Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Book with ISBN no longer available.
It stays in the database. OOP can be added to the edition fieldAnswers to questions in this link
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Too slow, someone already did it for me:) Thanks. I assumed it would stay.
Mod
Please don't add such extraneous information to the edition field. GR is not a bookstore.
rivka wrote: "Paula wrote: "OOP can be added to the edition field"Please don't add such extraneous information to the edition field. GR is not a bookstore."
I'm going to respectfully argue that stating a book is out of print isn't extraneous information. If I find a book on GR that looks interesting, seeing the record stating it's OOP will save me a lot of time looking for it AT a proper bookstore - I can immediately start looking for it in the proper retail channels.
GoodReads is here to help readers find books no? Mentioning somewhere (maybe not the edition field, but somewhere) that's it's out of print doesn't make GR a bookstore, but it does help it's members find the book. Just my opinion.
Mod
That's my point - marking it OOP means I go straight to abebooks or alibris to find a used copy, as opposed to B&N or BookDepository...
Mod
In this case, it was print on demand and there are only a very few copies available. I would be VERY surprised if you could source one. Besides it is that version which is out of print, the second edition is still there.But yes it is useful to know something is no longer available.
It is very useful when talking about ebooks. Once an ebook goes out of print, you can't buy it used.
The thing about in-print/out-of-print data, though, is that it changes after the book is published. No other data elements of a book record should ever change once the edition is published. If the print status of an edition is going to be tracked, I'd rather it were done in a different way.
rivka wrote: "Paula wrote: "OOP can be added to the edition field"Please don't add such extraneous information to the edition field. GR is not a bookstore."
No, it's not a bookstore, but it is a book database. OOP is certainly interesting to many people. And a legitimate information item. Although, in the description field would be a decent place to put it.
Don't know if the description field is the best place. Too easy for it to end up in a description that is used as a default across multiple editions. Not sure where would be the best place. I'm OK with it in the edition field, as long as it is in addition to that information, if it exists: for example "1st - OOP". I wouldn't use OOP to replace the actual edition info.But for a variety of reasons, I think it is valuable info to include somewhere.
Good points Robert. And actually I have put OOP in the edition field, similar to what you indicated. Many things are in edition box that aren't just, first, second, illustrated, whatever, if one looks. I am not aware of a "fixed" list of must uses in that field anyway. It's sort of a descriptive field in a way of the book volume itself, as opposed to the story-line or whatever, don't you think?
"Signed" comes to mind. And there are lots of them.
And the information certainly is of interest to many, if not all obviously, of the users.
Yes I would rather know if a specific edition is no longer in print.
Alexandra wrote: "Yes I would rather know if a specific edition is no longer in print."We aren't supposed to get information from book sellers so how are we going to know if a book is out of print? Publishers don't always know if a book is out of stock at the shop on the corner and authors are not always the most reliable source of data.
Personally, if I want to buy a book I search for it by title & author. Whatever info Goodreads includes about "out of print" or "no longer available" or "different publisher" (all fairly common author edits) isn't going to convince me not to do a search for it. It seems to more be to do with "let us use Goodreads to sell books" than providing useful data. There are over 20 million books on Goodreads and probably 19 million are out of print.
Interesting, Banjomike, I don't take it that way at all. I take it as, don't look on new book sites with any optimism and put it on your "vintage" (loose term) list. But I don't use GR to buy books anyway.Different strokes.
MissJessie wrote: "Interesting, Banjomike, I don't take it that way at all. I take it as, don't look on new book sites with any optimism and put it on your "vintage" (loose term) list. But I don't use GR to buy books anyway.Different strokes. "
I use GR when I find a new author. My 'old books' list and 'books not yet published' list are the same one.
In the case of the OP it is my book and I know it is out of print with that ISBN as it is my decision and my account that made it so. There may be one of two kicking around but it is pretty unlikely. There may be 20 million books on GR but I would rather not waste my time (or anyone else's) looking for a book that probably doesn't exist any more, or at least is darn tricky to get.I don't buy from Goodreads directly myself but some do and it seems, to me at least, that it is a bit mean not to say a book is no longer using that ISBN.
I am not saying anyone shouldn't search for a book but knowing it will be, at the least, hard to get seems reasonable before you start. There may be several versions of a book with several ISBNs so searching by title may end up being time consuming.
