Counterflag please

I flagged the review when I saw that the first two paragraphs matched the description.

Later I realized that there is also a review there.

http://www.librarything.com/work/15366934/reviews/113602491

no flags showing.

Thanks.

I flagged this author picture as it is lableed incorrectly

http://www.librarything.com/pic/170017

After more looking, it appears Ned Dorff is a fan and the person who took the author's picture at a book event.

Counterflag this cover flag

http://www.librarything.com/work/16783941/covers

I flagged it before I discovered it should be separated.

http://www.librarything.com/work/16245360/reviews
http://www.librarything.com/work/16245280/reviews

Certainly not abuse.

No flags now so hopefully sorted.

Please counterflag these covers:

http://www.librarything.com/work/991090/covers/127339202

I flagged them before I saw that there was an improper work combination.

That shouldn't matter. If you flagged them as inappropriate for the work and then separated them they should revert to the old work.

Someone has flagged these short reviews.

http://www.librarything.com/work/1472/reviews/124000907

http://www.librarything.com/work/1472/review/127730536

>10 wifilibrarian: The second link is missing the "s" and should probably be:

http://www.librarything.com/work/1472/reviews/127730536

No flagged reviews remain in any case. :-}

>11 Lyndatrue:

There are still tons of flagged reviews for it!

:-{ I was only looking at the German ones (I set it to German ages ago so that I didn't have to look at reviews that had spoilers). Off to do more counter flagging...

Okay, *now* I think they're gone (off all the languages I could figure out). I left some that I agreed with.

http://www.librarything.com/work/1021485/reviews/24285111

I flagged tonydal's review when I found that the link was broken. Neither flag seems entirely appropriate. Apologies to the reviewer.

>14 RobertDay:

All his reviews are broken links. I'm leaving him a comment, but I don't really think it will do much good, as he doesn't seem to have added or reviewed books for a very long time. Nevertheless . . .

*coughs* http://www.librarything.com/review/106177002 Someone has a grudge, or what? Because there is literally nothing one could argue that this is not a review.

Flags seem to be gone.

>16 .Monkey.:

I see one thumb, no flags.

http://www.librarything.com/review/135991721 is flagged as a "not a review"? This is the first time one of mine has been flagged. Not sure why.

>19 flying_monkeys: Seems to be fixed. Some people flag reviews they don't agree with.

Ok. Fine. I updated my review of Animal Farm a little to make it more of a review. Counterflag please?
http://www.librarything.com/review/132442544

>21 lesmel: de-flagged and good now

There must be someone or someones going through and flagging any review that they don't agree with, because I'm seeing a few valid reviews being blue flagged...

Isn't this one a valid opinion?

http://www.librarything.com/work/14133652/reviews/103965407

>24 2wonderY: I would say so. And also the other review on that book: "Could not get into it."

Those are both good now.

>24 2wonderY:

Doesn't matter if it's a valid opinion or not. It's a valid "LT review", and has already been counterflagged.

>20 MarthaJeanne: Ah, I see. Thanks for taking a look at it.

>24 2wonderY: But someone keeps flagging it. I suggest adding something to it.

Is there a reason the multiple reviews from kdf_333 on http://www.librarything.com/work/11364281/reviews are red flagged? They seem to have a problem with their import process or something; but you can't prove they don't have multiple copies of the book.

>29 lesmel:

I don't see any abuse there. I've counterflagged them.

I've also noted, and counterflagged, a lot of unwarranted blue flags on that member's reviews.

Is anyone else noticing text relating to GPL3.0 and FTC regulations attached to reviews?
Perhaps the chilling one is the GPL3.0 since the text they quote says it overrides the TOS of any website for that review...

>31 gilroy:

Noticing it where?

>32 lorax: Guess I should link to one example that I've seen, huh?

https://www.librarything.com/work/13552618/reviews/136806021

The text at the top of this review talks about the GPL3.0 license.

https://www.librarything.com/work/13135918/reviews/137466497

The text on the end of this one speaks of the FTC regulations of reviews for compensation.

