NABs are things such as calendars, street maps (a la AAA), dumpbins, floor displays, board games, card decks, dolls, toys, note pads, note cards, etc.

Cookbooks are books, as Rivka said. As far I I know there's never been any disagreement about those!

Cookbooks?!? None of those should be NAB'd.

I've been reading numerous postings about NABing (not a book-ing) and I've come to the conclusion that there is just no consensus here about almost anything, especially about cook books.

That is not a bad thing, its just that there is nobody with the final say, and most things are finally evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

We all love our books, calendars, stickers, pamphlets, sticky notes, scraps of paper, loose bindings containing the drivels of one-time-writers posted by the author themselves - undistributed because the government confiscated and classified the document as insane and dangerous to anyone who reads it.

So, in my free time I'll press on and be careful and diligent not to NAB or delete too much with out due research.

As Lisa said, most of those books shouldn't have Parragon Publishing as their author -- that's a publisher, and should only be listed as an author if there is no known author. Which may be true for some on the list, but likely not most and certainly not all.

For each book, if you go through one at a time, checking Amazon, Google Books, WorldCat, and if those are unhelpful, other sites, you can often find a real author.

Unclebill, All the items on that list either need proper authors or need to be NABed, usually they need authors. Sometimes there are no real authors and it can't be done, but we usually find corrected information for the majority of items.

ok, take the Parragon Publishing list. It appears from the publishers website and from the worldcat that thats all there is and there aint no more.

What is the Parragon Publishing list in the Sisyphean list needing?

Check out the Sisyphean List thread in the View-Only folder.

And welcome!

Is there a queue of work needing to be done?

Kiri wrote: "I'm glad to know someone else who is willing to tackle this - but may I ask which reference for the Comédie you'll be using? "

At Biblioteque Nationale Française we can also find detailed information on French authors also.

Kiri wrote: "I'm glad to know someone else who is willing to tackle this - but may I ask which reference for the Comédie you'll be using? "

This huge work is sub-divided in 24 volumes and it was combined in a single book. I just finished to fix this mess. Additionally, I have studied the French literature in the past and I know Balzac´s work in some way.

I'm glad to know someone else who is willing to tackle this - but may I ask which reference for the Comédie you'll be using?

I will fix this mess, as I did with both Dumas. Thanks Cait.

Laura wrote: "A question to the super librarians: I was checking the work by Honoré de Balzac and I found that his "Comédie Humaine" is grouped altogether. May I separate them and put some order on this mess?"

Oh, please do! That would be fantastic.

A question to the super librarians: I was checking the work by Honoré de Balzac and I found that his "Comédie Humaine" is grouped altogether. May I separate them and put some order on this mess? For more details, please look at: http://www.goodreads.com/book/combine/22...
Thanks.

Hurray!! Thanks!

Looks fine to me, Donna. :)

I just added my first edition and combined it with the other editions. Can one of the mod's take a quick peek and make sure i did it right? I read the manual, but just wanted to make sure i didn't forget something!

ISBN 9781417576364 Aspern Papers, Henry James. -- MP3 - 3.5 hrs play time

Looks right when i bring it up, just wanted to double check.

thanks!

Welcome Katherine & Heather!

Wait'll you get to one that has multi-volume audio books, multi-volume translated versions, AND multi-volume Large and SUPER Large Print versions --- many of which have different volume amounts (2,3,4, etc.)

Then the real fun begins! = )

It gets even more fun when a book is sometimes split in two and sometimes in three (either audio or otherwise).

That's what I thought Cait, thanks!

Katherine and Heather -- welcome! :)

Katherine and Jessica -- yes, I'm afraid that as the system stands now, if a book is split into parts for audio publication, each part is treated as a different book. If a book is commonly split it half, it will show up three times: as editions which are the whole book, as editions which are the first half of the book, and as editions which are the second half of the book.

Katherine, if each of those audio book volumes has it's own ISBN, they should be separate, as far as I understand it. It's annoying, but as they are considered volumes I'm pretty sure they stay separated.

