Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Too many authors?
date
newest »
newest »
Cythia, I"d add the last 4 names to the book description field. You could always posts in the Goodreads Feedback group in the suggestions and questions folder and ask for a higher maximum, but I suspect most books do not have more than 30 authors so I don't know how needed a change would be.
Speaking just for my (opinionated :-)) self, I don't feel that writing a story that's later collected in a book is the same thing as co-writing the book. To me, it would make more sense to list the editor in the author field (with a designation as editor), and list or discuss the contributors in the description or the reviews. (It's also a lot easier for readers --I don't think most of them enjoy wading through lists of 30 "authors.") That's the way reviews of collections of stories or articles are handled in Booklist and Library Journal, and in scholarly publications; and it's the way I've handled anthologies that I've added to the Goodreads database. I hope I'm not breaking a rule in so doing!
Interesting point, but if you do that, it would be less likely for people to realize an author they like contributed to the work. Right now, the GR search function does not search descriptions. So all those authors listed in the description would have no definitive attachment to that book.
I'm with Isis on this one. If we use the 'proper' format of just listing the editor, then when searching on an author, a user will not know of any of the works included in edited volumes.Until/unless GR can search on descriptions, it is best to put the authors into the author field so that the work can be linked back to the author's list of works.
Well, that certainly is a legitimate point. I wonder how feasible it would be to develop a search function that can search descriptions --or better yet, to develop a searchable field in the book description for "contributing authors?"
Werner, just to clarify -- you're correct that the editor(s) of an anthology should absolutely be listed first! Even if someone's listing all of the authors who contributed, the editor should always come first.I see the author list as somewhat optional. If I'm working on a collection with a very large number of contributing authors, sometimes I go through and add only the ones who already have author profiles on GR; other times certain contributers will be "featured" on the cover or in the book description and I'll only add those.
& I would dearly love to have the book description searchable, for many reasons! But that's probably a ways off.
Mod
My understanding is that GR encourages both of these. Certainly it's how one of my friends that I pushed to join the author program did so.
Thanks, Cait and Rivka. That information is helpful.
Yes, there were GR authors who were unhappy that books they had contributed to weren't showing up on their profile pages. This is a case where not following the typical library/scholarly approach (i.e., editor only) is preferable.
But without the stories those authors contributed to the book, there is no book. An editorial does not a book make.
I do try to use the "Contributor" role when listing those who contributed stories to an anthology. (It does drive me BONKERS that the hint whatsis pops up every time I enter that field.) If I know who the editor is, I designate that and list him/her first. If available, I generally list the names of the stories with their authors in the description field.I do think each contributor should be listed as an author, precisely because that's the only way to find works by a specific author.
I suppose there's some reason to limit the authors to 30, and I agree that there aren't that many books that will have 30 or more authors, but I would like to see the limit pushed up a bit higher. Maybe 50?
I've hit that limit a fair few times when adding anthologies, which can easily have over 30 authors. At which point I have to choose who gets left off.Makes me sad.
I sort of assume 30 was an arbitrary choice. If we push Otis on it he probably will raise it a bit, although there are limits.
Sounds like a plan. 800 or so should do it ;).
800 or so should do it ;)That would be quite a lot of work for a librarian! ;-)
I'd vote for upping the number as well. It's better than having authors stuck in the description field only. I'm sure though that no matter what number Otis & Co. increase it to, there will always be books where the authors don't fit.
Does anyone have one of those enormous Norton anthologies around? I figure those are the books likely to have the most authors in them.
Not me. I have a Faber book of poets somewhere. Could be a lot in there!
Okay, y'all have convinced me! I went in just now and added the contributor's names to the entry for Modern Classics of Fantasy (there are exactly 30 of them in that case). When they're properly identified as "(contributor)," with the editor listed first, it actually isn't confusing --and there's also something to be said for being able to tell at a glance, when you click on an anthology, who's included in it. As I get time, I'll try to fill in this info for other collections I've added or reviewed, if they don't have it already.
Mod
Volumes I and II. Also, the poetry anthology.
Of course, most literature textbooks, like anthologies, include many selections of actual literature, as well as the editors/author's own historical and bio-critical write-ups. If you're reviewing one of these here on Goodreads (they're often well worth reading, if one is interested in literature), should the authors whose work is represented also be listed in the description as "contributors?" To be sure, they don't contribute to the analysis -but they still authored included selections. Is this the same as a regular anthology?
Thanks, Rivka! I had enough doubts about it myself to ask; and I figure that when it comes to Goodreads librarianship, you know what you're doing, so your opinion settles the question for me. :-)
Mod
Um, is the 50-author thing working for anyone? I've tried it repeatedly since Otis posted about the change, to no avail. Deals With the Devil is one book that already has 30 authors, if you want to try "Add Author" yourself.Thanks,
Cyn
Mod
Well, yes, that would explain it :-) I noticed a few times yesterday that the "add author" would just stop working for a bit, but I thought it was something on my side, as it was always better after I restarted my browser.(BTW - I did enter the authors in the correct order on Deals With the Devil, but the system kindly reordered them for me.)
Mod
Is there a Status page somewhere that notes current system issues when they arise? I mean, other than reading every message here and in the Feedback group?Thanks,
Cyn
Cynthia, I've occasionally noticed a message right on my home page, and today Otis posted this in the easy to see general folder in the Feedback group:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Hmm. And I thought there was a sticky message in the announcements folder, mostly for new releases, but I don't see it now.
Mod
Cynthia wrote: "I mean, other than reading every message here and in the Feedback group?"
Is that a problem? ;)
Well, time I spend here is time I'm not adding information :-)
Cynthia and All, Well, I like reading all the messages at both groups. I don't like glitches of course. But re the groups: I like keeping up with things and sometimes there's important information for librarians about how we should be doing our work so I'd hate to miss reading things here. Not that I remember everything or don't make mistakes, but at least reading everything makes that less likely.
I certainly like being in touch, and I periodically browse the groups to keep up. I also get emails about the messages. That doesn't scratch my OCD itch the way actually adding or correcting information does, though :-)Still, if vital information is tucked away in various threads, it is easy to miss it. That's why most fora have a designated place for official announcements to share what results from all the discussion. If we could somehow subscribe to receive (immediate, preferably) email updates for one discussion or have just one page to check for anything official, it would be more effective.
Cynthia, It's a great idea. I'd love a thread in each of the official groups for such things. I don't know whether or not it's practical: who would be responsible for keeping it up, for instance. Also, it would always have to be closed to new topics from the general membership so the thread wouldn't turn into a discussion, etc. I love the idea if it's workable. That said, while I appreciate being kept informed, I am even more grateful for GR's actual work on problems, bugs & glitches.Edit: As far as the librarians group/situation goes, there are periodic updates to the librarian manual: http://www.goodreads.com/help/librarian and occasionally new instructions on various edit pages.
I was trying to complete the information for the anthology Aladdin: Master of the Lamp." Most of it is there, but the maximum number of authors is 30, and this book has 34. Any suggestions?
Thanks!