As far as I am aware*, GPL isn't going to supersede the TOS for any service like LT. A person has to accept the TOS to use the service which means you waive some rights. LT does have an option for not allowing LT to use reviews in a 3rd party manner.

I use "**This was an advanced reader copy won through the LibraryThing Early Reviewers program.**" for my FTC compliance statement.

*IANAL, IANYL

>33 gilroy:

Random people writing a thing in a review doesn't make it true.

>31 gilroy:, et al.

I saw that, and did a bit of googling. As far as I can tell, the license that person is referring to is a software license, that is "is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program". See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

It doesn't seem to have squat to do with what you post on a website.

If you live in the US, and need a FTC compliance statement for an ER book, the bird notice you get once your review is properly credited is supposed to be sufficient.

Got an answer to my own question from the person who I spotted the GPL notice. It's all to keep people from stealing his/her reviews. They just didnt realize that GPL 3.0 existed. :)

>37 MarthaJeanne: The one using the FTC notice isn't posting an LTER review.

http://www.librarything.com/work/11805370/covers/89406656

The German language cover has been flagged as inapplicable, but Kampf is indeed the German version of this novel.

http://www.librarything.com/work/15069990/summary/144728444

Someone doesn't like my review.

>40 MarthaJeanne:

Done.

Thanks!

Someone has flagged my review of the audio version of Dancing at the Rascal Fair. Granted, I did not finish listening to that version, but I explained why in the review. Please counterflag?

>43 MrsLee:

Done. That's a weird flag. I have seen people flag as "not a review" reviews where the writer hasn't finished the book, but how it's a TOS violation I can't imagine.

(I think that when the review discusses why the book wasn't finished, that's still a review, and certainly more useful than "Loved it!")

>44 lilithcat: Thanks I didn't see what sort of flag it was. That is weird.

Well, I've earned a blue flag, although, I do believe I wrote a review, however controversial it was. On A Grave Talent by Laurie R. King.

Funny thing is, when I read the review, I had to laugh because my thinking has changed so much between now and then. I'm not changing my review, because it was how I felt when I read that book, but I did edit it to reflect that times and minds can change, even mine.

>46 MrsLee: Your flag is gone.

I've got one on http://www.librarything.com/work/81344/reviews/145517105. I'll add a few words to make it clear that I didn't finish because of the quality of the book.

>47 MarthaJeanne: Looks like the flag is gone. lol, short and to the point review. I like it.

I do apologize for not adding the links to the reviews I asked for help on. Will do so in future.

For this it's quite easy to find.

Someone's blue-flagged one of mine that was short but as far as I'm concerned counts as a review under the "no" guideline: https://www.librarything.com/work/1527/reviews/104695879

What is the current view on blue-flagging reviews that are simply links to reviews elsewhere: https://www.librarything.com/work/6476897/reviews/42607008

(Hi. I used to be very active in the "be vewy vewy quiet I'm hunting spammers" groups, but I've had health problems for the last few years and dropped out of a lot of my online hangouts.)

Edit: Someone's counter-flagged already, thanks. :-)

>50 JulesJones: If the link doesn't work, it's flaggable. If the link works and goes to an actual review, not flaggable.

I counter-flagged earlier, but talk posts weren't working for me.

A valid LT review?

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

>53 amanda4242:

Perfectly valid. Looks as though it's now been counterflagged.

But here's a weird one: Absolute stunner. The casting of Nellie Dean as the narrator was a stroke of genius by Brontë.: http://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/2278280

And the flag is back.

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

Oh, ffs.

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

>56 amanda4242:

That's just ridiculous. It's like someone is stalking you or something.

Flag is gone now, though.

>57 lilithcat: I don't think it's personal; I think it might be an obsessive Bronte fan who doesn't understand why the flag keeps disappearing. Perhaps I should edit my review to include a link to LT's review policy and quote the part regarding what a blue flag is for.

The funny thing is that your review now has 4 thumbs up, which it probably wouldn't have except for this topic. (A lot of people seem to think thumbs up counterflag.)

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/61860663
https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/35458234
https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/33608944

Here's another few that deserves the counter flag. Same book.

Suspect this is either someone who feels reviews must be more than a line or two and are marking them as such.

