Selling Trends, Upcoming Blog Posts, and Motivation

Popularity of bare tweed Nancy Drew books

Right now the blue tweed and solid blue Nancy Drew books are selling briskly, so much so that I'm having trouble keeping an inventory.  Since my unlisted extras had dwindled to just a small quantity, I worked on sourcing more tweed books.

Pickings are slim right now, but I found some bulk lots to purchase.  These books arrived today and came from several bulk lots.  Click on the image to see it clearly.

The books aren't in the best of condition, and I paid more than I would have preferred, which was my decision.  If the books are selling briskly and I am having trouble sourcing them, then it's worthwhile to pay more than I normally would.

Both eBay and Etsy reward sellers who have regular sales by giving them better placement in the search results.  Since the tweed books are selling well, I need to keep them in stock so that the rest of my inventory has a chance at being seen in the results.

Some people think that the tweed Nancy Drew books are only worth $2 to $3 each.  All I'll say is that I paid more than $3 each for these books.  And I'm not keeping them; I will sell them.  

My profit margin will be narrow, but as I stated, it will be worthwhile since these books will help keep me in good favor with eBay and Etsy.

Recent comments now showing

A few years ago, I removed the "recent comments" widget from this blog because it wasn't working.  That was disappointing, since it was a way for blog followers to see recent comments, which can appear on any of the several thousand posts in this blog.

Last week I figured out how to get the recent comments back, so they are now visible once again in the right sidebar.  I can only have up to five recent comments displayed, but that is better than nothing.  This blog doesn't get very many comments, so checking the "recent comments" widget once every week or so is often enough.

Upcoming blog posts

I have given some thought as to how I can have regular new content in this blog even when I'm not writing posts.  I realized that I can post images that I have not already posted elsewhere.  I spent a good amount of time this weekend scanning glossy internal illustrations from the Nancy Drew, Dana Girls, and Judy Bolton series.  

I created posts with the images.  I have enough posts, if staggered once every few days, to last a few months.  Those will begin to post once I get them scheduled.  

I have written a post about digital and printed books plus another post on recent Keeper of the Lost Cities purchases.  Those will publish sometime soon.

Ongoing autoimmune flares

During the last month, I have had several autoimmune flares.  I know what triggered some of the flares, but others are a mystery to me.  One month ago, my thyroid levels were near optimal, and I feel that they are still quite good overall, although I keep fluctuating.  

I believe the most recent flare was caused by when I had to drive on very slick ice Tuesday of last week.  We had school that day when we shouldn't have.  It was a most harrowing experience.  It triggered a flare which seems to be ongoing.  I hope I'll come out of it soon.  

I mention this because the flares are causing me to lose motivation very easily and over things that normally wouldn't faze me.  

Varying Motivation

My motivation for posting on Facebook waxes and wanes.  I was enthusiastic a few months ago, and then I began to lose enthusiasm.  The problem is when certain people take the opportunity to pick my brain.

Let's say that I post an image of a Nancy Drew book.  Someone will then take the opportunity to ask me a very basic question that can be readily answered by a simple Google search.  I answer briefly, knowing what will happen next.  They then ask a follow-up question.  I answer again.  They then ask yet another question.  It is exhausting.

Other people will take the opportunity to ask me esoteric questions.  The problem here is that they choose to ask about something I don't know.  It's awkward and also tiring.

I am often asked "why" questions.  Especially common are the questions about whatever I have posted.  They ask me why the cover art was done in a certain style.  They ask why certain colors were used or why the logo was done a certain way.  

I don't know!  

These scenarios occurred several times on Facebook in the last couple of months, and my enthusiasm lessened.  During the last month, I have been wary when I have posted an image, wondering what I was going to get asked next.

I just want to encourage engagement, meaning that I want to read comments.  The comments can be short with minimal effort.  I don't expect anyone to go to a lot of trouble.  I just don't want my post to be interpreted as a signal to corner me and treat me like an encyclopedia.

Those of us who are treated like encyclopedias do feel used.  Other people have expressed this to me privately, and I feel that way at times as well.  I also feel taken for granted.  People just expect me to provide content for their enjoyment and have no idea how long the creation of that content takes.

Time-consuming content creation

I wanted to know how long the glossy internal posts were taking me.  For one book, I timed myself, not including the time to retrieve the book from and return the book to the shelf.  I found that scanning the images, editing them, uploading them, creating the post, and getting the images placed in the post took a full 15 minutes.  Multiply that by over 30 posts.  I must have spent over 8 hours working on the posts.  It was probably even longer than that, since I had to figure out how I wanted to go about certain things.

Questions that are welcome

On answering questions, I should clarify something.  If you want to open a discussion with me about color variations on picture covers, interesting buying and selling trends, library editions, whether a certain printing in Farah's Guide exists, whether Farah is correct on value and scarcity, your complaints about how collectors behave, and stuff like that, then I will be on board immediately.  It will not tire me.  I will enjoy answering questions and engaging in a discussion.

It's just exhausting having people ask me really basic questions or questions outside of my knowledge base.  I hope you understand the difference.  Ask wisely, and you shall receive.  Be careless with what you ask, and I will shut down.

The Burden of Being Visible in a Hobby

Those people who are more visible in a hobby often end up drained, sometimes even leaving the hobby.  The most memorable instance was when Rick Brant collector Jim Ogden disappeared in 2012.  He had a Rick Brant website, ran a Rick Brant group, and had published a Rick Brant guide.  We will never know why Jim abruptly disappeared from his online presence, never to contact any of us ever again.  He passed away on March 9, 2023.

Jim Ogden's Obituary

Godspeed, Jim.  We don't know why you left, but you had a lasting influence on our hobby.

Before I continue, I want to include a lengthy comment that I made on Facebook, since it is relevant to this post.

I can think of several reasons why a prominent collector would decide to withdraw. However, it's unusual for someone so prominent to make such a sudden break and never make contact again, not a single time to my knowledge. He did have a Facebook account, but he stayed away from all of us.

I was very prominent in the Zorro fandom from 2001 until around the time everyone moved to Facebook. Probably around the time Jim vanished from his Rick Brant group was when I began to pull back from Zorro. I ran a very active Yahoo! group for one of the Zorro television series (Family Channel New World Zorro version, 1990-1993).

I kept a contact link open. I have two Zorro websites. I continue to pay the monthly fees. I recently moved them to GoDaddy to get them out of Yahoo!'s clutches. I haven't disappeared, but I no longer run a group. I have a link to this Facebook page (Jennifer's Series Books) at the bottom of each Zorro site, and a few times per year someone will contact me through this page.

They don't contact me often, but they know where to find me. They don't know why I stay away, but I have a very good reason.

Another fan became unbearable.  They contacted me often.  It was kind of a stalker situation. Some of you have told me that it is a shame that I left.  Just understand that it was better to remove myself from that situation.  That fan took the joy away from me.  There was no way that I could continue.  Another fan removed herself at the same time that I did.  The two of us were targeted for a particular reason, and it was best that we escaped.

Everyone else has carried on.  As new Zorro Facebook groups have been created, one person always invites me.  I do join, even if I don't participate.

At least twice per year, I'll be tagged in one of the Zorro groups, and I do respond.  I am reachable even though I'm standing in the shadows.  They wish I would participate more, but that ship has sailed.  At least I'm reachable.

