Goodreads combined first and second editions

[M.A.]

I just checked my dashboard and discovered that Goodreads has erased the first edition of The Global Indie Author: How anyone can self-publish in the U.S. and worldwide markets from my author's book list and combined the first and second editions of the title into one listing. I didn't request this. Is this normal?

[M.A.]

I should add that this means the excerpt is out of date. This is NOT GOOD. And it may explain why the excerpt I tried to upload for the new edition has gotten stuck in the system.

Who did this and why?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

M.A. wrote: "Is this normal?"

Yes, it is GR policy for all editions of a work to be combined. See http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/21... and http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/8-....

If you need an excerpt to be removed, we can help you with that.

[M.A.]

I read the rules you linked to and what has been done is NOT in accordance with the rules posted. They are not different publications of the same book, they are not different formats of the same book, nor are they editions/translations of the book in other languages. They are two separate books, published a year apart with significant changes and differences between the two.

This needs to be fixed and quickly. The reviews posted, as positive as they are, refer to the first edition and that is misleading.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

They are different editions of a book. I ran this by other GR staff, and they agreed.

[M.A.]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Your rules are very clear and intended to combine different formats or republications of the same text. This is not the case here. The text has changed substantially -- about 120 pages of differences, in fact -- and it is not only misleading to combine the editions but could confuse consumers. And I think to overrule the author and tell her otherwise is arrogant. It smacks of "our way or the highway."

[Carolyn]

I'm sorry you feel that way MA, but this was discussed some years ago in the Librarian's forum and it was eventually agreed upon that different editions of books with the same title, and mostly the same content would be combined. At the time, we were primarily talking about travel guidebooks and textbooks, but guides like what you posted above fit into this category as well.

It is not a 'my way or the highway' thing, it is an agreed-upon standard for the GR database, discussed and decided upon quite a while (years) ago. With about 3/4 of your text being exactly the same as the first edition, it does fit this class.

I understand you don't like it, but it is the standard applied to this database.

[M.A.]

Have you read the book in order to determine that 3/4 of the text is the "exactly the same"? Two chapters and the book excerpt have been removed, everything else has been updated to reflect the most recent statistics or technological requirements including significant changes to ebook formatting, entirely new sections have been added while others have been deleted, and the 2nd edition is indexed. I would say at least 50% of the book has changed, if not more.

It sounds like all you did was read the table of contents and decided the book was the same.

It is still not for GR to decide what is a mere update and what is a new book. That should be left to the author. If you can't respect my wishes, then I need to take the first edition off my author's page. How shall I go about doing that?

[Scott]

You can't; it's an existing book and people may have read it.

[M.A.]

I should add that since GR reviews are now syndicated, this further misleads consumers on sites such as Kobo, Sony, etc., and I shall be making my views known to them as well.

[Stefani]

M.A. wrote: "It is still not for GR to decide what is a mere update and what is a new book. That should be left to the author. If you can't respect my wishes, then I need to take the first edition off my author's page. How shall I go about doing that? "

Sorry you feel that way, but GR is not at your beck and call to do your bidding as an author. If the official determination has been made that the two editions should be combined then then that's the decision. If you feel it would be misleading, you can add to the synopsis that the book was recently updated with new statistics/figures/etc. That might help with any confusion.

[M.A.]

Stefani: if they actually read the book and made a decision based on that I might agree, but I don't think they did. And it is misleading.

This isn't just about my book. If you consider the ISBN system, any significant changes are deemed to be a new book. If you add a preface, new book. Add an index, new book. Change the size or format, new book. There is a reason for this, and that is to ensure the consumer gets exactly what they are looking for. GR links to sales sites. How would you like it if by mistake you bought the wrong edition of a book because of GR? Instead of offering clarity, GR is creating confusion.

Also, a book has to stand on its own merits. What if my new book were crap instead of a major improvement? What if all I did was change a few pages here and there instead of most of the book? A consumer who already bought the first edition would feel cheated if they bought the new edition thinking it contained valuable new information. Conversely, a consumer who bought the first book wants to know if it's worth investing in the second. How can they make that judgment if reviews are carried forward?

With this system the consumer has no idea which edition the review is for. All it will say beside the review is "Review of another edition" but it says the same thing if you review the ebook instead of the print. It's of no help to the reader.

