Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

This topic is about
N is for Noose
[Closed] Added Books/Editions
>
N is for Noose - New Edition
date
newest »

Z-squared wrote: "definitely a reused ISBN."
Not sure why you say that. The record that was here had exactly one piece of information (other than title and author): publisher. Far more likely that was in error. I corrected the existing record and deleted the unnecessary new one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Not sure why you say that. The record that was here had exactly one piece of information (other than title and author): publisher. Far more likely that was in error. I corrected the existing record and deleted the unnecessary new one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

It depends how sure you are that they are really two different editions. Publishers change names often, and page counts online can be wildly wrong. I wouldn't use either of those by itself as reason to make a new edition instead of updating our records.
WorldCat, one of the more reliable sites for this sort of thing, only had the large print for this ISBN.
WorldCat, one of the more reliable sites for this sort of thing, only had the large print for this ISBN.

In that case, it's clear she has a different edition than the one we already had listed.
I don't think that was at all clear in this case, where our existing record was very sparse, and therefore more probably wrong.
I don't think that was at all clear in this case, where our existing record was very sparse, and therefore more probably wrong.

anyway, whatever you decide is obviously cool, i just freaking hate ACEs!
Z-squared wrote: "i just freaking hate ACEs!"
And I'm trying to explain that in many cases they may not be necessary.
And I'm trying to explain that in many cases they may not be necessary.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...