It has been requested that we be more cautious about marking anything by a current member of the Goodreads Author program as Not A Book. Some have been extremely offended by that designation, in particular when it is assigned to calendars with extensive other content.

Maybe we could also put a note in when we see that there is other content so librarians know. That might be a good idea too.

rivka, is there any chance a request could go to GR authors in turn, asking them to (a) edit the descriptions of their books which are unclear and (b) NAB their own material or ask a librarian for help with NABbing? I see a lot of GR authors who don't even bother to combine their editions....

-- Not that I object to a reminder to be careful about NABbing, mind you! But I do rather like doing general clean-up on works of GR authors who don't bother: I think it makes both GR and the author look better, and I'd hate to have that discouraged.

Eva, a good thought.

Cait, keep in mind that the authors most likely to be upset are also least likely to be computer-savvy.

rivka wrote: "Cait, keep in mind that the authors most likely to be upset are also least likely to be computer-savvy."

That's very true, isn't it? Alas.

Ok, Rivka. Actually, I just NOT A BOOKED a bunch of calendars and half way through noticed it was a GR author. I considered making them the second author but had already almost finished. BUT, they're not a books. Just because a GR author helped write/photograph/create the art for an item, if a book isn't a book, it isn't a book. So, how do we handle it?

If they are calendars or the like, check with the author, or just leave them in the database. So sayeth the PTB. (Multipacks and such are still safe to NAB, I believe.)

Ok. From now on I will do that. Unfortunately, I have done the reverse in the past. I guess those can be reconstructed by the authors; they'll know which items they want in their profiles.

I'm fairly sure I've NABed a few GR authors calendars also. :( But I doubt they had extensive writing in them too. But that's why I think a ote would be well received- I tend to glance around for any notes just to make sure whenever I edit anything.

Are we talking about ALL calendars or just the one's for Goodread's authors?

rivka mentioned being more careful NABing GR authors calendars and such. We still have to be careful NABing anything though, especially ones with extensive writing and that sort of thing.
It's probably that a GR author complained about one of his works being NABed and this brought rivka to us.

I've been thinking: What if we still NABed non-books, but for GR authors put them as the second author? Those works would still show on their profile pages, and they could always put a list/link of their entire works in their author profile. After all, if they're not books, they're not books, GR authors or other authors.

What about NABed items of non-GR authors who later become GR authors? It's just too complicated.

I agree we have to be careful. I have definitely seen some things set to Not A Book that were books (especially children's books). But the reason we started doing this was: A) because people were seemingly mistakenly reviewing postcards/calendars/posters/journals - as if they were the book AND B) because it made Goodreads look more like a marketplace instead of a book rating/review site.

I hate to see Goodreads allow authors to list their "marketing tie-ins" for their novels/books simply because they have signed up as Goodreads authors.

That's a good idea Lisa, hopefully it'll take off. I agree with Lisa and Melody. Another thing is if GR authors start to be allowed to do this they might want to take allowances elsewhere where GR doesn't want them too. It might eliminate that possibility to do what Lisa suggests?

Lisa wrote: "I've been thinking: What if we still NABed non-books, but for GR authors put them as the second author?"

That actually seems worse to me, to continually highlight certain items with the big NOT A BOOK flag. If the GR authors aren't familiar with the whole secondary author concept, they might not know how to remove those items from their profiles.

I agree with Cait. That would be worse. Then they'd show up marked "not a book" but on the author's profile.

Melody, no one has (to my knowledge) complained about posters, postcards, etc. It's just calendars, I think. And not the marketing tie-in ones; just ones like those Moon ones from a few weeks back, and Mayan ones and such. All of which have extensive enough content that an argument can be made for them regardless.

Certainly no one is asking that anyone go back making themselves nuts about things that have already been NAB'd! Just a bit more caution going forward.

Thanks for weighing in, everyone! I agree that it seems to be specifically calendars that occasionally fall into a gray area - they are calendars, yes, but they also contain sections of text. If someone is willing to make an argument that a calendar contains content that could receive a "book review," then I think it is best to leave that item in the database.

A GR author was extremely upset and offended to see that one of her works was NAB'ed, not only because it defaced the entry, but also because this happened without her consent or even prior notification.

I think combining editions or adding book descriptions (unless it is clear from the librarian change log that the author already selected content for that title) is fine. Making changes to the list of published works - such as NAB'ing something - is a touchy issue, because this list appears on the author's profile, which they (rightfully) see as their domain. Imagine if someone could edit your GR profile without your knowledge or consent. I think it is best to err on the side of caution when the author is a member- especially with gray area calendars. If something seems really off, try sending the author a message explaining why you think a change should be made. If you don't hear back, feel free to email GR and we'll take a look and try to intervene. Hopefully cases like this are rare enough that this process won't be too unwieldy?

I agree with Cait and Rivka re: placing author names in second author field for NAB items. I highly doubt authors will be pleased to see a big NOT A BOOK eye-catching phrase in their list of published works.

All good points. Ok Jessica, Rivka, Everyone. I'll leave calendars as they are if their author is a Goodreads author.

Jessica, Yes, having a profile altered would be upsetting; I can understand that.

Oh, if I was the culprit (I haven't been doing many edits lately but have done several NAB calendars in the last few weeks) feel free to apologize on my behalf. Or, tell me who the author is, and I'll be happy to apologize myself.

No worries, Lisa! I believe the calendar in question was edited three different times by three different librarians.

What is Not A Book? I found it on a book and so I erased it. Was that bad?

It is useless to delete such items; they are automatically repopulated from Amazon.

I won't attempt to make a full list, but some "not a book" items include calendars, journal type blank books that you write in, coloring books with no actual text ....

