wonderY: I wish I hadn't looked at this. A new Dadaism? Mass psychosis? Alien cryptography? Who knows?

It's a nefarious plot to bring down the internet from the weight if BAD DATA.

Great Novels: Charles Dickens, by Parr
http://www.librarything.com/work/1236667/book/117608216

Here's a work listed by 82 members. Of those, 33 have chosen the one with the racing car cover picture direct from Amazon. And who might those 33 members be? They are the suspects who all share other items like

MIELE W351 Washing Machine Carbon Brushes and Holder - Pack Of 2. GENUINE P/No 4297411
http://www.librarything.com/work/14034460/117608409

>57 2wonderY: Very strange. I clicked through those links which led to more weird works, which led to more and more. It was like falling down a rabbit hole!

>55 2wonderY: You know, I'm wondering if there isn't some way we could bring this up to Amazon. I'm not advocating that someone rush off and do it this second (for one thing, it's Saturday, and the mid-Winter foolishness of let's spend all our money is approaching), but I may make the effort to find out who in Amazon is in charge of rooting out squirrelly data, and alerting them to the problem.

This is more like a sink hole than a spiderweb. As Alice would have said (and did), "Curiouser and curiouser."

http://www.librarything.com/groups/classicbooks

Very suspicious. Brand new member. Empty group. But it's not spam, just something I've been keeping an eye on. But someone else has flagged the group. Don't think they really should have flagged absent something more.

>60 CurrerBell: I agree that it shouldn't have been flagged. I've asked before why we can't counter flag groups in the way that we do posts on topics, and this seems to be a good example of someone shooting without reason.

Not very welcoming, either.

The flag has been removed.

>62 henkl: Excellent news! Thank you for this. :-}

>62 henkl: Thanks. (I just this minute got back from a Presbytery meeting so I didn't see your message until now.)

>63 Lyndatrue: >64 CurrerBell: I don't deserve any thanks; I just reported it. Highly-paid LibraryThing employees must have removed the flag.

What do people think about https://www.librarything.com/groups/parkplazabarbershop?

Note the group pictures. Also interesting that group name and URL don't match.

>66 MarthaJeanne: I've been wanting to write a note to that new member. I think it is purely innocent. I doubt he understands how to use the site. His profile pictures of the real Rube Waddell sparked me to borrow a book about old baseball.

Got a quick response:

"No, I'm not advertising anything : ) Park Plaza Cinema was one of my favorite places to go see a movie when I was growing up. They closed its doors in 2004 and tore it down in 2008. I just miss the place : ( "

I recommended he edit the group description accordingly.

He's made the group private now.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/206466
http://www.librarything.com/profile/ExecVisa

>70 Yamanekotei: Oh, yes.

Don't forget to flag the group

http://www.librarything.com/groups/immigrationemigratio

Much as I don't like it, the post itself isn't soliciting trade so I haven't flagged. The profile is commercial and the library's only got their self-pub ebooks but in principle it's no different to other authors that put their own work up, so I haven't flagged. My guess is this may convert to actual spam before long though ...

Gone anyway so I guess discussion on the point was pretty much moot because there was no real consideration ...

>71 2wonderY:, >72 klarusu:,

Both profile and group are gone now. That was quick!

>74 Yamanekotei: I think it's the knock on effect of the newer spam powers. Edge cases take so little to tip them over that there's no discussion time. The plus is the absence of the heavy duty Korean spam.

Just rescued this thread from Spam?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/206468

It's a 2016 Cat Challenge set up thread. Keep an eye out for these if the Spam filter is pulling them out as unusual. Folks put a lot of work into the set up and there may be some more slightly 'unusual' looking ones as the month goes on.

I just rescued this group http://www.librarything.com/groups/helendoroncatebro
The member was also flagged but saved.
In my opinion the post is not spam.

>77 MsMaryAnn: I agree with you. Won't hurt to check back once or twice to make sure all is well.

>77 MsMaryAnn: Looks like they don't know what groups are for. One to watch, but not spam

spammy looking profile

http://www.librarything.com/profile/RistoSmith

hasn't broken any rules yet. Will check back later.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/206557 from the spam page is interesting because I have flagged the topic, but not the member as probable author spam.

>80 2wonderY:

If they haven't done anything else in six months, I doubt they'll come back.

>82 lilithcat: Company logo was added today.

I'm currently seeing a couple of posts from this profile (please do NOT flag it, thanks), over in the special folder.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/RhondaTurpin

They are certainly flag worthy, blatant advertisements for books she's pushing. I'd swear I've seen this before, from another throwaway account (same author, I mean), but this account was just created today. I'm content to see the posts die, and I'm not planning on "rescuing" the profile, either. Merely pointing it out.

It's kind of questionable (as to whether or not it's spam, or an "enthusiastic" author), but I'm not sorry about where they've ended up.