So I do understand reasons why someone would make a complete break from contact with other enthusiasts.  It's just disturbing for someone so very prominent never to keep a line of communication open.

I also want to give you an idea of what kind of situation this was.  Many of you remember two very needy, aggressive series book fans who used to be in the Facebook groups.  One fan was a disabled young man, and the other fan lived in a nursing home.  These fans constantly asked for free books.  They asked in the group repeatedly and sent many private messages, acquiring many free books. 

They were highly disruptive, and we removed them.  Both fans have multiple Facebook accounts, and we've had to block the other accounts upon their future attempts to rejoin the group. 

My Zorro situation was similar in that this person constantly harassed us two fans who collected memorabilia associated with the show.  He also interfered with eBay auctions.  The situation was toxic and was impacting my health.  I finally concluded that the only way to end the situation was to distance myself.  I gradually made myself not care as much and pulled away, which resulted in this fan leaving me alone.  Sure, he won, but I was happier.  

I will be selling some Zorro items in the next six months that could interest this fan.  I'm certain that he will surface instantly and will contact me begging me to sell the stuff that I will never sell.  That happened the last time I offered something on eBay. 

He's a desperate fan who won't quit.  He creates multiple IDs, so there's no way to keep him from creating another ID for contact purposes.  That's why I had to withdraw from my interest in Zorro.  It was unbearable.

Let's get into the rest of the post.

Being heavily involved (group moderation, writing collector guides, blogs, selling) in a hobby takes its toll.  People focus on those who are highly visible and expect them to solve every problem.  I have been told in confidence by someone prominent that they feel used at times.  I don't quite feel used, but I do feel that people take me for granted, expect too much of me, believe that I can answer any random question on command, and sell them books at low prices.  Perhaps I do feel used, even though I don't consciously think of it that way.

The worst of all is group moderation.  I am overall okay at the moment, but I wanted to flee as recently as early March.  I briefly considered whether it was finally time to cut myself free of moderating a large Facebook group.  That was at least 50% caused by my thyroid condition, which destabilizes my mental state when my levels are off.  However, the other 50% was caused by my increasing dislike of running a Facebook group.  
 
I remain dissatisfied, but I can keep going for now as a group moderator.  I don't see doing it forever.  As long as I still care about the group, I will continue.  Once I finally decide that I don't care enough, then I will let it go.  The series book collecting groups are just not that fun anymore. 

I want to read good discussions.  I'm talking about when people actually take the time to write at least a few sentences of insightful commentary.  That's what I want, and that is what motivated me to start a blog and create a Facebook group. 

My greatest desire in the series book collecting community is to be able to read good discussions.  Those discussions are minimal at best, these days.  I wish we could change that, but I don't know how.  I can't do it alone.

I've tried.  Every so often, I take the time to write up a post for the Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books group (Collecting group).  For instance, I might photograph my Vicki Barr books and post the photos in the Collecting group along with general series information.  It results in some discussion, but it peters out fast.  Some people use the opportunity to pick my brain, which gets exhausting fast.

They will ask random questions on my post.  Or they'll make an innocent statement that irks me to no end.  They'll say, "I've never seen some of these images before.  Thanks for posting them!"  They mean well, but I feel disappointment because I placed the images on my website some 20 years ago.  Yet another person doesn't know that my Series Books for Girls website exists, and I wonder why I ever bothered.  I probably shouldn't be annoyed.  It's a sign that I'm getting burned out.

You might have noticed that I no longer moderate the Sleuthing for Vintage Children's Series Books group (Sleuthing group).  I stepped down from moderating in late August 2022.  I never wanted that group in the first place.  I only created it because a prominent collector had been banned from the existing series book selling group and that person didn't like being unable to offer books in the Collecting group when we disallowed sales from that group.  I created the group for that person, who then never used it.

Running the Sleuthing group was an extreme nuisance that I hated.  It was just constantly having to tell people to put prices in their posts and constantly declining off-topic books.  I never wanted to run a selling group, so I finally quit.  I seldom check the group, since I find trying to buy on Facebook to be annoying and stressful. 

That was a lesson learned.  Never take on an unwanted task solely to appease somebody else.  It's never worth it.

In February 2022, I removed myself from another group I created, Vintage Chapter Books for Children (Chapter group).  I never wanted that group either, but I didn't mind watching over it that much since it had no problems.  We finally had to remove a prominent member from the Collecting group due to disruptive behavior that was aimed squarely at me.  I knew that I could no longer emotionally deal with being in a group with that person.  I removed myself from the Chapter group so that this person could be allowed to remain in that group. 

Most content that I post on Facebook is now just on my own Facebook page and in my own group that is linked to my Facebook page.  I mostly dislike posting in the larger groups.  I find that I generally get better responses on my page and in my group than I do in the large groups.  I suspect that this is also because some of you, like me, are no longer that comfortable in the larger groups.

I have another reason why most of my content must be on my Facebook page and in my own group. 

In the Collecting group, we have had a problem with sellers using the group to slyly promote their listings.  They might ask a question about a certain book, using the actual photo that will appear in the listing.  The book then goes up for sale within a day or so. 

We've had sellers post about their "book finds," but when they do, we can tell that something is off about the "find."  We do give them the benefit of the doubt in case we are misreading the situation.  Last fall, a seller kept posting his "finds," and a couple of members asked leading questions.  They sensed something strange.  The member posted the name of his online store in answer to one of the questions.

We warned this person that his posts were problematic.  They did it again, and the "book finds" began to be listed in their AbeBooks store within a few hours of the post.  I removed that person from the group.

Since I am a rule enforcer, I must follow the rules to the letter.  I can never post anything in the group that I might be selling within the next... oh, say three to six months.  People watch me a like a hawk and expect me to follow the rules strictly.  And so I should.

Most of my interesting observations are made when I am photographing books just before I list them on eBay or Etsy.  I can't post those observations in the group since I am in the process of listing those books.

Just last weekend, I noticed the brilliant ink on the spine of two cello Trixie Belden books from a lot that I purchased recently.  Most of the books will be sold within the next few months.  I had to post on my own page instead of in the group.

Awhile later, I was preparing to list Hardy Boys paperbacks.  I saw #90 and verified that it wasn't the first printing.  The first printing of Hardy Boys #90 has a defective binding.  I decided to make a post about how the first printings of Hardy Boys #90 and Nancy Drew #83 have defective bindings.

I wanted to put the post in the Collecting group, but I couldn't list a Hardy Boys #90 for sale that day if I were going to post about it.  I then saw that I already had one for sale that was listed last year, so I set that book aside and didn't list it.  I then proceeded with my post in the group.

I must be constantly mindful of everything I say and do in the group.  I am not allowed to just enjoy myself.  When I let my guard down, I open the door to criticism. 

It weighs on me.

Another Attempt at Series Book Discussion on Reddit

I created the Vintage Series Books subreddit in December 2020.  I want to see if I can get the subreddit to gain some ground.  If I could get some more series book collectors to join the subreddit with me, we might be able to have a go at it.  Some people are already there, but not enough are.  I expect this to be a difficult uphill battle.

Those of you who are on Facebook will likely not be interested.  That's the reality, since you have a social media site that works for you.  I haven't been happy with Facebook in years.  I will continue on Facebook since that is where nearly all series book discussion is, but I yearn for good discussion somewhere outside of Facebook.

