Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Questions > when a book is "revised"

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Summer (new)

Summer | 27 comments Should it be combined with the original? For example:

message 2: by John (new)

John Not in my opinion as the "revision" means something is different from the original (previous) edition.

message 3: by rivka, Former Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45530 comments Mod
I think it depends. Many times the revision is pretty minimal (and simply a way to publish a new edition). We combine books with their translations; these look to be about as similar, IMO.

message 4: by Maria (new)

Maria Elmvang (kiwiria) | 72 comments I agree with Rivka.

message 5: by Marley (new)

Marley (marleymagaziner) No, it's a new publication with a new ISBN and has new content. Yes, sometimes revisions do not have many changes and it's a marketing ploy to sell more books. However, for the sake of organization and clarity, it makes the most sense to treat them equally as new books. We should put the edition in the title.

message 6: by Otis, Chief Architect (new)

Otis Chandler | 315 comments Mod
This is the gray area of combining editions. Generally if the revision is not significant our rule has been that it should be combined.

We combine all editions of 'The Iliad' even though the different translations vary greatly, and are often a matter of academic debate. But most people just want to know if you've it or not. For those who do care about which particular edition of a book they've read, they can make sure to review that particular edition and note differences in their review.

Therefore the differences in the revision must be very significant in order to qualify as 'a different work'.

message 7: by John (new)

John How would a combiner, unfamiliar with the work, know the extent of the changes to revised/2nd editions?

Then again, I combine sub-volumes with the main work, and others wouldn't.

back to top