Is this spam? #7

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.

I just put this into Google Translate (which did a much better job than it usually does):

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193230#

It isn't really spam, more an excited book owner, far as I can tell. Here's the translation (for those who don't speak French).

++++++++

On August 8, 2015, in Nice, at the Librairie La Sorbonne, Eric Lange invites you to discover 16 am to 18 pm his first novel "The Lifeguard tourists" at a book signing, a senior at the intersection novel color the thriller, the logbook and adventure.

From 16 am to 18 pm at the Sorbonne, 37 Rue de l'Hôtel des Postes, 06000 Nice. Phone: 04 93 13 77 88

The novel on LibraryThing: http://www.librarything.fr/work/15944149/book/117879007

So, do not hesitate to "travel" time with Eric Lange ...

www.taurnada.fr/ericlangeanice/

++++++++

It seems innocent enough; I am just confused (not all that unusual, of late).

>2 Lyndatrue: That's OK, isn't it? The information would be better in Local Events, perhaps. LKA406 hasn't many books catalogued yet but looks genuine: all 5-star ratings but that means she buys what she really likes. Sensible person!

>2 Lyndatrue: >4 abbottthomas: I'd say spammy, from an overzealous author or interested close party, such as "Taurnada Editions" (all the books listed and reviewed and 5-starred make up their whole catalogue of 6).

Part of the reviews are credited to an "Alain N.", others to a "Marie-Claire", that's at least 2 different people, 3 if the uncredited ones are all by the account holder and they're not either.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193255#

Seems like an author fishing for readers, but there's no firm connection.

Yeah, it has that feeling, doesn't it? And, um, the story line sounds ghastly.

Based on that recommendation I hope the poster isn't the author. (I loathe poor grammar and spelling.) And yes, the story sounds dreadful. As for the "unusual" plot, it seems every "Help me remember the name of this book" post has that premise. When did rape as the path to true love become such a common theme?

>6 2wonderY: Personally, I flagged it. I know, I know, it isn't exactly spam, but it surely feels like it. Clever, sneaky even, but still spam.

>6 2wonderY:,>7 Marissa_Doyle:,>8 Taphophile13:,>9 Lyndatrue:

Without more evidence, it shouldn't be flagged. We should never flag based on a mere "feeling". I've seen too many mistakes made that way.

I don't like the looks of it but I haven't flagged it. Might bear watching but not flaggable at this point.

A group for those who would like to read and discuss his books:

https://www.librarything.com/groups/ramirezreviewers

Is this spam?

Robert

>12 Mr.Durick: Yes, although poorly done.

Okay, thanks.

I flagged it, and it had been flagged once already.

Robert

BTW it's a she (sorry to admit) and I have put links to Terms and How Authors can use LT.

We've had a couple of author spam groups lately. Maybe something about that should be added to https://www.librarything.com/about/authors.

Not that most authors read that before starting to advertise, but it's good to have the rules clearly stated.

Same goes for publishers.

https://www.librarything.com/groups/ronaldwelch1

This is their second try.

Is anyone leaving a private comment to these authors/publishers about these missteps?

If a spam profile is set up without a profile image, is there any way to discover it?

I stumbled across this one:
http://www.librarything.com/profile/inviescom

and when I googled it, this was the result:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Inviescom/internet/Inviescom-A-company-which-only-...

I'm flagging the profile.

What about the online bookstores who have a paid membership?

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

The only reason they're here is to have an online sales presence.

Their only review is nothing more than a link to purchase. On my opinion, = spam.

Here's another

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

How about this one? Paid member with three books catalogued, but the profile is obviously commercial advertising.

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

>20 2wonderY: Not only is their one "review" nothing but an advertisement, but the two books they have in their library are actually the same book. I'm about to flag the profile. I don't care if they paid for a membership. That doesn't make it okay.

We also don't know what they actually paid for their membership; we know what the suggested amount is, but only LT's accounts receivable has the info.

>23 2wonderY: The gallery is also nothing but commercial images that are part of a portfolio meant to be sold. I already flagged the profile. I'm still unsure on flagging >22 2wonderY:, but probably will, later, after I've thought about it some more.

>22 2wonderY: They look active, with a possible link to a BBC3 listener group.
>23 2wonderY: I'm torn, but flagged the profile for the sake of TPTB investigating.

Here's the last one of these I'm posting for now:

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

>22 2wonderY:

Honestly, that doesn't look any more spammy than any other publisher profile.

'Kay. I'll go with that opinion.

http://www.librarything.com/profile/LMwriter1
http://www.librarything.com/profile/everestbasecamptrek

The second one has a book catalogued though... are they spam?

Interesting. Yesterday's clean-out of profiles from Delhi dropped almost 100 profiles. (from 270 to 176)

Do you think this one should be flagged?

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

The only spammy thing is the profile name itself.

>30 Yamanekotei: I would say the first no, the second yes.

>30 Yamanekotei: I agree with gilroy.

>30 Yamanekotei: What would even motivate someone to do that?

http://www.librarything.com/profile/LMwriter1

I see an actual list of books. The member is a paid account. It was set up in 2008, and I'd guess they haven't been back since, but not a single book actually in the library. He's over on Amazon, and for real (strange, really strange, but real):

http://www.amazon.com/Len-McDougall/e/B000APXGHO/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1436972687&am...

I need more coffee. In fact, I need a LOT more coffee.

He probably just forgot about LT. Sad.

>34 Lyndatrue:

"What would even motivate someone to do that?"

That is why I posted on this topic, to make sure. Uncertain posts come to this thread, right? And besides, we have no way knowing if he paid for lifetime membership back in 2008. Bunch of people were upgraded to lifetime membership a while ago. He may be one of them, like I am.



On me:)

https://www.librarything.com/profile/JudgeRosie
https://www.librarything.com/profile/gordonpowell77294
https://www.librarything.com/profile/beshoo

They also all forgot about LT?

>37 Yamanekotei: They are not attempting to sell anything beyond who they are. Not the best use of an LT profile, but perhaps they're just dull people.