>58 amanda4242:

I expect you're right, that it's not personal, but how annoying!

And this (both kinds of flag)

https://www.librarything.com/review/116447441

>62 karenb:

And both gone now.

Arrrgh!!!

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

Oh, for pete's sake. I've counter-flagged it.

>65 lilithcat: Thanks again! I've edited my review to include a link to the review help page and quoted the section about the proper use of blue flags.

>67 lilithcat:

Let's hope that helps.

>67 lilithcat: Fingers crossed.

*headdesk*

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

I've counter-flagged it.

Okay, that's it.

I'm going to email lorannen to see if there's anything that can be done to stop this nonsense.

OK, now that I've started looking, I suspect that this could be an endless task.* Jane Eyre:

https://www.librarything.com/review/125904754
https://www.librarything.com/review/110543946
https://www.librarything.com/review/109982806

*See also XKCD

>71 lilithcat: Got your email! Looking and will reply shortly.

>72 karenb: We call this "Rule 386" in our house.

>53 amanda4242: and further update: Yeah, that's real weird. I've got to do some digging to find out who's doing the flagging here. I'll keep you posted!

Jane Eyre, cont'd:

https://www.librarything.com/review/108801562
https://www.librarything.com/review/103216394
https://www.librarything.com/review/99030503
https://www.librarything.com/review/82480655

Pride & Prejudice:
https://www.librarything.com/review/165322304
https://www.librarything.com/review/161016973
https://www.librarything.com/review/147118378
https://www.librarything.com/review/119176111
https://www.librarything.com/review/140982160
https://www.librarything.com/review/136583378
https://www.librarything.com/review/131393531

I can see the flagger's point, but technically not flagworthy?
https://www.librarything.com/review/141569495
https://www.librarything.com/review/161016973

>53 amanda4242:

And, I should say, an excellent review. Pithy!

>75 karenb: Not sure I follow you on this one: https://www.librarything.com/work/2204/reviews/103216394. Looks like actually not a review to me?

>74 lorannen: Thank you! I haven't seen any flags in a few days, so maybe whoever was flagging finally got the message.

>76 karenb: Thanks!

>78 amanda4242: At first glance, I suspect what's happening is the person is going through all reviews of a given work, and flagging those they think don't measure up. Still, a lot of them are flagged incorrectly! Once I've got the data on whether it's consistently the same member or not, I'll know more.

>72 karenb:

This one: http://www.librarything.com/work/2204/reviews/125904754 is pretty clearly a TOS violation. The "reviewer" says This quote is from the Stanford University Library's 1966 edition that I pulled from Google Books.

>77 lorannen: Sorry, I meant to include that one in a "maybe" group.

>80 lilithcat: D'oh! How did I miss that? Thanks.

>82 amanda4242: I've counter-flagged but the blue flag is still there. Are there multiple flags?

>82 amanda4242: The flag is gone.

Perhaps because I refused to finish the book?

http://www.librarything.com/work/94534/reviews/158613915

Not my review, but this one does qualify as a valid review.
https://www.librarything.com/work/2348/reviews/157062722

There are a couple others on the same book that need to be counterflagged as well...

Also not my review but this one does qualify as a valid review:
https://www.librarything.com/work/9279041/reviews/60207192

Guess I'm on a review anti flag catch today, as more along this book are probably better than a blue flag...

>87 gilroy: Aah jeez. That book has dozens of reviews that need to be counterflagged.

>88 norabelle414: Still trying to figure out the one that starts : SEE SOCK PUPPET

>89 gilroy: That one hurts my head too.

Not my reviews.

Pithy but still a review:
https://www.librarything.com/work/18255/reviews/27383617

Also an original review, not sure why it's flagged:
https://www.librarything.com/work/14333492/reviews/114884590

A few of my reviews have been flagged. Please counter-flag.

http://www.librarything.com/work/13323037/reviews/99956652
http://www.librarything.com/work/51475/reviews/92322169
http://www.librarything.com/work/57727/reviews/82110714

Thanks!

>93 MarthaJeanne: The second one still needs some help.