Mostly posting this for the future, to be truthful. Who knows? She might even read this, and realize the error of her ways. I'm betting against it, of course.

ETA: She's posted about two books out of the four in her library (composed of the four books she's written). I flagged the topics (on general principle), but not the profile. I leave it to my betters to post on her profile.

>84 Lyndatrue: The topics are gone. I posted links on her profile, but suspect the profile will also go as in >81 MarthaJeanne:.

>84 Lyndatrue: Yes, she's been around before.

Not flaggable yet but what's the betting this turns to Spam?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/206788#

New profile, NOT SPAM, posting here so as to check back on it later.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/agoraphobie

My french is almost useless anymore, but the About me seems to be just a short description of the history of diagnosing agoraphobia.
Great profile picture, eh?

Interesting, all kinds of agoraphobia books added, no links anywhere off site or anything, I'm curious!

Again, NOT a spam profile yet.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/christophersouster

Not spam, but it looks to me like he should have been in school instead of working as a chaild actor.

I bet he has a book.

He seems to have just (been) signed up for several websites. Many have a shorter description, but the errors are in a few others as well.

If he has a book, I hope it had at least a good editor, maybe even a good ghost writer.

Does this one from the Spam? group look okay to you?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/207148

It could need rescuing.

Robert

>94 Mr.Durick:

Looks fine to me (other than an unnecessary apostrophe). I don't see it in the Spam? group, so someone must have rescued it already.

It looked OK to me, so I hit the rescue button.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/207411 looks OK, though I can see how the algorithm might catch it. (New thread, only post on the thread, not very much content, and an off-site link.) Threw it a lifesaver.

ETA: Oh, and also, looking at his profile, http://www.librarything.com/profile/Doug1943, he's also a legitimate long-time member with an extensive library cataloged.

This has got to be done by the same person as the one I noted in >88 2wonderY:.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/insomnie

Again, a very clever visual, and again, NOT spam.

Let me ask again.

This profile http://www.librarything.com/profile/puravidalifelift is clearly spam, and I reported it in the other thread.

This one http://www.librarything.com/profile/ryefieldinvestments is okay because they sell books and not dental care??

>99 2wonderY: Personally, I flagged that one. Others may do as they please, but it looks like spam to me.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/207705
and new group
http://www.librarything.com/groups/webserialfans

are being flagged. I don't see it as spam. Can someone please explain?

Member JudithDCollins has always seemed pretty much a reviewer for hire, but I've never been able to get to her site.
Take a look at her recent "reviews." The books are already rated, though not reviewed. She's got a place-holder statement instead.

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=JudithDCollins

I took a look this morning because she posted a new profile image that advertises "Avg. rating 4.1 stars"

http://www.librarything.com/pic/5111048

>101 2wonderY:

I looked at those and, while I didn't flag them, I think the reason is that some may think the member created the group to promote his own web serial.

>102 2wonderY:

I don't think that's spam. The "reviews" aren't, and I see they are flagged as such, but she may be doing that simply as a reminder to herself. And it takes no time at all to rate a book; reviews take longer, so I can see why someone would rate first, review later.

I can see why someone would rate first, review later.

No disagreement there. However adding her ridiculous "placeholder" text only makes it so she would have more trouble locating ones that still need reviewing, as now they are rated and "reviewed" in her catalog. It serves zero purpose to anyone.

>102 2wonderY: That image says it's a 2015 recap. It's an infographic.

>105 .Monkey.: It probably serves a purpose to her. Especially since she can search the reviews.

>106 lesmel: And why would you need to give a ratings average?

...it's an infographic...it summarizes her year's reading stats...

>107 2wonderY: Maybe she wanted to tell people she had a great reading year? Apparently, my average for this year is 3.0 (so says GR). http://bit.ly/1k5iz3q Now if I could just read the last ten books to meet my goal...and have them all be 5-star reads!

In a world where three stars is considered a horrible condemnation (which seems to be the expectation set by Amazon that many people have applied more broadly), an average rating of 4.1 isn't out of the ordinary; if she was offering reviews for hire I'd expect an average well above 4.5. Like .Monkey. I think it's just a summary rather than an ad.

I mean this fuss over it seems to be acting like that was the only thing on it, or it was in big bold letters or something. That text, in addition to being one of four stats (the others of which are utterly insignificant as far as reviewing goes) is small and hard to clearly make out (awful choice of font/styling on her part)!

Is this a spam profile?

http://www.librarything.com/profile/BelgraviaGallery

>112 2wonderY:

I can't tell, it's gone. Though if it were this place, I doubt it.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/collegeadmissionprog ?

http://www.librarything.com/groups/ebooksitaliani

http://www.librarything.com/profile/marpedulla

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=marpedulla

His only book has his review, and it's flagged. Hence, his group should be flagged also?

Some people flag an author's review of his/her own book, although that is not right.

