A review listed twice


Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

A review listed twice

Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.

feb 27, 2008, 5:07 pm

A just stumbled across the exact same review for one book. They are listed directly under one another. They are both from different accounts. Flag? Flag both?

feb 27, 2008, 5:11 pm


feb 27, 2008, 5:13 pm

Sorry. Here: http://www.librarything.com/work/3720689/book/25964798

One is a library site and the other is the librarian's site (I believe). Is it okay to list your review here more than once? For instance, if I have three accounts- my catalog, my wishlist, my books read- can I post a review in all three places? That doesn't seem right.

Redigerat: feb 27, 2008, 5:20 pm

Is it okay to list your review here more than once?

Sure! As long as it's your review and your catalogues. Suppose someone is looking at your "catalogue" in a view that shows the "review" field, but you have put the review only in your "books read" account catalog. They won't know that you've reviewed the book!

In fact, I only have one account, but have multiple reviews of the same title, because in some cases I have more than one copy of the book, and I want my thoughts about the book associated with each copy.

It seems odd, but that's because the reviews have two uses, one being social and the other being personal. And it's not possible now to have three reviews in your catalog (or across multiple accounts) yet have only one show up in the social data.

feb 27, 2008, 6:47 pm

Oh, sure, that doesn't seem like a problem at all, if it's actually the same user. I agree it's annoying but it's not flaggable. I was thinking they were different users, in which case at least one was clearly copying it.

feb 27, 2008, 7:07 pm

It took me a minute to figure out that they were the same person. I also didn't know that you could post your review here in more than one account. Not 100% sure if I agree with that, but it's clearly not violating any TOS.