I spend a lot of time on Reddit, far more than I do Facebook.  I find Facebook to be a bit bland these days.  When I join groups about certain topics on Facebook and join subreddits on those same topics, the discussions are much better on Reddit.  One notable example is the television series Big Brother.

Several years back, I joined three Big Brother groups on Facebook.  I left one of them pretty quickly when it became apparent that the admin was a bully who liked to denounce people in group posts when she kicked them out of the group.  She was toxic, so I left.  

I remained in the other two groups, but very quickly, I noticed how poor the discussions were.  Inaccuracies and outright lies were posted as fact, and the people posting them tended to get away with it.  Members posted lots of truly stupid stuff, and so I found the groups to be very low quality.

Big Brother discussion on Reddit and some other websites is better by a huge amount.  I quit going to the Facebook groups.  A couple weeks ago, after not having visited the Facebook groups for a couple years, I checked in on them.  I saw misinformation in recent posts in each group, information that I knew to be false because of the extensive discussions elsewhere online.  I immediately left both groups and consider them worthless.

Early in the pandemic, I joined some Covid groups on Facebook.  I had to leave immediately because of the poor moderation which allowed misinformation.  Meanwhile, Reddit had informative subreddits where misinformation was shut down quickly.

I have been following a current news story.  I'm on Reddit.  People there have mentioned the fighting and flaming going on in the corresponding Facebook group.

Famous people sometimes do AMAs (Ask Me Anything posts) in subreddits.  They'll post a photo of themselves while holding a piece of paper with their Reddit ID as proof that it's really them.  They usually don't stay long, but they do answer some of the questions.  That's neat.

The subreddit for Only Murders in the Building has attracted some of the people connected with the show.  Sometimes an actor will randomly pop in.  Other times, someone will do an AMA.

Facebook is a low effort, low quality site.  I believe that Facebook's algorithm has on average lowered the ability of people to interact intelligently.  We must put up with Facebook, since everyone is there.

Reddit is better at fostering discussion.  While Reddit users tend to post short comments, they are sprinkled with a heavy dose of humor that I find delightful.  The tone on Reddit is much better than Facebook.  People are much more likely to engage in lengthy discussions in among the short comments, resulting in many responses. 

Reddit is a throwback to the old Internet.  The plainness of the interface is similar to what we had in the old Yahoo! groups.  I like it.

Reddit works by using a system of upvotes.  When a good comment is upvoted, it floats up higher in the list of comments attached to the post.  Posts also can get upvotes, and this causes them to float up higher in the subreddit.  The upvote/downvote system helps to keep the low quality comments down at the bottom where they are less likely to be noticed.  

Last night I made a number of posts in the subreddit, using some of my recent posts from Facebook.  I am going to try to put in some effort and continue doing so at least in the short term. 

I hope that some of you who are not on Facebook will consider joining Reddit.  I understand that Facebook users won't be interested, and that's okay.  I'd love to reconnect with those of you who avoid Facebook.  We can have our own parallel discussions about series books. 

To join Reddit, you just need an email address.  You create a user ID, and you're in.

r/VintageSeriesBooks/

The Whitman Book Dilemma Part 4

This post contains lists of Whitman books that are fine to discuss in the Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books group.  Even though we now have a guideline to use when approving posts, Whitman books will continue to be a problem.  Whitman books have a certain appearance, which makes them all appear to go together.  I believe that most people view the Whitman books as a publisher's set of general children's books.  I sort of view them that way.

When we approve Whitman books that are from actual series, members who see all Whitman books as a publisher's set will unfortunately have their mistaken belief reinforced that all Whitman books are okay.  My hope is that we have to spend much less time discussing Whitman books in our moderator chat.  We're still going to have members submit Whitman books rather often that are inappropriate, but hopefully we can reject those books without having to go through lengthy discussions about what to do.

Whitman published many series books, probably far more than you realize.  All of these series are fine for the group.  I did not go to the trouble of listing the titles of the books.  I have only given the name of each series.

Whitman Series Books

Andy Lane
Bert Wilson
Blythe Girls
Bobby Blake
Bobbsey Twins
Brains Benton
Donna Parker
Fighters for Freedom Series
Five Little Peppers
Ginny Gordon
Hal Keen
Joy and Pam
Judy Jordan
Kim Aldrich
Mary Lee
Meg Duncan
Nurses Three
Outdoor Girls
Pee-wee Harris
Polly Brewster
Polly French
Power Boys
Rex Cole
Rip Foster
Robin Kane
Rover Boys
Rushton Boys
Great Marvel Series (Roy Rockwood)
Tarzan
Timber Trail Riders
Tom Slade
Tom Stetson
Tom Swift
Trixie Belden
Troy Nesbit
Trudy Phillips
The Tuckers
Walton Boys

To clarify, Fighters for Freedom Series consists of standalone stories grouped together and branded as a series.  We will not accept any other standalone books.  These books will be accepted because they are grouped together as the Fighters for Freedom series.  That name is on each dust jacket.

I feel that accepting the Fighters for Freedom books is highly problematic since a number of standalone Whitman books from the same period could be confused with them.  However, we will continue to accept them unless we decide that they are causing too much confusion.

1.  Sally Scott of the Waves, Snell
2.  Barry Blake of the Flying Fortress, Du Bois
3.  Nancy Dale, Army Nurse, Radford
4.  Kitty Carter, Canteen Girl, Radford
5.  Dick Donnelly of the Paratroops, Duncan
6.  Norma Kent of the WACS, Snell
7.  March Anson and Scott Bailey of the U.S. Navy, Duncan
8.  Sparky Ames and Mary Mason of the Ferry Command, Snell
9.  Punch Davis of the U.S. Aircraft Carrier, Snell

The rest of the books listed in this post are from series based on a real person set in a fictional story or based on the likeness of a real person set in a fictional story.  They are okay for the group and will remain okay until or unless we find that any of them are causing confusion.  I am uneasy about continuing to accept these books due how they will be confused with the authorized editions.  However, they are actual series, so we will continue to accept them.

Annette

    Sierra Summer
    The Desert Inn Mystery
    The Mystery at Moonstone Bay
    The Mystery at Smugglers' Cove
    Mystery at Medicine Wheel

Gene Autry

    Gene Autry and the Thief River Outlaws
    Gene Autry and the Redwood Pirates
    Gene Autry and the Golden Ladder Gang
    Gene Autry and the Badmen of Broken Bow
    Gene Autry and the Big Valley Grab
    Gene Autry and the Golden Stallion
    Gene Autry and the Ghost Riders
    Gene Autry and the Arapaho War Drums

Janet Lennon/Lennon Sisters

    Janet Lennon: Adventure at Two Rivers
    Janet Lennon and the Angels
    Janet Lennon at Camp Calamity
    Lennon Sisters: The Secret of Holiday Island

Roy Rogers

    The Gopher Creek Gunman
    The Raiders of Sawtooth Ridge
    The Ghost of Mystery Rancho
    The Outlaws of Sundown Valley
    The Rimrod Renegades

The Whitman Book Dilemma Part 3

I want to give an idea of the lengthy, involved discussions that the moderators have had about various Whitman books over the years.  I went through our moderator chat and found where we have mentioned the Whitman books.  Below, you will find comments that I have made about the Whitman books.  You're only getting my part of the conversation, but you should pick up on how difficult this has been for us.  We have needed a specific guideline that we can follow so that we do not contradict ourselves.    

