Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Please delete this book! (pt. 14)
Henning wrote: "Paula wrote: "It is wrong according to you, which it may well be but Supers or any librarian should not be just deleting books / covers with verifying facts."No, it is wrong according to all the ..."
With all due respect links mean nothing.
There are hundreds/ thousands of books with different covers that are never found on a publishers website or book sellers website. Just because a site has the that ISBN with a cover does not mean that other editions with the same ISBN do not exist with different covers that are not published currently on the web.
Once the librarian who added it (rightly or wrongly) replies then we can delete or not delete the book.
GR policy is to leave editions where there is / maybe discrepancy and to clarify and check with the person who uploaded a cover to prevent cover changing wars.
Paula wrote: "There are hundreds/ thousands of books with different covers that are never found on a publishers website or book sellers website."Then why is the "alternate cover" identical to the original cover?
Why was it released on the exact same date (but different year)?
Why doesn't it have an isbn? Why DID it have the same isbn as the other, with just 1 digit different?
Why is there no 2008 edition on their site or any major book stores? Why do they still only sell and list "the old" 2000 edition?
If this isn't enough proof to get something removed, Goodreads will get filled with non-existing editions and duplicates after a while. Why is this thread even on the forum if it's not allowed to remove editions?
And last, why is it important to keep an edition that doesn't have a unique cover or it's own isbn, and can't be verified anywhere? It doesn't contribute to the database in any way!
Paula wrote: "With all due respect links mean nothing.
There are hundreds/ thousands of books with different covers that are never found on a publishers website or book sellers website."
But these existing editions are found. You are removing information found in the official publisher's links (and confirmed by book stores) from the respective editions, and using the wrong url for source in a different (according to me) non-existing edition, all because some random user once added something by mistake.
Henning wrote: Then why is the "alternate cover" identical to the original cover?A possible scenario: Often, a book will be imported with cover A. A librarian has the same book/ISBN but with new updated cover B, so they create an alternate cover edition. The import "refreshes", and adds the new cover B. Therefore the alt cover edition and main listing end up with the same cover. Not necessarily the case here, but it is one example where this happens and the editions need corrected, not deleted.
Why was it released on the exact same date?
New covers are often considered simply a new printing by the publisher. Thus the original publication date is retained.
An example: The Hidden Staircase. This book was originally published in 1930. It was completely revised and rewritten with an entirely different plot in 1959. The cover has changed multiple times. Yet, the publisher still lists the date as 1930 on their website.
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/Bo...
Why doesn't it have an isbn? Why DID it have the same isbn as the other, with just 1 digit different?
ISBNs must be unique in the GR database. This actually cuts down on the number of extraneous duplicates. If the number was off by one previously, it was likely a typo.
Why is there no 2008 edition on their site or any major book stores? Why do they still only sell and list "the old" 2000 edition?
See my "Hidden Staircase" example above.
If this isn't enough proof to get something removed, Goodreads will get filled with non-existing editions and duplicates after a while. Why is this thread even on the forum if it's not allowed to remove editions?
We delete editions in this thread every day. In just a few weeks this thread has over 450 posts, which by my rough estimate is ~200 deletions, which works out to (very roughly) ~15 per day. This doesn't even count the ones that don't require a super, or the ones that supers come across on their own (thus no request here is necessary).
And last, why is it important to keep an edition that doesn't have a unique cover or it's own isbn? It doesn't contribute to the database in any way!
Normally we wouldn't, unless it had other unique attributes (hardcover vs. paperback, etc.). However, Paula has contacted the other librarian to get additional information on why the edition was created, to see if this is the case.
Tristina wrote: "rivka wrote: "The book, whether it has been published yet or not, has reviews. We do not generally delete to-be-published works with reviews."This unpublished, not going to be published, rough dr..."
