Tuesday, May 29, 2007

LibraryThing/Random House Early Reviewers

This is a done-up re-announcement of Early Reviewers. We blogged it last week, but tentatively. Since then we've refined it a bit, particularly on "our end" (ie., the stuff you don't see). I also want to explain what's nifty about it—for members and particularly for publishers.

The idea is simple. Basically, LibraryThing and Random House will be giving out free pre-publication books in exchange for reviews.

The first batch includes:
What's cool here? Many publishers distribute "Advance Readers Editions" (AREs) to booksellers, journalists and—increasingly—bloggers. A few have formalized programs, like HarperCollins' First Look program--register and from time to time you'll get a book. LibraryThing builds on these, but it takes it a whole new step.

AREs are a tricky business. It's hard to get them into the hands of the right people, and harder to make those hands open them. Most are simple wasted. And they're not cheap. Although usually pretty flimsy, they're made in small batches, so they generally cost more to produce than the final hardcover.

LibraryThing Early Reviews solves this problem. Books aren't distributed randomly, but to the right people. The algorithm we're using has a bunch of factors, including plain luck. The core, however, is what LibraryThing knows that nobody else knows—the books in people's libraries.


If you saw this list clearly, we'd have to kill you.
To kick things off, Random House gave us a list of "similar books" for each title. We then washed these through a new recommendations algorithm, "sorting" the LibraryThing library according to their statistical proximity to these titles. We ended up with a 200 "similars" for each book. All things being equal, the more of these you have—and the higher on the list—the better your chances of getting a book.*

It turns out, this is a pretty powerful thing to do. Some reviewers pop right out—the ones reading lots of similar books. They're not guaranteed to like the book—nothing ever could—but they're the right people to review it. At the other end, it found members with hundreds or thousands of books, none of which are in the 1,000 similar titles. I'm not actually worried about bad reviews—bad reviews are fun!—but nobody is happy when books go to the wrong people. For starters, unlike professional reviewers, "regular" people don't usually finish and review books they aren't enjoying.

We thought hard about "exposing" the similarity information to users. But we decided against it. The lists are uncanily good, but they're ultimately subjective. I don't want to argue that X is more like Y than Z. And I don't want users to despair that they're never going to get books. If this thing works, they will. We'll get more books. Every book its reader, as they say.

I did, however, calculate every members "affinity" to the books on offer, and send invitations to the most eligible .5% who aren't already signed up for Early Reviewers.

Anyway, we think we've added a new twist to ARC distribution. We think this going to become something really big—big and "not evil" (in the Google pre-Chinese censorship sense).

Early Reviews does some other new things:
  • We promise not the let the *content* of a review affect your chances of getting subsequent books. I suspect this isn't always true when publishers send bloggers books--why keep sending someone books when they keep trashing them? LibraryThing is different here. First, we hope to match books and reviewers better in the first place. Second, our reviewers are our members, and LibraryThing stands or falls based on them, not on anyone else. If we started blacklisting members, we'd fall apart.**
  • We're starting with two batches of books from Random House. Starting in October, the program will be open to other publishers.
Anyway, check it out here: http://www.librarything.com/er/list .

*By the way, we only consider books added before Early Reviewers was announced. So, you can't spam this.
**Indeed, my greatest fear is that pure randomness makes a few people feel blacklisted, and they raise hell about it. Anyway, you have our word on this. Anyway, I've always felt that the best reviews were negative ones. It is, after all, much harder to be creative in "I love yous" than in "your mothers" and other put-downs.

Update: As explained before we have to stick with US members for now. But I've opened up registration to everyone. When we get a batch that can be distributed more widely, we'll let you know.

Second update: My friend, author Kevin Shay linked to a great blog post of his, The ARC of the Covenant.

Third update: Jessica Mulley shot me this link to an article she wrote about collecting galleys, proofs and advance copies. Actually, I'd already seen it; it ranks high in Google, but a read-through convinced me of it's value. I'm glad, however, that I'm not a book collector per se. It would get exhausting.

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ARCs? There's big money in ARCs!

5/29/2007 10:38 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Is the feeling from publishers that this will mostly be good for fiction, or is there a chance that nonfiction will be sent out for review as well?

5/30/2007 12:23 AM  
Blogger Anna said...

I love ARCs.

What happens if most of the books you own don't really reflect the things you read?

Also, have you seen this?

5/30/2007 1:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does it mean that you've opened registration up to everyone? Should people from other countries just sign up anyway and agree to the terms and conditions that state it's only for people in the US?

5/30/2007 1:13 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Hmmm...sounds like a pretty good argument for using the algorithm. Too bad it will probably skip over those users that read voraciously in a variety of genres, but don't have the means to have that show in their library.