The message in the groups is flaggable as it seems to be pushing his book. But I see no reason why there shouldn't be a group in Italian about eBooks.

Can anyone send a PM in Italian explaining the rules? I've sent the links, but those pages aren't available in Italian.

>115 Yamanekotei:

I'm tired of people flagging authors' reviews of their own books. It's tacky, but is specifically permitted by the site.

There's nothing spammy about the group.

>116 MarthaJeanne:

I've just left a private message in Italian (I hope not too bad Italian!).

>117 lilithcat: It would help if LT actually implemented that author review marking thing.

The message that I think is the only spammy thing here is http://www.librarything.com/topic/209604

>118 amanda4242:

It would, indeed.

The message is gone, but so is the group.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/210626# ??

>122 Marissa_Doyle: It's self serving but inept. Not even a link. I didn't flag it.

Borderline. He's trying to drive traffic to his site. Without going there, I don't know if it's a commercial site or just his blog.

Yes, I'm never sure if the people who do drive-by posts trying to get blog traffic qualify as spam. Certainly it qualifies as irritating. :/

>122 Marissa_Doyle: Voted dead now

NOT Spam, just posting it here to check back on it later

http://www.librarything.com/profile/ivfprogeny

>127 2wonderY: Too late. It's now flagged to oblivion.

Dang it! Perhaps I need a private thread.

bot time

https://www.librarything.com/profile/dfqwfdg88995

there were several threads but they're already gone!

>130 Taphophile13:

If it's a bot, put it in the Spam reporting thread.

This thread is for discussion of whether or not something in fact constitutes spam. I don't think there's much question about that when it comes to bots!

>131 lilithcat: Oops, that's exactly what I meant to do. At least it was gone within seconds.

>129 2wonderY: You can add it to the notepad on your home page.

>129 2wonderY: Or send yourself a profile message.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/frenchtown

Seems to be promoting a blog of some sort, but she's been around for quite a number of years, has conservation and "small town" interests, and this new group does seem to tie in with it.

I'm inclined to give frenchtown a pass (and in any event it's absolutely NOT a flag for the member), but some folks on here may be stricter than I am.

>135 CurrerBell: I saw this one earlier and I don't think it is a problem. As stated in the initial post "this group is dedicated to all small towns we either live in or wished we lived in ..." And Frenchtown, NJ is a charming little town..

>135 CurrerBell: It looks like an attempt to build a community around local people. Don't think it a problem.

That one doesn't bother me either. I admit to a great temptation to offer to 'help' the young man who seems to have trouble with writing English.

Okay, looking at the technicalities of what constitutes spam I guess I made some erroneous proposals earlier today. However, I'd like to ask if there is a way of "fixing" or flagging works which no longer seem legitimate. When answering please bear in mind that I've not been active on LT for almost 6 years, so I've missed the rollouts on some of these features

Cyril the Cyberpig was one example. It's hard to see when it was entered, but I'd surmise that it was before implementation of the multiple author capability and the user wanted to showcase the stories contained in the anthology. The tags clearly mark it as being in the Anthology and not the magazine and would not seem to pass the, "can I hold this work in my hand all by itself?" test. The only solution I had was to use the work-to-work relationship.

Anything else that can or should be done for these legacy misfits?

What is your issue with that work? It can be read on its own online.

>139 RicketyCat: Is it commercial solicitation? Does it specifically draw you away from LT? If not, you do nothing.

MarthaJeane, I thought I was fairly explicit, but let's try again. It can be read online, but as a work entered into the database of LT it does not exist on it's own outside of the anthology (which is a work entered into LT). This falls into the category (now) of creating a work specifically to create a table of contents point for work-to-work relationships, but as these were probably made before that mechanism rolled-out I doubt it was made for that purpose. Because mechanisms now exist to handle multiple authors these legacy entries should no longer be valid. It is akin to changing how the database handles entries - if the mechanism changes, then the older entries should be changed to reflect those changes. In this instance, since there are no editions listed under the work that exist as solely the short story in it's own format (e-book or otherwise), then it should no longer be considered valid. It should not be marked as spam (I know that now), but now I'm looking for a solution to correct the database.

gilroy, I'm looking for a mechanism beyond marking these as spam.

>142 RicketyCat: That's, I think, both marthajeanne and I's question.
Why do you have to do ANYTHING with them? They are valid entries.

ETA: Unless the entries are yours, or are blatant advertising, the entries are valid for that user. The work to work system isn't for creating a table of contents. And if I am understanding your logic correctly, any book that is part of an omnibus now needs to go away as the Omnibus has been cataloged making them obsolete entries. Okay, that's an extreme example, but the principle is the same.

I have read several short stories on line and entered them. They do exist outside of the printed anthologies. I haven't read this one, but it can easily be found online. It is a work apart from any anthology that may include it.

We have been asked not to enter short stories ONLY for the sake of creating work to work relationships. That does not mean that short stories are not valid works.