>37 Yamanekotei: No.2 on your list is selling God, if anything, and not doing it very well as his link doesn't work. No.3 is a commercial of sorts, a Chicago educational establishment - I wouldn't bother with a flag, but some might.

>39 abbottthomas:

#3 is a Chicago public school, definitely not a commercial. More likely someone was thinking about adding a classroom library and just didn't.

>39 abbottthomas: Actually, the domain expired in July, 2013. Maybe there was a personal rapture?

;-}

(Don't hurt me, it's early, I'm still drinking coffee.)

The weird thing is that (as long as I was poking around whois and such) "judgepedia" (the first link) turns right into "http://ballotpedia.org/" which looks like it might provide further entertainment for later in the year, when life slows down a bit.

Life is ever interesting. I wonder if the Judge in that first link even knows there's a link here? That information was copied from her entry on ballotpedia.

I believe I've read that a review that is just a URL is not spam, but this link doesn't go anywhere:
http://ffedor.blogspot.com/2008/01/embarrassing-admission-no-3-or-is-it-4.html
Either the domain has expired or it is typed incorrectly.
Anyway, should I flag it? Or just leave it alone?

> 42

You might want to drop a comment to the reviewer. If it is a typo, he could fix it.

>42 JackieCarroll:
A link to a member's review on his blog is acceptable (although I personally find that annoying) but a link to an Amazon or NYT review is not. In this case the link does not go to any kind of review and I would think it's flaggable - it's not a review. Just my opinion.

Does the member have other reviews that also go to a not found message? Does it look as if the member is still active here? As lilithcat says, it could be a typo but I suspect it's an expired site.

>42 JackieCarroll: and Others: A long standing bug exists where long links are truncated and do not go to the intended link. I noticed that this happens with links in connections news. I posted a bug report but it has not been addressed http://www.librarything.com/topic/188673. I suppose this is a rather low level fix request and care should be taken before flagging a dead link.

I knew about this bug, but that isn't the case this time. Blogspot report that the user ffedor doesn't esixt.

>44 Taphophile13:

Generally speaking, links to reviews are acceptable regardless of who wrote the linked review. (If you have a link to Tim saying otherwise, please provide it; I'd love to flag the worthless things.) Broken links, or links to things that are not reviews, are blue-flaggable. Links to commercial spam are red-flaggable but use caution.as you would with any red flags.

>47 lorax:
I may have misinterpreted this but it seems to say you should only link to your own reviews.

https://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Reviews:
"There is some debate over what constitutes a review, but in general, a review is a statement of your opinion about a book." \emphasis added\
and
"NOTE: This is a section for YOUR opinion about a book. Do not copy reviews from other sources unless you have copyright permission to do so."

How do we feel about these?

https://www.librarything.com/work/16125621/119529167
https://www.librarything.com/work/16200598/120063713
https://www.librarything.com/work/16141290/119650460
https://www.librarything.com/work/16213111/120160570
https://www.librarything.com/work/16202800/120085313
https://www.librarything.com/work/16135212/119610890
https://www.librarything.com/profile/rajan9

It looks as if he might be advertizing his services.

>49 Taphophile13:

If those are actual books, they should not be marked as spam, even if rajan9 is advertising.

See: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Spam_works

I would, however, remove the links from the author/other authors sections.

>50 lilithcat:
The links don't seem to go anywhere except back to LT.
How do you go about removing the links from the author section?

You go to other authors on the work page to change the author. I'm not sure what you would put in instead of that pseudolink.

On the otherhand, are these real books? Certainly any proper entry with a proper author shouldn't autocombine with this mess.

Those are not actual books at all. I went to the link, and saw a list of math questions and that was it. Not even in the E book style. Pure spam, I would say.

I don't know about the niceties of this. You can give away books in various ways on LibraryThing, but I don't think you can give them away this way.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193639#

Robert

>54 Mr.Durick: nope. I left a note. There are some books catalogued, so I'm being generous and assuming newbie error.

Alreadt has three flags and notice on member profile.

>49 Taphophile13: I'm flagging them all.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/193656#

Author spam

>58 JackieCarroll: You're asking if it's author spam? If you're reporting, this is the wrong thread...

I'm confused (not the first time, of course).

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193693#5223855

So, he's kind of pushing one author. He's been here since June, and has zero books. The profile's a bit odd as well.

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

I dunno.

>59 gilroy: Sorry, wrong thread.

>60 Lyndatrue: As my old granny used to say, "There's nowt as queer as fowk." PeterKing may have a hidden agenda but I don't think we should see every example of eccentricity as spam.

Or am I too trusting?

>62 abbottthomas: I think you're right. There's nothing wrong with an interest in an obscure author. It seems a little suspicious, but nothing concrete here.

>62 abbottthomas: Oh, I agree on the idea that it's just strange. The thing that threw me was that there were no books (not this author, not any author) in his library. I don't think he replied to bernsad (who commented on that topic, in a nice, friendly way). Also, I like your old granny. ;-}

http://www.librarything.com/profile/kimo36

What do you think on this one?

>65 Yamanekotei: Keywords, non sentences "about" and "name" field, link to business site. While a business could conceivably have an on-site library that it may want to track on LT this one is not registered as an organisation account, and the library is empty despite several years passed since registering. So... SPAM.

>66 Jarandel: , thank you. The account is gone now.

I have another one. He put his book in the review column. He google translated to other languages also. These are quite old ones too. I wonder if he has ever sold his book this way?

https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=FragmentEarth

Be aware of a wall, a very long one.

> 67 Yikes.
Is it a TOS violation to post your own book as a review? At the very least it seems blue flag-able as not a review. You might want to run it by TimSpalding or Lorannen.

>68 Taphophile13:

I don't think it's a TOS violation. Since it's his own book, there's no copyright issue. But an excerpt from a book, one's own or someone else's, without more, is not a review. So definitely blue flaggable in my view.

The German doesn't make sense at all. I think we can assume that this was not a successful marketing ploy, as noone else has entered his book.

I'm pretty sure that was just Google Translate, which does, at best, a passable job. The only language I know besides English is Latin, and, while my Latin is enormously rusty, it's far superior to Google's.

