Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Alternative cover versions - which version takes priority?
I have always thought that the edition that is added first to Goodreads, regardless of the publication date, takes the ISBN, just a matter of precedence, no other policies
The one with the most reviews as far as I understand it. This is usually the first added, as Moloch states above, but can change over time. However with the new changes stated regarding 'preferred editions', this might alter as authors chose the new cover to be their preferred version...In short, there is not policy because this is either automatically generated by user data and usage, or manually set by authors. (Correct me PTB if I'm wrong!)
Emy wrote: "The one with the most reviews as far as I understand it. This is usually the first added, as Moloch states above, but can change over time. However with the new changes stated regarding 'preferred ..."I think we're saying two different things, we're talking about which edition keeps the ISBN, not about the cover that's shown as first result
Cheers. So if someone has changed a cover version of an existing book with loads of reviews, and then created a new "alternative cover version" with the cover they removed, this is incorrect?
I'd say it's incorrect, but better wait for an official answer from Rivka or from more experienced librarians.
Thanks, I only noticed it because the edition of the book I had read and reviewed appeared to have a different cover, and I traced back what had happened.I'll await confirmation before correcting
Mod
That is indeed not what should be happening.
If there is a librarian who seems to be doing this, we suggest messaging them. If that is ineffective, drop a line via the Contact Us link on the help page and GR staff will look into it.
rivka wrote: "Neil wrote: "Cheers. So if someone has changed a cover version of an existing book with loads of reviews, and then created a new "alternative cover version" with the cover they removed, this is inc..."Cheers, I have reversed the changes and dropped the person a note just confirming what I have done and the process that needs to be followed
Neil wrote: "Cheers, I have reversed the changes and dropped the person a note just confirming what I have done and the process that needs to be followed "Were there any clues in the librarians own edits page that they might have been doing this on a regular basis?
Moloch wrote: "I have always thought that the edition that is added first to Goodreads, regardless of the publication date, takes the ISBN" I hope this is the case, too. I hate it when a certain edition that I had shelved with the cover of the book I own suddenly changes to an older one. I'm sure I'm not the only one that always shelves the edition they have read. It would be good if this was specified in the librarian manual.
I thought it was clear in the librarian manual that a cover was never to be changed (other than an illegally sourced copy from a retailer like amazon or replacing with a better image file/scan of exact same cover) ? That any change would need to become alternate cover edition.(The only possible exceptions I could think of would be accidentally having a cover from completely different book or a pre-release cover that wound up never being published even in ARC form. I suppose some odd art copyright legal injunction type of thing gr staff would need to resolve could come into play; but, if really was ever published cover then members have a right to shelve)
What would you do if the cover did not match the ISBN + Publication date? The same ISBN is obviously going to be reused in an alternative edition but the publication date or other edition data can still be wrong. Would we have to assume that the cover is sacrosanct ie. the cover CANNOT be changed and that it is everything else that is wrong? I know I've shelved books where the cover was wrong but the publisher/imprint and dates etc were correct.
I apologize for jumping in the conversation so suddenly, but this conversation interests me personally.I've added a lot of covers (and descriptions) from the books I own, and just recently noticed that for many of them covers (and descriptions) were changed in the meantime. Most of changes were done by automatic import, ingram etc., and my additions were marked as made by deleted member. I do not dare to make reversals of their changes, is that what I should do, or simply import those covers over theirs?.. Or I should accept the fate and make alternate editions of them although I was technically the first to add them? Sorry if this sounds confusing. I just wish to know the correct procedure to follow, because I plan to make these inputs this weekend. And pray then no more changes would be done to them :)
P.S. In some cases I am suspicious over them having more than one edition for some specific ISBN. How to figure out are there actually more editions for each ISBN? So to not add alternate edition for ISBN that has NO alternate edition, only that one I have in my hands? I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Zeljka, if you have examples of recent imports making a mess of live books then I think you should tell customer care so the import procedure can be fixed. Many ISBN numbers get used for more than one book or cover. Science fiction and crime paperbacks are notorious for it.
Banjomike wrote: "What would you do if the cover did not match the ISBN + Publication date? The same ISBN is obviously going to be reused in an alternative edition but the publication date or other edition data can..."Any time I find the cover of the book in my hand is not the same as the cover shown, regardless of whether the ISBN/pub dates are right, I simply make an alternate cover edition. I assume that the pub date and ISBN are correct and that multiple covers were made for some reason. But I also search for books using the ISBN, not the title.