I have individual short stories entered in my catalogue, also pertinent introductions. I'd certainly be cheesed off if people started messing with them or marked them as SPAM. As far as I'm concerned, if bobcats and perfumes are left alone, so should these be ;-).

gilroy, no. What you described is exactly what the work-to-work mechanism was designed for. Let's look at Eon and Eternity. It's an omnibus edition containing both of the eponymous titles. The titles themselves exist in multiple editions in collections that exist in the hands of the users outside of the omnibus itself. That in no way makes the original works subject to exclusion from the database (IMO). What I am asking about are works that are not things that exist in a collection outside of some larger work that does. If you have a fifty page book are you going to list all 50 pages as separate works? I would hope not.

MarthaJeane, saying that it, "exists on the internet," is this most solipsistic way of copping out about this. I can read things on Google, but Google sure as heck doesn't exist in my collection. I allow for e-book exceptions because at some point the user has added the work to their collection and may be held in the cloud, but they do have immediate access to it. These may be some of the short stories in question, but if the tags indicate that it is not an e-book then I would say it's an invalid entry.

I found a discussion at https://www.librarything.com/topic/188543 that I'll follow.

>146 RicketyCat:

Bottom line:

No, short stories are not supposed to be catalogued solely to include them in a work-to-work relationship.

However, they are not spam, and there is no other way to mark them. Tim has said time and again that he's not going to interfere with what people list in their catalogues.

>146 RicketyCat: (...) saying that it, "exists on the internet," is this most solipsistic way of copping out about this. I can read things on Google, but Google sure as heck doesn't exist in my collection. (...)

Methinks you have a rather blobby, fuzzy, still half-way in denial, "this doesn't exist", "this isn't publishing","people can't read on this" view of "the internet".

I read most of the Clark Ashton Smith short stories I do through the Eldritch Dark website. Likewise for other authors now in the public domain.

They are their own entities, with a discrete title, beginning and end, not arbitrary excerpts. They have been published in a form that allows them to be accessed and read as stand-alones, and that's how I've read them and will catalog them.

If someone else piggybacks to introduce extra information that those stories happen to be included in X and Y physical or electronic anthologies, not my problem. Not a problem at all, even.

>148 Jarandel:

I agree with that. I also think it would get no argument from Tim. The work exists (as a webpage or a single PDF or EPUB or whatever), you have a relationship with it (you have read it) therefore it is permissible to be catalogued.

Having said I do wish those works which are obvious import fails (or stuff like 'All books by XXX') can be flagged as unreal. They wouldn't be removed or anything like that - just flagged as unreal (and maybe appear in a different part of the author page). Although I suppose the possibility of misuse is too high for such a feature to make it to the real world.

>149 andyl: No more than anything else on here, that's why we have voting.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/uwsaseedlibrary

I have not flagged this. But come on, if people want to catalogue dresses and perfumes and seeds on LT, do they need to start groups about it?

There's two members in that "group" and I'm betting that @ Maureen_Hanlon is a sock puppet. Both accounts created today, as well. I'm not so kind as you. I flagged it.

>151 MarthaJeanne: >152 Lyndatrue: Personally, I'd wait and see. For all we know, Maureen Hanlon may have a bunch of friends who are interested in joining LT and talking about seeds and gardening and indexing all their books and pamphlets on the subject. As far as the group's having two members, I'll assume that Maureen Hanlon created UWSASeedLibrary as an LT member at the same time she herself joined, but I don't know that that's sock-puppetry. She may have created UWSASeedLibrary as a member because she expects that other members of that organization are going to join LT and become group members and she wants to give all members of her organization access to the UWSASeedLibrary's member password for group administration. I mean, she's a noob, give her a break (but do keep an eye on this, as in "Trust but Verify").

The 'library' looks more like a seedsman's catalogue than anything else - 15 beans per packet, etc. - only missing a price. What happens when you borrow a seed from a library? Grow the plant and collect a seed to return next season? How do you know it has bred true? Like borrowing Dickens and returning Trollope.

Maybe they are preppers - will LT survive Armageddon?

>154 abbottthomas: Just environmentally conscious students by the looks of it:

http://theuwsa.ca/ecopia/

Looks like they are genuinely cataloguing seeds for a shared library and the group is legit.

Now, whether or not this is really the place to be cataloguing seeds for their library ... well, I didn't even like it when LT started to support films etc. so I'm in the 'not really the right place for this' camp.

>154 abbottthomas:

What happens when you borrow a seed from a library? Grow the plant and collect a seed to return next season? How do you know it has bred true?


That's more or less exactly what competent seed-savers do, yes. If cross-pollination is a concern you only grow one variety of a particular species (or in some cases group of species; peppers will pollinate between some species) within the area where cross-pollination is a concern (which varies depending on pollination method). Gardeners aren't necessarily stupid, and people devoted to preserving interesting varieties of seeds are more likely to be careful than those who just go buy whatever's on the shelf at Home Depot in April.