I blue-flagged every single one.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193964#

It looks like a reading question but sounds like a promotion.

>72 Mr.Durick:

Looks highly dubious to me!

Two other people flagged it, so I did too.

Robert

>75 Collectorator: An interesting spammy tangle. Must have taken the perp longer than the average spam.

How about this profile?
http://www.librarything.com/profile/Books_uploads

>75 Collectorator: It looks like they are real books, so all we can do is remove the spammy descriptions.

Needn't have taken long if the descriptions were cut and pasted.

I've taken out all the spammy member's descriptions and published reviews from Amazon. Also left several links in PM. It would be worth keeping an eye on that profile.

>79 MarthaJeanne: I have just counterflagged this. It's heart is in the right place even if the post isn't. Surely libraries need all the help they can get?

They might have reached more potential visitors by posting an event in 'local' and wouldn't have tantalised all the bibliophiles who live near one of the other Decaturs.

ETA they are advertising in 'local' as well - I hope they have a successful sale ;-)

This is the third sale they have advertised, and I have seen no other activity on LT. To me that is just as much spam as the authors.

>82 MarthaJeanne: I don't suppose your hard-line approach is any more negotiable than my easy-going one, but I do think there is a difference between an over-enthusiastic author (self-serving by definition) and a group of friends of a public library who don't, I presume, make a dime out of their efforts to support a worth-while community service. I'm not sure what other activity I would expect from them on LT.

I've got to agree with abbottthomas on this one.

A non-profit, library-supporting organization advising of a book sale does not strike me as spammy.

Though it would be an idea to point them to a more local group to post the notice. Ah, I see they've found that. Yeah, the general notice on Book Talk is inappropriate.

There is, in fact, a group specifically for announcing book sales, though it doesn't seem to have much activity: https://www.librarything.com/groups/booksales

I just noticed this, and it seems, well, iffy.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/194219#

She has no books, it's a free account, and her post is all about the blog that she linked to. Perhaps someone kinder than I could leave a message on her comment wall, or make a post in the thread.

She made a number of posts of the "hello, this is really cool" variety, but that's the only one Ive seen with a blog link. I'm going to giver her the benefit of the doubt for now.

>87 Lyndatrue:, >88 Helenliz:

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt as well. She just sounds like an enthusiastic newbie who doesn't quite get the site yet. I've left a reply to that post pointing her to the Bloggers group, and, as she mentions requesting books, suggesting that she catalog some books to make winning an ER book more likely.

I can always depend on you folks to be sensible. I wouldn't have flagged it myself, but I was pretty sure that it was too early in the morning for me to be leaving a comment, or a note on her profile. I don't think I'd seen any of her other posts, but then, I don't get out much.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/194314

The book refered to just came out, and has very iffy reviews on Amazon.

"I am a elementary school teachers this is a great book..."

There are quite a few posts promoting the same title, and a link to an external site
https://www.librarything.com/topic/392#5238457
I'm veering towards flagging if it continues

Here's another one: http://www.librarything.com/topic/194317

Author posted a picture of his book cover at a venue he added because he has a book signing there.

http://www.librarything.com/pic/4947137

Is this spam?

>94 2wonderY: A book is not a venue and other authors have tried to do this a well. Should be flagged.

Okay, I'm betting that this turns into links in just a bit, but in either case, it seems pretty borderline. Poor Book Talk; it always ends up with the debris.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/194422#
http://www.librarything.com/profile/andwykahever34

ETA: It's now spam. Off to put this over on the other topic...

New member is a business that is offering free ebook downloads of books in copyright.

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

Is this legal and is it spam?

>97 2wonderY:

Apparently the company has partnered with a number of publishers to allow books under copyright to be digitized if you can prove you own the hard copy. See this article, specifically: "Shelfie has partnered with more than 300 publishers to date, many of which are indie operations. You'll find some bigwigs here, though, including HarperCollins, Tor, and Harlequin. According to Szybalski, Shelfie's demographic is currently determined by the publishers and books the app can offer at discounted prices. To that end, fans of science fiction, romance, and inspirational titles may find more of their books on Shelfie than readers of other genres, but don't let that discourage you from trying the app. With several publishers — including Angry Robot, Brindle & Glass, and Nimbus — offering e-books for free to owners of physical copies, you're sure to be pleasantly surprised."

So it does appear to be legal.

>98 lilithcat: Thank you for checking that out!

It may be legal, but I still think it's spam.

Certainly commercial but could they claim to be "publishers" and get away with it?

>101 abbottthomas: Hmm, good point, I was thinking of them more as a bookstore.

>101 abbottthomas:, >102 lorax:

They're a bookstore, really, because they are the intermediary between the publisher and the buyer.

I have enough Latin to make vague guesses, but this French statement still sees a bit odd. Not spam, more enthusiastic author, I suspect. I still flagged it (because I'm heartless).

http://www.librarything.com/topic/194532
http://www.librarything.com/profile/AbdElSalam

On the other hand, taking a brief glance at the profile suggests a human being (rather than a bot) behind this.

I dunno. It seems mostly of the drive-by variety, but I'm just not sure.

ETA: The topic's already gone. It seemed more innocuous than some, but then, I didn't make the effort to follow the link, nor have I looked at the blog referenced on the profile.

>104 Lyndatrue: I followed the link on the profile and it looks like a proper blog to me. Mainly about Islam and the words of the prophet Mohammed, from what I can tell.

>105 PawsforThought: I kind of wish that I knew what the link (that vanished so quickly) in the topic had said. It was French, and seemed to be religious in nature, but the link was different than on the blog. I suppose I'll just have to be doomed to wonder, and not know. On the other hand, I'm betting this is a drive-by, as so many are. Thanks for the update. :-}

>106 Lyndatrue: I never manage to get to the spam posts on time. People are too quick to flag them.

>107 PawsforThought: They tend to stay up longest at about 6am LT time. 30-40 minutes. By then even the West Coast US night owls have usually gone to bed, and we Europeans are doing things like work, shopping, eating lunch.

At times when there are a lot of Anericans around it can be 3-4 minutes.

