Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

27 views

Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Niilo S (new)

Niilo S | 11 comments I have found several cases of identical books in the database (one with isbn10 and one with isbn13 instead of one book with both isbn10 and isbn13). I'm not absolutely sure how to merge (or combine?) these correctly so I suppose it is best that I don't try it myself.

For example I found these two:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...

Second case:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

And finally:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...


message 2: by Z-squared (last edited Jan 15, 2014 09:43PM) (new)

Z-squared | 8575 comments It requires a merge, instead of just a combination. If one of the duplicates has more than 5 reviews, then it requires a superlibrarian to do it. Post to the superlibrarian thread here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

The usual courtesy for posting on that thread is to separate the two books that need merging from other editions first so that the superlibrarians can easily see which books to merge on the combine screen. I also usually throw in the link for remaining editions in my message, too, so that the super knows to recombine the merged duplicates back into the remaining editions.

For example, the first pair of dupes you linked to require a super because they've been added well over 5 times each. So I posted this comment here.

The second example (and maybe the third one, too) you listed doesn't require a superlibrarian. Would you like to do it yourself? If so, separate the two dupes from the remaining editions, delete one, and add the ISBN10 or 13 to the other. Then recombine the merged edition back with the remaining editions.


message 3: by Niilo S (new)

Niilo S | 11 comments OK. Thanks for your advice. I could not fix the third case (book was locked), so I followed your example and separated the editions and posted a note for superlibrarians.

Then I tried to fix the second case. It should now be fixed.


back to top