October 15, 2017 

What about Whitman books?  Quite often we have had new members post Whitman books that I do not consider series books.

May 12, 2019

Yesterday I closed comments on [redacted]'s post that was almost all general Whitman books and a G.I. Joe thermos.  [redacted] contacted me since she was upset at my action.  I explained further and she deleted her post.  Her feelings were quite hurt.  She never did repost her books in the other group like I suggested.  People just want the Collecting group to be everything.

June 2, 2019

Regarding Patty O'Neal, it probably isn't a series.  However, since that kind of Whitman book tends to appeal to members, I'm inclined not to worry about it.  

June 2, 2019

I view the Whitman books of the 1940s as like a publisher set or series, so I'm okay with those showing up sometimes.

Sept. 5, 2021

Peggy Parker, Girl Inventor is part of a publisher set/series which features the Bonita Granville book among others.  The other books in the set are similar to our books (although most tend to be boring or weird).  I feel like it would be okay since the other books are okay.  Do you agree or disagree?

Sept. 13, 2021

I agree, and it is happening because of [redacted]'s Whitman post and is not unexpected.  Whitman books (aside from Trixie and other obvious series) always cause problems.

I should not have approved the post with Lassie in it.  I did because the other books were generally okay, but Lassie shouldn't have been the first book pictured.  These people don't understand group optics at all.

November 23, 2021

I declined the attached post with this reason:  "We find that the Whitman TV books cause the group to go off topic.  If you can resubmit the post without the Rin Tin Tin book, we can approve it.  Thanks!"

I just realized that Rin Tin Tin is probably one of the books in the 1958 Whitman DJ set that includes one Trixie Belden book... Like always, some posts are in the gray area making it tough to make the best decision.

January 26, 2022

I saw the post before reading this chat, and I just declined the post.  So I agree.  No Whitman television books, period.  We're done with allowing those.  They aren't our kind of series, so they don't belong.  I suggested the other group, as I always do.  People wanted the other group to exist, but they won't use it.

March 7, 2022

The Whitman books are problematic since whatever we approve leads to ones that are completely off.  See [above].  I am partly inclined to approve it since it fits with some other books that have been mentioned lately.  On the other hand, it's an authorized edition of the type we often decline.  It should be noted that we generally allow the movie star books of the 1940s.  Which way do we go?

March 7, 2022

It would be easier if we just reject all Whitman books outside of the obvious series books.  Should we just do that?  If we do reject all of them, should we also start rejecting all adaptations based on actual people like Annette and Janet Lennon?

March 8, 2022

I have read all of the female movie star books... and know that they are just like our series books.  That is why I've always approved posts about them, although I feel they are problematic due to people then thinking all Whitman books are okay.

The reason why I thought Joyce of the Secret Squadron might be okay is that it takes place during WW2, and we have recently discussed some series books set during the war.  I don't feel that those series books set during the war are strongly on topic, but we don't disallow everything that isn't precisely like Nancy Drew.

This is a real dilemma.  If we are going to continue to allow the movie star books of the 1940s and also war-themed series books, then this book seems to fit our focus.  Looking into it further, it is based on the Captain Midnight franchise, which means that we should reject it like the later Whitman TV books.

So, we could decline it because it is an authorized edition from a filmed franchise.

I don't know if Annette and Janet Lennon read that differently from Meg Duncan and Robin Kane.  I don't care to disallow Meg and Robin, but most of our group probably isn't into them.

March 8, 2022

I'm thinking this through as I continue to respond.  We need a clear guideline.  All Whitman books based on filmed versions should be declined, which means we decline the Joyce/Captain Midnight book.  Do we agree with that?

This still leaves us with the movie star books of the 1940s as well as Annette, Janet, etc.  They aren't based on filmed media, so they are different.  They are exactly like the movie star books of the 1940s.  Whatever we do on the movie star books, then we should do the same on Annette, Janet, etc.  They are no different.

March 8, 2022

The only ones I'm struggling with are the movie star books, Janet Lennon, and Annette.  They are a problem because people then think that the authorized editions are okay.

We can decline the pending post [Joyce of the Secret Squadron]...  All books from franchises that originated in filmed media should be declined...

But do we continue to approve the books where real people were used as the characters in completely fictional stories?  Maybe we should since they aren't actually an authorized edition from a franchise.

March 8, 2022

[in response to a suggestion to allow movie star and Annette/Janet Lennon]

That sounds fine.  I feel that the same decision should apply to the movie star books and Annette/Janet Lennon.  

May 22, 2022

I approved a post that includes Peggy Parker, a Whitman book in the gray area.  We previously discussed Peggy Parker here, and a post by [redacted] was allowed in the group in September.  For that reason, I went ahead and approved the post after I refreshed my memory on the situation.

July 4, 2022

Approve or disapprove?  I'm struggling, which often happens with these books.  I've searched our conversation here to see what we've said before.  Generally, we decline books where the franchise originated in filmed media.  I think these would fall under that.  

July 4, 2022

That's where my problem is; I thought of the Lone Ranger.  I was definitely a "no," but then I started thinking about it.  I'll wait for at least one more opinion before I do anything.  I can be convinced either way.

July 5, 2022

The problem is that we have accepted Jane Withers and similar before.  We have also accepted Annette and the Lennon sisters...  We are contradicting ourselves, which is why I don't know what to do.  We allow some and then not others.  We haven't been consistent.

It would be easier if we quit allowing all books that feature real people's names in the titles.  Our inconsistency makes it hard to make a decision.

July 5, 2022

I don't know that we have had complaints about off-topic books.  The problem is that we are boxed in somewhat more than we should be.  This, of course, was caused by [redacted].  

I know that [redacted] feels like we shouldn't be quite so strict.  However, I don't know how to ease up.  It would very quickly go too far towards general children's books.

Also, we do approve Troy Nesbit books.  The Gene Autry books are probably a lot like them even though an actual person's name is on the books.

To me, this is a mess.  Whitman has been a big problem all along.  I don't know where to draw the line.

I was going to decline the Gene Autry post, but I can't say that we don't allow books with real people in the titles.  We do allow some of them.  What do we say?

July 5, 2022

I see the Gene Autry books as similar to Lone Ranger and Troy Nesbit.  They are all westerns, and they are series.

July 5, 2022

It sounds like we've switched to approving them.  I will do so and will also approve the other post about the Walton Boys series.  Obviously, we will need to continue to discuss Whitman books in the future as the need arises.

This should give you an idea of our indecision concerning the Whitman books.  We want to be fair and consistent.  That is very hard to do without having a clear guideline.  I see the books published by Whitman as being all over the place.  The books are series, authorized editions, general children's books, reprints of classics, and compilations of short stories.  People tend to lump all Whitman books in together, but we cannot accept all of them.  

Two weeks ago, I presented to the other moderators what I thought we should do.  At first, they agreed with me until I remembered that I had forgotten to mention certain books.  That was when we began to disagree.  We found it impossible to come to a consensus regarding all of the Whitman books in the 2300 set.  

Finally, I suggested that we disallow discussion of the Whitman movie star books from the 1940s.  Allowing those books has caused the conflict and inconsistency.  If we were to continue to allow those books, then we would need to begin allowing certain other books in order to be consistent.  I do not feel that the other books belong in the group, so we must disallow the movie star books.