Reviews need to be linked to the edition that was reviewed, not carried forward, good or bad. The first edition has a 5-star rating. I should be thrilled to have that carried forward. But I'm not: the principle is all wrong.

[Stefani]

M.A. wrote: "Reviews need to be linked to the edition that was reviewed, not carried forward, good or bad. The first edition has a 5-star rating. I should be thrilled to have that carried forward. But I'm not: the principle is all wrong. "

If you actually look at the book page, every review that is for the first edition says "review from another edition". In the synopsis it says, the book is the same book but updated and uses praise from the first edition of the book. It says in the synopsis itself that this is a "second edition". When I look at the book page, I see no confusion. Reading the synopsis and looking at the reviews will tell you there are two editions of the book one that is older and little more outdated than the second.

There are many books that have been republished under the same name but with hundreds of pages of changes or edits that are also combined, it is standard practice.

GR staff doesn't have time to read every single book that is combined to determine the percentage of different to same material. They have a billion things to do to keep the site running, that would be a silly expectation.


I don't use GR to determine which edition of a book I want, I use bookseller sites for that. And if one puts the ISBN into the GR system it will link them to the exact edition they entered. It is not a new book and so should not have a completely different record.

[Becky]

M.A., this is Goodreads policy for their database and has nothing to do with the ISBN system. Many books have been combined this way. Just look at The Stand by Stephen King. When it was re-released in 1990 there were hundreds of pages of new text - yet both the original and revised editions are combined on Goodreads.

Also, reviews ARE linked to the edition. The "Review of a different edition" is a link which will take you to the edition that has actually been reviewed.

[Amara]

M.A. wrote: "It is still not for GR to decide what is a mere update and what is a new book. That should be left to the author. If you can't respect my wishes, then I need to take the first edition off my author's page. How shall I go about doing that? "

You are aware that this is not your personal website, yes?

[Riona]

Amara wrote: "You are aware that this is not your personal website, yes?"

This. I don't know when authors are going to realize that basic goodreads policies are not going to change just because they whine and stamp their feet. All that accomplishes is turning off potential readers.

[M.A.]

Stefani: if you look at any book page that has a print book and an ebook, if you are looking at the ebook and the review was left on the print book, the review will say "review of another edition." So the disclaimer is of little help.

Becky: If Stephen King's The Stand was re-released with hundreds of pages of new text, I would argue it should not be combined. It's like buying the director's cut of a movie versus the original cut; one is often significantly better and different from the other. As a consumer I wouldn't want Amazon to combine them into one entry where it is not immediately apparent who reviewed which cut of the movie.

It's the same with translations. Some translators are renowned for working with specific authors, and their translations can make a huge impact on the content of the book. Why would you want a poorly translated edition mixed up with a wonderfully translated edition. Especially since I don't know how many people actually click on the link to see what edition has been reviewed; they just read the reviews.

As noted as well, GR reviews are now syndicated to sites such as Kobo and Sony. So the problem is not confined to GR; it infects the retail sites. So Stefani, how can you rely on the retail sites to decide what edition to buy if the reviews are posted there, too?

Publishers make a point of differentiating editions for a reason. It strikes me as poor GR practice to undermine that differentiation. I'm not whining, stamping my feet, or treating this as my personal website. I am expressing how my efforts are undermined by technical automation. And since we have to manually combine ebook and print editions, why would the system automatically combine a first edition and a second? It's inconsistent. Of course GR doesn't have time to read different editions; this is why it should be left to the publisher to manually combine what we feel is necessary. Combining an ebook and print version is essential; combining a first and second edition may not be desired. Yet the first is my responsibility but the second is automated? Does that make sense to anyone?

I would think that GR would want to work with its authors, not alienate us. And as noted earlier, the combination is not actually in accordance with their stated policy. GR should either change their automation or change their stated policy so authors know what to expect and, if they disagree, to decide for themselves if they want to add their latest book. I don't think that is too much to ask of GR.

[Tntexas]

M.A. wrote: "GR should either change their automation or change their stated policy so authors know what to expect and, if they disagree, to decide for themselves if they want to add their latest book."

A book can be added by anyone who's read it (or simply run across it) - not just its author.

[Amara]

M.A. wrote: "And as noted earlier, the combination is not actually in accordance with their stated policy."

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where a staff member specifically told you that it is in accordance with stated policy? If you did, it's messages 3 and 5.

M.A. wrote: "I'm not whining, stamping my feet, or treating this as my personal website."