(I use LibraryThing for the books I actually own, not everything I've read or as a wishlist.)

5/30/2007 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*By the way, we only consider books added before Early Reviewers was announced. So, you can't spam this.

Okay, but what about people who join from here on out? Obviously, all their books will be added after the announcement, so this would seem to bar them from the program, which would be rather unfair!

5/30/2007 8:46 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

>Too bad it will probably skip over those users that read voraciously in a variety of genres

Well, the algorithm doesn't "penalize" you for books. That is, I could have sorted the entire work system and used every book to determine "fitness." (This would be like making a list with the recommendations on one end and the un-recommendations on the other.) But that's not how it works. Books can only help.

Also, it tilts only slightly away from largeness. All things being equal if you have 32 books, 20 of them being good matches, you win over someone who has 3,200 books, 20 of them being good matches. But, as always, I assume that larger libraries indicate larger horizons, not divided horizons, so the effect is small.

>"Okay, but what about people who join from here on out? Obviously, all their books will be added after the announcement, so this would seem to bar them from the program, which would be rather unfair!"

Ah, no. It's book-by-book. So, if we announce that Harry Potter Seven is available on Early Reviewers--won't someone start that rumor for us?--we'll only count books added before the hour of the announcement.

>Should people from other countries just sign up anyway and agree to the terms and conditions that state it's only for people in the US?

Yes, basically. If we expand it, we'll add something on the bottom of the page about signing up for a book indicates agreement with the current terms. There isn't anything obnoxious in the terms. Actually, I rather enjoyed writing them up, and sticking easter-egg clauses in. Alas, like so many LT easter eggs, nobody noticed <pout>

5/30/2007 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, what Chris asked. Also, my continuing frustration with LT is that it is only about the books I own, versus the books I read. My permanent book collection is skewed toward specific types of books that I need to own for one reason or another; my reading circle is much broader. (I just *know* you would pick me to review Amy Bloom's book if you could only see the real me!)

5/30/2007 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*I* noticed. "Lecanomancy", indeed. I chuckled.

J.G. Nothing prevents you from adding books you've read but don't own to your "library"; the definition of what goes in there is up to you. Tag them somehow to distinguish owned from not-owned, so you don't drive yourself crazy looking for a book you don't have in your possession.

5/30/2007 12:04 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

There's no reason why it needs to be the books you own. Many users use it for both. The question is, should LT have a special way to mark these books, other than tags. I do think we should separately mark "wish list" books, but I'm not sure about "read but not owned." Every time we try to hash it out it becomes clear that not everyone divides things into these neat categories. Read, owned, partially read, not owned, lost, borrowed from libraries. There aren't clear, unambiguous categories that everyone wants to use with the same distinctions and granularity. When you get that sort of situation, tagging is the answer. Hence, tagging.

5/30/2007 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops: sorry. End of last comment was addressed to K.G Schneider. My typing and my brain were not in synch.

5/30/2007 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, but "just use a tag" sounds suspiciously like "it's a feature we don't want to deal with." Tagging in LT isn't quite as nice and smooth as it is in del.icio.us... I want a switch (which also means a filter).

Yes, I know, you shouldn't make a change because One User wants it. But still, the absence of such a switch indicates what LT is about: the books you have on your shelves (it's not called "ReadingThing," after all). If it were really about everything we had read (or remembered or would admit to reading ;> ) it would have features that supported that perspective.

After all that, I might start tagging my liberry books... gee, I wish I had been doing that for, you know, like the last 45 years...

5/30/2007 1:50 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Well, you know I think the world of you and what you do. You are the furthest thing from a anti-change librarian, but if you smell "we don't want to deal with that feature," I smell "I need my little non-overlapping buckets."

The problem is, what switch? Libray science is only just coming to understand that little non-overlapping buckets (on branches, perhaps) no more represents the swarming nuance, perspective and complexity of what books are about than the doings of Pawtucky Phil can stand in for poetry about spring.

Seriously, we add a switch—own, not own. People say, what about the books I borrow from the library? How about the ones I lost—my library includes a number of those. If lost, where? What about the books marooned at my parents' house? (I own them, but little good that does me two hours away.) How about the books I took out from the library but now want to own? Or the ones I took out from the library and am never ever going to return.

In sum, I submit that it is as foolish to think we can "bucket-up" the ways we relate to books as it is to think we can do it for the ways books relate to aboutness.

5/30/2007 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People say, what about the books I borrow from the library?

Not own.

How about the ones I lost—my library includes a number of those. If lost, where?

Own if you expect to recover it, not own otherwise.

What about the books marooned at my parents' house? (I own them, but little good that does me two hours away.)

Own.

How about the books I took out from the library but now want to own?