If an author, or indeed a reader, wants a book listed as OOP then fine, helps others, either to direct them to look for another version or to source second hand.
But each to their own.
I think this is all going back to "book data pages" versus "book product pages." Personally, I think it's very likely goodreads members have their preferred retail sources for in print books, new or used. If not available at their usual sources, members assume may be out of print and widen their search to other sites. I don't see how adding "oop" would help; if can't find new members start searching for used anyway. If members searching used books for a very specific isbn or edition, I think that's what they are focused on - the edition wanted - and will either already know or not care about oop status.
Tracking "oop" for ebook editions would no doubt be loved by ebook indie authors who change covers (or other elements) weekly and do not like alternate cover edition policy; but, I think would be a massive undertaking for us to figure out every time an ebook edition goes oop to either get replaced with update or be oop permanently.
Plus "oop" does not always stay out of print nowadays. Many old masters are being re-released in the ebook world by authors getting the rights back, publishers seeing a market, booksellers actively lobbying author heirs/literary-trusts.
For anyone who thinks "product currently available for sale" or "out of print" should be tracked, how do you suggest that information be obtained? What if a member generously goes thru and adds all the childhood books stored for decades in their closet—are they supposed to know if oop or are librarians supposed to figure it out?
Well I guess if the author either updates it or lets the librarians know then it can be added but I don't see a need to do a check unless it becomes apparent. There are comments about keeping the records up to date so I don't think it too much to ask an author to track their own data and keep it neat. Even if you change an e-book cover it doesn't become out of print unless you unpublish that ISBN or ASIN. Changing covers, yes that happens so it just needs to be updated but that happens with paperbacks as well.How about just putting in a note in the author guidelines saying it is the responsibility of the author to keep his or her records accurate, if the cover changes then they need to say that. (That is unless it already does.)
Non GR authors, not much can be done about those but if an indie knows the book is out of print or at least VERY difficult to find then I don't see a problem.
Covers can never be updated. Alternate cover editions get created. (A bad image can be replaced with a better quality image but otherwise, not allowed to change any published cover). With paperback cover changes, that's (except for print on demand) usually a reprint edition that likely gets issued a new isbn—so an edition for the new isbn gets created. Admittedly some (mostly older books) glitches with isbn duplicate or reuse issues.Unless database is being revised to add a field for in or out of print, while I don't see any reason for any such revision, that's something I don't want in the edition field either. If anywhere, it should be a note in the description—and frankly because can be confusing or change a lot, admittedly I prefer not having oop tracked, I'd like any addition of "oop" info to the description to be identified with the date and source of the oop information. For example "author's note on 2/3/2013: this edition is out of print as of ...", or publisher's note, librarian's note, ...
Keeping the book databse up to date on goodreads should never become for authors just like updating their product pages on bookseller sites. There's more here than what is or is not currently for sale. Every goodreads member is welcome to post in this group to keep database accurate and up to date. Regardless of what's going on with product pages, what is or is not available for sale, what is in or out of print, whether or not is a collectible edition, etc. if published book, it's here.
I'm not suggesting Out of Print be tracked officially. Would it be nice? Yes. Do I think it's practical? No. *But*, if someone who owns a book (or the author, I suppose) adds that record to GR and knows it's OOP, (let's say it's an old edition, or a rather obscure author) then I think putting OOP somewhere is helpful to someone who comes across that book here in GR.I do have my 'go-to' online booksellers, and when I find a book that looks interesting to me here in GR these booksellers are the first tabs I open (I don't really use the "buy book" button at all). But if I see OOP somewhere on the book record, then I know that Alibris or AbeBooks is the first tab to open, not BookDepository. It saves me a bit of time searching for a book on BD that I won't find (or find but be sent to AbeBooks anyway).
It's not a huge deal to me, but it's one of those things that when I see it on a book record, I think "oh, that's helpful to know". My original objection is to the statement that this piece of information makes GR a "bookstore". I don't think that information is *just* about selling the book - it can be helpful to anyone trying to find the book in the same way knowing the ISBN or that it's a hardcover not a paperback.