Yes, you are. You started a thread in which you:

A) claimed that you apparently understood GR policy better than a GR staff member (message 4, "I read the rules you linked to and what has been done is NOT in accordance with the rules posted.")

B) called her "arrogant" when she explained the site's rules to you (message 6, "And I think to overrule the author and tell her otherwise is arrogant. It smacks of 'our way or the highway.'")

C) claimed it's not GR's right to decide their own site rules (message 8, "It is still not for GR to decide what is a mere update and what is a new book.")

D) expressed the wish to vandalize the database because you didn't get your way (message 8, "If you can't respect my wishes, then I need to take the first edition off my author's page. How shall I go about doing that?")

So let's clear this up: You are a site user, not a staff member. If you don't agree with policy, you respectfully suggest changes and offer feedback. What you don't do is insinuate that Goodreads should "respect [your] wishes" just because you're an author.

[Banjomike]

M.A. wrote: "If Stephen King's The Stand was re-released with hundreds of pages of new text, I would argue it should not be combined. It's like buying the director's cut of a movie versus the original cut; one is often significantly better and different from the other. As a consumer I wouldn't want Amazon to combine them into one entry where it is not immediately apparent who reviewed which cut of the movie."
My Bold

I thought Amazon DID do that.

This is the Amazon page for book, The Stand:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stand-Stephen...

There are indicators for Hardcover or Paperback which conceal another 19 hardbacks and 21 Paperbacks. Those editions are only identified as "Hardcover, 8 Mar 1979" or "Turtleback, 31 Dec 1994". Very helpful. BUT, whichever one of those editions you pick you will always get the same reviews in the same sequence. The only clue that Amazon give about which edition is under review is "Format:Paperback" or "This review is from: The Stand (Paperback)" on the detailed review page. Actually finding "The Complete and Uncut Edition" that you referred to from the long list is another matter. You would need to know that it was "Paperback, 2 May 1991" or "Hardcover, 19xx". At least on Goodreads we use the full title. We also have 113 editions of The Stand to keep track of.

Even with movies your argument has problems. For example, there are two editions of the second Highlander film the original "Highlander 2 - the Quickening" (total rubbish) and "Highlander 2 - Renegade Version" (vastly better). They are basically completely different films not the typical director tweaks. And here also we get exactly the same reviews in the same sequence. The only clue about which version the reviewer is talking about comes from "Format:DVD" or you have to go to the detailed review page.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Once a goodreads member has shelved (catalogued) or reviewed an edition of a book—it doesn't get removed. A detail like a typo in synopsis may get corrected, an alternate cover edition might get created, might need to add text to clarify edition differences, … but no one yanks a book out of a user's catalogue. Even if text or covers are revised by publisher or author. The assumption is that the goodreads member shelved the edition available to them at the time.

Books that are 1st edition, 2nd edition, etc. are combined because considered editions of same book. If significantly different, usually don't keep the same title to be clearly a new book (can put old title in " original title" field).

When in doubt, goodreads staff has final say. Even if that say is just in this group—usually librarian manual covers standards. Really unlikely that a single book would change standards; certainly not if it meant going back through years of other revised editions (*shudders* looking just at HTML guides in personal library as an example of how some books grow in page numbers with each new edition).

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

If you need help with excerpt, editing a snyopsis to clarify edition differences, or getting the edition descriptions to be accurate (possibly adding wording like "revised" or "expanded") - we're happy to help.

Going against decision made by Rivka or other goodreads staff just gets our changes reversed whether or not staff also revokes our librarian status.

FYI—it's not just goodreads. Worldcat, Ingrams, and other book data sites combine your first and second editions as different editions of same titled book. You may have a "big data" battle at hand convincing all the book sites to not list both 1st and 2nd editions under same titled book. Some bookseller sites do have separate either thru publisher/author programs over which you'll have varying controls, because they allow third party sellers to list items (like amazon marketplace) or internal data/staff standards to keep inventory and shipping accurate—their sites, their choices but in no way dictates a standard to goodreads.

[Carolyn]

M.A. wrote: "Have you read the book in order to determine that 3/4 of the text is the "exactly the same"? Two chapters and the book excerpt have been removed, everything else has been updated to reflect the mos..."

