Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Book Issues > Series name keeps changing

Comments Showing 1-17 of 17 (17 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by JSWolf (new)

JSWolf | 649 comments I've entered in the the Mobipocket eBook edition of The Light Fantastic by Terry Pratchett and I put in (Discworld, Book Two) as the series information. It then was combined and changed to (Discworld, Book 2). So I changed it back and i find once again it is back to (Discworld, Book 2). So I've changed it yet again. Why it this happening? It also happened once to Book One. Can this issue be fixed so it doesn't change? Or can the other books be fixed if they are causing the problem? According to HarperCollins website, the book is listed with the book number spelled out. So that is the official way to do it. The link below is the the entry I made for this eBook.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments It's because you and another librarian are at odds with each other. And you're wrong.

The official format is to use the actual numbers rather than spelling them out. Thus "One" and "Two" are incorrect.

Furthermore, you're better off using #1 and #2 rather than "Book 1" and "Book 2" because it's much easier to auto-parse and there's a lot more inconsistency in the use of terms such as "Book", "Volume" and "Vol.".

message 3: by JSWolf (new)

JSWolf | 649 comments But what I am using came directly from the publisher's website. So how is this wrong if that's the official way of labeling?

message 4: by Carolyn (last edited May 13, 2009 02:12PM) (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments JSWolf, it's wrong because the Librarian manual states what the official format for GoodReads is.

This is GoodReads, not the publisher's site.

Keep in mind that GR's format is used across many different publishers and series. Thus, we don't want to see "Book Twenty Seven" spelled out when it should be just "#27". Also, numbers are more universal across many languages, while spelling out those same numbers is not. = )

message 5: by mlady_rebecca (new)

mlady_rebecca | 593 comments Actually, we're working on updating the librarian manual, so while it currently offers several formats, the edit book page offers only this format:

title (series, #1)

The discussions of the changes are in this thread.

message 6: by JSWolf (new)

JSWolf | 649 comments Now that I've read the new rules, the Discworld books I've entered follow the series rules. I've changed them to be in the format of Discworld, #3). But I see most are (Discworld, Book 3) and most of the others in the series are the same incorrect way.

message 7: by vicki_girl (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments They were probably imported that way from Amazon...which is why we have librarians, i.e. to create a consistent, accurate database of books for GR members.


message 8: by jenjn79 (new)

jenjn79 | 565 comments Or there was another librarian using Book 3 type of label. A lot of GR librarians think this is they way series should be labeled...blame it on an example that used to be on certain pages that was a bit confusing. We've been working on trying to unify things a bit.

Elizabeth (Miss Eliza) (strange_misseliza) | 27 comments Hello,

I'm the librarian who's been doing some of the things you've encountered. I went through the Discworld books, noticed the majority were (Discworld Book, 1) or whatever number and I've been slowly working on making them all the same, with about 50 editions of each book and almost 40 books it will take for not including #, I personally think it's tacky looking. I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, just trying to get Discworld the chronological respect it deserves.

Elizabeth (Miss Eliza) (strange_misseliza) | 27 comments Also should mention that if # is going to be standard I'll gladly enter it :)

message 11: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44982 comments Mod
The # may be "tacky looking", but it is useful for parsing and will help with the forthcoming enhancements regrading series.

At least, that's my understanding. I don't speak programmer.

Elizabeth (Miss Eliza) (strange_misseliza) | 27 comments It shall be done then! Actually, I know a little programing and it makes sense, hence the asking before I did anymore :)

message 13: by Caroline (new)

Caroline | 58 comments Hah, I'm with you Elizabeth on feeling # looks tacky, but had to swap that thinking for the great reasons that other librarians have given. As long as things are consistent I'm happy!

Elizabeth (Miss Eliza) (strange_misseliza) | 27 comments I agree, consistency is key.

message 15: by parrais (new)

parrais | 7 comments You should probably be aware that for Discworld, the young adult books are not considered as part of the main series. For example, 'Making Money' is considered book 32, not 36 (citation).

Therefore 'Wintersmith' isn't book 35, it'd probably be better to entitle it 'Wintersmith (Discworld Young Adult, #4)' or something similar - although others may have a better suggestion.

message 16: by JSWolf (last edited May 16, 2009 08:18AM) (new)

JSWolf | 649 comments According to the publisher's website, the way to list the 4 YA Discworld books in the GR way would be

The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents (Discworld: Young Adult #1)
The Wee Free Men (Discworld: Young Adult #2)
A Hat Full of Sky (Discworld: Young Adult #3)
Wintersmith (Discworld: Young Adult #4)

So if they are listed as part of the main Discworld series, they are incorrect and if any of the main series is listed taking any of these into account as part of the main series is also incorrect.

This link will show you the order of the series so it can be fixed.

Elizabeth (Miss Eliza) (strange_misseliza) | 27 comments Well, I don't know what we should do about that, I've not got past doing the first 3 books so it will be awhile, because I know people who argue for or against the young adults being included, and depending on which of Terry's official sites you go to it's different. I personally think the YA books are in the count, because the characters cross over, extensively, and if you were to read them out of order it would be odd.

back to top