Sometimes I lose most enthusiasm for Facebook. Right now, I partially feel as I did when I wrote the first post linked below, and it is currently because I'm sick of people who dislike how I run my groups, yet oddly won't leave those groups.
Loss of Enthusiasm for Facebook and Online Interaction
Facebook Group Behavior
I remain bitter about how I was treated regarding my decision to allow group discussion of the Nancy Drew series on The CW.
Finding a Middle Ground to Discuss CW's Nancy Drew
This recent post is about the time I was attacked by a collector who was angry because I purchased his books.
Unreasonable and Combative Collectors
I have been called a "bimbo" by one person and a "dumb broad" by another. Someone else bleated at me (Baaaaa!). One person said that I was a "pursed-up, corseted sideline referee." Another person sent me a photo of Joseph Stalin through private message to indicate that I was exactly like Stalin.
You will notice that these attacks tend to include sexist remarks that were made because I am female. It's interesting how often some angry men immediately resort to sexist comments when dealing with a woman.
It's been said that I take myself too seriously. Actually yes, I do. I take my responsibilities as a group moderator very seriously.
Shouldn't I do that? How very odd that I'm not supposed to take my role seriously.
Some dissatisfied members mention that they don't like being censored or told what to do. Apparently some people feel that it is more important to have personal freedom in a private group than have the group be free from conflict.
I run several groups, but only one of them is a continual problem: Collecting Vintage Children's Series Books. The group is such a problem.
I will tell you exactly how I feel, and it may shock you. I have often felt that the group is more trouble that it is worth. At times, I have actually disliked the group. I'm dead serious. I have even considered (not really that seriously, just an idea) that I should step down as admin, leave the group, and create another one with a stricter screening process to keep the problems out. However, I don't feel like throwing everything away, so I stick with the flawed group that exists.
I never would have created the group if I had known the trouble it would cause me. If I could go back in time, I would not have created the group.
I didn't know how to run a group. There was no training. People who create groups do so out of a genuine enthusiasm for a topic. I didn't realize that Facebook would advertise the group to the general public and that trolls and online sellers would join by the hundreds. If I had known that would happen, then the group would never have existed.
That group is the only one that is a consistent problem. It's not the general public that causes me stress, even though that aspect is a significant problem. The series book collectors who want to have complete freedom to act as they wish are the problem. I don't understand why people take something that should be happy and turn it into conflict.
It was in May 2021 that I was at a breaking point. This is what I wrote about the situation:
It was in late April that I felt the very highest amount of stress. Around then, problems on Facebook increased. I manage some groups, and one group in particular is continually a problem because it has a bloated membership. Several people kept submitting posts that were problematic for various reasons.
Those people might post about an extremely obscure series but not explain what it is. We won't blindly approve something when we can't figure out what it is within around 30 seconds. We repeatedly advised those people to explain their content, but they didn't seem to get the message.
At the same time, others used loopholes in the rules to get posts approved that shouldn't be in the group. I won't get into the specifics of exactly what transpired, but I finally reached a point where I was done with letting people sneak things in under a loophole. It just wasn't worth my time or trouble. I have been stretched so thin the last few months, and I finally had enough. No more loopholes. On May 7, I decided that I was completely done with dealing with certain kinds of posts.
Allow me to explain further. We also were dealing with people submitting screen captures from news networks. The images featured series books in the background, but headlines about the pandemic and politics as well as the station logo would be in the image. We couldn't have that. It was quite time-consuming going back and forth with these people in order to get them to make the image appropriate for the group.
Running a group is a volunteer position. There is no pay. I do it in addition to my own responsibilities. Most moderation is done in the evening when people are off work, which is when they are on Facebook. This means that I lose some of my own recreation time when I have to deal with difficult issues.
I was so fed up in May 2021 with the manipulation and attacks that I created a list of guidelines on what will not be approved in the group. Creating the list was a way for me to vent my feelings without sharing them with others. It also helped me to regain control and not let people manipulate me. Here is that list.
Posts are not approved that
- mention books or series that are outside of our focus
- ask for help with completely off-topic subjects
- have screen captures from news networks or current event shows
- contain foul language
- have altered book covers
- are parodies/jokes about series books
- have books that look like series books but aren't
- mention the group rules
- mention the moderators or moderation
- have snarky comments
- contain an off-topic video even if a series book appears somewhere
- contain an off-topic link
- that are unclear (pictures/links with no explanation)
- offer to buy or sell books
- mention politics or social issues
All of the above examples were submitted to the group in the few months leading up to and including May 2021 and usually by prominent group participants. It was ridiculous.
Here are some thoughts on a few as a bit of explanation.