Just to clarify, MA, I didn't bother to look at the contents of your book at all - I just looked at the page count (400+) of an edition and estimated based on the fact you gave: "about 120 pages of differences", and estimated a quick number. You proved our point - if the majority of the text is the same and the title is the same, it is a different edition, but THE SAME BOOK, as far as GR is concerned.

"If you consider the ISBN system, any significant changes are deemed to be a new book."
The ISBN is definitely NOT a good system to follow for setting standards (and GR doesn't) - ISBNs are RE-USED on totally separate books. By that I mean different authors, different titles, totally different works. On one occasion I remember that librarians had to deal with a Walmart-published set of classics, all using the same ISBN. Not sure why the system allows that, but it definitely happens.

"Publishers make a point of differentiating editions for a reason."
Yes they do, they want to SELL THEIR VERSION OF THE BOOK. GR does not - GR is for readers, the extensive database here is to allow readers to record which book they have read. Some readers are very particular and want to shelve the exact edition they own or have read, many are not and just want to capture the title for their shelves.

I'm really not sure why you are still trying to argue this. You've been told the GR policy, which has been in effect for several years. Thousands of edits have been performed on the database in support of the GR standards, and those aren't going to be changed because one person disagrees. The data *about* the books you have authored does not belong to you, it is in the public domain. Authors do not have the right to remove it from GR or to deface the information.

[Stefani]

M.A. wrote: "So Stefani, how can you rely on the retail sites to decide what edition to buy if the reviews are posted there, too?"

Because I am capable of looking at the Amazon page and saying...wait, this is the 1st edition, but there's a 2nd edition link right there I think I want that. That is called intelligence and common sense. I find nothing confusing about the GR system (which is used by virtually ALL bookseller sites too), and it appears no one else reading this thread is confused either.

Perhaps, MA, you believe your readers to be too stupid to do the same or understand this concept?

Staff has already come in and stated that their change was in accordance with the policy. You seem to be the only one who disagrees with it. So I suggest you start drafting your complaints to GR, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Book Depository, and all the other sites that do things EXACTLY the same way.

[Lee (of Shalott)]

Could you just imagine all the chaos that would ensue if we did not combine the various editions of Shakespeare's works, for example? With all the diversity in translators, commentaries and appendices, there can be substantial differences, but if I want to find Hamlet in any & every version, the combined method is the most effective way to do it, IMO. Why make an exception to the established practice?

As a reader, I don't find it misleading at all to choose from combined editions, regardless of significant revisions. If I actually want to go back to re-read a book (seldom have I ever wanted to do this), I would actively seek out & add the new edition to my shelves, in addition to the previous edition - both bases are still covered & as far as I'm concerned, there is no damage to the author's reputation or whatever it is that seems to be feared in this case.

For me as a librarian the most important definitive is the word "works." How many "works" has an author actually created? Does the work really constitute a separate, original book or not? Expanding or enlarging an edition is still a rework of the original.... Fear not that readers won't notice - I think users do actually read descriptions, many typically make comments in their reviews about edition revisions, & many pay attention to comments.

[M.A.]

I stand corrected on retailer behaviour. Clearly I rely so little on reader reviews and instead on recommendations that I never noticed Amazon combine reviews. I apologize for my error.

As for GR, the guidelines posted are this:

do combine:

Different publications of the same book.
Different formats of the book (hardcover, paperback, audio).
Editions/translations of the book in other languages. Even though many translations differ significantly, we've made the decision to combine them all, and have people note the differences in their reviews.

I think you can agree that the posted guidelines do not make mention of subsequent updated editions such as the aforementioned travel guides. Since by definition a new edition is a different book, there is a discrepancy between guidelines and practice. And it is clear from subsequent remarks that the decision rested not on these guidelines but on an interpretation of the guidelines decided upon by librarians among themselves. So perhaps the guidelines need to be updated so that authors are not broadsided by unsolicited applications and by interpretations made years ago and not shared on the relevant page authors are sent to.

It would be good, too, if people would understand just how dismissive and insulting is an off-hand remark like "With about 3/4 of your text being exactly the same as the first edition, it does fit this class" especially when there is no foundation to make this comment. I put in 8 weeks of 10 to 14-hour days, 7 days a week, updating this book to the point that I became ill with exhaustion. I am a perfectionist with very high standards for the work I produce. For the second edition I downloaded and tested 8 new software programs, and tested the updates on 6 others covered by the first edition. Of the 53 illustrations included only 14 are from the first edition. There are approximately 120 new pages of information plus every single other page has been updated and revised. Every reused link had to be tested and updated if necessary and additions made. And the index alone took 5 days to complete. This was a lot more significant than merely updating the opening hours of the Louvre.