We've saved seeds ourselves (basil, tomato, and rocoto pepper), and have not had cross-pollination problems. When we saved tomato seeds we only grew the one variety in the backyard and had the rest in the front (the cross-pollination zone for tomatoes is about 25 feet), and rocotos are C. pubescens which does not cross-pollinate with C. annuum or any of the other more common species of pepper. The tomatoes were originally from seeds a friend brought back from her grandmother in Bulgaria, so they're heirloom in the truest sense of the word, and it's a variety I haven't seen locally. (It may be in seed-saver circulation under some name or another - we call them "Baba Pink", since they're pink and "Baba" is Bulgarian for "grandma".)

Seeds decline in viability after a few years - if you want to preserve a variety you either need something like a seed bank at cryogenic temperatures or to grow them out and save the new seeds.

>156 lorax: Thanks for that! - LT is such a good place to learn all sorts of good stuff ;-)

>153 CurrerBell: and >155 klarusu: Just for the sake of my own sanity, if nothing else...

Yes, I took the flag back off. I don't see any sign of bad activity, although I do find it not all that dissimilar from people cataloging car parts or other items. I would guess they probably do not even realize that they're a topic of conversation.

I cannot fathom what draws a person to catalog seeds here, on a site meant for cataloging books (and other items). I save seeds myself, and know how strong the will to propagate is for things like Wallflowers, and how difficult it is to start certain types of tomatoes, especially with the weather changes over the past few years.

Now I want to go plant things, and I have a calendar that tells me I'm doomed to failure.

ETA: Some seeds decline after just a couple of years, while others remain viable for 20 or 30 (I'm still planting a winter squash from an envelope that says 1993). Depends on the plant.

>158 Lyndatrue: I cannot fathom what draws a person to catalog seeds here, on a site meant for cataloging books (and other items).

I guess if you build it, they will come. LT is a great framework for cataloguing and it's public - my guess is, there aren't really many seed cataloguing sites out there.

>159 klarusu: There is at least one seed cataloguing site that i know of - Folia. I tried it for a while. The only thing it might not work for is sharing the data. It has forums and stuff, but I can't recall there being a way of sharing a seed list with other people. Been a long time since I looked at it, though.

If you wanted to start a seed library it doesn't seem so far fetched to look at LibraryThing. The Thing in the title makes it sound like it's for cataloging anything, not just books.

With the inclusion of multiple media types (such as may exist in a traditional lending library) and the allowance of non-traditional media types (dresses, perfumes, etc.) I think LT has started down a road from LOC to Smithsonian. If that is where the community wants to take it, and Tim allows it, a seed bank catalog doesn't seem too far out of line so long as they maintain the cataloging precepts that have been established over the last 10 years. Next we might find geologic examples, or fossils. Imagine John Merrick's bones cataloged on LT...

>162 RicketyCat: The community doesn't care for it, but Tim does allow it. And he's final say.

>162 RicketyCat:

Yeah. "The community" has no say here. I don't think anyone's happy with the notorious perfume cataloger (who was active in something like 2008 - they're long gone, but their odor remains forever), but Tim says it's okay and he's the only one whose opinion matters.

>164 lorax: They did at least smell better than the bobcats.

Speaking as a member of "the community", I have no problem whatsoever with people cataloging whatever they want to catalogue. Personally, I've only catalogued readable stuff, but there are lots of reasons why people might want a high quality and/or shareable catalogue of other items.

Maybe I should start cataloging the hundreds of toy tractors that are in my basement.

>166 SylviaC: Go for it! I'd like to see that ;-)

>167 abbottthomas: I've been seriously considering it, but it's a daunting task.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Naomiq

Graduate student? Lavishcoupon.com? Hmmmm... I am not sure...

>169 Yamanekotei:

The lavishcoupon.com is definitely an advertising site. But she doesn't seem to have done anything else spammy and has legit books in her library.

On the other hand, despite the fact that she is "from usa in New Jersey" (and here I thought New Jersey was in the USA!), I'm dubious about someone who is a "student of graduate". It reads like a google translation.

>170 lilithcat: NJ's in the Land of Oz. You get there from Manhattan by driving over the Chris Christie Bridge.

But seriously, although Naomi's someone to keep an eye on, I'm really reluctant ever to flag a profile based solely on the member's link to a home page. That particular link may be is quite a bit egregious, but what about a book reviewer who links to her blog? What if her blog also has Google Ads on it? What if....? What if....?

>169 Yamanekotei: I'd mark her as one to keep an eye on.

http://www.librarything.com/groups/emeraldprofessionals would seem to be one to keep an eye on.

>173 MarthaJeanne: I noticed that one too, but I noticed that he has a large library catalogued. More likely than not, he's got some kind of motivational business, and I'd say it's every bit as valid as a church that catalogs its library books. Well, we'll see.