I was just combining some of his works a few days ago, so I know what you mean (I was heartily tempted to combine them myself). I won't re-separate them though until a librarian confirms what I know.

I joined this group today, because I see that alot of the older books and some newer books my daughters and I have read have no cover image.I would love to help with cover images that go with each edition of a book.

Heather (rainbowheart78)

As a new librarian I'd just like to say that I requested librarian status so that I could change books I know by authors I know. I'm not about to go monkeying on something unfamiliar to me.

I have read the manual, as requested.

I just spent an hour cleaning up Whitley Strieber (who had a few books listed under "Whitley Streiber" for the love of mike!) and Poor Edward Rutherfurd, who had a few listed under EDWARD RUTHERFORD (chocklock included) and all of the various parts of his audio versions of his books as separate titles. Yes, he's prolific. But not that prolific.

Anyway, i'm just anal about works I know. If I don't know it, I won't touch it.

(Oh, btw, all foreign language titles for Rutherfurd's works were already merged; I didn't stick any unknown-to-me languages under the main body when combining editions.)

If I screw something up, kindly email me.

Thanks,
Katherine

rivka wrote: "Actually, Otis said later than that (in the same thread, I think), that it was ok to add the author's other name as a secondary author. Preferably without "pseudonym" or the like."

Ah, didn't scroll down far enough I see. Thanks for the info rivka!

Actually, Otis said later than that (in the same thread, I think), that it was ok to add the author's other name as a secondary author. Preferably without "pseudonym" or the like.

Rose wrote: "I only joined this group today because I wanted to see how I should handle aliases, as it was annoying me that they were done inconsistently in the various books I have on my shelves by Saki, aka HH Munro (I never quite found out what to do, so I ended up just leaving it)."

Rose, for aliases, until the softward fix is complete (they are working on it, but it's a difficulty fix), the consensus was to keep each author independently listed, but adding a line to the description with a link to the other author's name.

Here's the most recent post on the topic:

"message 34: by Phil 02/23/2009 04:46AM

So what's the current policy? I've just fixed up a book by "K.E. Mills" which is a pseudonym used by "Karen Miller" (I had to remove the reference to the latter to combine two editions which were listed one under each name). Do I add "Karen Miller" as a co-author, role=pseudonym, or do I edit the entry for "K.E. Mills" or what?

-----------
message 35: by rivka, Volunteer Mod 02/23/2009 06:48AM

None of the above. Otis has asked that we not use the roles ability to add in a pseudonym's real name. I would suggest editing K.E. Mills' bio to mention that it is a pseudonym for Karen Miller (with a link), and add the converse to Karen Miller's bio.

Then we wait for the long-awaited aka feature."

I hear what everyone is saying about the new librarians who cause chaos, but at the same time I do think there are probably a lot of people like me who are doing useful work, maybe not much per person, but enough to make a difference en masse - but who would be put off by very lengthy qualification procedures or having to post every little typo they want fixing in this group for someone else to handle.

I've been a librarian for ages and I really only use my Powers, Such As They Are to fix obvious mistakes in books I come across, or combine obvious instances of the same book, or add cover images.

I only joined this group today because I wanted to see how I should handle aliases, as it was annoying me that they were done inconsistently in the various books I have on my shelves by Saki, aka HH Munro (I never quite found out what to do, so I ended up just leaving it).

You might want to check out how Distributed Proofreaders allow people access to the first level of proofreading - read the guidance & an interactive quiz, then someone keeps an eye on your first efforts to make sure you're doing it okay, and lets you know if not.

I am not sure it matters how many books a person has read. The ability to edit has very little to do with how much you have read or even what you read.
That said, I think that there needs to be stricter ropes on the edits that people make. Maybe, there could be a group of librarians that approve certain types of changes(like combining). So maybe, those large changes would have to be approved by the respected panel(who would have to show competency in this area) before they become public. That may be a lot of work-to find a competency rubric for the panels( I was thinking all large changes could be divided into some sort of area and assigned a panel), to actually proof the edits and approve them.
In addition, there could be an outlet for those who disagree with the panels decision. Just some thoughts.