>108 MarthaJeanne: LT time? What time zone would that be? East coast US? For me, LT uses my local time so I assumed it was the same for everyone. (Or did I misunderstand what you meant?)

The time used to always show US east coast time for everyone. At some point we were given the option of chosing local time, but as I have a lot of family in that time zone, I chose to keep it as an easy way of seeing whether or not phone calls would be a good idea. So I still see LT time, which besides being Portland, ME is also Essex, VT and Cleveland, OH ...

Normally 6 hours isn't hard to figure, but there are always a few weeks between when Europe and the US change from summer to winter time, and back, and I find it useful to see it.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/194602

Trying a bit too hard maybe?

>110 MarthaJeanne: And not all the European countries have the same summer/winter time change date.

>111 abbottthomas: Not his only spam. But gone now.

Travel firm http://www.librarything.com/profile/Bushbucksafaris is listed as a LibraryThing organization, so appears to be a legitimate member. But it just sent me a friends request, completely at random, which seems like potentially spammy behaviour. Has anyone else had one?

Well over half of this member's catalogue comprises links to newspaper articles, websites and blogs.

It may not be commercial spam, but is it spam?

>115 Cynfelyn: It's very political, but it isn't spam. I wish I had the time now to go off and read a couple of the authors on that page. Clare Short sounds like my kind of woman. Smart is one of my favorite attributes in a human being.

It isn't spam (although I'm tempted to ask TTinfophile to shorten some of those titles). Serendipity strikes again (and I'm very glad you noticed it).

I'd really like to read some of those things. There isn't enough time in the day. :-{

>115 Cynfelyn: That is an interesting way of using LT - cataloguing almost anything but books. But no way is it spam as I see it.

>117 abbottthomas: I may be rethinking my wanting to read those authors, though. Still, it's an interesting bunch of writing...and there's not enough time.

>116 Lyndatrue: Serendipity strikes again (and I'm very glad you noticed it).

I came across it serendipitously, looking to see if LT has anything by Jeremy Corbyn. To which the answer is no, although the search threw up three linked newspaper articles here.

>120 MarthaJeanne:

If he weren't using the group to push his book's website, I'd say "no", but as it is, "yes".

The about me and about my library descriptions are a bit odd. It almost seems as if they might be offering books they don't have the legal right to sell. (Or it could just be me being overly suspicious.)

https://www.librarything.com/profile/0s-1s

>123 lilithcat:

A couple of seconds of googling reveals that it's a legit business, working directly with authors and publishers: http://www.pw.org/content/0s1s_reinvents_ebook_publishing

>123 lilithcat: Thanks.

What about a school that seems only to be advertising itself, no books cataloged?

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

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

What's with this 'person'? Multiple requests to be friends, quite a few accepted which I find surprising considering that AppletonZ gives no information about him/her/its-self.

>126 abbottthomas: I had one of those and just archived it.

Robert

I had five! I flagged. One I will answer politely that I only friend people I know in Real Life. Five is obnoxious.

I've had 3 friend requests from the same person (AppletonZ) in the past hour, who from his/her profile seems to be a new member with no books, just a huge list of friend requests. I'm not sure whether this is a bug or spam or what.

Another request here. I shall be declining...

And now Appletonp.
Same person, methinks.

I'm flagging both profiles of the person who is most recently "Appletonp".

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

Yes, I have a request from this one, too.

BTW our z 'friend' has been suspended.

ETA p, too.

I got four friend requests from it. With all of the hundred thousand members, how who someone be choosing who to target? Latest posting names on the talk page perhaps?

I got one from a harlyboon (just joined today) who appears to be doing the same thing--sending out dozens of friend requests. http://www.librarything.com/profile/harlyboon Shall I flag?

AppletonZ requested me, but not AppletonP.
No clue what their criteria is, but when multiple spam fighters get hit, it's funny.

I get it that sending many invitations is not within LT's normal behaviour, and could be viewed a nuisance, but is it flaggable as spam?

I thought something about mass friend requests was considered a spam activity...

>135 Marissa_Doyle: I just flagged that one. I received only two friend requests from appletonp, and really suspect that the invitations were sent by someone walking down the list of posters on a thread somewhere. It may have been something in Spam Fighters! On the other hand, I saw a fearsome amount of people accepting the harlyboon one.

Dunno. People are strange.

>135 Marissa_Doyle: Odd, looking at that profile, it looks like all kinds of members have requested friend status and harlyboon is just accepting the invitations.

Or is it that I haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning?

>140 2wonderY: They were both. I suspect that there's something unusual going on with it all, but I'm not sure that the person or persons behind those accounts understands how the connection of "friend" works here on LT.

There was a long list for him, and the first ones were outgoing.

It would be interesting to see how they were all linked.

>140 2wonderY: For some reason, that's what seems to show up (or what I've noticed in the couple of friend requests I've done over the past year)--that the requestee somehow gets shown as the requestor. Dunno why.

My guess is that it will turn into something spammy.

Harlyboon is now suspended, too.

Assuming that this is all the same person/group, maybe they will get the message.

They mostly seem to be advertising their journals. Spam or—what?

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

It sseemes notebooks they are selling. Pure advertisement, I would say.

>144 Taphophile13:

That's what publishers do. They're an organizational account. It's fine.

"LibraryThing for Publishers

As a publisher, you can now create a profile page for each of your imprints on LibraryThing, offering a way to highlight current titles, link visitors back to your website, and see which LibraryThing members have your titles in their libraries. " (Emphasis added)

>146 lilithcat:
Thank you very much. I hadn't flagged it because I really wasn't sure.

>126 abbottthomas:, >135 Marissa_Doyle: - I also received friend requests from AppletonZ and harlyboon. To be honest, I have not experienced this before here at LT and wasn't sure of the procedure. How does one flag something like this and what exactly does that do? My instinct is to just not reply and delete the requests from my email and forget about it. It just seemed odd to me, odder still when I see one of the accounts suspended and one only had joined today, with no info in the profile at all. That sounds like spam to me but LT is a lot more complicated than that and I wasn't sure what to do. A (real!) friend pointed me in the direction of this thread

Normally I leave a message that just says that I only friend people I really know. But in those cases I have usually had other contact with them - like combined a title that didn't autocombine into the main work and they have asked for help. And I haven't gotten 5 friend requests with no other contact at all.

