review flag?

Here (http://www.librarything.com/work/3420&titleauthorredo=1988795628) I found a copy-pasted review by Jaskier (Dec 1, 2015) from a review by Me-chan (June 19, 2014). Is this something that gets a flag since it is not an original review?

What I usually do in cases like this is leave a private profile message for the original poster. The vast majority of the time it's actually the same person under different member names. (If one reviewer is copying reviews from multiple other members, I'd both flag them and alert staff, but one reviewer copying reviews from a single other member is, in my experience, usually the same person.)

Edited to add: In this case, Me-chan joined and added all their books on June 19, 2014; Jaskier joined and added all their books on December 1, 2015. The rapid addition in both cases points to a bulk upload (making it unlikely that they did further editing like adding reviews), and there's a massive overlap between the two libraries, which is an additional point in favor of them being the same person. There are a number of identical reviews, and it's not like they're the sort of especially good reviews someone would want to plaigiarize.

Ah, thanks. I didn't quite go that deep, but I'll do that next time.

never mind. grouchy morning.

Just recording a member whose reviews are all advertisements for an event.

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

New member/author has "reviewed" his own works; but they consist of blurbs from other writers.

I have left a note on his profile explaining, but his reviews do need flags.

https://www.librarything.com/author/pringleru

Does anyone care that this library is using the review field incorrectly?

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

>7 2wonderY: Yeah... that's not okay. I'm messaging them.

OK, this organization is using reviews for info that's pertinent to each work . . but definintely not reviews. Do anything, or just message lorannen?

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

I think summaries count as reviews. That's what I saw in another thread in this group.

>9 karenb: Well, it looks like they're putting tables of contents into the review. That's were a lot of people place that information right now. So I'd leave it.

>11 gilroy: Oh, good to know. Thanks.

OakGrove-KFA has recently added over 3000 reviews, except they seem to be dewey numbers. Not much we can do about it, but aggravating.

Probably one of those annoying import issues.

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but lcslibrarian has 12000+ reviews that are just numbers. A lot of the recent ones have been flagged.

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

Probably a bad import, since all 12000 books were added on the same day.

New member today has bulk upload and uses the review space to note “not read.” I’d leave a message on the profile on how to better use collections or tags and bulk edit to mark them, but I don’t speak Portuguese.
Is there someone here who’d like to attempt it?

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

I have a question, and I hope this is the right place to ask. Is it okay for the same person to add multiple reviews of the same book? jon1lambert reviewed Dora Bruder five times (out of 21 total reviews). They are not the same, although each is five stars. They were added at different times. I find it quite odd.

>18 labfs39:

Yes, it's okay. It looks like jon1lambert really likes the book. He's got 10 copies (different editions) as well as books about it.

>19 lilithcat: LOL. I was wondering how he was able to review it so many times, but he did a review for each book. Now I know. Thank you!

I'm not sure where else to post this, but I just noticed that this new-ish user (with no books catalogued) has added 'published reviews' to some books that actually just seem to be promoting their own (publishing?) website. Not sure how many books they've done this with but I noticed it first on Broken (in the best possible way) and found the same on two others so far.

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

>21 Heather19: Member is now suspended.

>21 Heather19: That's been happening a lot lately. Thankfully, when a spammer is suspended, all their published reviews disappear, so there's no need to track down every one.
Next time you can report them here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/328354

Take a look at the “published review” on this page:
http://www.librarything.com/work/184370

Member https://www.librarything.com/profile/clauber1
is using the space for a personal review.

I would just go ahead and delete it, but the member’s library is private so I can’t check whether she’s done this for her other books too. Didn’t someone recently ask for a log for published reviews?

>24 2wonderY: Yeah over here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/333005

>24 2wonderY: Shoot a message to staff so they can check and also let the member know that's not the right place for their reviews.

Just checking back on a certain author because crappy people are acting up again. This review doesn't seem to discuss the book, includes an Amazon link for another book, and ends with a bogus URL that seems to be a common commentary for the poster. Further opinions, please?

https://www.librarything.com/work/21829285/reviews/162538617

>27 karenb: That review is very confusing.

How much, if any, of it consists of the member's own words? It looks to me as quotations from other writers were cobbled together into badly punctuated nonsense.

So... is it is an abuse of the site terms? I'm unsure. The so-called doppleganger might be the member.

Another problem is how little of the review appears to be responding to the book it's for. I guess when it's this confusing, flagging the posting as not a review is fair. All that happens is that a flag marks the review, and even if the member allows sharing, LibraryThing might not exclude the posting when it sends reviews offsite.

Including an Amazon link for another book makes it spam, IMO.

>28 aspirit: It's a regular account with thousands of books and other reviews that make sense.

>28 aspirit: I edited out the part about AI after looking at the member's profile. People playing with writing algorithms are usually upfront about it, as far as I can tell.

Author posted this as a review:

https://www.librarything.com/reviews/LaurieThomasVass

Either flag is appropriate.

New author added a “published review” citing

book sirens.com / mirrored on goodreads.com, Tara Lewis

The link goes to GoodReads, but I can’t get it to display anything.

Is this a valid published review?

http://www.librarything.com/work/30320428

>33 2wonderY:

From WikiThing:

Published Reviews are for reviews published in established publishing outlets. Do not add links or excerpts to reviews on personal blogs, customer reviews on Amazon, personal reviews on GoodReads, book descriptions, etc.

>34 lilithcat: That’s what I thought. I just wasn’t sure about BookSirens.

I wonder if this is the right place to ask? If not, please advise.

I was surprised to see one of my reviews flagged: https://www.librarything.com/work/30332240/book/241190597
I don't see what coulkd be wrong with it. Here's what it says in English:
The first case for Clément Chevalier, newly transferred to the Atlantic Coast. On his very first working day he is confronted with a murder. A family dispute turns into something more…
The commissaire carries way too much private ballast, which bloats the case unnecessarily. But you read this kind of mystery more for the travel tips than for suspense, and you get many recommendations for nice beaches on the Île de Ré.

I'm not on the Tourist Board for La Rochelle or the Aquitaine, if that's what they thought :-)

>36 MissWatson: I'm only guessing here, but some person may have seen that as a resume rather than as a review. Since I disagree, I'll counter-flag.

>37 Nicole_VanK: Thank you very much!