Books that look like series books, have titles that sound like series
books, or that could have been series books in an alternate reality don't
belong in the group. Saying that "this could have been a Cherry Ames book" doesn't make it a Cherry Ames book. It isn't, and the post won't be approved.
The altered book covers are almost always problematic. They are usually either political or include references to sex and drugs. In other cases, a completely off-topic book cover has been altered to make it seem like a book from a certain series. Those kinds of altered covers confuse members and are also a means where members attempt to get off-topic books in the group.
Parodies, jokes, and cartoons tend to be just as problematic as the altered covers and for the same reasons. Besides, we don't have a series book discussion group so that we can make fun of the books. That's not what it's about. Members have their own personal Facebook feed, and they can make fun of the books all they want in that location.
When members mention the rules or moderation, they usually do so in an attempt to undermine the moderators. We won't approve posts that do that, and we will delete comments that do that.
Our biggest problem, which causes me great stress, is which books to allow in the group. Members have different ideas on what is okay and what isn't. The problem is how far to go with what we allow.
Let's venture onto the slippery slope. Some people want the malt shop books in the group. Those books could be considered okay, but how much further do we go? Malt shop books are earlier period young adult books. Do we then consider the teen books by Beverly Cleary to be okay, since they are very similar? What about other books by Beverly Cleary?
What about a stand-alone book like Junior Miss? While not from a series, it's like the malt shop books.
If we allow earlier young adult books, then what about later young adult books like Sweet Valley High? The Sweet Valley High premise was modeled after Nancy Drew. The twins' father is Ned, who is an attorney. Those are obvious nods to Nancy Drew, so we do have an argument for allowing Sweet Valley High. It goes on and on. Where should the line be placed? We have to stop somewhere.
To prevent us from including everything, we could disallow books published after 1980. However, that would ban a large percentage of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books that exist. That wouldn't work since those two series form the foundation of our core focus.
If we place no restriction on what we allow, then we soon allow most everything. If we allow everything, then we lose the group's focus completely and have no place to discuss series books.
To make a long story short, we decided to disallow all books that fall under the young adult/teen category including all romance books. That omits the malt shop books, but it also reduces our problems with how far to go.
We also have the reverse problem. We must be careful not to be too restrictive with what we allow but at the same time not allow members to manipulate us.
This is very hard. I cannot overemphasize how it difficult is to decide, in all cases, which books to allow in the group.
We aren't always consistent. It's impossible to be consistent as there are too many variables. It does weigh on me, and I do end up annoying people who see the inconsistency.
Moderators tend to feel that the most unpleasant part of moderation is having to decline posts. I wish that members would understand that we are trying to keep groups on topic and that we do not enjoy refusing posts. We hate it.
Just yesterday I declined a post where someone posted about their love of the Freddy the Pig books. I'm sure the Freddy the Pig books are great, but they are outside of our focus. I hate having to decline these posts.
That is why I sometimes publish posts in the group advising people that certain books are off-topic. I only do that to try to reduce the number of posts that I have to decline so that I and the person whose post gets declined don't feel bad. Whenever I post about what is appropriate or inappropriate, at least one of the members who dislikes how the group is run makes a negative comment. When that happens, other members who have made it clear that they dislike how the group is run will hit the "like" button. I wish they'd all just leave since they have a problem with the guidelines.
A few years ago, I was removed from some series book groups due to the admin not liking a decision made in one of my groups. I was even banned for a time. The ban was lifted, but I have not asked to join those groups again. I am not about to ask to rejoin any group from which I was removed.
Since I can do without some groups, so can others. Collectors who dislike my group should consider leaving instead of complaining. There are other groups. Those people could consider creating their own group, and then they could run it as they please.
I was inspired to write this post when I learned that Jennifer Fisher was going to publish a post about the negative comments made about her Nancy Drew collection donation. I decided that it was time that I say some of what I think about the state of affairs in the Facebook series book groups.
The Nancy Drew Donation Dilemma - The Jennifer Fisher Nancy Drew Collection
Please note that my surname is "White" and that Jennifer Fisher is a different person. I always have to make a statement to that effect since many people don't read past the first name.
In closing, I am not anywhere near as stressed as I was in early 2021. Sticking to the guidelines that I listed further up in this post has reduced my Facebook stress by a good amount. Unfortunately, I do retain an overall negative opinion of the groups on Facebook. Others have made similar comments.
One of these days, I'm going to focus on Reddit again: Vintage Series Books. I find that posts and comments on Reddit tend to contain more detailed commentary than what occurs on Facebook. I spend much more time on Reddit than I do Facebook. I love Reddit and think it has great potential. The problem is getting people there.