It is also possible to contact staff if someone is making friend requests and mentioning how the books in your library indicate that you would love their new thriller. This is not allowed, but theoretically you don't flag authors, and if they are spamming profiles they need to be reported, and are probably too thick skinned to bother with requests from you and me not to spam.

But this guy was very unusual. And persistant!

>148 jessibud2: I had four 'friend' requests from AppletonZ in rapid succession - that's unusual activity and when it comes from a newly registered member with no information at all on his/her profile I think it worth a flag. All these three were pretty quickly flagged away. If you want to flag a member for spam or TOS violation you will find a link in the very bottom box on the right of the offenders profile page. Deleting and ignoring is quicker and what I would have done if there had been a single 'friend' proposal from anyone I don't know.

>150 abbottthomas: Thanks.

AppletonZ must be feeling really lonely today. Even I received a friend request! :o

Another new member (and author) doing wholesale friend requests

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

Never mind. They all seem to know each other as authors from somewhere else.

Can't tell if this is author spam

https://www.librarything.com/topic/194971#

not enough clues.

>154 2wonderY:

I can't tell, either, so I'm leaving it alone unless more evidence appears. There have been too many cases where people have jumped the gun and flagged a legitimate post.

I think probably.

I ask myself why should someone join, apparently to actively recommend one book and do nothing else, unless this is a 'commercial'? I don't get steamed up about this sort of thing but I think it is probably clutter.

>154 2wonderY: Probably is, I doubt many people would arrive on a site and try to establish discussion and connections over a perfectly obscure item they've just developed an enthusiasm for. At least not at first. But in the absence of more solid proof of ties to the author it'll have to stay.

I came to ask about the same post. It bears watching.

How do you flag a message as spam when it is posted to your wall? I can't find a 'flag' button anywhere.

You report it directly to staff. I guess that takes away any doubt about the spam character of >154 2wonderY:.

I'm inclined to flag this post, but think that someone ought to mention to the poster that the message was out of bounds. It's more on the lines of enthusiastic author than anything, but it's a pretty clear call for $$$

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193471#5255404

I am looking for readers for my crowdfunding campaign on inkshares.com.

ETA: No books by this brand new profile made it easier to flag that post, by far.

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

Not looking at the topic itself, but the profile and review as well as creating a new group and the amazon homepage all seem a bit self-promotional if not a tad spammy:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/195120#
https://www.librarything.com/groups/sextipsforcouples
https://www.librarything.com/profile/JenniferWoodcock
https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=JenniferWoodcock

Opinions?

>163 Taphophile13: I already flagged the topic (and I wasn't the first), and the group. The books added seem more like a cover than anything she's read. That also may be a stock photo on the profile. I think I've seen it before (but don't care enough to research it). I'm vaguely considering flagging the profile, but I'll wait until others weigh in.

Review is borderline, although I didn't flag it. I may return and do so, however.

>164 Lyndatrue: It's also interesting that Jennifer's review says "I wrote this" but the book lists David Woodcock as the author. I also suspect the name is a pseudonym and perhaps David and Jennifer are one and the same.

The profile says that David and Jennifer wrote the book. They claim to be a couple who saved their marriage through their hot sex tips.

The whole thing is borderline spammy, and bears watching. Since it's an author the profile should not be flagged.

I did not flag the group myself, but I'm very glad that others did. That at least gets it off the newest groups page.

I've left a comment on her profile, pointing her to "How Authors Can Use LibraryThing" and to the Hobnob group.

>167 lilithcat:

Just curious, Lilithcat, was your comment private? I can't see if and I wonder if she deleted it.

> 168

It was a private comment. I generally do make such comments private as I don't really like the idea that any random visitor to a profile can see what might appear to be a chiding.

Understood. I've always had mixed feelings about it because I find it helpful to know whether someone has already told them, but I see your point.

>170 amysisson:

I find it helpful to know whether someone has already told them

I agree, and that's why I try to mention here when I've done it.

>169 lilithcat: and >170 amysisson: I'd say it depends, although this one was a borderline case. If it's someone who is new, and who has either no books, or books only they have written, then I think it might as well be public (partly so that others know they've already been reminded of the guidelines).

If it's an author who truly fits that "enthusiastic author" description (and I think that most do), then a private comment is a kindness, and very appropriate.

This one is an odd case. I'm waiting to see if they even return, or make another run at things.

I admit that I'm also not a fan of authors reviewing their own books. I think it ought to be flaggable as a "not-a-review" sort of thing (although I didn't flag it myself). I always hope for the best, although in this case, I'm betting against it.

>172 Lyndatrue:

I admit that I'm also not a fan of authors reviewing their own books. I think it ought to be flaggable as a "not-a-review" sort of thing

I agree, however, authors are told (in "How Authors Can Use LibraryThing) that they can review their own books, and I certainly wouldn't flag something that has been specifically approved. (Of course, they're also told that the reviews will be marked as the author's, and that hasn't happened - yet.)

Boy this sure looks like a spam profile, added just to get Dr. Kalitenko's web address posted.

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

>174 2wonderY:. I flagged it without worry.

Message http://www.librarything.com/topic/195479, the only message on the "manacondites" group, http://www.librarything.com/groups/manacondites, a closed group with three members, all of who joined LT today.

Or am I being overly paranoid?

>176 Cynfelyn:

Nah, I'm guessing kids. It's the first day of school; they were probably bored.

Worth watching http://www.librarything.com/topic/195600

>178 MsMaryAnn:

Agreed. I do think it's a drive-by, but unlike most newly joined drive-by authors, the author mentioned in the post does have several books owned by several members.

> 178, 179

If koolpoi is Paul Erdman, then we know there is life after death. (Erdman died in 2007.)

>180 lilithcat: A big hahaha!