We will not approve posts with Whitman books that are the movie star books, books based on comic strips, standalone books, reprints of classics, general children's books, or the television tie-in books.

My final post on this subject will contain lists of which Whitman books we will accept in the group.

The Whitman Book Dilemma Part 1

I recently took a careful look at the books published by the Whitman Publishing Company of Racine, Wisconsin.  The Whitman books have been problematic for the moderators of the Facebook group, Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books. 

All traditional series published by Whitman have always been fine for the group.  Some examples are series like Trixie Belden, Robin Kane, Kim Aldrich, Troy Nesbit, and many others.  That has never been in question.  

We also have a firm guideline on the television authorized editions, which is that we do not allow them.  Everyone loves the television authorized editions, but accepting those books into the group would give the appearance that the group is a general nostalgia group.  We must be careful.

We have allowed some of the Whitman Authorized Editions from the 1940s, and this has been central to our problem.  

17 years ago, I created a page about the Whitman movie star books from the 1940s.  My page only featured the female movie stars.  The page was inspired by an article that was published in the August 2000 issue of The Whispered Watchword newsletter:  "Whitman 1940s Movie Star Books for Girls" by Betsy Caprio Hedburg.  That is why I only covered the female movie stars.  

Three movie star books feature men. 

John Payne and the Menace of Hawk's Nest (#2385), 1943
Gregory Peck and the Red Box Enigma (#2305), 1947
Van Johnson: The Luckiest Guy in the World (#2324), 1947 

I have changed the title of my website page about these books.

Whitman Movie Star Authorized Editions

I have added the three books featuring men to the list of titles.  I made a few edits to the text of the page so that the author information would include the three additional titles.  I also purchased copies of the books so that I could scan the jackets and add them to the cover art gallery.

In the Collecting group, we always accepted posts about the movie star books of the 1940s, but this caused an inconsistency due to us not accepting other authorized editions.  Some of the other authorized editions could be okay as well, but others definitely do not fit.  Since the moderators have not read most Whitman books, making a fair decision is a real problem.

The movie star books are part of the Whitman 2300 set from the 1940s.  The Whitman 2300 set contains a wide variety of children's books.  

We have not been in agreement with how far to go.  A simple solution would be to allow the entire 2300 set, but many of the books are outside of the scope of the group and would cause some members to think the group is a general children's book group.  For that reason, we cannot allow all 2300 books.  

In an attempt to find a way to make a definite decision, I looked at the 2300 books and placed them in lists by type.  The 2300 set includes the movie star books, books featuring western stars, books based on comic strips, the Fighters for Freedom series, and some standalone books by various authors including Ruby Lorraine Radford.  

To find titles of the Whitman 2300 books, I used the reference book, Whitman Juvenile Books.

The book is not exhaustive, so many Whitman books are not in it.  This is why advanced collectors tend to criticize books like it, but I still find these books to be a great jumping-off point.  Nothing is wrong with using an imperfect or incomplete book as a place to get started.

Consider my website, Series Books for Girls.  Most series that exist are not covered on my site.  Does that make my site a bad source?  I think my site is a good source for what it covers, but series fan enthusiasts must supplement with other sources.

I found two websites that list Whitman titles and used those to help me group the books.  

Whitman's Authorized Editions/Authorized TV Editions

Whitman Juvenile Books

The "Whitman Juvenile Books" page has some phantom titles listed that do not exist.

A complete source listing all Whitman books does not appear to exist, but combining these sources enabled me to create lists of the different types of Whitman books.  My lists will follow in my next post on this subject.

Keeping a Facebook Group from Being Boxed In

This is an update on my post, "The Growing Pains of a Facebook Group," and it is also strongly tied to my post, "Gatekeeping of Opinions in the Facebook Groups."

Last month, I once again explained the focus of the Vintage Teen Books group to members.  As a result, several people went off on me, saying that I was wrong about the group's focus and that I needed to "do better" with my moderation.

I didn't write about all of the comments that members made.  I now want to focus on one complaint that I skipped mentioning last month, since it had to do with gatekeeping.  In fact, this came from the same person who had previously accused a member of being a "mansplaining male," detailed in my post about gatekeeping in the Facebook Groups.

What happened is that somebody looked up the book and found out about the overweight characters.  They said that the book featured fat-shaming and bullying.  Someone else responded to that comment saying that social norms were different back in those days and that the book should be read with an open mind.  The first person then went off on the second person, calling them a "mansplaining male" and saying that they were trying to explain women and eating disorders.  The first person then reported the second person's comment to the mods. 

The person who had made the comment about the "mansplaining male" then complained last month about John Benton's teen books.  John Benton was a reverend who ran the Walter Hoving Home in New York, and he wrote books based on the experiences of the girls who went through the program.  The girls were drug addicts and prostitutes and were saved through their conversion to Christianity.

On May 9, this person wrote, "In light of what is going on with Roe v Wade and other issues in the news, I don't think they should be allowed again... books like those should not be posted because we would never know their complete content and don't know just from the summary how unjust women are being judged or talked to in them."

On May 9, I responded as follows:

This leads us onto a slippery slope.  Books that are 20 to 40 (or more) years old typically have content that is now unacceptable.  If we start disallowing content that could offend someone, then we will end up boxing ourselves in.  I know this from past experience with other groups.

If we say that certain books with potentially objectionable content are banned from the group, then some members will start pushing for lots of books to be excluded from the group that shouldn't be, simply because they don't approve of those books.

I then looked up the books and added this response:

I read some reviews.  I don't see a problem, and I don't want the post taken down.  We will not start censoring which books within our focus are mentioned in this group.

Many books in this group have themes or passages that are now offensive.  We might as well disband the group if we start disallowing books that could offend some members.

If any books seem offensive, my suggestion is for members to scroll past the books and ignore them.

I thought that settled it.  Meanwhile, I had become curious about the books.  I wanted to know exactly what was in John Benton's books that made the books unacceptable for discussion. I ordered four of the books so that I could see what they are like.

I read one last week.  I liked it a lot, so I decided to purchase the rest.  I then posted about my actions in the group.  That led to what happened on Friday.  On my post about the books, the member who had complained on May 9 made this statement.

with the OVERTURNING of R v W today, I am leaving this weird group that is supposed to be about safe young adult lit!

They also stated, "[T]here are gay members of this group!" followed by "who won't feel safe in this group for long!"

I was initially quite puzzled.  I wrote:

I find these statements to be perplexing. Many members of my groups are gay.  I am protective of those people and will not tolerate homophobic comments.

This book, Denise, does have some very offensive statements about gay men. I cringed when I read them.  When I review this book in the near future, I will mention that the book contains offensive homophobic statements.  I will not quote them.  I don't want those statements in my blog or in this group.

I finally realized that this person made an assumption about what I think about gay rights because I am reading some books written by a Christian.  Furthermore, they are making assumptions about what I think about the Roe v. Wade decision and are tying it to what Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion.  What I am reading has nothing to do with current events.  The two should not be conflated.

Someone asked what the Supreme Court decision has to do with the group.  I wrote:

Some people are so sensitive that they cannot stand anything that contradicts their own view of the world.  I've been in this position many times where someone wants the group to be different.  They eventually leave when they can't change my mind.  I do feel that it's best that she decided to leave since these books upset her so much.