Not own.

Or the ones I took out from the library and am never ever going to return.

Own.

5/30/2007 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I've now tagged all of my books with "owned" (you see how badly I want to review Amy Bloom's latest; I heard her read at Book Passage in early September, 2001, and it was a very comforting memory for a while there).

Henceforth, I will use some scheme... libraryloan, personalloan, weeded?... to tag books that I have read that I do not own, though I will also clump them under notowned. (See that Boolean? Own, not own? It's like Zoe says. Own, not own. Don't mess with librarians on that Boolean stuff!)

5/30/2007 5:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I do think we should separately mark "wish list" books, but I'm not sure about "read but not owned."

See, you say this, but then you talk about how big "our" library is. Which I realize is just a rhetorical move, but if you're encouraging books that the communal library doesn't even own to be in the communal library catalog, then that seems like a really baseless statistic.

But that quibble aside: I think "own/don't own" is a good category to have, and if people want to specify the exact relationship in a tag, so be it. I am now using LT to keep track of books I read, but I'm also unwilling to include books I don't own in my LT, because I want to be able to point it to people and say "this is my library; if you want to get me a book, make sure it's not on here; if you want to borrow a book, see if I own it". So a "not owned" checkmark would be extremely handy and allow me to use LT in both the ways I want to use it.

But I'm just one user among skajillions...

5/30/2007 11:26 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

And apparently I barely read that the last few comments were hashing out what I just wrote. I vote "own/don't own" exists and Tim's iffy categories can be decided on a user by user basis (do YOU think you own it?), if those users even want to use such a system.

5/30/2007 11:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pawtucky?

5/30/2007 11:37 PM  
Blogger Blue Tyson said...

Not that I'm likely to be interested or even in the right place, given that list of books, but it is a pretty cool idea, the people and bookmatching. :)

A publisher like that trying some new tech is maybe amazing as well.

5/31/2007 12:16 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

>See, you say this, but then you talk about how big "our" library is. Which I realize is just a rhetorical move, but if you're encouraging books that the communal library doesn't even own to be in the communal library catalog, then that seems like a really baseless statistic.

I agree with you on wishlists, but I disagree on everything else. The books in my library that I've lost are just as much "mine" as the others, particularly when it comes to LibraryThing. They are as present to me as the others, as important to who I am. (Indeed more so, because I remembered to add them although I didn't have a physical copy to remind me.) I connect to other users, get recommendations and so forth based on them, and appropriately so. For all the "connections" that LibraryThing has, it might be more appropriate to exclude the books I own but will never read than the ones I read but do not own.

Besides, libraries list things as having the status "lost."

Does my point about wishlists-that they would be good--work for your comment on showing people the list. I mean, you DO want people to get things on your wish list, but not everything you lost needs to be replaced.

5/31/2007 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think implementing collections (and letting people use variable naming schemes) would solve the whole owned/notowned/read/unread/library/lost/nothere debate.

5/31/2007 11:35 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

How is a collection not a tag? UI alone or do we enforce non-overlapping bucket-ness?

5/31/2007 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All very interesting. When I first heard of LibraryThing I wasn't too interested - catalog the books I own? That sounds like work. But when I realized I could keep notes on what I read (and either return to the library or give to friends, usually) it was suddenly something I really needed to use.

I think I'll take a postmodernist stance on this. If I read it, I own it. (And I won't tell you how many books on my shelves I *don't* own... :o)

6/01/2007 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Late to the party as usual, but I feel like people aren't really recognizing the power of tags to distinguish "ownership" status.

You want to point people to a list of your owned books so they know what they can borrow/what not to buy you? Tag those books "owned" and send them a link to your library searched by that tag. Done. I've yet to see a compelling argument for the "just what I physically own" use of LT that can't be solved by tags. How many books are actually on your shelf? Tags will count for you. Do you use the library more for some genres but buy others? Tags know!

My LT is a mishmash of my physical and mental libraries... owned and read, owned but not read, read but not owned, etc. I have some connection to all of those books, and tags do much more than a lot of people seem to give them credit for in keeping the types of connections separate.

6/04/2007 11:43 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Just thought I'd let you know that this project made today's edition of Publisher's Lunch (email)...

6/05/2007 12:41 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Oh thanks. I get Publunch, but it's a luxury to read. I'll check it out.

6/05/2007 1:11 PM  
Blogger Jennifer Sardam said...

I'm already reading my copy of an ARE, "The Story of Forgetting," by Stefan Merrill Block and loving it. What a great way to get good books to read, for some a few moments of my time.

As a book blogger, it gives me new material to write about and share with others; and as a reader, I am always up on what's new. Glad to be part of this and thanks.

12/26/2007 10:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home