I've seen some pretty poor copies of eBooks released here where I have a better copy and can post the better copy. But the rules don't allow me to post a better copy in place of a copy that's not as good. An example of this is The Last Man by Vince Flynn. What has been posted is an ARC copy. some version that is a pre-release that could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release. I have an original released ePub version that I would like to post, but I am not allowed to do so.

So can the rules be changed such that a better copy can be posted and then after the two copies have been compared, the better one can go up in place of the worse one? This would make things much better (IMHO).

I do hope this is taken into serious consideration as I've seen some really poor releases that could do with a better release and if anyone has such, putting it up would only help.

I What has been posted is an ARC copy. some version that is a pre-release that could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release. I have an original released ePub version that I would like to post, but I am not allowed to do so....

Did you look at the release? I don't think you can assume that it "could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release".

Anyway, you are welcome to post a mirror.

[Bohica60]

I What has been posted is an ARC copy. some version that is a pre-release that could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release. I have an original released ePub version that I would like to post, but I am not allowed to do so....

Did you look at the release? I don't think you can assume that it "could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release".

Anyway, you are welcome to post a mirror.

NO, he is NOT welcome to add a mirror! (Please read the rules regarding mirrors!) Do NOT do that, as we will only delete the post.

The solution here is quite simple. It is the same one we give everyone who has this complaint. (This is, of course, assuming that your only goal is to get a better version posted) Here is what you do:

PM (Private Message) the OP (Original Poster) and offer them your better copy. They can then re-up their links for their copy with new links containing your better copy.

See? Simple!

BTW, for those who are wondering: An ARC copy of a book is an Advanced Reader Copy.

This is usually an almost completed version of the book from the author/publisher sent to a few individuals for proof-reading BEFORE it is actually released. The final cut may have errors fixed, wording changed, even, in one case I remember, a different ending, than what is shown in the ARC copy.

Many people do not like them. Personally, I have no problem with them, although, if I post one, I do try to mention that it IS an ARC copy.

[hmorphone]

I What has been posted is an ARC copy. some version that is a pre-release that could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release. I have an original released ePub version that I would like to post, but I am not allowed to do so....

Did you look at the release? I don't think you can assume that it "could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release".

Anyway, you are welcome to post a mirror.

While it's true that the ARC might be better a better copy than qwertyuiop assumes it to be (without doing a more in-depth comparison), he/she isn't actually welcome to post a mirror. Per the rules, as I understand them, unless the links are down, the original poster fails to respond to a request to fix them via PM, and new links are requested by a third party (and quoted in the mirror post) it is against the rules to post a mirror. I myself recently had a mirror I posted removed because I posted it assuming that the requester had PM'd the original poster to get the links fixed first without a response, and they apparently hadn't.

I assume this is for the same reason it is against the rules to make your own release of a book that someone else has already released. As having worked on a forum in the past that allowed multiple members to post the same book(s), I can understand some of the reasons for the rule. While it might have increased the chances of having a surviving link, it felt awful to go through the work to be the first to release a book only to have someone else post the same book again the next day and take everybody's attention and thanks off of the release that you worked hard to put up.

That said, I understand qwertyuiop's frustration too. It can seemingly limit us to an awful copy of a book that is available in a much much better version. To stay within the rules a member can just PM the original poster with a link to the better copy and offer to let them replace their links with links to the better version. Assuming the poster is still available, if they are looking out for the best interests of all, they would probably be happy to change their links to the better version and make a note in their release about the upgrade. If they're unavailable, you could contact a mod to see at what point you could replace the release or add a mirror. If they are available, but unwilling to upgrade the links, due to perhaps a more self-serving desire to make releases (such as being monetarily rewarded by a file host) I don't know what you could do...

This is a case, as often happens, of a rule being in place that is seemingly used because it prevents even bigger problems than the new ones it creates.

*I see, refer to above, that Bohica60 has stated much the same, in a much more succinct fashion as I was busy composing this long winded reply...*

Okay I have read over this post and looked at all the sides of the subject and have this to say:

What if the member who posted the bad copy isn't an active member or RARELY around? I have come around to this on another forum I will not mention because of this subject before.

Two things happened:

1. They were an absent member for 3months after I posted that I had a better copy of something and offered it to them to post.
2. When they did come back, they told me off (even though I was nice) about it and said if the person did not like it, they could look elsewhere.

What do we do in this situation? Do we contact moderators? Or just let it go in stride?