>174 CurrerBell:

She. She's a management consultant.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/219977#

Enthusiastic author. Do NOT flag the author.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/170810#5504540

New member Alina15 post seems at odds with the thread topic. It seems this is the only post so far, but she's a web developer, so keep an eye out for more posts.

>177 2wonderY: Odd place to post. The end of a superseded thread that was followed by another which seems to have petered out in 2014. I don't click on links in this sort of post out of principle but it looks like something which, if not selling something, will be displaying ads from people who do sell stuff.

Yeah, well that thread and it's successor have been tangled in the past. And she is a brand new member. I did click through and the page is clean, but probably self-serving. She's probably just trying to get traffic on pages she's developed. (and I helped!)

enter drawing to win kindle copy
http://www.librarything.com/topic/220121#

Well, it is "off-topic"! But, yeah, she's pushing her book (well, her mom's, but she published it).

This might bear watching. Member just joined and immediately wants to recommend a book.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/220271#

>182 Taphophile13:

I see she is on Goodreads and has reviewed that book there (as well as a few other books, though not recently). I wonder if she hasn't figured out how to properly review something here? I occasionally see people wondering how to do that.

Hasn't figured out how to enter books either.

Is this spam?

https://www.librarything.com/profile/GGLO

>185 al.vick: Not any more so that any other organization on LT. They state who they are, what services they offer and a website. Similar to all the profiles I see that are libraries. Plus, they seem to have an extensive library in their area of expertise.

>185 al.vick: ...and have been around since 2009.

I've went back through my reviews looking for a book and noticed that a great many of my reviews have been flagged as spam or not a review. Most have been here for quite a while so I've no idea of what's not kosher about them. Any ideas?
https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=yolana

All of your flagged reviews look fine to me (and I will counterflag). Is it possible that you had "placeholder" reviews there at one point and later edited them? I don't recall whether editing a review sheds flags or not.

I've never used the place holders, I've no idea why they were flagged, Frankly it seems a bit arbitrary but who knows what was in the mind of the flagger.

ETA thanks for the counterflagging

You made me curious to look at my reviews. I've got two that are flagged.

https://www.librarything.com/work/14133652 Honestly, that was all I could find to comment on...

and

https://www.librarything.com/work/13323037 I could perhaps add some commentary, but that was my reaction.

>188 yolana: I counterflagged yours

I'm actually moderately surprised that I don't have any flagged reviews. For years there's been someone (either two people or one with a sock puppet) methodically thumbing-down all the member recommendations I make, to the point that I've given up trying (I don't want my thumbs-downed recommendations to deter people from reading the book I'm recommending!), but they haven't tried review-flagging, maybe because abuse of that feature is considered TOS abuse while abuse of the recommendation thumbs isn't.

I have four reviews that are flagged as not-a-review. I don't mind it, to be truthful. I often review something when it seems useful to do so. I try very hard not to review anything that already has multiple reviews unless I honestly feel that I'm adding something that the other reviews didn't.

Upon rare occasion, I review for myself, and those are the four that are flagged. I often counter flag when I see things flagged as not-a-review, and sometimes if feels as though things get flagged for spite rather than anything.

I wish it were okay to flag the go-to-my-blog reviews, personally.

(I counterflagged 2wonderY's two reviews, of course)

>191 2wonderY: I hardly ever check my reviews, I was just looking for the title of a book. I also counerflagged yours. It says specifically that the length of the review is not a reason to flag. (I actually got a chuckle out of 'Holy Crap, Batman!'
>192 lorax: I hadn't considered that it could be some sort of ill will by one person. How annoying if this is the case, I hope they've gotten it out of their system if so.

There have been people flagging things as incorrect if things don't match their view EXACTLY, which was against the rules. Have had to catch at least two people and repoint them in the correct direction.

>196 MarthaJeanne: I'm not sure. It seems a bit silly to post that, esp in Book Talk, and I'm tempted to flag it, just because. Her "About me" states:

Originally established in 2008, as a video & photography business. Within the recent years it has turned into more of a Book Review/Promo site while still showcasing my videos & photography when I have the opportunity.

Sure seems like that's what that post is; an advert for something she's promoting. Yeah, I'm going to flag it. Feel free to leave a reminder on her profile. Today's not my day for kindness, and I doubt I'd put it in a professional manner.

Profile:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/fromjesstoyou

(Remember, folks, please don't flag the profile)

I rescued this topic from the Spam pile: http://www.librarything.com/topic/221010

It seems a bit ditsy. Keeping an eye on it lest it gets edited to youknowwhat.

For your enjoyment:

http://www.librarything.com/pic/5272535
http://www.librarything.com/profile/HunterDiamante

>199 2wonderY: That was spammed to oblivion...

Perhaps we need a way to preserve enjoyable things in aspic.