>178 MsMaryAnn: The phrasing, and the lack of space before and after punctuation, are distinctive marks of a translation feature that I've been seeing lately. It's distinctive, and similar to Google Translate, but that punctuation really makes me pay attention. It's from the Asian region; I'm not certain of much else.

On the other hand, the request may be genuine. Maybe.

>182 Lyndatrue: Mmm. Noted.

>180 lilithcat:, >182 Lyndatrue:, Just looked. Jeez, what people will respond to.

http://www.librarything.com/work/16026605/reviews/118593960 ... Should this review have been flagged? It's absolutely worthless (and it's something that the "reviewer" would better have shown as a tag), but still, I don't see it as spam and it's obviously not copyrighted. I'm inclined to give it a Not a review? Oh yes it is! click, but before I do, I thought I'd ask here.

>185 CurrerBell: Review flags have two options, spam/abuse (red), and not a review (blue). This has been blue-flagged as not being a review. Which it is not.

>186 .Monkey.: Gotcha. Thanks.

New member/author has rated and reviewed her own books, but the reviews consist of readers' comments from elsewhere:

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

Is that, in fact, a violation of TOS? I wrote her a note and told her it was.

http://www.librarything.com/pic/5013223

Is this spam?
Should I flag the profile?

>189 al.vick: Oh, yes! Good catch.

>188 2wonderY:

I would say yes, that's a TOS violation.

Looks like it has been removed. Thanks!

This looks like a spammy profile

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

What thinkest thou? (I've been listening to William Shakespeare's Star Wars Trilogy, forsooth!)

I don't think that is spam.

>193 2wonderY: I don't see how it really violates TOS. Maybe it promotes the guy's business a little bit, but heck, no one's even going to see it if they don't click the link to his LT profile page, and they're not going to click the link if he doesn't post intelligent reviews, intelligent Group discussion, whatever.

>193 2wonderY: What looks spammy about it? (I'm genuinely curious)

I rather like the profile picture and don't see any harm in leaving the profile.

I don't think mentioning what your job is on your profile constitutes spam, especially when he also mentions other things like what he likes to eat. He doesn't even link to a professional site, just to his Google Plus page.

OTOH the only point in the profile - as it stands - seems to be as an advertisement. No TOS violation and harmless so I wouldn't think of flagging it.

>199 abbottthomas: This. It seems to be there solely as an ad, but if they do nothing else, well, it's fine. It'll just rot away unnoticed. Lol.

>196 lesmel: As others have said, it appears to exist just as online presence for a business. I didn't flag it either. Sometimes I will post a profile here to remind myself to return later and see whether anything really spammy has been added since I first looked.

Thanks all.
Seems to have been a busy night with really awful spam.

>201 2wonderY: It was awful, and I went to bed in the middle of it. The Korean/Chinese spam problem seems to be hitting everywhere.

:-(

Enthusiastic author or TOS violation? http://www.librarything.com/topic/188121#5294600

ETA: I ask because I don't think I've seen the profile before.

>203 lesmel:
Two messages in a group not for author promotion, only book cataloged is his own and lilithcat left a note for him yesterday.
I see him as an enthusiastic author who didn't understand the message.

ETA: I see that while I was posting he dropped the same message in a bunch of threads and is now on the spam reporting thread.

>204 Taphophile13:

Not just two messages; check the group page, he's posted to multiple threads.

I didn't realize he'd been previously warned, that's definitely into "deliberately ignoring the rules" territory.

>205 lorax: When I realized there were now multiple posts AND checked his/her profile page, I just considered it spam at that point. Enthusiastic or otherwise.

I left a profile message. Any more posts and I'll flag the profile.

not sure what this is yet; might bear watching

thread title is: d t thh churchgoers will
https://www.librarything.com/topic/197253#
https://www.librarything.com/profile/gorgioouskitty33

ETA: well, whatever that was, it's gone

Yes or no? http://www.librarything.com/topic/185042#5296983

>209 lesmel:
I don't know, it feels a little bit like a co-worker trying to get you to buy wrapping paper for a school fundraiser.
I think it might be good to bring it to the attention of staff and let them decide.

It may be well-meaning, but the rules don't stop applying just because it was written by long-time members in good standing. Self-promotion simply isn't allowed.

>209 lesmel: I'd leave that be. The poster is the administrator of the very active 75 books challenge group and has his(?) heart in the right place, I believe.

>212 abbottthomas: Hearts being in the right place doesn't negate the site rules.

>213 .Monkey.: True, but I have always resisted rigidity and tried to espouse tolerance.

>210 Taphophile13: & >213 .Monkey.: y'all are echoing my thoughts

Well, I'm the one who posted it, and yeah, my heart was in the right place. The member asked for my advice, and I made a judgement call. Sorry if my desire to help out was over the line.

My reasoning:
- These are all members of LT who want to share their reviews from LT.
- They're not looking to profit from it, and in the past noncommercial stuff like this has been ok.
- It was posted on other threads in other groups without comment as far as I know.

>216 drneutron: I believe that your intentions were well-meant. But, as I've said, I don't believe that changes the rules about self-promotion. I've seen long-time members casually drop notes about things they've published without coming off spammy/pushy/etc at all and still been flagged away with stern reminders that unless explicitly asked something where it's an applicable answer, that it's not to be done. Also, just because other posts may have been missed, it still doesn't change the rule. ;)

I think the group ethos should prvail. The active 75ers have always been open to discussing one anothers' projects. I think it is sad that this message should be flagged. Seems way too legalistic to me.

Anyway, what good is a book site where you can't discuss (certain) books? It's not like Jim wrote the book; he just posted about it. Maybe just a mention with no links would be acceptable?

BTW, the thread on which it was flagged was a "great book sales" thread, where posts often include links to books that are on sale. Seems like a place designed to mention books for sale. Do you think the whole thread should be abolished?

I've seen long-time members casually drop notes about things they've published without coming off spammy/pushy/etc at all and still been flagged away with stern reminders that unless explicitly asked something where it's an applicable answer, that it's not to be done.

See, I don't think that should be the way things work. We all have seen definite spam -- people who join just to post announcements of what they have for sale, and I always flag those. But discussion among active members about what they are up too is something different, to me.