That said, I understand qwertyuiop's frustration too. It can seemingly limit us to an awful copy of a book that is available in a much much better version. To stay within the rules a member can just PM the original poster with a link to the better copy and offer to let them replace their links with links to the better version. Assuming the poster is still available, if they are looking out for the best interests of all, they would probably be happy to change their links to the better version and make a note in their release about the upgrade. If they're unavailable, you could contact a mod to see at what point you could replace the release or add a mirror. If they are available, but unwilling to upgrade the links, due to perhaps a more self-serving desire to make releases (such as being monetarily rewarded by a file host) I don't know what you could do...

This is a case, as often happens, of a rule being in place that is seemingly used because it prevents even bigger problems than the new ones it creates.

Would this be a valid way of going about it?

[Bohica60]

Okay I have read over this post and looked at all the sides of the subject and have this to say:

What if the member who posted the bad copy isn't an active member or RARELY around? I have come around to this on another forum I will not mention because of this subject before.

Two things happened:

1. They were an absent member for 3months after I posted that I had a better copy of something and offered it to them to post.
2. When they did come back, they told me off (even though I was nice) about it and said if the person did not like it, they could look elsewhere.

What do we do in this situation? Do we contact moderators? Or just let it go in stride?

That said, I understand qwertyuiop's frustration too. It can seemingly limit us to an awful copy of a book that is available in a much much better version. To stay within the rules a member can just PM the original poster with a link to the better copy and offer to let them replace their links with links to the better version. Assuming the poster is still available, if they are looking out for the best interests of all, they would probably be happy to change their links to the better version and make a note in their release about the upgrade. If they're unavailable, you could contact a mod to see at what point you could replace the release or add a mirror. If they are available, but unwilling to upgrade the links, due to perhaps a more self-serving desire to make releases (such as being monetarily rewarded by a file host) I don't know what you could do...

This is a case, as often happens, of a rule being in place that is seemingly used because it prevents even bigger problems than the new ones it creates.

Would this be a valid way of going about it?

If in doubt, contact a Moderator. If the person is inactive, etc., (NOT the case here) we can work on it on a case-by-case basis. Of course we want the books to be available, but not at the expense of stepping on someone else's toes.

When they did come back, they told me off

In the case of something like this, definitely contact a Moderator.

If they are available, but unwilling to upgrade the links, due to perhaps a more self-serving desire to make releases (such as being monetarily rewarded by a file host) I don't know what you could do...

A few months ago I requested the full version of an ebook (the release posted had no illustrations) and someone kindly fulfilled my request. I did PM the release's poster mentioning that a full version for the book was now available at the fulfilled thread, but got no reply (this user is a major releaser, but I have no idea what his motivations were to ignore my PM).

Should a mod be involved in this case or is it just a "his release, his files" sort of thing? I also don't want to step on anyone's toes, but clearer guidelines would be appreciated.

[Bohica60]

If they are available, but unwilling to upgrade the links, due to perhaps a more self-serving desire to make releases (such as being monetarily rewarded by a file host) I don't know what you could do...

A few months ago I requested the full version of an ebook (the release posted had no illustrations) and someone kindly fulfilled my request. I did PM the release's poster mentioning that a full version for the book was now available at the fulfilled thread, but got no reply (this user is a major releaser, but I have no idea what his motivations were to ignore my PM).

Should a mod be involved in this case or is it just a "his release, his files" sort of thing? I also don't want to step on anyone's toes, but clearer guidelines would be appreciated.

While we would hope that ANY poster here would welcome the opportunity to upgrade his/her release material, unfortunately, there ARE some who are only in it for the kickbacks they receive from the file hosts based upon the number of times their files get downloaded.
These, for the most part, (not all of them) tend to be major releasers. That is NOT to say that this is true of ALL major releasers. And, as major releasers, many don't have the time (or choose not to take the time) to go and change their files. Some have other reasons.
All you can do is try to convince them to swap out the files. We do not force anyone to change their downloads simply based on someone having a better copy.

[hmorphone]

There is the one thing I left out - it is, I believe, within the rules to request a different type of copy (IE retail) of the book in the request section
Since we're referring to a third person, a forum member who is neither the releaser, nor the person holding a "better" copy, then if the released version is making them gloriously unhappy they can request what they need.
Then they, and any other forum member looking for the same (who takes advantage of the request,) are satisfied

Sometimes the rules, and the rest of it, all work out in the end

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Babymics for the work he/she's put into being a releaser, thanks!

I What has been posted is an ARC copy. some version that is a pre-release that could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release. I have an original released ePub version that I would like to post, but I am not allowed to do so....