>201 abbottthomas: Trust me, it was hardly "enjoyable" (unless you like photographs of male escorts with the face blurred, and (thankfully) clothed).

OK, I don't see any advertising or link or anything but the picture is not PG
is she trying to sell something?
http://www.librarything.com/profile/lauraae

>203 Taphophile13:

Not yet. But one to keep an eye on.

Regarding 203, how do we flag a picture? Profile is ok, but pic is not, imho.

>205 Yamanekotei: I couldn't see any way to flag the pic. She doesn't seem to be a reader, just wants to hang out.

>205 Yamanekotei:, >206 Taphophile13:

You cannot flag someone else's profile pics.

I don't like the picture, but it is within the ToS. Not X-rated, and not of a minor.

Note that this is not her own picture. I searched for it and found multiple instannces on the web, most of them on Russian dating sites. In my opinion that profile is spam.

The profile has been there since 1-1-2015 with no books entered.

Created a group for the purpose of downloading her book:
http://www.librarything.com/groups/healingheartsbooks

for reference:
http://www.librarything.com/profile/AnnieMitchell

Although the book is free, it is advertising.

>211 Taphophile13:

She has a sock puppet account where she reviewed one of her books, pretending to be a reader:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/Annie.Mitchell (note the period, it's a separate account from the one you link to)

Anyone dinged her for it?

Oh dear, and judging from the atrocious writing in those 2 lines, I fear for anyone who tries delving into her actual work.

>212 lorax: Can you really call an account a sock puppet if there's no attempt to hide that the they are for the same person?

Well, they pretended to be a random reader and not the author, so, I'd say that qualifies. Just because they weren't smart enough to actually make a disguising name doesn't change what they were doing.

>212 lorax: She has the same review on Amazon under the name Linda Powers.

>214 .Monkey.: Amazon has the look inside available and it looks . . . Um, how to be kind? It looks as if a good editor should help pull it together.

>217 Taphophile13:

I've just pointed out that astounding coincidence to Amazon.

Smells like Spam. New member pointing to his web address

https://www.librarything.com/topic/222590#

This new group, Selling Books Online: Feedback Requested, has received one flag so far. When I saw the group name, I was about to flag it myself but then looked at the group description as well as the groupmeister's website.

This site is definitely NOT spam. It may look like that from a quick view of the title, but I think it's really a legitimate book-related topic. And when I checked out her website, it really looked like a legitimate blog and review site, not something where she's selling anything (though I didn't look at it that closely).

In fact, I posted a message to this group myself, recommending ABE books as a good venue for sellers (though I'm strictly a buyer myself, which is what's landed me in the ROOTS group).

I don't think there's any way I can counterflag in support of a group (is there?), but I hope no one else flags this.

I am at a loss as to why they would create a GROUP rather than a topic to ask that question. Also wth @ "I know lots of LTers are heavy into Amazon. I am not." That's the exact opposite of most LTers!

>221 .Monkey.: So maybe she figured a group rather than a mere topic would get more attention? Or she wasn't sure just what group this topic would most appropriately fit? That's not for spam-fighters to say. If her group doesn't attract any interest, eventually it will join the very large assemblage of dormant groups.

As I implied, the topic struck me as weird, but weirdness does not equal spam. And simply because she doesn't know LTers' common preferences re Amazon is no reason for the group to be flagged. She's been a member since 2008, she's got an extensive library, and she's posted as of this moment 241 reviews that look like to be mainstream books with some of the reviews being quite lengthy.

Whatever we think of this kind of a group, that does not make it spam and it really ought not to be flagged. I think it really is an appropriate discussion topic regarding books to ask, what online marketplace do booksellers prefer? It's a lot less weird that a lot of the other topics we see on here, like this single-member and now-dormant group on Living Self Sufficiently.

Flagging should only be for real spam, not just because we think something is off-topic for a "books" site.

>221 .Monkey.:

That makes no sense to me, either.

i must say I don't like it when people form groups for the apparent purpose of pushing people to their own sites.

Hmm, looking around the blog, I find it's not just a blog. She is, indeed, selling: "this list is by no means exhaustive and we don’t have all of these in stock at all times. If you’re interested in something we don’t have in stock, we’ll order it. And if you need it quickly, there’s a link to our webstore attached to each title." https://thebookfrog.mybooksandmore.com/web1/screens/homepage.jsp

I realized she's also the person who makes a group every year just to post her own reading in, rather than joining any of the bunch there for that purpose or using a single group for all. *groans*

>224 .Monkey.:

Okay, clearly someone not clear on the concept.

>224 .Monkey.: & >225 lilithcat: If you are speaking of her "reading diary" groups...some people seem to join. How is that different from Club Read or the 2016 Books group?