What she doesn't understand is that if I start agreeing to ban discussion of what she wants, then other people who have different world views will ask for certain books to be banned from discussion.  I can think of quite a few books that deeply religious people might dislike, like all of the Dark Forces and Twilight Where Darkness Begins books.  I'm not going to say that certain books are okay and others aren't other than enforcing the main guidelines of the group.

After I wrote my explanation of why the person complained about John Benton's books, a second person, who took me to task last month, decided to have another go at me.  This second person is the one mentioned in my previous post who said that I was "nitpicky, impersonal, and unwelcoming."  I almost removed that person from the group last month.  I decided to give them another chance since it was possible that they were just having a bad day.  They told me this:

I find your philosophy puzzling.  Surely the point is that the content is not condoned or validated by its presence in the group, and that's why.  That makes sense.  [T]his should be explained to be people who are upset.  You did try a little, but then you belittle the person.  Not necessary.

Since it is now apparent that this person has a problem with me and will not stop, I have removed them from the group.  

I did later consider that placing a disclaimer in the group rules does have some merit.  I subsequently decided that making a disclaimer would likely cause more trouble in the long run.  The people who cannot stand anything that is not politically correct should just leave the group if they are bothered.  Nearly everyone knows without being told that the moderators of groups do not condone offensive content found in old books.  

I am fighting to keep the Vintage Teen Books group from being boxed in.  That is what some of these people are trying to do.  I cannot allow it to happen.  

If I agree to ban books from discussion due to the mention of religion, abortion, or sex, then we will become more and more boxed in with cumbersome rules and fewer books allowed.

I have figured out how to clearly describe the focus of the Vintage Teen Books group:  pre-2000 young adult books that feature characters of ages 15-19.  All books that fit the criteria are fine, regardless of whether they feature werewolves, prostitution, or light fluffy romance.  

I do plan to read and review John Benton's teen books.  They are interesting to me.  My favorite teen books are the ones where the protagonist has a real struggle.  Girls caught in an endless cycle of prostitution and drug addiction struggle mightily.  The books aren't for everyone, but I am enjoying them.  John Benton's books have gotten me back into reading vintage books for the first time in nearly three months.  I am not backing down.

The Growing Pains of a Facebook Group

The biggest problem with Facebook groups is that the wrong people join them.  Any group with a name featuring a genre (teen books, series books) is a difficult group to manage due to members' loose interpretation of the group's name.

Groups that have specific names (Stephen King, Nancy Drew, Sweet Valley High, etc.) do not have as much of a problem with maintaining their focus.  All members understand the focus, so off-topic posts are kept to a minimum.

In my post from March 8, I explained what I had done to make the focus of the Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books and Vintage Teen Books groups more clear.  My efforts appeared to be working, since membership requests had fallen dramatically.  Now some 2 1/2 months later, I can report that the changes I made continue to greatly suppress the membership requests.  In the Collecting group, membership requests are down by 73.1%.  In the Vintage Teen Books group, membership requests are down by 77.42%. 

While series books and/or vintage teen books are important to the people in our collecting community, they are of little concern to the general public.  It never made sense for 50 to 100 (or more) people to join each group per week.  At least that part of the problem has been solved.  

The Collecting group has been a big problem for years, but it has calmed down and is not as much of a problem as it once was.  We firmly control what we allow to be posted to the group, and we are no longer being harassed by certain manipulative people. 

I wrote in early March that I didn't want the Vintage Teen Books group to follow the same path as the Collecting group.  Sadly, that is exactly what has happened.  The Vintage Teen Books group is now the bigger problem.  The Vintage Teen Books group is now where the Collecting group was around five to six years ago.

The Vintage Teen Books group is at the stage where members criticize the moderator (me) and nitpick everything that the moderator says or does.  Oh, such fun.  This takes a lot out of a person.

I rejected a post in the Vintage Teen Books group, received a rude response, and then posted about it, thinking that I could use the situation as a teaching moment.  That was a big mistake.  Here is the text of my post.

A post featuring books written by Cynthia Voigt and Ellen Conford was submitted to the group yesterday. I was unfamiliar with the books and felt that the covers of some of them were ambiguous as to the age of the characters.

I took the time to look up the books by title and author and found summaries. I do not reject posts without being absolutely certain that some books don't fit. I found that a number of the books did not feature characters in their late teens.

I rejected the post with this reason: "Several of these books do not feature high school or college age teens. For that reason, we must decline the post. Resubmit with only books featuring older teens, and we can approve the post. Thanks!"

Today that person sent this response: "Posts are being declined because they’re not high school age. Ellen concord and Cynthia voigt are ALL high school. This page blows. Peace."

That person has left the group, which is a shame since they were mistaken.

These are the books that caused the post to be rejected. After the title, I have stated the age or grade of the main characters.

Ellen Conford:  Dreams of Victory (6th grade), Anything for a Friend (age 11); Hail, Hail Camp Timberwood (age 13), And This Is Laura (age 12)

Cynthia Voigt:  Bad Girls (5th grade), Bad Girls in Love (8th grade)

The other books in the post were fine and would have been great for the group.

We cannot approve posts that contain any books with characters who are 13 or younger. If we let the middle-grade books begin to sneak back in, they will take over the group. Thank you for your understanding.

After reading my post, a few people gave their opinion on the rules.  One person wrote that they posted about some of Voigt's middle-grade books in a teen group and that the post was well-received because of how they explained the differences between the teen and middle-grade books.

I replied to the comment as follows.  "When all members understand the group's focus, then this approach works just fine and is certainly what I wish we could do here.  I estimate that this group has between 500 and 1,000 members who don't understand the intent of this group."

Another person told me that some book groups allow off-topic posts that are tied to the main topic and that this works just fine.  This person suggested that we should focus on enjoying the posts and that we shouldn't focus on rules.  They said that focusing on rules takes away the fun, and people get along better when they don't have to worry about rules.

I'd certainly enjoy driving better if I didn't have to stop at any traffic lights.

I replied, "This approach is what I would prefer and wish that we could do here.  Earlier on, I let people post about other books.  The group quickly veered off towards favoring the other books.  We have between 500 and 1,000 members in this group who don't understand this group's focus.  Unfortunately, I have no choice but to enforce the focus, or we will lose the group's focus."

Someone else made this lovely comment:  "Sounds like you have a stick up your ass.  Try to relax and breath.  Life shouldn't be so serious all the time.  These rules are retarded."

Yet another member has had a problem with my use of "vintage" ever since she joined the group, and her complaint came up again via this discussion.  She says that books 20 to 40 years old are not vintage and that the books we discuss in the group are not old enough.  I have explained to her before that vintage means "dating from the past" (Merriam-Webster).  I finally got through to her this time, and she left the group.

And another member really took me to task, relentlessly so.  This person said that the focus of the group is wrong.  (Consider that the focus of any group is what the creator of the group says that it is.  How can it be wrong?)  This person told me that children often read books featuring characters who are older than them.  A child of 10 might read Sweet Valley High.  Therefore, all books that a 10 year old might read should be within the group's focus, according to this person.

I was informed that my definition of high school is wrong.  In some countries, high school starts at an earlier age than what it does in the United States.  Furthermore, my use of high school is apparently confusing since "junior high school" has "high school" as part of the name.