It is also libelous to make such a comment on a public forum when you have not read the books in question and can quantify your assumption. Such comments suggest to others there is little reason to consider the new edition since the changes are allegedly so few and insignificant. Instead it is implied that I did little more than rehash old information, like a travel guide does. That IS damaging to one's reputation.

[Becky]

M.A. wrote: "It would be good, too, if people would understand just how dismissive and insulting is an off-hand remark like "With about 3/4 of your text being exactly the same as the first edition, it does fit this class" especially when there is no foundation to make this comment."

Would you say that's more or less insulting and dismissive than calling an employee arrogant because you disagree with the policy she's relaying?

Your own book cover specifically states that it is a "2nd edition". That is a new edition of the same work. Therefore, it is combined, as it falls under "different publications of the same book". The amount of time you spent updating the 2nd edition doesn't have anything to do with whether what you were working on constitutes a new work.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

M.A. wrote: "I stand corrected on retailer behaviour. Clearly I rely so little on reader reviews and instead on recommendations that I never noticed Amazon combine reviews. I apologize for my error.

As for GR,..."

M.A. This site was not created for your sole use and enjoyment.

The fact that every other author in the entire database - with the exception of you - realizes that this is a normal practice...

...makes me concerned about you being educated about the publishing/self-publishing field at all. How can you teach people about Global Markets when you aren't even familiar with US markets? I hope you don't suggest things like giving [what you think are] two separate books the same name and then complaining because they are treated in that manner.

[Stefani]

M.A. wrote: "It is also libelous to make such a comment on a public forum when you have not read the books in question and can quantify your assumption. Such comments suggest to others there is little reason to consider the new edition since the changes are allegedly so few and insignificant. Instead it is implied that I did little more than rehash old information, like a travel guide does. That IS damaging to one's reputation. "

Goodreads staff, I find this to be very damaging and dangerous language. I have PTSD over the improper use of these kinds of words because of a past author encounter. I've been having panic attacks all day now over seeing these kinds of things and have to leave work. It has made me ill and exhausted. I will have to have my therapist review this thread for violations of my personal triggers and take appropriate action.

(view spoiler)[And if you couldn't figure out the snark there, I can't help you. (hide spoiler)]

[Carolyn]

M.A. wrote: "Since by definition a new edition is a different book..." Again, this is NOT the GR definition, and there are thousands of books on GR that are combined as the same WORK, regardless of new forwards, new afterwords, appendicies, translators, etc. Your book falls into this category.

"It would be good, too, if people would understand just how dismissive and insulting is an off-hand remark like "With about 3/4 of your text being exactly the same as the first edition, it does fit this class" especially when there is no foundation to make this comment."
There is nothing dismissive or insulting about my remark. It is based on the fact you gave in your post up above, i.e. "The text has changed substantially -- about 120 pages of differences, in fact." It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand how long it took you to accomplish your changes; the fact remains that in a book of 400+ pages, you stated that you had at a maximum changed 120 pages of content. There is nothing 'libelous' about doing a quick math estimate of the number of pages that you were saying you had NOT changed and stating in my post.

"It is also libelous to make such a comment on a public forum when you have not read the books in question and can quantify your assumption. Such comments suggest to others there is little reason to consider the new edition since the changes are allegedly so few and insignificant. Instead it is implied that I did little more than rehash old information, like a travel guide does. That IS damaging to one's reputation."

Oh, where to start with this comment...
First, you might want to actually understand libel a bit better before you try to suppress other people's comments with it. What I was stating was based on information you supplied; that is acting in good faith. Whether or not I read the book is not relevant to your argument because there is nothing about the relative quality or lack of quality of your work inherent in my statement about the number of pages not changed.

I do find it interesting that you cry foul about your book being treated this way, while you make the similar kind of pseudo-'libelous' statements about travel guide writers, who, according to you just "rehash old information, like a travel guide does." Have you written one lately?

And finally, my little ol' estimate of the number of pages changed in the new edition has no effect whatsoever on your reputation, but I'm sure that you have caused considerable damage all on your own by continuing on with this argument.