She makes them solely for herself, whether a couple others join or not, and regardless they are way too small to warrant a new group every year. 2014 was just her, with a whopping 5 threads. 2015 was her and one member, with a giant 13 threads. 2016 has an increase, 4 whole members ...with 4 whole threads. There is a rule against making redundant groups here. These groups are most absolutely redundant. The reason the annual groups get created annually is because there are far too many threads to reuse the same group each year. Smaller groups do use the same group and not make it annual.

Oh, and since >222 CurrerBell: would like to sit there and trashtalk people with her in her new pointless group, I will just point out that I am pretty positive these are not freaking revenge flags. Yes, some of us may be irritated that she is breaking ToS with redundant groups and not understanding the point of groups. So?? That doesn't mean we are ZOMG out to get her! Geezus get a grip. Lots of people use the site, they see a group about selling, and they view it as spam. It's that simple.

Personally, I don't think the selling books group is spam since she is looking for advice on how to sell elsewhere and hasn't posted a link to a sales site. I posted a comment on her "why am I getting flagged" thread seconding CurrerBell's suggestion to let TPTB take a look and to rewrite the group description to take the focus off of her and make it about people sharing their experiences about online book selling.

I think the annual reading groups definitely violate the TOS clause against creating "pointless," "meaningless" or "random" groups.

>228 amanda4242: I think the annual reading groups definitely violate the TOS clause ...'

I would courteously disagree. I've seen these annual groups before and think they are none of these things to the user, whether or not they are well-used. She quite clearly also welcomes other members. Something doesn't become any of those things just because very few friends come to play. Is it the way I would do it? No. Would it be better if there wasn't a new one each year? Probably. Should the user join an existing group? Not if they don't want to. Also, with so few posts anyway, it's not like it's something offensive that's all over Talk. Maybe these groups will keep slowly accumulating members, maybe not, but I see no TOS violations in them and if we're in the business of policing by popularity or driving people to existing places that have there own characters and are often large and unwieldy, then that's not a good thing.

I don't know about this one which is on the Spam? thread.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/222666#

Robert

It's not about popularity it's about USE. There is less than zero cause for her to keep making new, barely used groups every year. It is against ToS.

>231 .Monkey.: my understanding of that bit of the TOS was that it was created for dozens of groups named things like laxkfjaslkfjaslkdjaslkjas in quick succession.

>228 amanda4242:

I don't think the selling books group is spam since she . . . hasn't posted a link to a sales site.

Yes, she has. See my post #223.

>229 klarusu: We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't flag those types of groups because they so swiftly disappear from view and, imho, violate a rule that is too subjective to enforce well.

>233 lilithcat: I stand corrected. I only looked at the home page, which screamed blog to me. Whether she is trying to advertise here or made a sincere but poorly executed attempt to learn from others is up to the highly-paid LibraryThing employees to decide.

>231 .Monkey.: I disagree with your interpretation and absolutism but I do agree with >234 amanda4242: on the subjectivity issue.

Here's my argument:
Do not create "pointless", (the groups have a point, to track a year's reading) "meaningless" (to this user and any others that wish to join in, the group has meaning - reading tracking) or "random" (annual reading tracking groups aren't random - there're multiple precedents, the only difference is the size) groups or topics. We give all groups the benefit of the doubt, but the creation of multiple ( they are no more 'multiple' than any of the other annual tracking groups that reseed each year - the difference is the size and hence activity level), duplicative (see previous point)and contentless (they have content - limited by the activity level and membership but definitely content, no different to any of the other tracking groups except size)

You guys obviously interpret these conditions differently as is your right and I'm sure you could produce an equal level of argument. In which case, it is totally subjective.

>236 BeckyJG: Would highly recommend you talk to lorannen and kristilabrie . They have the final say in all this anyway.

Well given that she has now blatantly without a doubt broken ToS by calling the users of the group "self-righteous prigs" I think it's past time to stop telling her to seek out staff. She flounced, leave it be.

>238 .Monkey.: Yep, that one I flagged ;-)

Thought process:

Should we rename this thread to "Should I Flag This?" instead of "Is This Spam?" ??
I'm wondering if people are just seeing the word Spam in the title and autoflagging without looking at which thread they are reading.

People who flag w/o consideration aren't going to care what the name of the thread is, honestly. I don't think it matters. Though if you're going to do that, please do it "Does this need flagging" or whatnot, no "I" in it.

>240 gilroy: I'd rather just leave it with the name it is, please. I know about what to expect in this thread, and I'd say that most who find their way here are going to read the first post, to see what it's about. I think that it's more important to encourage people to post an explanation when they're asking about a user/topic, but I'll take what I can get.

>242 Lyndatrue: That's why I ask before doing. I'll leave my idea in the basket then. Thanks!

Here's a new idea! Use LT for political advertising:

"Paid for and approved by Jim Fondo, Democrat for Broward County Sheriff."

http://www.librarything.com/profile/4JimFondo

>244 2wonderY: Wrong thread

Time for a new thread.