Weasel-Word Listers

Ever get annoyed by weasel-word listers? I do.
Here are a few of common weasel-words
which I find especially offensive.

Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
on this at length when one simple question will
make the point: Exactly what sort of
slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
book that "may have a remainder mark
or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.

Another much abused weasel word is
"acceptable." Exactly how can the lister
be sure that the beat-up book with the
two cracked joints and the two cracked
hinges and the bubbled cloth -- which of
course the seller would not deign to frankly
describe -- is "acceptable"?!!! A more
honest listing might read:
"Condition: acceptable. That is, it is
acceptable to ME, the lister -- as is the
money you are fool enough to pay me for it."

Even a positive-sounding word like "good"
becomes a weasel word when no description
accompanies it. After all, if the book is
simply "good" and not "fine" or "like new,"
then there is something wrong with it,
right? And that "something" may very
well epresent defects that the buyer hates
to see in his or her books. After all, there
can be all sorts of things wrong with a
book that is correctly described as in
"good" condition. I wiould never pay
any more for a book simply described
as "acceptable" or "good" than I would
pay for a beat-up reading copy. If the
book is better than that, wonderful --
if I get the suspected beat-up reading
copy, then I get what I paid for.

If any readers to this forum are resorting
to weasel words in their listings, I wish they
would give that practice some more thought.
Upon reflection, they may choose to become
more ethical in their listings.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

wrote:
Ever get annoyed by weasel-word listers? I do.
Here are a few of common weasel-words
which I find especially offensive.

Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
on this at length when one simple question will
make the point: Exactly what sort of
slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
book that "may have a remainder mark
or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.

Another much abused weasel word is
"acceptable." Exactly how can the lister
be sure that the beat-up book with the
two cracked joints and the two cracked
hinges and the bubbled cloth -- which of
course the seller would not deign to frankly
describe -- is "acceptable"?!!! A more
honest listing might read:
"Condition: acceptable. That is, it is
acceptable to ME, the lister -- as is the
money you are fool enough to pay me for it."

Even a positive-sounding word like "good"
becomes a weasel word when no description
accompanies it. After all, if the book is
simply "good" and not "fine" or "like new,"
then there is something wrong with it,
right? And that "something" may very
well epresent defects that the buyer hates
to see in his or her books. After all, there
can be all sorts of things wrong with a
book that is correctly described as in
"good" condition. I wiould never pay
any more for a book simply described
as "acceptable" or "good" than I would
pay for a beat-up reading copy. If the
book is better than that, wonderful --
if I get the suspected beat-up reading
copy, then I get what I paid for.

If any readers to this forum are resorting
to weasel words in their listings, I wish they
would give that practice some more thought.
Upon reflection, they may choose to become
more ethical in their listings.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]


I agree with you on all but "good", and partially on "good", because, at least
to collectors and dealers, that is an indication of a grade of condition.
However, it does not take into account the amateur who has not got deep enough
into book collecting to know the definitions.

While the definitions may vary slightly, the Lucas definition is fairly usual:

"Good — either a 20th century or an earlier book showing average use and wear,
but not in need of a replacement binding, not all tattered & torn, not with
moderate to heavy damp stain, basically still intact but worn, spine extremities
can show minor chipping, corners can all be bumped, and (there is disagreement
here) in the case of an earlier book a free endpaper, or other blank page such
as a flyleaf, can be missing, a hinge can be cracked ( the book should not be in
need of recasing — with the covers barely attached), there can be moderate to
heavy foxing in earlier books, a good copy should be a book that has seen
average/considerable use and is added to your collection because you care more
about the content of the book than the condition or you hope someday to upgrade
to a better copy of the same book."

http://www.trussel.com/books/lucas04.htm

The now defunct AB Bookman site defined it as:

"Good describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves
present. Any defects must be noted."

In short, collectors and dealers know that "good" really means "fair". But if
the dealer says "fair" to convey something to amateurs, then the collectors and
dealers will think it a real junker. So, what we probably need is a
redefinition of the terms to adhere to common expectations.


Francis A. Miniter

On Apr 4, 1:18 pm, "Francis A. Miniter"
wrote:
wrote:
Ever get annoyed by weasel-word listers? I do.
Here are a few of common weasel-words
which I find especially offensive.

[...] Your comments are informatinve and make sense.
Even so, I still maintain that "good" by itself -- even when
used by an ethical dealer -- is not very helpful. For
instance, I appreciate book illustration. Any
damage to a hardcover's dust jacket or to a
vintage paperback's cover is a serious matter.
Going by your definition, a dust-jacket could
have highly visible spotting on the front, and the
book could be arguably listed as "good" if not much
else was wrong with it. Further, a paperback
with a vertical crease the full length of the cover
might be rated as good if it had no other flaws.
Yet, easily noticeable spotting on d. j. fronts
and p. b.'s with creased front covers are not
things I would want to find on books I order..
So "good" (even when it used properly, and I
suspect it often is not) does not tell me nearly
enough.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
on this at length when one simple question will
make the point: Exactly what sort of
slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
book that "may have a remainder mark
or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.

Another much abused weasel word is
"acceptable." Exactly how can the lister
be sure that the beat-up book with the
two cracked joints and the two cracked
hinges and the bubbled cloth -- which of
course the seller would not deign to frankly
describe -- is "acceptable"?!!! A more
honest listing might read:
"Condition: acceptable. That is, it is
acceptable to ME, the lister -- as is the
money you are fool enough to pay me for it."