Having said all that, it's a bonus bit of information AFAIC, I can't imagine trying to track that information formally and I don't think it should be...
rivka wrote: "Paula wrote: "OOP can be added to the edition field"Please don't add such extraneous information to the edition field. GR is not a bookstore."
Thank you! Totally agree.
Banjomike wrote: "We aren't supposed to get information from book sellers so how are we going to know if a book is out of print?..."Right.
It may not be primarily a bookstore but to some extent it is, or at least provides links. As Jennifer said, if someone is looking for a book then knowing it is out of print and must be sourced from the relevant sellers is useful. GR is, of course, much more than a book store but surely if someone, such as the author or publisher or whoever KNOWS a book is no longer available under a certain ISBN then it is in the best interests of the readers to know that.
You pull up a book, wish to buy it - say through Amazon and when you go there is it not available so you now need to spend time either searching through GR again for other suggested editions, Abe books or whatever.
Example- I publish my book through Createspace and it appears on Amazon with ISBN 1234567890 then 6 months later I decide to rerelease it, pull it from Amazon and publish with say Barnes and Noble new ISBN 2345678901 someone wants to read the book and pulls up the first one, is unable to find it and then has to come find the details for the second. Time wasted. Now if OOP is listed then the person can save the time searching for the first one - or if they want that specific one will go to Abe.
Time saved for the reader, the information he or she receives is accurate.
I don't see a problem with authors being expected to keep the records up to date. Really most authors don't change the ISBNs etc that often sure an author wants their book details to be accurate. It isn't like an author has to come in daily to check.
Surely it is good manners to keep one's book info accurate?
I read a description of GR in one of these threads this weekend that seems relevant. "Think of GR as a library, not a bookstore." In this case, a library would not be expected to note whether or not a book is OOP. Since there is no agreed upon way for this to be noted on GR, perhaps thinking of GR as a library would help.
Alexandra wrote: "I don't see a problem with authors being expected to keep the records up to date. Really most authors don't change the ISBNs etc that often sure an author wants their book details to be accurate. It isn't like an author has to come in daily to check.Surely it is good manners to keep one's book info accurate? "
I'll repeat this bit from my post in the thread in "Suggestions & Questions".
How often have we been asked to remove a book (or change a cover) because "it is no longer available" only to find that it is available on many booksellers and sometimes directly from the authors own websites?
Some authors, and it is not a small number, just see Goodreads as another place to sell books. They ignore the rules and use well-known devious methods to do what they see as enhancing their selling options. This includes editing or even deleting books that they claim are out-of-print (OOP is stupid) when they clearly are not. It is just that they prefer to sell a book through their new publisher or their new website and to hell with the old publisher etc.
If that, or any data, is added to Goodreads then Goodreads is going to be responsible for it. It isn't possible to give that responsibility to anyone else.
Another bit from the other thread: Bottom line, not useful and a swine to maintain.
Bea wrote: "I read a description of GR in one of these threads this weekend that seems relevant. "Think of GR as a library, not a bookstore." In this case, a library would not be expected to note whether or n..."Agree with msg 28. A very helpful analogy.
Also agree with messages 25 & 26: by Lobstergirl.
Goodreads might usefully opt to publish a near-top-level webpage of guidance on "General Hints & Suggestions on how to locate availability a copy of any book title that you want to read" for those GR users who are bereft of the ability to simply work this out for themselves. That can then cover the full range from antiquarian to modern out-of-print to modern in-print.
Fine, fine. It was a just a suggestion.I am going to hang fire on what i was going to say as it will achieve nothing just next time I will leave well alone.
Alexandra wrote: "Fine, fine. It was a just a suggestion.I am going to hang fire on what i was going to say as it will achieve nothing just next time I will leave well alone."
Alexandra, there's no need to act so. You HAVE achieved something. You've floated an idea for open discussion. We've had / are having that discussion. Be cheerful.
It is fine. Whatever is easiest.I can see that OOP could be hard to manage.
I haven't used Abebooks for a while but I used to use them a lot.
I didn't know what the rules were so didn't want to go and delete the book.