>92 2wonderY:

All flags are now gone.

>92 2wonderY: First one has a blue flag again.

>95 lesmel: And gone again...

https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=St.CroixSue
Several of this user's reviews have been marked as both "not a review" and "abuse of terms of service". Am I missing something? I did a bit of Googling and I can't detect any plagiarism.

>97 norabelle414:

That's very odd. I can't find anything that suggests a TOS violation, either, and they are certainly reviews!

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

Several of this user's reviews have been flagged "not a review," but I feel like "I read this a long time ago and remember not liking it" and "I quit reading after seven pages" both qualify under Lt's standards.

(Some definitely are not, though.)

And now we have a Counterflag feature. Hoorah!

I came across it when I read this review of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice but apparently authored by Anna Quindlen, who apparently wrote an introduction to one edition:

"OMG! I couldn't stand this book. It was horrible! I couldn't visualize a darn thing."

That had been flagged, incorrectly IMHO, as "Abuse of terms of service", which I don't see at all. I suspect that the flagger reacted to a counter-intuitive misquote of the title/author entries and had a knee-jerk reaction. I've read Austen in the past and not got on with her. I've also seen misattributed works because of the book entry, especially audio books where the work is listed as authored by the voice performer.

I assume that the counterflag only serves to start some sort of positive/negative tally rather than give the opportunity for counterflaggers to add comments. I shall be interested to see how this works.

(Cross-posted from 'When is a review not a review?')

(Classic touchstone fail: 'Pride and Prejudice' is, of course, the example given for a title touchstone, but I got 'no results' on drafting this cross-post...)

>101 RobertDay:

Please link to the review in question. I don't think anyone wants to plow through the 1100+ reviews of Pride and Prejudice to find it!

And, unless that is Anna Quindlen's account, or the quote was merely part of a longer review written by the account holder, it is a TOS violation.

And now we have a Counterflag feature. Hoorah!

We've had it for a very long time. And, no, you cannot comment on other people's reviews. It simply makes the flags go away so that the review re-appears.

>102 lilithcat: https://www.librarything.com/work/2773690/reviews/170806900

The user who wrote that review has cataloged the book as being written by Anna Quindlen, but that's not relevant to whether the review is a TOS violation.

>102 lilithcat: Sorry, Lilith, but I've never been able in nearly eleven years to figure out how to link to just one review. Not even my own. Here's the reviewer's reviews page, and you'll see that the review in question was posted just three days ago (and is still the top review by date of the 1100+ reviews of 'Pride and Prejudice').

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

The quote is posted is the totality of the review. And I'm reasonably certain that the OP isn't Anna Quindlen under another name.

And today is the first time I've seen the bright green Counterflag.

>104 RobertDay: Next to the date on every review is a little icon that looks like a chain; if you click that it takes you to a direct link for that review.

>104 RobertDay:

Thanks, your original post wasn't clear. I thought you meant that the review was a quote from Anna Quindlen

>105 norabelle414: Oh, that. I'm certain I've been told that before, but I sometimes get these Homer Simpson moments when a new bit of information pushes an old bit out.

>106 lilithcat: No probs, Lilith. I suspect the OF (Original Flagger) thought that, too.

Not sure I'm in the correct Talk topic, but here goes....

In Zeitgeist, under the recent firsts heading in Reviews, there are several posts that do not appear to be reviews at all. Just lists of star categories followed by a star rating by the member, xKEEFx

I did flag them as 'not a review' because I was under the impression there is supposed to be some commentary, no?
Apologies if I am mistaken.

>108 SandyAMcPherson: You can find these reviews at https://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=xKEEFx

>108 SandyAMcPherson:

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=xKEEFx is the link to those reviews.

It's interesting. If it were just stars, then clearly those wouldn't be reviews. But now we know that if there are three stars (for example), the book was found to be "Enjoyable; informative". Now that, alone, would be a review. Is it "not a review" because there is extraneous material?

So I am leaning towards counterflagging, but would like others' input.

>108 SandyAMcPherson: Yes, those should be flagged IMO

edit to specify: It's not the extraneous info alone, it's the fact that those same words apply to every single book with that rating. To constitute a review, it should contain something other than 'my general review method'

I also think these should be flagged.