The books we discuss were published in the United States for people who live in the United States.  My definition of high school matches what is in the books featured in the group.  My definition isn't wrong.  However, I now know never to mention high school again.  I must focus on the age of the characters.

I was also told by this person that they would have been hurt and confused by the post rejection, since my response was "nitpicky, impersonal, and unwelcoming."  (It should be noted that the person who is accusing me of being "nitpicky" is doing exactly that to me in this and subsequent comments mentioned below.)

I replied as follows. 

"Much thought goes into everything I do and say.  No matter how I phrase the post rejection, it is simply that: a rejection.  It's going to sting no matter what.  I can't avoid that.

The focus of this group is not based on the age at which the books were read.  That varies from person to person, and it is true that most people read books featuring older characters.

The focus of this group is on books that feature older teenagers, ages 15 to 19."

This person then told me that the post rejection wouldn't sting if my wording were improved.  I was told that my response (see immediately above) ignored most of what they wrote.  Also, I was bragging, making a "false assertion about other people's feelings," and denying "any responsibility for being nicer."

Okay then.  I guess I got told.  

Why would someone think it worthwhile to try to make a moderator change how they phrase a post rejection?  The advice was not helpful in the slightest.  I have no idea how I can make sure that a post rejection doesn't offend the recipient.  

I can tell you what I do know.  As moderators continue to have members that break rules, question the rules, send insults, and nitpick, they become increasingly impersonal and unwelcoming.  They care less and less what members think and sometimes end up hating their own groups. 

I do still care, but I don't care as much as I once did.  I don't hate my groups, but I sometimes don't like them.

I cannot worry about how every single person will feel in every single situation.  I cannot carry the weight of the world on my shoulders. 

Yet some people expect me to do exactly that.

My least favorite activity as group moderator is having to reject posts that are off-topic or break group rules.  How dare someone try to put a guilt trip on me for how I rejected a post when I already find post rejection to be very unpleasant.  So now I find post rejection even more unpleasant than I did a few weeks ago.  How dare they do that to me.

I decided to end the discussion in the Vintage Teen Books group since it was going in a bad direction.  I removed the comments that I felt were attempting to undermine me and then closed commenting on the post.  I felt vaguely uneasy afterwards and remain a bit so.  That's the best I can do at describing it.  

I feel uneasy because most people in groups lurk and do not comment.  Since a number of people came forth on this post to criticize my actions in some fashion, I feel like many other people must feel the same way.  I feel like many members must think something is wrong with me.

I understand that the real problem is that these people think that children's, middle-grade, and teen books are all the same.  This was caused by a reference book and a prominent Facebook group lumping them together as if one genre. 

A 10-year-old girl who is beginning to like boys is not at all the same as a sixteen-year-old girl in a relationship.  I am not interested in the trials and tribulations of a 10-year-old girl.  I only wish to see the books featuring older teens.  

There is nothing wrong with that.  Hundreds of people joined the group thinking that all children's books are teen books.  I can't do anything about that, but I will not approve posts outside of what I envisioned for the group.  I hope in time that more of the people who don't like the focus will leave the group, even if they fling insults at me while leaving.  The group will be better once fewer people in the group are mistaken about the focus.

I wanted to prevent the Vintage Teen Books group from taking the same trajectory as the Collecting Vintage Children's Books group.  The Collecting group was fine at first, then more people joined.  In time, people began taking the group off-topic.  I redirected them, and people voiced their disapproval.  

That's where we are right now in the Vintage Teen Books group.  It has taken the same path as the Collecting group, with increasing problems.  However, the Vintage Teen Books group should stabilize faster than the Collecting group did, since I will stand firm in my vision for the group and will not allow myself to be manipulated like I was in the Collecting group.  

In the Collecting group, we have had lingering problems due to manipulation by a few members.  We have moved past that, for the most part.  The Collecting group is doing overall okay, even though we continue to have to decline quite a few posts and will always have a few people being difficult.

The Vintage Teen Books group will eventually reach a point where it also will be overall okay, but the process will likely take another year or so.

More Work Done on Blog Tags

Since my post from Thursday, I have worked more on blog tags.  I created additional new tags so that I could combine other tags and further reduce the number of posts grouped under the tags that I have used the most often.

These are the latest new tags:

Bad Selling Practices
Book Care
Book Pricing Conflict
Bookplates and Inscriptions
Collector Conflict
General Children's Books 1900s-1920s
General Children's Books 1930s-1950s
General Children's Books 1960s-1970s
General Children's Books 1980s-1990s
General Children's Books 2000s
Harriet Adams
Judy Bolton Reviews
Printing Flaws
Series Book Questions
Social Media
Trixie Belden Reviews
Young Adult 2000-present

I had quite a few tags that contained links to just one or two posts.  Most of those tags were for reviews, so I grouped those reviews together in the "General Children's Books" tags.  I then found that I had way too many books in the "General Children's Books 2000s" tag, so I removed the young adult books and placed them under "Young Adult 2000-present."

I grouped two different sets of "question and answer" posts under "Series Book Questions."  Most of the questions were scattered throughout the blog under various tags.  I have tried to locate all of them so that they are all in the same place.  These are posts that I have sometimes tried to find but couldn't.  I have hopefully located all of them.  If I have missed any, then it should just be one or two of them.

Even though I have reached a stopping point, I am not completely satisfied with the tag situation.  I still have too many posts grouped under "eBay Commentary," but 135 posts is an improvement over 163 posts.  My "Nancy Drew" tag is now down to 53 posts, which is no longer that bad.  Most of my Nancy Drew content is now grouped under the more specific Nancy Drew tags.

This is now much better organized for me.  I should have a greater chance of finding certain older posts when someone asks me a question.  Hopefully the tags will be helpful to everyone else.

Blog Settings and Tag Update

For years, I have been frustrated by the inability to search this blog effectively.  The blog has a search bar in it, and I also have a search bar in the blog editor.  Neither one works very well.  Blogger's search is the worst search tool that I have ever used, and that's saying something.  It is extremely ironic that search engine Google owns Blogger.  

Last night someone asked why the Applewood Nancy Drew editions are selling at such high prices.  I have written about the Applewood editions in several posts.  I wanted to find one and link to it.  No matter what logical search terms I used (like "Applewood" paired with "Nancy Drew"), I could not locate any of my old posts on the subject via Blogger's search.  What an epic fail, Google.

I have too many blog posts to find the posts without spending a large amount of time reading through old posts.  I didn't know what the titles were to the old posts about the Applewood books.  Besides, I suffered through two power outages last night.  Each power outage was approximately 1 1/2 hours long, staggered a few hours apart.  It was extremely annoying.  In between outages, I typed out a short response about why some people pay so much for the Applewood editions.  

Today I mulled over the blog situation and finally decided to do something about it.  While Blogger's search bar simply cannot search the blog, the tags work quite well.  I used the "Nancy Drew" tag to pull up the nearly 200 posts with that tag. I created new tags as I thought of appropriate ones and changed the tags on many posts from "Nancy Drew" to more specific tags like "Nancy Drew Formats" and "Nancy Drew International Editions."

As I went through the posts, I began to spot my Applewood posts and tagged them as "Nancy Drew Applewood."  At least now I can find them.

My new Nancy Drew tags are indicated within boxes in the following image.  You will have to click on the image in order to see it more clearly.

My original Nancy Drew tag now has just 64 posts, which is much more manageable. 