Oh quick question whilst I am here, if I have an e-book on Amazon with the ASIN listed on GR as it currently is and I then decide to have an e-book elsewhere- say smashwords I get a new ISBN for that, which is fine. When I add the details should I put a note in "Smashwords copy" or whatever? It will have the same cover etc, just a new ISBN. Or should I just state the ISBN and people can work it out themselves. I guess the search is done mainly on a book name? The Amazon one will still be available anyway. I am not sure how the search works.
Haven't done it yet so haven't got anything to add.
Usually for smashwords they give you a 978### isbn number for ebook that can be downloaded in a variety of file types. Smashwords is an acceptable data source ("publisher") including for bookcovers.Here on goodreads, that smashwords book would get entered as a new edition combined with old asin edition (as author you can set new smashwords edition as featured/primary/default edition), Smashwords as publisher, 978### in isbn13 field, ebook in format field, either the book page on your website or the book page on smashwords site as official url, and you can note anything about "revised edition" or "#th edition" in edition field if that applies.
You can have smashwords make ebook available on Barnes and Noble, amazon, etc. If that's done with same isbn 978###, the one ebook edition is fine. If uses a 294### number at Barnes and Noble for nook edition instead of same 978 isbn, can make another ebook edition for that bnid number in isbn13 field (leave isbn10 field blank) and ditto if instead of 978### a kindle asin number is used on amazon—the bnid starting with 294 and the kindle asin (if used) help the purchase links under the middle "get a copy" green buttons work.
(First/left green button is a sponsored bookseller link varying by member location; last/right green purchase link button is for non-commercial sites like local libraries; except for the sponsored link, members can customize their purchase-links/get-a-copy-green-buttons—most of what gets customized searches by isbn but no guaranties.)
Alexandra wrote: "I didn't know what the rules were so didn't want to go and delete the book."You definitely didn't want to delete the book.
For the new edition, if you add a new edition with a new ISBN/ASIN you add it as a brand new book complete with the new number and combine it with the old editions then they all appear together and all the reviews and suchlike stay together.
Search is done mainly on a book name or author name but the ISBN number is tested to make sure that the next person who buys your book doesn't immediately add an identical copy to the one that is already on the system.
Ok well I will worry about it nearer the time as I am utterly confused;) We authors aren't very bright;)So basically
New ISBN gets linked with current ASIN (which is still live) and so reviews and info etc get copied across?
I would probably leave the Amazon one as default anyway.
Not to add to any confusion, but, as Banjomike said, when you combine editions versus trying to get rid of the old ones, you get to keep all the reviews, shelvings, and ratings.Most authors want to keep reviews/ratings—so just wanted to make sure that was over-emphasized for you.
When the time comes to add your smashwords edition, please feel free just to post here and we can just do for you. (If something odd happens like a complete title change, please also note the original title so editions get combined correctly. Basically, goodreads wants to keep a record of every published book, print or digital).
Thanks It will be same book just with a smashwords ISBN:) Or possibly Lulu as I already have an account.
^ wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "Fine, fine. It was a just a suggestion.I am going to hang fire on what i was going to say as it will achieve nothing just next time I will leave well alone."
Alexandra, there'..."
Ok I apologise I maybe over-reacted but I often see a lot of resentment against authors here, which surprises me. Yes I am sure that many authors do use sneaky means,but a lot don't and a good few people on this site seem to take against any author mentioning their books. Yes of course there are places for the authors to promote and that is good, and any who spam or whatever should be told off, that is reasonable. But there seems to be an attitude sometimes that ALL authors are like that. And sometimes that is tough to deal with.
Of course an author wants to sell his or her work, that is obvious, and it is not easy. Indie authors and their books make up a reasonable portion of GR works, or that is how it appears.
I agree GR isn't a bookstore but without authors indie or otherwise there would be no GR, no books and no book database and some people do use GR to source books. I do. If I see a book here I quite often click on the link. So to some extent GR is just that, at least indirectly.
If an author is sneaky and uses the out of print notes or whatever else to underhandedly direct a reader or make a nuisance of them selves then give them a smack, or let readers put them on the naughty shelf.
The OOP was a suggestion which might be useful. If it isn't it isn't. As an author I am not that bothered. If someone really wants that edition then let them go find it if they want they new edition then they can find that too. I was simply unsure if it was appropriate to have a note saying that version was not available.
I can see the problems with managing it but I just got upset, it seemed like I was just one of the pesky authors tarred with the annoying author doing what they shouldn't tag again.
