Notes and a Question on Pagination

[Sam]

I'm a new goodreads librarian and couldn't be more thrilled. I've seen this issue tackled explicitly in one thread and implicitly in several others, so I'd just like to bring it to the forefront one more time with some examples to illustrate my point...I apologize about the length in advance.

What I'm talking about is the difference between pagination that includes "readable" text and pagination that includes every page with text. When I say, "readable," I mean text that contributes to the edition's unified narrative (i.e., notes, bibliographies, and indices are not "readable.")

The "number of pages" function serves two purposes on this website: First, it helps maintain factual accuracy about different editions of a book. Second, it provides data to the currently reading "progress" bar. Which one is more important? I'm not sure, but I believe having the count of "readable" pages available would be beneficial to the group. Plus, as I'll outline later, there's absolutely no reason that we can't have both.

Here are a few examples to start with:

Jon Meacham's American Lion...goodreads' current page count is 512 pages. In reality, there are only 507 paginated pages. Of those 507 pages, 114 are non-readable pages that contain notes, a bibliography, and an index. They could be referred to before, during, or after reading, but they are not part of the unified narrative.

Next, look at the Penguin Classic edition of Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (0140434240)...goodreads' current page count is 480. Of the 479 actual paginated pages, 26 are non-readable pages that contain notes and a glossary.

Compare that to the Modern Library's edition of Thackeray's Vanity Fair (0375757260)....goodreads' current page count is 768. Of the 762 actual paginated pages, all are readable. The supplementary materials at the end are a narrative commentary and a short set of reader's questions, both of which would have a high expectation of being read upon completion of the text in that particular edition.

Similarly there is the Norton Critical edition of Shelley's Frankenstein (0393964582)...goodreads' current page count is 339. Of the 348 paginated pages, only the last 2 two are unreadable (a short bibliography). The text of Frankenstein itself is only 156 pages. The rest, like all Norton Critical Editions, is supplemental critical and contextual material. Anyone who picked up this edition of Frankenstein would have the expectation of that material being part of the "unified narrative" of the Norton Critical Edition.

Finally, compare the last example to the Oxford World Classic's version of Frankenstein (0192833669)...goodreads' current page count is 328. Of the 322 paginated pages, the last 10 is an unreadable section devoted to notes. There is a 59-page section prior to the notes that consists of 3 appendices that are discussion/analysis of contextual material, which is arguably part of that particular edition's unified narrative.

If you've stuck with me this far, you can see there's a clear difference between the page numbers listed on the web, the actual number of paginated pages, and the number of actual "readable" text. If you take umbrage with my choice of the word "readable," I'll admit it's probably not the best choice out there. At any rate, here's my question:

Wouldn't it be best for the community if our page count was based on pagination of readable text? Why or why not?

I would propose the following solution. For the Meacham book I mentioned first, the number of pages would be changed to 393. Then, in the description section, I would add a note that would show total edition pages and list extra material. That way, the most correct information about the book is available and the "progress" bar (related to the social aspect of the site) is made more accurate than it was previously.

Thoughts? Obviously, I don't want to go all rogue librarian.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Welcome! That's a very detailed and well-thought-out post. I'm going to disagree with you anyway. ;)

Sam wrote: "Wouldn't it be best for the community if our page count was based on pagination of readable text? Why or why not? "

Because whatever the page number is on the last page of the book (including indices and footnotes, but not including ads and previews of other books) is what should be listed as the number of pages. Otherwise it gets far too confusing and subjective. (I never read "readers' guides", for example.) Also, just because some people don't read the supplemental material does not mean that no one does. It is an integral part of the book, and there for good reason.

As for the fact that the info on the site (90% of which comes from Amazon) is incorrect . . . yeah. That's why they have us, right? ;) So go ahead and change that 512 to 507.

[Carolyn]

That is a very detailed post, you've obviously put a lot of thought into the subject Sam.

Having said that, I'm also going to disagree with you (in my own lengthy post. = )

Sam wrote: "Wouldn't it be best for the community if our page count was based on pagination of readable text? Why or why not?'

I think what is best for the community is to have clear standards, in which case asking the librarian to change the page count as to what they consider the 'readable' [poor word, I agree, but I'll keep it for your meaning:] text, versus what someone else chooses to consider the 'readable' text.

As examples:
I like forewords (often by different authors), others hate them and always skip them - I count them as 'readable' pages, they don't. -confusion ensues-
I'm doing academic work, and I read all the critical essays after the main body of 'Ulysses', so I consider all of that to be 'readable' text, someone else who picks up the same book just to read the text of 'Ulysses' considers the rest of it to be worthless, therefore not 'readable' text. -confusion ensues-
I actually do often read the 'notes', glossary and/or the 'reader's guide' in a book, just for kicks, or more details, someone like Rivka doesn't - which one of us decides what the 'readable' count of pages is? And if one of us changes it, and then someone else changes it back, we have a little 'changewar' going on, which is definitly counter-productive, if not outright frustrating to all parties. (Not that I would do that to something you edited, Rivka, but some other/newbie librarian might... = )

Besides, we're already seeing those kinds of 'changewars' happening with titles of books and where the name of the series goes, etc. There is no need whatsoever to create more of them, people find them all on their own.

Back to this topic: when someone is reading a book, using the # of pages in the actual copy in their hand, and they take a quote from page 55 or page 124, or they reference something happening on a specific page, doesn't that totally throw me off, another reader of the same book, since how can there be a page 124, when the 'readable' pages count has been entered and it says there are only 103 pages?

Here's another reason why: While the datafeed from Amazon is often incorrect, librarians have been working for almost two years already on refining, updating and correcting that data. Taking on this concept of 'readable' pages is adding a huge load of work onto already busy people. It means going into every single book in the database. It means needing a physical copy of the book in hand to determine the amount of 'readable' pages (assuming a group definition of such could even be decided.)

All in all, way too much work for almost no return in value - the indicator of how far along a person is in a book? That information is only conversationally of value in the first place.

Personally, I'm going through a new book every couple of days, sometimes every day, I don't even bother to update that status bar most of the time. If you feel the need for that information is important, you certainly can add it to your review of the book.

As Rivka says, if you find the data from Amazon is wrong , then go ahead and fix it. But we need to stay consistent with the recognized guideline for number of pages, that is, the page number printed on the last page of the book.

[Brooke]

I think that even when the last 50 pages of a 450-page book is "non-readable" (say, a glossary and a note on historical accuracy, like the book I just recently finished), the progress bar is still accurate.

Even if I only plan on reading the first 400 pages of my hypothetical 450-page book, I'm still on page X of 450 at the point when I update my progress bar.

If it were a percentage, and 100% stood for "I'm done," then I'd say there was more of an argument for it being inaccurate.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Carolyn wrote: "(Not that I would do that to something you edited, Rivka, but some other/newbie librarian might... = ) "

Well, if you caught me making a mistake, I hope you would correct it, actually. And like every other librarian, I know I make mistakes all the time. :)

[Carolyn]

rivka wrote: "Well, if you caught me making a mistake, I hope you would correct it, actually."

Well of course, in that case, but I was speaking of a case like this, where opinions might differ. = }

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Which is exactly the problem, as you pointed out.

But actually, even in an opinion thing, I hope you (or whoever) would at least message me or post something in the group. I'm just an obsessed volunteer. ;D

[Sam]

Thanks for all the opinions and the clarifications!