I'm not even sure what good it is doing you to argue in the first place, since right after your original post we let you know that your book falls under the "different editions of the same book" rule, and that the GR standard is not being changed.


Note:
For anyone reading this thread at a later date, we are discussing the new edition of this book: The Global Indie Author: How anyone can self-publish in the U.S. and worldwide markets 2nd Edition.

[Sigrun]

Just a question to be clear about editions. I don't know if this has been raised, but just recently I came across a book that I thought was a condensation (strange wording on the cover). Would this be considered a different edition that has to be entered separately? From what I gathered while going over the comments, it would be considered the same edition. Would it then just be entered as a condensation to the list? I'd guess it's "an addition to the book" in reverse.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

In general, we do combined abridged versions of works with their originals.

[M.A.]

There is nothing dismissive or insulting about my remark. It is based on the fact you gave in your post up above, i.e. "The text has changed substantially -- about 120 pages of differences, in fact." It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand how long it took you to accomplish your changes; the fact remains that in a book of 400+ pages, you stated that you had at a maximum changed 120 pages of content. There is nothing 'libelous' about doing a quick math estimate of the number of pages that you were saying you had NOT changed and stating in my post.

If you had bothered to read the book description, Carolyn, you would have seen that it clearly states that the entire book has been updated and revised AND contains 120 pages of new information. But of course you did not, because that would have required some effort on you part.

This argument began because of a discrepancy between posted guidelines and GR policy and actions. What transpired, as stated before, is that there IS a discrepancy between posted guidelines and policy, a discrepancy which arose from an interpretation made in private three years ago and not posted on the public page. That it took an argument for this to be revealed is what is so disgraceful. Rather than revisit the guidelines page and ask yourselves why the misunderstanding arose, your immediate reaction was to dictate policy, insist the guidelines were clear and adequate, and then threaten me with loss of reputation because I dared to challenge your dictatorial stance. And just to drive the point home, Carolyn has posted a link to my book for fear someone may miss the culprit of such a offense as to tell a GR librarian they are wrong.

And judging by Sigrun's thoughtful question, the guidelines make no mention of abridged versions either, another oversight. Perhaps mention of abridged versions should be added to the guidelines as well.

And on a personal note, Carolyn, here's what's up: my father is dying and that puts things into really clear perspective: you, and what you think of me, are but a speck of insignificance in an indifferent universe. And if sticking up for myself damages my reputation, so be it. Better to be a failed author than a doormat.

[Sat]

What percentage of text needs to be new for a work to be considered a new book?

[Amara]

M.A. wrote: "There is nothing dismissive or insulting about my remark. It is based on the fact you gave in your post up above, i.e. "The text has changed substantially -- about 120 pages of differences, in fact..."

Whatever personal issues you have in your life, they do not in any way, shape, or form give you leeway to come onto someone else's website and start insulting people who don't agree with you.

This argument, as you call it, began when you insulted staff. Until that point, the posts in this thread were trying to help you understand Goodreads policy. At that point, it became clear that you simply don't care about Goodreads policy. You want things done your way, and you are perfectly willing to insult anyone who disagrees with you, even if he or she is just trying to help you.

And no, there is no discrepancy between Goodreads policy and actions. Goodreads policy, as you have quoted above, is to combine different editions of a work. The topic title you wrote specifies that the records in question are two different editions of the same work. "Goodreads combined first and second editions" makes it very obvious that even you consider these two books to be editions.

Goodreads staff is not wrong. A staff member showed you the policy and explained how it applied to you. Four days later, you're still trying to say it doesn't apply to you when everyone else has clarified that it 100% most certainly does. This is simply absurd.

Goodreads librarians are not wrong. We deal with these policies every day. We did not write them. We did not make them up, as you so tastefully accused us of doing. These policies are not "an interpretation of the guidelines decided upon by librarians among themselves", and in case you really can't tell, such a statement is both absurd and ludicrously rude. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, but yes, your behavior and your insults are offensive, and purposefully offensive behavior damages reputations. Yours is not exempt.

So I'm going to try this again:

If you don't agree with policy, you respectfully suggest changes and offer feedback. What you don't do is insinuate that Goodreads should "respect [your] wishes" just because you're an author, tell site veterans that they are "wrong" when they try to help clarify policy for you, and accuse staff of being dictators for having a policy you disagree with.

And if the policy really upsets you so much that you are willing to insult people for days, then perhaps the site isn't for you.