I would like to suggest that increasing the amount of books from 50 to something like 500 or even higher before being able to apply as a librarian would be helpful if GR is concerned about librarian commitment.
While it would not be foolproof of course I think those who then decided to apply as librarians (and without any offense intended to those who have less) would be more likely to care about book information accuracy, demonstrate some commitment to and familiarity with GR since it would take a reasonable amount of time to create a list that size, perhaps would be more likely to come across books that have not yet been catalogued and would likely weed out those who just like the status.

Having said that I have only just applied, largely because I often find Australian published books (as I am Australian) are not catalogued and while I used to just not worry I have come to rely on GR to help me keep track of what i have read so I would like to add these books and others I come across :)

Carolyn wrote: "That's a good point Salvatrice - can you post it on the Feedback thread for others to chime in on? I like the idea, personally. =)"

will do. thanks.

That's a good point Salvatrice - can you post it on the Feedback thread for others to chime in on? I like the idea, personally. =)

Lisa wrote:
For members who want to make just a few changes, they can come into the librarians group and request that librarians make those changes..."

It might be helpful to have an easy to find link such as "contact a librarian" (or something) on the home page for this...that definitely would have prevented me from applying for librarian status. I didn't realize joining/visiting the group to find someone willing to make the changes was even an option until now. I read the manual, and these threads---it's a huge time commitment when all I really wanted to do was give some information about one book!

Mel - What do you mean by "for people" do you mean the Authors?

There is a thread here started by rivka with helpful links for librarians

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1468...

There is also the Librarians manual which can be accessed when you edit a book.

Otherwise - googlebooks, Worldcat and the authors websites are places to look for information

I am new here and I have a question or it could be a suggestion-Is there an area that newbie librarians like myself can go to in order to get the correct info for people.

Trin wrote: "I didn't mean to create even more work for you"

You didn't. :) I was hoping to get to it yesterday, and wasn't able to. It's been on my I-hope-to-have-time-soon list for a while now.

What can I say, I was Internet-raised by Geeks. <g>

I'm sorry though; I didn't mean to create even more work for you just by saying hello (it's a good manual though). ;)

ETA: And I've just realised something that answers one of the questions I asked.

"You are following this discussion (instant) edit"

At least I know now it's the entire thread I'm following. :)

Welcome! :)

Trin wrote: "I'm the sort of user who will RTFM when doing things like making edits on a site such as this"

BLESS you. (I should finish updating the manual, huh? ;) )

vicki_girl wrote: "I would like to third (fourth?) the suggestions on
(1) being a member for a certain time period.
(2) only a certain number of edits per day for a certain time period."

*waves* All newly Librarian statused here, and I'd just like to chip in on a few points.

First off, I'm replying to two posts, but I'm not sure yet whether the "email me when people reply" link is directed at the entire thread, or the individual comment, and so am combining my comments within this reply. I have no doubt that SKS can inform me of how the "email reply" feature works though. :)

@(1) Having been a member for a certain amount of time may not always help. Speaking personally, I've been registered on here for, oh, probably well over a year now (maybe even two), but I have actually very very rarely used the site. Luckily, I'm the sort of user who will RTFM when doing things like making edits on a site such as this, however, I realise that not everyone is going to be as sensible as this, and so it's not always going to be guaranteed that length of subscription equates to actual working knowledge of the site.

@(2) Much as this could (possibly) impede the work I joined up as a librarian to do, I'd be happy to be limited in how many edits I can do, and I suspect anyone who complain about such a constraint may possibly not be the 'best' sort of person to be awarded Librarian status.

Of course, if (2) were to be implemented, it would also need to be clarified as to what exactly constitutes a 'counted edit'. E.g. If I'd just edited $book, and then realised that I'd made a typo in my edit and so had to edit that too, would that count as another edit against my 'score', or would editing my own work (say, for example, anything I'd done in the past two hours) not count as an extra edit?


Otis wrote: "Long term, I think we need to move to be more like Wikipedia, with better change logs, ability to follow an article, and arbitration."