Monique wrote: "Banjomike wrote: "What would you do if the cover did not match the ISBN + Publication date? The same ISBN is obviously going to be reused in an alternative edition but the publication date or othe..."This was my understanding as to the process as well. As I said I have sent a message to both the librarians involved and informed them I have reversed their changes.
I genuinely think it is just a simple error
I do not wish to hassle the customer care with that, they have much more important things to handle. And I won't mind re-editing again, as I have my personal library on my computer with the same data (so just have to copy the details and upload the photos), only wish that these automatic imports won't ever again overwrite our (members') imports.I have an example of one book that confuses me, regarding those "suspicions" mentioned above. I have film tie-in edition (don't jump on that yet) for The Lantern Bearers, of which edition change log looks quite ridiculous now. Right at the time of the purchase I've added the cover, description and other details for it. All that stuff is now impossible to find in this log. Well, it is easy to add the description - what troubles me is the cover that stands for that ISBN (added by ingram) and for some other editions too. My tie-in cover isn't anywhere to be seen.
So, if members didn't touch the cover, maybe it is really used for that ISBN too, but if I see just the same cover on the other editions with different ISBNs, but mine are nowhere to be seen, then I tend to be suspicious about it being the right one for mine :/ So, the question really stays - should I make an alternate cover edition, or re-edit right that one at hand?
Mod
Zeljka wrote: "I do not wish to hassle the customer care with that, they have much more important things to handle. And I won't mind re-editing again, as I have my personal library on my computer with the same da..."Zeljka,
One of the reasons you should contact customer care is that imports are not supposed to overwrite hand done uploads. So, if it is happening with books you worked on, it is probably happening to other books and they need to stop it from doing that. :)
rivka wrote: "When looking at the log, be sure you look at the log for just that edition. Link at the top right is a toggle."Yes, I've checked exactly that edition, here:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/1...
Mod
Monique wrote: "Any time I find the cover of the book in my hand is not the same as the cover shown, regardless of whether the ISBN/pub dates are right, I simply make an alternate cover edition. I assume that the pub date and ISBN are correct and that multiple covers were made for some reason. But I also search for books using the ISBN, not the title. "So you would leave the original incorrect cover/data pairing? I tend to try and check if a particular cover and ISBN and publication date really do go together. Automatically creating an alternate cover edition for an ISBN when the original edition data is, or seems to be, wrong just means that eventually Goodreads will have every available cover but the data behind many of those covers will be flakey at best. There isn't a lot that can be done in any case because of the 'don't existing editions' rules but it is still feasible to leave a cover untouched and fix the ISBN (if there is one) and dates.
Monique wrote: "Zeljka wrote: "I do not wish to hassle the customer care with that, they have much more important things to handle. And I won't mind re-editing again, as I have my personal library on my computer w..."Oh sorry, when I wrote this last message, there wasn't yours too. That tends to happen when I wait too long to figure out the best way to say something :)
Yes, maybe I would - had I noticed these changes earlier. It is really my fault. Those automatic imports were done months ago, after which other members made their own adds, so it would be really hard to trace what really happened, like in the example above. It is easier to start over, just would like to know how to proceed correctly with these books :/
rivka wrote: "Not that it looks any different (as far as I can tell), but I undid the image change on that one."Um, no :/ That's why I didn't want to bother you, it's hard to find the original data in logs like that, and I myself do not dare to undo anything any member does, except when it was totally obvious that he/she changed my additions.
My cover is this one: http://straneknjige.com/hr/knjiga/the...
So, what do you think, should I create an alternate cover edition, or change that one?
Zeljka wrote: "so it would be really hard to trace what really happened. It is easier to start over, just would like to know how to proceed correctly with these books."The staff have access to more information in the form of logs than we see in the basic edit logs available to us. Any database worth spitting on will keep track of almost anything that happens to the data.
In this case it might be easier to start again with one book but if the imports are screwing up existing books then they have the ability to screw up thousands of books in a very short time. I expect someone takes a deep breath everytime they press the 'GO' button on an importer. If you spot a possible bug they will be delighted because they can then fix it before it becomes a major problem.