>111 SandraArdnas:

it's the fact that those same words apply to every single book with that rating

If all his reviews said simply, "Enjoyable; informative", without the rest, would you flag them?

No, but they do not contain just that. Posting your general rating system over and over is not a review of a specific book. It's your rating system.

Unfortunately, even flagged it will still count as a review, so with books with only a few reviews you expect to read one only to discover there's one or two duds and no actual review. So I'm not entirely sure what purpose the flagging has. Presumably, when there are a lot of reviews, the flagged ones are pushed at the back of the line

>114 SandraArdnas: Yes the "not a review" flag pushes those reviews to the bottom of the list, but nothing else happens no matter how many flags a review gets.

>109 MarthaJeanne: and subsequent remarks:
I did look at http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=xKEEFx
and I'm in agreement with >114 SandraArdnas:, that it was a very unedifying to repeatedly show a rating system.

If someone wants to review their library/reading in such a manner, that (to me) isn't a problem. It is inappropriate when these ratings appear in "Recent Firsts" that I object. I use the "Recents" and "hot" reviews to stay au courant with what's generally newish on LibraryThing.

Maybe the "Recent Firsts" are selected poorly. Is it an automatic algorithm that needs redeveloping?

https://www.librarything.com/work/2348/reviews/157062722 needs counterflagging again.

https://www.librarything.com/work/1538/reviews/40817399

Yes, that's the same review from way back in >53 amanda4242:

That's odd. I don't seem to be able to counterflag at the moment.

>118 amanda4242: Someone really doesn't like your review. And now, thanks at least partly to them, you have 11 likes, so it's up between all the long 4 1/2 to 5 star reviews.

>118 amanda4242: Did >74 lorannen: ever get back to you? Or do we need to get kristie involved?

Hi, I've been here since 2006 and never used the talk feature before but I've suddenly been given a bunch of blue flags on reviews:

https://www.librarything.com/work/13518080/reviews/182855277

https://www.librarything.com/work/2773690/reviews/185278390

https://www.librarything.com/work/10504060/reviews/179116309

https://www.librarything.com/work/1500/reviews/185279003

This one's admittedly short but I posted it because it's the only review on that work:

https://www.librarything.com/work/10404802/reviews/177519007

If you're feeling more flaggy than unflaggy then this is definitely not an LT standard review (I'm the only member who owns this book and I added it manually myself) so feel free to blue flag it as I can't do it myself:

https://www.librarything.com/work/24952260/reviews/185279319

>122 spiralsheep:

Y'know, I sometimes think people don't know what flags are for, because there is nothing about any of those flagged reviews that warrants one.

Short doesn't matter. Tim famously said that a review consisting of "No" was fine. (Of course, it was his own review!)

RE: the last one, just because I'm curious. What does the list of countries have to do with the pamphlet?

>122 spiralsheep: What do you believe happened with your review of Persuasion? Did the staff send you a message about it?

>122 spiralsheep:, >123 lilithcat: I assume that the pamphlet consists of poems about the countries of the European Union (and possibly others). This I have gleaned from your review. So in this case, the list is a perfectly good review, if a little telegraphic.

>122 spiralsheep: All flags gone now!

We will never know why I suddenly had a blank review and a slew of blue flags. Fortunately it's more fun to speculate. I think it happens like this....

Once upon a time there was a blue demon-thing of unhappiness who hid inside a library-thing and spread misery by temporarily possessing people who are grumpy, out of sorts, or at odds with the world, and tempting them to stick mean blue pins into innocent reviews. Luckily inside this library-thing also lived a society of guardians clad in shining binary who had the power to magically erase blue flags of sadness using secret rituals involving special combinations of tapping and clicking. And so the people of the librarything lived happily ever after (or until the next time a blue demon-thing misbehaves).

Or, to put it another way, thank you all for your work in making LT a happier place to be.

>127 spiralsheep: If your review was blank, that would explain why people had blue flagged it. (Not saying they should have done so, but a blank box is definitely "not a review"). I'm just curious since you state in your review that the LT staff deleted it, what makes you think that.

