Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Dealing with conflicting sources
date
newest »

message 1:
by
GEM
(new)
Nov 17, 2013 09:47AM

reply
|
flag


It depends what the data is. As a general rule, WorldCat's page counts are both more likely to be accurate and more likely to be consistent with the way we count pages on Goodreads than Amazon's are. (They count all pages, including blank and unnumbered ones, and usually have a pre-pub estimate from the publisher. WorldCat usually gets its data from libraries that have an actual copy in hand that the data is from.)
However, if the covers are also different, then I agree that a new edition with an alternate cover may be in order. WorldCat may have multiple listings for a single ISBN and may not -- it varies. Lack of multiple listings is not evidence that they do not exist.
However, if the covers are also different, then I agree that a new edition with an alternate cover may be in order. WorldCat may have multiple listings for a single ISBN and may not -- it varies. Lack of multiple listings is not evidence that they do not exist.

Amazon data can often come from the publishers either as a pre-publication estimate or as a notification of how many pages are NEEDED (not necessarily how many are printed on). If the Amazon is a nice even number and differs then I am more likely to suspect that they are using the publisher supplied numeration.
Book in hand trumps both above though.
If you do make any changes, please leave a note in the bottom box saying what and why, e.g. "Updated pages as per Worldcat." or whatever...
Emy wrote: "Book in hand trumps both above though."
Good reminder!
Emy wrote: "If you do make any changes, please leave a note in the bottom box saying what and why, e.g. "Updated pages as per Worldcat." or whatever... "
I like that suggestion.
Good reminder!
Emy wrote: "If you do make any changes, please leave a note in the bottom box saying what and why, e.g. "Updated pages as per Worldcat." or whatever... "
I like that suggestion.