Did you look at the release? I don't think you can assume that it "could have poor editing, errors, and even content that's been changed for the release".

Anyway, you are welcome to post a mirror.

I did PM you telling you I have a retail version of The Last Man. You decided to ignore my request to remove your ARC copy.

So given that all we have is an ARC copy and I have a retail ePub, what is it that can be done since Babymics has decided to ignore me? Also if I was to send Babymics the better copy to replace the ARC copy with, I would get no credit for the better copy. What incentive is there for me to do it that way?

I would like to have the rules amended such that we can post a mirror if we feel we have a better copy. This way, the users can be the ones to decide which copy is wanted. This would be in the best interest of the users. I've seen a lot of very poor copies that cannot be replaced with a good copy because of the rules. I know the idea is not to step on anyone's toes and I respect that. But surely, it would be best if we could get the best copies of a given book for the users to download and read.

Also, why can't we post a different format if such doesn't exist but a copy of the book does exist? That means if someone was to post a PDF copy of a book that could be posted by a different user in ePub & Mobi, that cannot happen. That (to me) makes no sense.

[mesquite]

There is no incentive to post retail quality anyways. Look at the earliest posts on site. Were they retail? No, you got what you could get and lived with it. So don't belly ache cause someone is ignoring your request to offer them a retail copy of a book and as to whether or not you can post the book if they refuse. Follow the set guidelines that are made for everyone to follow.

[merry60]

I did PM you telling you I have a retail version of The Last Man. You decided to ignore my request to remove your ARC copy.

No, Babymics did not ignore anything. He/she contacted a moderator (yours truly) and I replied that I would have normally encouraged a friendly agreement, but in this case I left it entirely up to her, including the possibility of doing nothing. I must admit that asking a faithful contributor to "get rid of your release" did not help your cause.

There's always something that can be done, we just have to work together so nobody's rights get crushed:
A) You offer your brand new perfect copy to the OP, the file is added to the main post with the neverending appreciation of the whole community.
B) We make an exception (happens all the time) and allow an unrequested mirror with your final copy in the very much appreciated thread, a smash hit in its time which still deserves the respect of the community and always will. With this option, you get rewarded for mirrors and, above all, you know you're doing the right thing

I am all for quality files and will personally remove my own posts to accept new releases with better copies than mine (good luck with that.) Other active users rights, however, are nearly untouchable. And you can be absolutely sure you can count on me and all moderators to help you if you are ever bullied into getting rid of a release of yours, whenever you have any.

I did PM you telling you I have a retail version of The Last Man. You decided to ignore my request to remove your ARC copy.

No, Babymics did not ignore anything. He/she contacted a moderator (yours truly) and I replied that I would have normally encouraged a friendly agreement, but in this case I left it entirely up to her, including the possibility of doing nothing. I must admit that asking a faithful contributor to "get rid of your release" did not help your cause.

There's always something that can be done, we just have to work together so nobody's rights get crushed:
A) You offer your brand new perfect copy to the OP, the file is added to the main post with the neverending appreciation of the whole community.
B) We make an exception (happens all the time) and allow an unrequested mirror with your final copy in the very much appreciated thread, a smash hit in its time which still deserves the respect of the community and always will. With this option, you get rewarded for mirrors and, above all, you know you're doing the right thing

I am all for quality files and will personally remove my own posts to accept new releases with better copies than mine (good luck with that.) Other active users rights, however, are nearly untouchable. And you can be absolutely sure you can count on me and all moderators to help you if you are ever bullied into getting rid of a release of yours, whenever you have any.

As for my asking for the original post to be removed, I did ask nicely. It would have been nice to get a reply. Yes, I was ignored regardless of Babymics mentioning this to staff. I never got a reply saying yes or no.

If someone has a better release then me, I'd be more then willing to remove mine as the idea is to have the best copies available. The reason I want credit is because I plan on starting to post and not just download and I want people to know when they see something from me, they will know it's a good copy. I don't want others to get known for good releases that are mine.

So in the case of The Last Man what is the best way to go about getting the ARC removed in place of the retail? Would Babymics be willing to accept the retail ePub from me to post as long as my name is mentioned as the source?

[red6devil]

qwerty, this is a friendly forum where users come and post books to help others. this belligerent attitude of your's is really not very pleasant but i suppose we could not expect more from a user who's user name is simply 19 consecutive keystrokes following the keyboard. if you don't want to post for the benefit of our users but for your own greater glory, then fine, find another forum.
to all those who do contribute to this forum may i wish you all a very Happy New Year.