>128 norabelle414:

Can't speak for >127 spiralsheep:, but if content was removed, only staff (or the reviewer) could do that, though it does seem odd that staff would have done so. Red flagging merely hides a review, it doesn't delete content. and blue flagging just groups those reviews if you sort by votes.

>129 lilithcat: Yes that's why I'm asking, I've never heard of staff removing the content of a review before

It's amazingly easy to enter a review and then forget to save it.

>131 MarthaJeanne: Yeah. I've also bungled html in reviews on occasion, which looks normal when I edit but displays blank when I save.

Depending on when the review was written, it might also fall into the lost data hole from a few years ago.

Someone didn't like my negative review, or maybe to be charitable thought that reviews where you mention not having finished a book are invalid (along with content, not as the only thing), and flagged it:

https://www.librarything.com/work/13206815/reviews/162016669

>134 lorax:

Done.

I do think that some people assume you must have read the entire book for the review to count. I disagree strenuously! If the reviewer says why she didn't finish the book, as you did in your review, that's very helpful to potential readers.

I have a number of flags again.

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

>136 MarthaJeanne: Done

There is still one review with both blue and red flags.

Thanks for dealing with the others.

>138 MarthaJeanne: Oops counter flagged for "not a review". Oddly, now I don't seem to be able to counter flag "TOS violation" though.

All good now.

I certainly don't see warning people that the ebook has illustrations over the text that make it impossible to read either as not a review or TOS violation.

I find the 'couldn't get through this' reviews very useful.

>140 MarthaJeanne: Agreed. I think I have a few of those too - and some I struggled through as a student, just because I had to.

ETA: I have a "This is PhD worthy?" and a "Total Rubbish" tag :)

Nicole_VanK (#141):

ETA: I have a "This is PhD worthy?" and a "Total Rubbish" tag :)

And how many times have you used those on the same work? ;)

:D I'm surprised to say : just once.

Most of the pseudo-science / pseudo-history / subpar research reports in my collection was not presented as a PhD thesis, I guess.

https://www.librarything.com/work/16075857

This work is flagged for spam, but an architectural firm has it cataloged probably as part of their firm's library. The user has been here since 2015 and I sincerely don't think this is a spam item.

>144 gilroy: I just split the author, and LT has three other titles by that author split. Two from the same member, and one from somebody else.

https://www.librarything.com/work/16272120

I've got another one that's not spam, it's a faulty upload that the user never came back to fix. This honestly does need the vote fixed as it's balanced. It's not spam.

>145 MarthaJeanne: Hope that doesn't get all of those works flagged.

I flagged my most recent review to test the Reviews page sort, and now I'm done.

Link deleted

Update: It's already cleared!

This venue image is receiving votes as a duplicate, but it's the only image for that venue:
https://www.librarything.com/pic/10167785
Please consider voting No.

(I'm wondering if the votes are continuing to accrue due to the right-sidebar saying "Other Pictures" which is misleading when there's only a single image.)

>149 Nevov:

I think there had been another image. Sometimes the uploader deletes the unflagged image.

Thanks. Incrementing the image ID number by 1 does lead to a missing image.

New user didn't understand what they were doing, I suspect. Marked a book as spam, but it definitely is not:
https://www.librarything.com/work/9012004
Needs a few votes to save it.

>152 gilroy: Seems to be saved.

https://www.librarything.com/work/116178/reviews/210938281

Short and I probably intended to write more at the time, but still not flag worthy?
Tx

>155 reading_fox: All clear.

BTW I seem to have collected several flags, including red ones. Probably because I write short reviews, including for books I didn't finish and gave low ratings to. I think, or at least hope that they might help other readers.

This author photo was originally a duplicate but now is the only photo in the gallery so could use some "no" votes: https://www.librarything.com/pic/9686325 Edit: see reply below.

>157 Nevov:

That's not why the painting (not photo) was flagged. According to the link given, the image is of one Fra Teodoro of Urbino, not Meister Eckhart. Both images in the gallery were flagged.

Ah thank you for the clarification, and the comment on the image.