Bump.
vicki_girl wrote: "A possible scenario: Often, a book will be imported with cover A. A librarian has the same book/ISBN but with new updated cover B, so they create an alternate cover edition. The import "refreshes", and adds the new cover B. Therefore the alt cover edition and main listing end up with the same cover. Not necessarily the case here, but it is one example where this happens and the editions need corrected, not deleted."
If you look up the url, you will see that the original cover for the paperback was the orange-green cover. This is confirmed in all bookstores. The blue, which Paula claims to be the original (without doing any research), belongs to the hardcover edition, which is verified by both book stores and the official publisher. So how come the alternate cover edition has that exact same cover (orange-green)? It never changed, it's not alternate.
vicki_girl wrote: "New covers are often considered simply a new printing by the publisher. Thus the original publication date is retained."
The month and day is the same, but the year is different. It doesn't add up. It would also require the first print to have a different cover, which it, as noted, doesn't.
vicki_girl wrote: "ISBNs must be unique in the GR database. This actually cuts down on the number of extraneous duplicates. If the number was off by one previously, it was likely a typo."
Exactly, it was a typo (or the person added 1 just to get it accepted). The point is that the book he used to add the edition had the exact same isbn.
A reprint with a different cover might have the same isbn, but no sources suggest that this is the case, and there still is no indication of an alternate cover edition. The only available source is this site. Talk about fabricating your own evidence. This site isn't credible at all. Anyone can add, and as this discussion shows, it's almost impossible to remove errors. The data is either unverifiable and most likely wrong, just wrong, or identical with the other (only existing) edition!
In addition to that I have actually gone through all of the author's books. I have registered more than half of the editions on GR myself. All of his books has been released by the same publisher, and none shows signs of a similar case.
Your entire theory builds on non-existing sources, and a lot of not very likely if's. It's a (fairly) new book, so it's not like it came out way before the Internet and modern media. Why is there no indication of any of your ideas? Because it's almost certainly not true. It would never be accepted if you had to confirm newly added editions, because that would be an active action by your side and you wouldn't find any proof. It's here because the passive action is to let it be.
There's not a single indication that the edition exists, and a bunch of the opposite, yet you all arrogantly cling on to it like the future of this site depended on it. Your system has failed. You aren't basing your information on proofing and sources, but vague fantasies. It is crazy that this is supposed to have credible information with these routines.
It is not really I that have to prove that this edition doesn't exist. It is you who have to prove that it does.
Please remove this unpublished, unagented, word document that was added by mistake by a beta. All reviews have been removed as requested by your staff. The ones showing up are actually caching issues as they return an error if you try to view them. The people who wrote them have verified they removed their reviews, ratings, and shelving. This is not an actual book for purchase and is not published or has any current timeline to be published. Right now it's a document on my computer. A personal document. Please remove it from your database.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15...
This book (which needs to be deleted)http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...
is a duplicate of this book:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78...
I already combined them. Thank you!
Because Tristina said it so eloquently. Please remove this unpublished, unagented, word document that was added by mistake by a beta. All reviews have been removed as requested by your staff. The ones showing up are actually caching issues as they return an error if you try to view them. The people who wrote them have verified they removed/are removing their reviews, ratings, and shelving. This is not an actual book for purchase and is not published or has any current timeline to be published. Right now it's a document on my computer. A personal document. Please remove it from your database.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15...
vicki_girl wrote: "Normally we wouldn't, unless it had other unique attributes (hardcover vs. paperback, etc.)."What makes this different?
vicki_girl wrote: "However, Paula has contacted the other librarian to get additional information on why the edition was created, to see if this is the case. "
Which might not respond, might not know, might not remember, might give wrong info, Paula might ask the question in her favor. She hasn't exactly proven to be fair and neutral.
A response with photographic evidence or some other form of proof would be required for it to mean anything in "your" favor, and it would be better to re-add the edition if such a response was given.