Banjomike wrote: "So you would leave the original incorrect cover/data pairing?"Yes, unless there is clear evidence that the cover shown is incorrect (such as a movie tie-in image next to a publication date years prior to the movie). And then I would backtrack the change logs and look at the reviews to see if this record was meant to be the one matching the date or matching the cover.
Cait wrote: "Yes, unless there is clear evidence that the cover shown is incorrect (such as a movie tie-in image next to a publication date years prior to the movie). And then I would backtrack the change logs and look at the reviews to see if this record was meant to be the one matching the date or matching the cover. "That makes sense.
Uh oh... Now I am embarrassed... Made further checks for this book -- now I really took it off the shelf -- and seen that ISBN 9780192757432 is non-existent here, meaning the link from my PC catalogue to GR have lead me to the book with the biggest number of the reviews. The link for my book was:...show/13078181-the-lantern-bearers
and it had lead me right to this one we see, with the number 149418 in the link. Frankly, what happened here with this edition was simply brutal delete by an unknown member :/ So the answer was whole the time really simple, I have to add it as a completely new edition. I am really sorry for making such a fuss... Among so many of them on the list, to make an example I've chosen a bad one :(
I won't bother you with the other books. Before making any edits, I'll try hard to be very careful with ISBNs and other details. If there would be really some issues, like you mentioned with automated imports, I'll inform customer care.
Thank you all for the answers, you were really helpful and kind, thanks!
Neil wrote: "Cheers. So if someone has changed a cover version of an existing book with loads of reviews, and then created a new "alternative cover version" with the cover they removed, this is incorrect?"I'm just noticing this thread, and I was messaged about this book because I did some edits on it (not the cover change). This isn't really what happened here... (Just trying to make things more clear and not add to the confusion.)
The editions in question are these two:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/7...
http://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/6...
At the time, I noticed that they both had the same cover (the newer one, with the building) and one mentioned in the description that it was an alternate edition.
I posted about it in a thread here http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... and a librarian (a super-librarian actually) undid a cover change for one of the editions (I understood that said cover change shouldn't have happened in the first place), so that they now had different covers.
Now Neil has switched the covers around... I don't know if these latest changes should stay or not (someone else should chime in about that), but I wanted to link to the logs so that others could have a look at it.
Andrea wrote: "The editions in question are these two:http://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/7...
http://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/6..."
The cover changes have been reverted again since your post.
This is a classic example of why we need thumbnails of the before and after covers in the logs.
Banjomike wrote: "The cover changes have been reverted again since your post. "Not really... The cover changes were reversed twice over, so they're still the same as they were when I posted.
Banjomike wrote: "This is a classic example of why we need thumbnails of the before and after covers in the logs."
Definitely.
This has become a little messy (partly my fault). It appears that there are conflicting opinions on prioritising alternative cover versions. Some say the newer entry into goodreads should be the alternative, others say the one with less reviews. The problem in this case is the newer edition in goodreads (added May 2010 - http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/75...) has the most reviews. I took the executive decision to make the edition with the most reviews the ISBN edition, which meant reversing the changes to the cover picture made by Paula in the following edition, added to goodreads in April 2009 (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64...)
Can someone confirm what the hard and fast rule is around defining alternative cover versions?
My opinion, subject to what I said above about fixing errors, is that the one that is already there should take priority. Don't change covers on existing editions.
Banjomike wrote: "My opinion, subject to what I said above about fixing errors, is that the one that is already there should take priority. Don't change covers on existing editions."
And in the case here where two have the same cover, one of which being the alternative version?
OK, I know that this is confusing, but I suspect that you aren't identifying which edition is "older" and "newer" correctly. The one that you refer to as the newer edition, had its cover uploaded on "Wed May 02 09:37:32 -0700 2007". Dates only show up on the log for edits, but not for the information that was originally set. This edition is actually older than the one designated as the alternate cover one.
(I think we can also tell from the url, the editions are #759920 -a much lower number- and #6408987)
Neil wrote: "And in the case here where two have the same cover, one of which being the alternative version? "They didn't have the same cover originally. That's why Paula reversed the improper cover change.
Neil wrote: "And in the case here where two have the same cover, one of which being the alternative version? "If they both have the same cover then I would ask why the second one was created as an alternate cover edition of the first one.
EDIT: The only example I can think of would be if the publisher reverted to an old cover because the new one was crap.