Except that it's against the terms for everyone. I don't think cherry-picking select users as acceptable to do the same behavior that others would be flagged for is appropriate. It might be annoying sometimes, but it's all or none. If we don't allow self-promotion here, we don't allow it. And I think we're all well agreed that we don't want it allowed. That means even legit members have to abstain as well.

>220 .Monkey.: so the argument here would be that the self-promotion by proxy is no good? Saying Bone Clocks is for sale on Amazon or wherever with a link is OK but saying xxx for sale on Amazon by another LT member or author is not OK?

I get the argument that we don't make exceptions for any author to explicitly promote their work. That is the way it should be. But I don't think that is quite what is happening here. I'd give the poster a pass even though I thought it was a strange thing.

This entire discussion might be a moot point, since the GROUP has chosen to counter flag the whole thing.

It's not a moot point when it's a situation that can happen any time.

Also, getting an official LT "ruling" on such an issue would let us know what the unquestionable official stance on such situations is. What "THE GROUP" feels about it is more the moot point, honestly, if LT says otherwise.

Thank god common sense prevailed and the members of the 75ers group, to whom the post was addressed, chose to counter-flag the post. Applying a policy blindly is just... dumb policy. That's my two cents and I insist on sharing it.

Yep, nothing like name-calling claiming those of us following the rules (and actually understanding why policies cannot be upheld if random exceptions get to be made on someone's whims) have no common sense to drive your point home real well!

I think there are precedents for loose interpretation of site rules by some groups where there is a consensus to do so. Precedents accepted by TPTB. For example, Folio Society enthusiasts offer books for sale.

New author member added 6 'published reviews' from Indie Book Reviewers. Should they be taken down and explanation to member?

http://www.librarything.com/work/16223504

>227 2wonderY:

Yes.

>218 tymfos:

I don't think anyone would have thought for an instant that a mention with no links would be problematic, but "Here is the link to go buy this book" always seems unpleasant to me.

>229 lorax: Fair enough. I never buy anything through a posted link anyway, as I consider that not a good practice security-wise.

Like I said over on the original thread, I mishandled it. I should have posted a summary and asked interested folks to contact me privately.

>231 drneutron: Jim, I suggest you change your name from drneutron to CatBallou.

It's a hangin' day in Wolf City Wyomiing,
Wolf City Wyoming, 1894.
They're gonna drop Cat Ballou
Through the gallows floor.

>232 CurrerBell:

WTF.

Saying "You made a mistake" is not killing anybody. drneutron has admitted he mishandled the situation; can the rest of the 75ers please give it a rest? Everyone involved, drneutron, the flaggers, the counter-flaggers, all meant well. The only hostility I'm seeing is from 75ers who seem to forget there's a larger LT outside their little walled-off garden.

>233 lorax: I'm with you on giving it a rest. The whole snafu just proves how much members are dedicated to LibraryThing.

The whole snafu just proves how much members are dedicated to LibraryThing.

That sounds right!

Another enthusiastic author:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/197928
http://www.librarything.com/topic/197927

http://www.librarything.com/profile/kidssafaristor1
I left a message about the rules but forgot to add the part about ratings/reviews by authors, sorry.

> 236

There is no rule against authors rating or reviewing their own books. It's tacky, but it's specifically allowed.

Yeah, you can mention that it's generally looked upon distastefully and will certainly not win them any friends here, but it's allowed.

>237 lilithcat: & >238 .Monkey.: thanks for the clarification.
And now for something completely different, one user added many "weird" authors and works:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/BeegPanda
http://www.librarything.com/author/willtryauthoragain
http://www.librarything.com/author/nocheating

http://www.librarything.com/spam_works.php

0.o Wtf is that person doing?!

>240 .Monkey.: I can't even work it out. They have a very strange tagging system (as is their right ... but I seriously don't get it!) and it almost looks like these works/authors are tags entered in the wrong place but I can't see how or why.

Tuning in to this new development.

Has anyone tried to message the member?

>241 klarusu: I suppose is the result of a wrong import, some of her/his collections on Goodreads are been converted in titles and authors. Even the reviews are truncated.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/6573376

>242 2wonderY: The last activity was on 08/05/2015.

>243 Luisali: Aha, that makes sense.

Ah, a messed up import with everything switched around would make sense.

with that huge number of books it is pretty likely a bad import all at once. Is there a way for someone to reverse an import like that and start over?

>246 RBeffa:

Well, they can obviously delete everything and start over, but in my experience most of the time they get disgusted with the failure and leave the site, leaving the messed-up data to linger around forever.

>247 lorax: that has been my observation also. Seems there should be an undo.

>248 RBeffa: Yep, staff can certanly help in these circumstances.

>248 RBeffa:, 249

Neither of those help. Deleting everything takes a second, and staff can already easily help; most people just don't bother after their initial error.

It would be nice if staff would delete this junk and send the person a msg offering to help them with their import should they wish to try again. There's no reason for LT to be cluttered up with such nonsense.

>251 .Monkey.:

It would be nice if staff would delete this junk and send the person a msg offering to help them with their import should they wish to try again.

That's never going to happen. "User data is sacred" is pretty fundamental here, and even a suggestion that low-quality data be marked to prevent it from being exposed to other users got roundly shouted down.

Except the entire thing was borked, it's not like somebody just typoed all the fields or whatever. They're ALL mixed up with info that doesn't belong in those areas. :|

Oh, I agree it would be nice, but unless someone specifically asks for help fixing their data (in which case I'm sure the staff would delete and help with a re-import), the presumption is that their data is how they want it.

>253 .Monkey.:

The difficulty with the staff fixing it is we don't know that it's borked without the person specifically saying "Um, yeah, that's wrong." And without such a statement from the user themselves, the staff won't touch it.

I flagged http://www.librarything.com/profile/adams91 along with the messages http://www.librarything.com/topic/192465 and following, as it looks very like the author trying again.

This profile appears to be commercial spam.

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

Waddya think?

>257 2wonderY: Commercial maybe, but they aren't trying to sell anything on the profile...yet.

