Collectorz.com Book Collector 6

[Darwin]

Trust me, Darwin, I know. This was just a kind of thought experiment

-TucknDar (December 11, 2008, 03:07 PM)

Yeah... I had meant to note in my posting above that I'm sure you know all this - you've been fairly active on their forum and likely know this better than I!

FWIW - I think it's a grand idea  

[Darwin]

Tuckndar - 40hz and I posted within moments of each other and his post got relegated to the end of the previous page. If you missed it, have a read as it's more pertinent than mine, above 

[TucknDar]

They do this, actually. If I'm understanding it right, when a user searches ISBN through BoC, if it isn't found in Collectorz database it'll look for it in other sources. I found a book in the Norwegian national library this way. Also, when a user has searched this way (like I have), the result will be available in the database when the next user searches for the same ISBN. So, I suppose that's some user input that is used after all...

-TucknDar (December 11, 2008, 02:36 PM)

Just out of curiosity - is there any good technical reasons why anybody would want to do it that way? What is the advantage to shoehorning all that data, and all those queries, through a keyhole. I'm not challenging their right to do it, since I'm not a customer, but I just don't get what the advantage would be.

-40hz (December 11, 2008, 03:08 PM)

I don't know if there's any good reason to do it that way. To me it's obvious that the previous way of being able to select search sources is way better, but at the very least this "solution" is better than not providing the "background" search. I'll certainly do more testing to see if there's any point in using Book Collector 6 (I have lifetime license, so upgrade costs aren't an issue).

Like you, I'm "just" a customer.

[Carol Haynes]

I think there is a reason - as the user base grew I bet sources like Amazon were not happy with all customers accessing their data directly. By going through a single portal it will only face one request per item because the data will then be stored in the Collectorz database for future searches.

I'd guess the reason for the change is that either the search sites were charging and Collectorz wants to cut down on costs, some of the search sites have told Collectorz to cease and desist in the old way of doing things or maybe they are moving over to a subscription model.

What is the bet that in a year or two the software will be free and the data base will be an annual subscription? It will get around the loophole for customers with lifetime updates because they will be able to argue that you have lifetime updates to the software but the database is now on a subscription which I am sure is still niggling under the surface (and why there is no mechanism for lifetime licensees other than to request a new key every time there is an upgrade).

[TucknDar]

I'd guess the reason for the change is that either the search sites were charging and Collectorz wants to cut down on costs, some of the search sites have told Collectorz to cease and desist in the old way of doing things ...

-Carol Haynes (December 12, 2008, 04:57 AM)

Actually, if that is the real reason, I'd expect Collectorz to say so. I think it would save them a lot of trouble with angry users, since it would be a valid reason to change the software, and hard to argue against for the users. And as far as I understand they do have some sort of deal in place with Amazon at least, which is why there'll be a link to Amazon from the entries in your database (not absolutely sure, though, but I read an Alwin post that way).

What is the bet that in a year or two the software will be free and the data base will be an annual subscription? It will get around the loophole for customers with lifetime updates because they will be able to argue that you have lifetime updates to the software but the database is now on a subscription which I am sure is still niggling under the surface (and why there is no mechanism for lifetime licensees other than to request a new key every time there is an upgrade).

-Carol Haynes (December 12, 2008, 04:57 AM)

Surely, they would never... 

Even if that happens, 5.x will still work as long as someone (big IF...) maintains the perl scripts for IMDB, DVD Empire, Amazon, etc. I think one problem that could arise from this move and even the possibility of the future subscription model is that those contributing to the database might start to think twice about contributiong if they felt they did voluntary work so someone else would profit. I sure hope that's not in their plans, though, after all it's their great software that has got them this far

[vizacc]

maybe it's just me or something -


few days ago, we tried to access amazon website using some custom libs and got:
"Access Denied" or "Connection forcibly closed by host".


maybe that's perhaps the reason why they started to switch over?

[Darwin]

I'd guess the reason for the change is that either the search sites were charging and Collectorz wants to cut down on costs, some of the search sites have told Collectorz to cease and desist in the old way of doing things ...

-Carol Haynes (December 12, 2008, 04:57 AM)

Actually, if that is the real reason, I'd expect Collectorz to say so. I think it would save them a lot of trouble with angry users, since it would be a valid reason to change the software, and hard to argue against for the users.

-TucknDar (December 12, 2008, 05:33 AM)

One would think that this would be an excellent way to handle an impending change in practice... But then, look at the debacle the occurred when they silently stopped selling lifetime licences. Sure, the switcheroo was clear if you read the revised EULA, but that kind of change in policy should have been splashed all-over their website, discussed in detail in a newsletter and on the forum well in advance of actually being put in place. Did they do ANY of this? No - not even a banner saying "Read revised EULA" with a link to same. They do not appear to be that interested in avoiding angering their users. As I've just outlined, it would have been easy to have done so in the past and they didn't. They're obstinately sticking to a course of action that is clearly pissing off their existing user base and AFAICT couldn't care less about it. Thus, it is my opinion, if Carol's musing are correct, that the first indication any user (existing or brand new) would have of such a change would be a pop-up in a Collectorz app directing them to pay a subscription fee so that they can access the database. Howls of protest on the users forum will be dealt with much as in the past: with a repeated strong declarations of the "correctness" of the decision (WRT business models, this might well be a VERY good decision), with acknowledgment and regrets that more should have been done to pave the way, and that'll be it...

Maybe I'm just cynical... of course, they did do right by me over the lifetime licensing issue. However, they appear NOT to have learned anything from the firestorm that ensued at that time, and I doubt that this current change in direction, with its attendant controversy, will result in much deviation from the pattern in the future.

NB I haven't looked into this, but Alwin does note that the switch to a single Collectorz run database was outlined almost a year ago, so perhaps my cynicism about their ability to learn and communicate with their customers is misplaced...