While I'm not Geek enough to know exactly how much work this would entail, I do think it is a VERY GOOD idea. That said, I also agree that such a Wikifying may need to be locked down to the more knowledgeable users so as to prevent even more chaos being caused by the "think they know it all"s propagating further misinformation.

I swear that wasn't there last night ;o)

Thanks, I got it worked out!

The "change comments" are actually new and designed to summarize what you edited.

"Librarian comments" show up when a librarian is editing the same book.

"Librarian notes", what JG recommended adding, will show up on the combine page. There's a link to add a note right above the title field on the book's edit page.

Hm, I added a note to each of the books that were an issue... you're not seeing them?

A few minutes later: I see the difference between your notes and mine, mine don't show up on the combine page, just the change log. I'm guessing that's the difference between adding a "change comment" and a "libraian comment"? If you'd be so kind, please point me to an informative thread which instructs about the differences in when to use one or the other comment option. And, eh, uh, disregard all of what I wrote above ;o)

You might want to add librarian notes, Brixton. I just looked at his combine page and saw that you haven't. They've got to help some, right? :-) I've added a few to Gabriel Garcia Marquez's combine page. If you need instructions, just let us know. Sorry if you know about these. I just thought I would make sure.

After spending four hours tonight (with still more tidying to do!) untangling the scrambled nightmare of 30-some editions of two distinct works with titles in five languages being incorrectly combined all as one book by some over-eager?/unobservant? librarian, fixing many foreign-language editions incorrectly matched to English titles, correcting publication dates, languages, authors, and tranlators of everything written by Knut Hamsun (as well as many titles about him), I believe I have tonight earned the priviledge to be his caretaker-- should that idea ever come into being. ;o)

Oh I dread if someone goes combine-crazy again on everything I re-matched tonight. But I couldn't help wondering who/why would someone make such dramatic changes if they don't even know the author well enough to know 1) that they shouldn't combine everything just because it starts with the letter W; and 2) that everything that starts with W shouldn't be combined with everything not in English.

Would there be any way of displaying librarian change notes off to the side of the edit page, making them "sticky" on the first log page, or requiring change notes to be previewed seperately before continuing to the editing process? (Example: on eBay if you want to post a question to a seller, you have to look at any questions others have asked already before sending your own.) Too clunky? I just suspect the link to the change log is often overlooked/purposely skipped and special notes can quickly get buried under subsequent edits.

I don't know how much more strongly it needs to be emphasised, but observing what others are doing/have done before jumping in + reminding them to be SURE before making changes should be flashing on the pages in neon pink or something-- no, I'm kidding. Please don't do that. ;o) I'm just at a loss for ideas how to stress these two points to people who are going to make changes regardless of whether they are qualified to do so (for example: if someone doesn't know French, they shouldn't guess which French titles go with the English ones-- you'd think this would be intuitive, but I learned tonight it is not).

Oh well, I'd still give a toe if I could do this all day as a payin' job :o)

Melody wrote: "Lindig, First you have to apply to be a librarian. Here is all the info you need to know about GoodRead's Librarians. http://www.goodreads.com/help/librarian

"Thanks, all, for the info. I believe I have now successfully applied. If not, I'll be back.

Lindig

Lindig, First you have to apply to be a librarian. Here is all the info you need to know about GoodRead's Librarians. http://www.goodreads.com/help/librarian

Lindig, you are a member of this group. But you never got an email because you never requested to become a librarian.

The Manual is here.

You can get to the librarian manual from the help page accessible at the bottom of every page on the site. It's got a wealth of information, so start by reading that.

Then, if you've any other immediate questions, search this group or post a topic. We're happy to help. If you come across something and you're unsure what to do, ask for a second opinion. That's why we're here.

Well that, and also because we all have great hair and dazzling personalities.... You'll be receiving your spa pass by carrier pigeon soon.

rivka wrote: "Heh. Those are both already suggested in the welcome email. Enforcing is difficult, to say the least. ;)"
GR says I'm a member of this group but I never got the welcome email. I don't know where the manual is. I don't know what to do now. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. Lindig

Someday - and that day may never come - we'll call upon you to do a service.

;)