Why delete and re-add? Let's say there's a 5% chance that I am wrong; even though my real estimate is closer to 1%. Then there's 50% chance of a response (of some credibility), but only 10% chance of a response with proof if the 5% would kick in and the person responds. These guesstimates (pulled out of my ass) results to a 0,25% chance that the edition can be proven to exist. Yet you prefer to wait, instead of removing it and adding it if such a response came. Where's the logic? Afraid of losing the valuable non-unique data? The only unique value is the year 2008, which would be possible to find if such a book were to exist. You are practically hoarding misinformation.
The chances of nothing happening and the edition never being removed is very high, unless I keep in touch. The only logical argument of not removing it would be to try to let the discussion die out and keep the edition anyway, as both Paula and the other super-librarians has proven to be their strategy. I've had to post multiple messages to even get a response, and then they just leave again, even though I've practically proven that the right thing to do is remove it.
Henning wrote: "vicki_girl wrote: "Normally we wouldn't, unless it had other unique attributes (hardcover vs. paperback, etc.)."What makes this different?
vicki_girl wrote: "However, Paula has contacted the oth..., Paula might ask the question in her favor. She hasn't exactly proven to be fair and neutral."
I have been very fair and neutral to the other librarian and to your wish to have the book deleted. Questioning is part of the role otherwise we would delete a lot of valid editions based on mistakes of users.
So when someone requests a book deleted that you have added a cover for based on some link on the web, you want the book deleted with out the curtsey of asking you about the changes you made?
The other librarian has responded and does not remember and no longer has the book. They are unconcerned about the cover
Marieke wrote: "Because Tristina said it so eloquently. Please remove this unpublished, unagented, word document that was added by mistake by a beta. All reviews have been removed as requested by your staff. The o..."As a matter of curiosity, what would happen if Marieke deleted herself an a Goodreads Author completely? Would the offending item go away without any super librarian having a crisis of conscience here? Might be a way out for everyone. Might not.
MissJessie wrote: "As a matter of curiosity, what would happen if Marieke deleted herself an a Goodreads Author completely? Would the offending item go away"I'm fairly certain that's something a staff member would have to do, not Marieke herself (or the others themselves). Regardless, however, removing her from the GR author program wouldn't affect the books at all.
Just a passing thought...I'm sure you are right.
#489-490 done
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15...needs to be merged into most popular edition. Says paperback but ISBN (in description, not ISBN field) indicates hardcover).
#494-496 doneEdit: And #497 done
Paula wrote: "I have been very fair and neutral to the other librarian and to your wish to have the book deleted. Questioning is part of the role otherwise we would delete a lot of valid editions based on mistakes of users."Questioning is fine, but you are simply ignoring the answers.
Paula wrote: "So when someone requests a book deleted that you have added a cover for based on some link on the web, you want the book deleted with out the curtsey of asking you about the changes you made?"
It wasn't based only on a single link. I didn't write 100 lines just to show you one single link.
Paula wrote: "The other librarian has responded and does not remember and no longer has the book. They are unconcerned about the cover "
Because (s)he just added a random cover for the book, and not for his or her specific edition. Many editions on the site probably has the wrong cover. People search for a cover and add it, not knowing that they are supposed to register a specific edition, or simply not caring if the cover belongs to the paperback, hardback, 3rd edition or something else.
The edition is removed in the end. What a shock...
#499 was a case of imports changing a cover, making it look like a duplicate. Should be sorted now.#500 was one of those weird ones where someone managed to attach both an ASIN and ISBNs to the same record.
It looks like an Amazon user/merchant assigned the ASIN, so we ignore those ASINs. Thus that book should be merged into the one with the ISBNs.
With that as confirmation, #500 merged.
MissJessie wrote: "Just a passing thought...I'm sure you are right."I wondered about that too, thanks :) Nevertheless though, as far as I can tell the manuscript mentioned in this thread have been removed. Mine has no reviews or ratings left. The remaining tbr-add will be removed once the user has access to a computer again.
Please remove. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15...
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Pillowman (other topics)البداية والنهاية (other topics)
Botchan (other topics)
The Last Battle (other topics)
The Hidden Staircase (other topics)
More...
Thanks, good to know!