Funnily enough, I agree with your entire post. Except, possibly, for the bit about you being tarred (don't think you are)... and for the idea of "out of print" markers.
Was just grumpy;)Maybe just a note below or some OOP tick box. Then people can make their own choices. I bet half the time it would get forgotten anyway.
Alexandra wrote: "I would probably leave the Amazon one as default anyway."Nobody sets the "default" version that shows up in search. The primary edition is whatever edition that has been shelved the most.
And I hope an "OOP" signifier is never adopted. It'd be an administrative nightmare.
Oh ok. I thought author could set primary edition.I know what I mean even if no one else in the universe does:)
Goodreads' Authors can set the primary for their own books.
vicki_girl wrote: "Goodreads' Authors can set the primary for their own books."Can they? I didn't know that. I should let Harlequin Presents authors know, then. A lot of their books show the Indonesian translation as the primary.
Please do! I am eagerly awaiting the day librarians can do this for all books, though no indication has been made that it will happen (I'm just super-hopeful).Instructions for setting the default are here:
http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/31...
vicki_girl wrote: "Please do! I am eagerly awaiting the day librarians can do this for all books, though no indication has been made that it will happen (I'm just super-hopeful).Instructions for setting the defaul..."
+1.
It's great that authors can set (not sure if goodreads ever broadcast it when feature got added); but, seriously, when they post in this group to update covers (whether or not they know to request alternate cover editions), it would be nice to just say "...and should I set this as the primary/default/featured edition for you?" And be done with it without lengthy policy explanations and how to links ...
Surely statistically there are enough posts about covers, updating covers, alternate cover editions, setting primary editions, etc. to warrant letting us handle?
iIf posting here to update a cover just quietly gets an alternate cover edition added and set as primary, I imagine most authors seeing new cover showing will just be satisfied withotu having to know the nuts-and-bolts.
I do still keep seeing people posting incorrectly (including librarians) that there is nothing that can be done until newer cover edition becomes the most popular. So that's why I don't think goodreads has broadcast the feature yet. What Rivka and librarians can do has been done (updates in this group, author FAQs, librarian manual, and help topics).
Debbie wrote: "Surely statistically there are enough posts about covers, updating covers, alternate cover editions, setting primary editions, etc. to warrant letting us handle?"Having a primary set by default would be wrong if the author did not specifically ask for it. The idea is for them to want it not for librarians to set to our own preferences. The book still belongs to the author and it is for them to decide on a default.
But there seem to be too many such requests which suggests that the info given to authors needs to be improved. None of those changes take more than a few minutes but the number of authors, many of whom will have added books, or 'illegally' changed covers without any difficulty, in the past
And the logging of this change STILL needs to be made available.
I've just added this over in 'Suggestions' which might be relevant to your suggestion. The set default option could presumably be included IF the editor/adder was also the author of the book.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
I agree, would not automatically set for them. But ask and then just go ahead and take care of everything at once. My post said: ...it would be nice to just say "...and should I set this as the primary/default/featured edition for you?" (not from personal preference but from the possibility that the reason they are asking to update a bookcover is because their book now has a new bookcover they might prefer to be featured/promoted)
The bookcover change requests come from both authors who are innocently asking and authors that do know better but still keep trying...frequently harsh and/or involved responses either way.I'm not sure of the answer. I know we're all supposed to be familiar with the librarian manual before editing books (I can't swear I never did alternate cover editions wrong or made other mistakes when a new librarian). I'm not even sure how we get notified when a policy change or feature addition (like author's setting primary editions) is made to the manual.
Some particulalry angry posts (this group and others) have come from authors who got the cover updated (presumably with their own or a firend's librarian status or just lucking into a librarian not familiar with policies) only to have the update revoked when the illegal change was noticed. And from authors who feel goodreads database should be treated like their own personal product page. And some librarians knee jerk reaction to treat bookcover change requests from all authors as if all ofmthem are deliberately vandalizing the database just because some are repeat offenders...add in nicely worded here are links to policies, to how to's, policy is types of comments that even when nice and polite can make for some lengthy posts.
I didn't want to fiddle with it but does it stay in the database with a note? Am I meant to do something with the listing?
9781471760020