Even a positive-sounding word like "good"
becomes a weasel word when no description
accompanies it. After all, if the book is
simply "good" and not "fine" or "like new,"
then there is something wrong with it,
right? And that "something" may very
well epresent defects that the buyer hates
to see in his or her books. After all, there
can be all sorts of things wrong with a
book that is correctly described as in
"good" condition. I wiould never pay
any more for a book simply described
as "acceptable" or "good" than I would
pay for a beat-up reading copy. If the
book is better than that, wonderful --
if I get the suspected beat-up reading
copy, then I get what I paid for.

If any readers to this forum are resorting
to weasel words in their listings, I wish they
would give that practice some more thought.
Upon reflection, they may choose to become
more ethical in their listings.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

I agree with you on all but "good", and partially on "good", because, at least
to collectors and dealers, that is an indication of a grade of condition.
However, it does not take into account the amateur who has not got deep enough
into book collecting to know the definitions.

While the definitions may vary slightly, the Lucas definition is fairly usual:

"Good - either a 20th century or an earlier book showing average use and wear,
but not in need of a replacement binding, not all tattered & torn, not with
moderate to heavy damp stain, basically still intact but worn, spine extremities
can show minor chipping, corners can all be bumped, and (there is disagreement
here) in the case of an earlier book a free endpaper, or other blank page such
as a flyleaf, can be missing, a hinge can be cracked ( the book should not be in
need of recasing - with the covers barely attached), there can be moderate to
heavy foxing in earlier books, a good copy should be a book that has seen
average/considerable use and is added to your collection because you care more
about the content of the book than the condition or you hope someday to upgrade
to a better copy of the same book."

http://www.trussel.com/books/lucas04.htm

The now defunct AB Bookman site defined it as:

"Good describes the average used and worn book that has all pages or leaves
present. Any defects must be noted."

In short, collectors and dealers know that "good" really means "fair". But if
the dealer says "fair" to convey something to amateurs, then the collectors and
dealers will think it a real junker. So, what we probably need is a
redefinition of the terms to adhere to common expectations.

Francis A. Miniter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Greetings:

I think the listers on Amazon that do this and list 'acceptable' are
guilty of using the same description for every book. They are
high-volume listers who see books as just another commodity like
beanie babies. Their business model doesn't allow them the time to
actually inspect each book (which is why most of them don't ask $30
for a book, they ask thirty cents).

For the majority of Amazon buyers, who are just looking for a cheap
used book to read, and who may not even know what a remainder mark is,
it's fine.

For myself, and I'm sure the august collectors that hang out on this
NG, if I buy from an Amazon seller, it will be the lowest price that
is properly described. And actually I've been unhappy with the
description vis a vis the condition of a number of Amazon sellers, so
I tend to source my books from more reputable dealers, such as the
ones that list on the Big Three sites.

But you knew this :-)

Denton



On 4 Apr 2007 01:52:00 -0700, wrote:

Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
on this at length when one simple question will
make the point: Exactly what sort of
slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
book that "may have a remainder mark
or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.

wrote:
Ever get annoyed by weasel-word listers? I do.
Here are a few of common weasel-words
which I find especially offensive.

Perhaps the most abused weasel words of all
are simply that helpful little modal auxiliary
verb "may." There is no need to expatiate
on this at length when one simple question will
make the point: Exactly what sort of
slippery eel expects me to send $30 for a
book that "may have a remainder mark
or other defects." YOU KNOW GOSH
DARN WELL THAT BOOK YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET ME TO BUY HAS
A REMAINDER MARK *AND* OTHER
DEFECTS, YOU PITIFUL MODAL-
AUXILIARY ABUSING SLIPPERY EEL.

Another much abused weasel word is
"acceptable." Exactly how can the lister
be sure that the beat-up book with the
two cracked joints and the two cracked
hinges and the bubbled cloth -- which of
course the seller would not deign to frankly
describe -- is "acceptable"?!!! A more
honest listing might read:
"Condition: acceptable. That is, it is
acceptable to ME, the lister -- as is the
money you are fool enough to pay me for it."

Even a positive-sounding word like "good"
becomes a weasel word when no description
accompanies it. After all, if the book is
simply "good" and not "fine" or "like new,"
then there is something wrong with it,
right? And that "something" may very
well epresent defects that the buyer hates
to see in his or her books. After all, there
can be all sorts of things wrong with a
book that is correctly described as in
"good" condition. I wiould never pay
any more for a book simply described
as "acceptable" or "good" than I would
pay for a beat-up reading copy. If the
book is better than that, wonderful --
if I get the suspected beat-up reading
copy, then I get what I paid for.

If any readers to this forum are resorting
to weasel words in their listings, I wish they
would give that practice some more thought.
Upon reflection, they may choose to become
more ethical in their listings.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

"May have remainder marks" means does have remainder marks. It also
contains the caveat: "if it doesn't have remainder marks, I got the
wrong shipment". Remainders are 1/4th to 1/2 off of the trade paper back.

If I want to read the book or if I want to give it to someone to read, I
would prefer to give a remainder rather than a Trade Paperback.

I bought my hardcover remainders of "Good Omens" for $2,99. It seems
that Addall shows the same book for ca. $30.00. I only bought it to give
to friends. It appears my remainders have appreciated ca. 1000%.

I still wouldn't sell one.

Acceptable is a crap shoot. After finding a book I wanted at a discount
g/price for $15.00, I purchased two "acceptable" for $.99. Even with
shipping they were under $10,00. They both were superior to that book
and most books on line.

I have also bought "acceptable" books that required a shipment to the
CDC for pathogen testing.

These are not book sellers, they sell commodities.

If an ostensible legitimate book seller uses the terms "may have
remainder marks" or "acceptable", they deserve death by the 1488th
edition of "Gray's Anatomy". Damn things are excellent for coshing or
weighting bodies.

Sometimes you get what you pay for; sometimes you get more than you paid
for; sometimes you get crap. Is not this the fun?