There is no reason why a company can't be a member.

True. Too vigilant. Thanks for restraining me.

A bunch of new members as of today, most with 1 or just a few books cataloged, each posting in Spanish. So far the content does not appear to be spam, and it's possible that a group of folks just joined together today and are having actual conversations, but I admit I'm a little cynical and can't help but wonder if this will lead to spam activity.

I can't even keep up .....

http://www.librarything.com/profile/GracielaAriasGon7039
http://www.librarything.com/profile/billyduran
http://www.librarything.com/profile/david_erazo
http://www.librarything.com/profile/Lucia.Angulo.Hidalgo
http://www.librarything.com/profile/Nel75
http://www.librarything.com/profile/guisvalvar1987
http://www.librarything.com/profile/MiguelMS0810

and so on.

>261 amysisson:
I've been watching them too. Nothing spammy, just very general comments. It seems odd that so many joined today, added one or two books, and within minutes of each other started new groups and threads.

I think I'm inclined to be more suspicious because of all the Korean bot activity lately.

My Spanish is *very* limited, but they don't look spammy to me. They do seem to be starting a lot of groups, but I don't see anything that's violating the TOS. They do strike me as young people, though not necessarily under 13.

No, there's nothing that is wrong at present, however, about 10 new members, all Spanish-speaking, all posting at the exact same time (one group of messages were all the same minute even) all creating new groups and making single posts, is incredibly fishy behavior. The only thing I'd accept it being would be some sort of classroom activity.

Annnd based on https://www.librarything.com/topic/199489 it looks like it could be something of the sort.

Okay, I'm thinking classroom like .monkey.

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

I flagged this group. But how about the administrator's account? Some books are registered...

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

I had my doubts about the group, but didn't flag it. Not sure it's commercial.

>266 Yamanekotei:

Doesn't appear to be spam to me.

>266 Yamanekotei: It looks like a legitimate use of LT. They are cataloging geneology resources.

Whether or not it is 'commercial' the group is certainly advertising. We don't allow authors to advertise free e-books. I'd leave the profile.

>270 MarthaJeanne: What are they advertising?

Their courses.

>272 MarthaJeanne: You mean their "Classes Every Thursday evening 7-9" -- not mentioning cost or any kind of book? Not to mention they are a library. https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Klein_Texas_Family_History_Center

Did they post an ad? Huh. Bad library. No biscuit!

I really don't see a lot of difference between their starting a group to advertise themselves and authors advertising their books. No problem with the profile. But a group is different.

>274 MarthaJeanne:

Authors advertising their books are looking for buyers. They are engaging in commercial activity. This is a library giving information about their genealogical resources and classes.

>274 MarthaJeanne: What if they started the group so that people could ask them questions about the classes or as a followup to the classes or any other question having to do with their library. Is putting their hours in the group description a real problem?

>274 MarthaJeanne: I don't see how they are advertising themselves. At the moment, they created a group and posted hours and they hold classes. These are all IRL groups that have LT groups. Are they violating TOS because they are advertising their existence?

http://www.librarything.com/groups/demlibrary
http://www.librarything.com/groups/sca
http://www.librarything.com/groups/ottawairishresearchg
http://www.librarything.com/groups/newjerseychapterapg
http://www.librarything.com/groups/genealogysocietyofso

Who might use a group?

Book clubs and other organizations can use groups to have a forum for their announcements, book discussions, and other interactions. Users in a particular city or area can use it to talk and see what interesting "statistics" develop. Finally, you can set up interest-group communities, like "history" or "romance novels."
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Groups

(my emphasis)

I don't see any adverts here or on their web site. Looks like a pretty good community resource to me.

Re 266

I removed a flag from the group. Though I still have my doubts.

>281 MarthaJeanne: I'm not sure what to even call that. I flagged the group (because I'm heartless), but it seems more like misplaced enthusiasm than deliberate spam.

I didn't flag either topic in the group, though. Has the founder of the group posted elsewhere about this book?

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

It's really weird that ruthmarler had zero activity for nearly six years, and then just showed up now with this (and another) book, though.

She is the only one with the book. Review and 5 stars. Review is mostly a copy of the Amazon blurb. There are two other books on the author page, but I would not be surprised if they are by three different people.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/193209#5316307

The group is gone.

Yeah I'd seen that first post earlier, and checked her out, and my suspicions were definitely raised, but at that point she hadn't technically done anything, so I let it be. Glad she made the 2nd actually spammy post so the group could be officially spammy!

>285 .Monkey.: Ditto!

>283 MarthaJeanne: Anyone leave a comment on her profile? No, I'm not volunteering. The comment you pointed to seems innocent enough, until you consider the group, and the two topics in it. I'm considering a flag...

Before anyone says otherwise, I point out that she's posting in a group called Virago Modern Classics, and her very first sentence acknowledges that the book isn't a Virago classic. Yeah, flagging now.

She posted in "What Else Are You Reading" thread,
http://www.librarything.com/topic/193209#
so the message isn't overtly spam. Maybe she is an overzealous reader, or maybe is the author in disguise.

She is promoting this elsewhere so has some sort of relationship with the author, if she isn't one and the same. https://twitter.com/ruthmarler

>288 Luisali: In ordinary circumstances, I'd never have considered calling it spam. Considering the other efforts from this person in the past 24 hours, I'd say that this was spam. It's not accidental, and the description of the book is exactly the same as the one in the second topic in her now delete group.

As I'd said earlier, I always stop and consider behavior when an account that's been idle for 5 or 6 years suddenly wakes up, and only seems to be interested in promoting a book.

I looked on Facebook. poster seems to be a fan and/or friend of the author. not the author. posted in her thread https://www.facebook.com/anne.holloway.908/posts/10153042039006770?fref=nf

I posted the link because I was asked if she had posted anywhere else.

>287 Lyndatrue: Her first post in the "KORAKAS" group she made wasn't spam, it was just very random and fishy. But then a few hours later she made the 2nd post in it that was just an amazon link to the book. That was the clear-cut, Okay you made this group & are posting just to pimp this book byebye! for me, heh.

continuing this in another topic.