"Not a book" is the indication that something that has been imported from Amazon really isn't a book. Because these things have ISBN numbers they will be re-imported if we delete them, so we just indicate that they aren't books, which pushes them to the back of the database.

Only remove the "Not a book" notation if it was incorrectly applied.

it's not directly related to NAB, but why is this guy (and this one) (and this one - with a Ph.D. in Human Resource Development.) (and actually a woman too) allowed to put "phd" in his name? I realize why they like doing so, but doesn't this create a weird precedent where GR Authors are treated preferentially (without necessarily deserving it)?

I think it's pretty absurd, frankly. I've no wish for GR to be unwelcoming to authors, but it's a little absurd if they're not required to follow the same basic principles of entry, that would apply to any other author in the database.

I think it is not unreasonable for GR Authors to be able to customize their profiles in a number of ways. This among them.

And yes, if you go to the trouble of signing of for and maintaining a GR Author account, you do get "preferential" treatment over those who don't.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow them preferential customizations, but I wonder how many of the GR authors who do things like that realize that they aren't being automatically connected up to their books as imported from Amazon without the fancy names....

We'll have to agree to disagree, Rivka. Profiles are one thing, but this is something that goes beyond a profile, to effect the larger GR database. I don't think of a database as something where "preferential" even enters into the picture. It's a shame there isn't a way for authors to list themselves however they liked, on their profiles, but still appear in the standard way, on the book listings.

There's certainly no reason why you can't send them a friendly email alerting them to that. (Although in many cases they are listed that way on Amazon too.)

rivka wrote: "There's certainly no reason why you can't send them a friendly email alerting them to that."

I have, on occasion, but it seems like the sort of thing which would be useful to have in the official author information (assuming that it isn't already there and just ignored, of course!).

I have more issues with the not NABing than I do with any titles in names. If it's not a book, it's not a book. They can have a link in their profile to their calendars, etc. Just my opinion.

Yes, often at Amazon, titles as part of names are there, which is why librarians have needed to take some time removing them from authors' names.

That's an interesting notion, Cait. I believe we try to make the official author info as brief as possible, but I'll pass the suggestion along.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/program

http://www.goodreads.com/author/guidelin...

I think Cait's suggested info should be added. It wouldn't require that much more reading.

Edit: Actually, we're encouraging them - from the second link:

customize your profile
First, make sure that your profile page is as customized as possible. Upload your photo and author bio. Provide a link to your personal website—and be sure to add a link to your Goodreads profile on your personal website. Also, take full advantage of the opportunity to post events, videos, quotes, and excerpts of your writing.

Personally, I don't think of it as 'preferential', I think of it as 'mucking up the established system'.
The naming conventions are clearly stipulated, why on earth would we not hold authors to maintaining that?
First and foremost we say that "Goodreads is for readers" - why, when we have so many people working constantly to upgrade and improve the quality of data, and to bring it in line with the established standards/format for GR, why allow a group of people to essentially give everyone else the finger? (Metaphorically, that is.)

I don't mind 'preferential' treatment or perks for GR Authors, but I do mind that by permitting them this, they set a very bad example. Anyone seeing that on their profile could [rightly:] assume that it is an accepted format, and thus set authors up with all of the honorific data that GR format says should be placed only in the author profile. (Just what librarians need, more stuff to correct.)

Considering how difficult it is to get & keep everyone on track with formatting standards, why even allow this? After all, if you look at the first author Foppe listed here, you'll see that he has added no profile, no blog, and has zero books that he's read - what's the reason for the preferential treatment, again?

I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to ask authors to stick to the naming conventions established for GR.

Just my two cents on the matter.

Yes, Now I'm thinking: Why not require Goodreads authors to have their name format the same as every other author, but in their profile they can list their degrees & other titles and awards, etc.?

Thanks for the links Lisa, I hadn't read through all of that before.

It was interesting to note, that nowhere in those links does it say an author has the right to customize their name - their photo, bio, weblinks, etc, but not their name.

So, since explicit permission to add stuff to their names has not been granted and since the GR format specifically says that titles/honorifics should be in their profile, but not their name, perhaps it's just a matter of maintenance (and communication) with the authors who have extraneous info in their names...

(Edited to make some sense of that last sentence = )

This isn't going to make me very popular, but I feel pretty strongly that authors who sign up on Goodreads should be able to name their profiles as they see fit. I wouldn't tell Dr. Phil that he can't put Dr. in front of his name. Many of them are branding themselves in a certain way.

I think the best solution would be to enable authors to name their profile one thing, but stick with naming conventions for books in the catalog. I'll add this as a suggestion for the "author aliases" project (coming eventually, I swear!), as I imagine these two things go hand in hand.

It does make the site feel more like a marketing tool for sellers rather than a helpful site for readers. Just saying .... I have been looking at Shelfari for some of these reasons.

I support the idea of author names appearing differently, on profiles vs. in book listings. I think I mentioned that possibility above. I understand that GR needs to walk that fine line between being welcoming to authors, and still centered on readers, and this sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Jessica wrote: "I'll add this as a suggestion for the "author aliases" project (coming eventually, I swear!)"

Please!

"as I imagine these two things go hand in hand. "

Yes, it sounds like that one stone would kill a lot of birds. :)

I understand, and frankly, I don't really care what an author writes in their profile - what bugs me is when it messes with the database. Right now, the name on an author profile is the name on the books in that profile. Therein lies the problem...

Authors already can have one name for personal and one name for profile. One of my friends is an author and if you click on her posts/messages her first name nickname shows, but if you go to her profile, it's an author profile and her whole first name shows.

The latter is what shows up for books though, so that's the tweak that might need to be made.