[Darkpool]

I’m really sorry about your father, M.A. Perhaps at some point in the future when you are not dealing with something so stressful and emotionally upsetting you will be able to come back and read what you have written here with a clear eye, and you’ll see why the librarians who responded to you have taken exception to what you have said and how you have said it. Until then my advice would be to take a deep breath and walk away from this thread.

[Rose]

Darkpool wrote: "I’m really sorry about your father, M.A. Perhaps at some point in the future when you are not dealing with something so stressful and emotionally upsetting you will be able to come back and read what you have written here with a clear eye, and you’ll see why the librarians who responded to you have taken exception to what you have said and how you have said it. Until then my advice would be to take a deep breath and walk away from this thread."

I second this. All the staff is trying to do is help and inform, but M.A., you've taken exception to quite an extreme and in a crude way. The long and short of what everyone's trying to say is that the first and second editions of a work, regardless of how much it's been amended in the text, is combined in the GR database system, and that policy has not - and will not, with all due respect - change. I'm a GR Librarian, and I've known this since I've been a member on the site for quite some time.

There are many examples on this site as to how editions are combined, so yours isn't a special case or exemption.

I'm sorry to hear about your father as well.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I'm insulted to not have been included in the private librarian stuff. All I ever see from librarians are what's on this group's very public threads and posted in the equally public librarian manual :(

Gee, what have I missed in these private sessions?

Honestly, if I see 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. editions listed with exact same title and author, I just automatically combine without reading/researching further.

I don't see author's upset with book link being posted. It's useful to see what book discussion is about. The fact that she can come here and discuss, and have so many people initially trying to help, doesn't support her "in private" complaint.

[M.A.]

Debbie: Authors are not sent to the librarian's manual regarding guidelines for editions (and why would we? We are authors, not librarians). We are sent to the link as posted in the first response. So your sarcasm is misplaced.

As I have already indicated, I am not asking for an exception. I have already apologized for not realising the likes of Amazon combine editions as well. What I have asked for is that the guidelines be updated. So, again, your sarcasm is misplaced.

Thirdly, there was little intention in this thread to be "helpful," as your post itself indicates. What it has been is an exercise in bullying. How convenient, Debbie "R", that you get to limit your exposure by not revealing your full identity but we authors must, and so you all can threaten our reputations while you post with relative impunity.

What would have been helpful from the start, was this: "These are our posted guidelines. Although they do not specify later editions, the combination of such was agreed upon years ago among librarians. I can see why you are upset because the posted guidelines do not adequately reflect this policy decision and we failed to acknowledge this. We have contacted the administrators to suggest improving the guidelines so authors are aware of the various types of editions we combine and why. We apologize for the confusion."

What I got instead was, "These are our guidelines. They clearly include your book; are you such an idiot that you can not see this? So take it or leave it. Stop your whining. We can and will harm your reputation." And you expect diplomacy in response?

Thank you to those who posted their condolences. But I just got the call when I made my last post, so my head was and is still clear. And thank you, Debbie, for continuing the insults even after I did post about my dad. Your compassion and grace is beyond measure. You should grow up to run the U.N.

[lafon حمزة]

May I just say, that although I have no bone in this argument, both sides should calm down, and behave appropriately? Instead of having a calm rationale argument all I saw was a bunch of sniping and accusing the other side of not being fair/rational/unbiased.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

lafon حمزة wrote: "May I just say, that although I have no bone in this argument, both sides should calm down, and behave appropriately? Instead of having a calm rationale argument all I saw was a bunch of sniping an..."

While I think MA's behavior is quite childish, I bow to your calmer wisdom and have deleted my post.

[Stefani]

Oh here we go, now we're "bullying" and "hiding our real identities" and "not being sensitive". That isn't what happened, so perhaps the definition of "bullying" would be helpful:

Bullying (verb): Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

2. To repeatedly treat someone aggressively and abusively.

The first one sounds more like you MA than any of us. After all, you were the one who insisted that things be done your way because your book is different (forcing others to to what one wants) and to call a member of staff names when she informed you that the action was within the rules (treating aggressively), and now calling everyone else who has posted a bully who is not being sensitive (repeated aggressive action and name calling)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The question initially raised by this thread has been answered, and it does not seem to be going anywhere productive.

If there are general policy questions (related or not), please feel free to start a new thread.