Banjomike wrote: "If they both have the same cover then I would ask why the second one was created as an alternate cover edition of the first one. "Let's do a timeline...
2007 : edition #1 is created with white cover
2009 : alternate edition #2 is created with building cover
2010 : a librarian (incorrectly) replaces the cover in #1 with the building cover
2012 : I notice that they both have the same cover, ask about it and Paula reverses the change made in 2010 to #1
Yesterday: Neil switches both covers around
This timeline clarifies it nicely, although I can't see how you confirmed the edition #1 was created in 2007? I don't see that in the edit history. Where did you see this?The URL is probably a good clue - I did miss that.
It looks as though the changes I have made are indeed wrong, if edition #1 is the older version in goodreads
Neil wrote: "This timeline clarifies it nicely, although I can't see how you confirmed the edition #1 was created in 2007? I don't see that in the edit history. Where did you see this?"The first cover that was changed was dated 2007.
Andrea wrote: "Let's do a timeline...2007 : edition #1 is created with white cover
2009 : alternate edition #2 is created with building cover
2010 : a librarian (incorrectly) replaces the cover in #1 with the building cover
2012 : I notice that they both have the same cover, ask about it and Paula reverses the change made in 2010 to #1
Yesterday: Neil switches both covers around "
I think we should point the finger at Neil and blame him for everything. Summon the assassins.
Andrea, was everything OK with the covers AFTER Paula reverted the covers on edition 1? If so, I would be tempted to suggest that both books be reverted, cover-wise, to their respective states after Paula reverted edition 1.
Taking one step back from the concrete problem at hand:Is not all that trouble primarily caused by the fact that the ISBN ist treated as a "special" attribute?
In GR, a work is a bundle of different editions (even across languages, even across authors spelled differently). All these editions may vary by cover, by publisher, by number of pages... The ISBN is recognized as being non-unique in the real world. Why, then, does GR prevent you from entering the same ISBN into more than one edition, even if that would be absolutely correct?
I do not think I need to mention all the additional overhead which is caused by this - lack of "bundling" alternate cover editions properly, need for manual intervention in notes, etc.
Just curious - I do not want to start any discussion along "this is GR and you have to take it or leave it ad you can help yourself by using the following trick..." - but why does the ISBN attribute need to be unique? Is there any technical reason behind that?
Banjomike wrote: "Andrea wrote: "Let's do a timeline...2007 : edition #1 is created with white cover
2009 : alternate edition #2 is created with building cover
2010 : a librarian (incorrectly) replaces the cover in..."
Ha, I'll back out the image changes to reset what Paula did.
Michael wrote: "Why, then, does GR prevent you from entering the same ISBN into more than one edition, even if that would be absolutely correct? "One reason is that it is the only thing that prevents hundreds or thousands of identical editions being added to Goodreads.
EDIT: we have MANY people adding books who are convinced tha GR does not have entries for Shakespeare or J.K. Rowling and that they must add them.
Banjomike wrote: "Andrea, was everything OK with the covers AFTER Paula reverted the covers on edition 1? If so, I would be tempted to suggest that both books be reverted, cover-wise, to their respective states after Paula reverted edition 1. "I thought so...
The publication dates are probably wrong though, it seems that someone edited those as well.
Andrea wrote: "Banjomike wrote: "Andrea, was everything OK with the covers AFTER Paula reverted the covers on edition 1? If so, I would be tempted to suggest that both books be reverted, cover-wise, to their resp..."I have tried to correct publishing dates, after doing some digging on the internet!!
The images are now back to how they were after Paula made the changes, and I have switched to the alternative cover edition in my book shelf
Sorry for the confusing posts and subsequent confusion!
Michael wrote: "Is not all that trouble primarily caused by the fact that the ISBN ist treated as a "special" attribute?"Alternate cover editions are a bit of a workaround that I would like to see have a more definite link to the original editions.
I would also suggest that whenever creating alternate cover editions, we should first check the log for the original edition to check if the cover at the moment hasn't been changed incorrectly (I've also seen this happen sometimes with automated imports, like it was mentioned here).
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Horseman on the Roof (other topics)The Lantern Bearers (other topics)
When discovering that a book has the same ISBN but different covers, is there a policy regarding which version takes the ISBN and which version becomes the "alternative cover version"? I would have thought that the earlier published version takes precedence, but there is no guidance in the Librarian manual
Cheers
Neil