I found some of my posts today that I hadn't seen in years due to my inability to locate them.  I added some posts to the "Nancy Drew 1930A-1 Old Clock" tag that I had missed years ago when I created that tag.

I have labeled this post as "Social Media," and I plan to change the tags on old posts that are about this blog, Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter to the "Social Media" tag.  I also need to divide the posts under some of the other tags, like Judy Bolton, into multiple tags to make those topics easier to navigate.

I have been annoyed for years that my tags don't display in the mobile version of Blogger.  Actually, I thought that there was a way to see them but there isn't.  One can change to the web version, but I don't think most people will do that unless they know what they can't see in the mobile version.  The blog is impossible to navigate in the mobile version.

I tried to find a way to override the setting so that tags would show in the mobile version.  Some sites claim that can be done, but their methods don't work.  Finally, I went into the blog settings and disabled the mobile version. I never should have listened when Google/Blogger insisted that blogs needed to change to the mobile version. Sure, let's make the blog impossible to navigate.  That's certainly better for everyone.  

I regret if this change is causing mobile users any distress.  I want the tags to be visible no matter how people come to this blog.  I moved the tags higher on up on the page on the right side so that they can be found easily, and they now show in mobile, even though the text is a bit small.

I don't use mobile for websites except occasionally.  When I'm not on a desktop computer or laptop, I'm on an iPad.  I checked the blog with my phone after I disabled the mobile version.  If I turn my phone sideways, I can read the posts.  Again, I am sorry if this is an inconvenience, but I haven't spent thousands of hours over the last decade writing all of these posts just so that people who use mobile devices will never know what is here.  That is unacceptable to me, and I should not have put up with the tags being missing for so many years.

Keeping a Group on Topic When Nobody Understands the Topic

Being a Facebook moderator should not be as impossible as it is.  Sometimes I just want to scream into the void.  The experience is that frustrating and infuriating.  

I have already written about my great problems with the group Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books.

Running a Large Facebook Group Is Stressful and Not Fun

Facebook's Problematic Approach to Groups

As the creator of multiple groups, I want to have pretty photos in place to represent each group.  Those photos have been my downfall.  I have known it for years, but I didn't feel like removing the photos and turning them into informational banners. 

This was the very first cover photo for the Collecting group.

It was created and put in place by one of the founding members of the Collecting group on the very first day that the group existed on August 5, 2013.  Sometime in 2014, I changed the group photo to the one seen below.

That was the beginning of the downfall of the group.  The original cover photo really emphasized the Hardy Boys series, and I should have created an image that overly emphasized Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys.  The membership began to increase rapidly.  We began to have more and more problems as general children's book enthusiasts joined the group by the hundreds.

In 2017, I changed the group photo again, in part because Facebook kept changing the parameters for the group photo.  Also, I had this misguided belief that placing more series in the photo would somehow help.  I was so wrong.

The above photo stayed in place until last month.  I have known for several years that the image was the problem, but I didn't feel like changing it.  Finally, I did it.

I created it quickly, and I could make it better.  The point is that we finally have a group image in place that tells the general public that the group is for Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and similar series.  The group is not for all children's books that exist, and it is not for all series that exist.  

Beginning the evening that I changed the group photo, the membership requests have just about stalled.  Suddenly, the general public is not trying to join the group.  This is a fabulous development.  

We typically have had 20 or more new members per week.  Sometimes over 100 people joined per week.  Only three people have joined in the last week.  I hope this trend continues.

I also put in place two membership questions.

1.  Why do you want to join this group?

2.  This group focuses on Stratemeyer Syndicate properties (like Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys) and similar rival series (like Judy Bolton and Three Investigators). Which Stratemeyer and non-Stratemeyer series do you like?

It's interesting how many of the spammers cannot be bothered to fake an answer.  Some of them put a period as the answer to try to trick their way into the group.  Facebook has a setting where moderators can have Facebook approve all requests where the questions have been answered.  That's why some people answer the questions with a period.  I don't use that setting, so the trick doesn't work.

I have another group, Vintage Teen Books, which worried me from before I ever even created it, just because I knew what could, or rather would, happen if I didn't make all of the right decisions.  I did not want the Vintage Teen Books group to follow the same trajectory as the Collecting group.  Some of the same problems were inevitable, but I hoped that I could more aggressively prevent from having the group turn into one big problem.

The Vintage Teen Books group was badly needed, since unfortunately the existing Facebook groups lumped all children's books in with the middle-grade books and the teen books.  I wanted a discussion group for only the teen books.  I didn't want to see the other books.

I struggled with the group's name, since words like "teen" and "adult" (which is part of the category name "young adult") are search terms used by spammers to find groups where they can post links to adult content.  I really, really struggled with the name.  I decided to avoid the word "adult" and went with "teen," even though it would attract some of the same people.

Everything was fine at first, but Baby-Sitters Club has been the bane of my existence.  That series is incredibly popular, but it is a middle-grade or tween series.  The books are not teen books.  

Teen books as defined for the group I created are books that feature characters who are in their late teens.  The characters are of high school or college age.  The books also must have been marketed to teens, featuring dating and social issues.  They are not children's books.

Anyway, from early in the group's existence, members kept wanting to post about Baby-Sitters Club.  I allowed some of it at first, but eventually I had to disallow all mention of that series.  Members also kept posting about books published under Scholastic's Apple imprint.  Those are middle-grade books, not teen.

I have continued to get more insistent about how those books are not within the group's focus.  It's been a tough battle to fight.  The battle was mostly lost before it began because of the reference book and existing Facebook groups that consider children's books, middle-grade books, and teen books to be all in the same genre.  Oh my gosh, people!

I also think that people don't know that the word "tween" means something different than the word "teen."  Tween books are middle-grade, and teen books are young adult.

Many years ago, I did not know what was meant by the classification "tween."  I saw it in libraries.  I knew it was something with children's books, but I didn't understand it.  I'm sure that many people don't know what it means, which is why I use middle-grade hoping that people think of middle school or late elementary school years.

I knew that the Vintage Teen group photo was not helping the situation just like what happened with the Collecting group. 

Prospective members were missing the message conveyed by the selection of books featured in the photo.

I wasn't ready to change the group photo.  I put a membership question in place.

1.  MUST ANSWER: This group focuses on pre-2000 vintage teen books that feature characters in their late teens (SVH, Fear Street, Christopher Pike, etc.). What are your favorites?

I then found that a frighteningly high percentage of prospective members were answering with "Baby-Sitters Club."  Oh, no!  No, no, no!  BSC are not teen books!

Dear me.  I then changed the group photo.

After I changed the group photo, I felt like membership requests slowed down slightly.  However, too many people were continuing to answer the question with Baby-Sitters Club.  What to do?!

I created a second membership question.

2.  MUST ANSWER: Indicate your awareness that this group does not allow discussion of Baby-Sitters Club, middle-grade books, and children's books. None of these books should be listed in your answer to the first question.

Ha.  If this doesn't work, then nothing will.  Membership requests have now fallen off noticeably more than they had.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  The second question should scare off the people who think the group is about the Baby-Sitters Club.

Today, I read an answer to the second question that made me very happy.  The prospective member wrote, "I am totally aware and grateful."  YES!  This is someone like me who understands that children's and middle-grade books are not teen books.  Just let us have a place to discuss our books.