Order of omnibus editions in a series

[Renske]

Sometimes a series is published with different omnibus editions (Editions with two books and editions with three books, as an example)
I have noticed that people add them in two different ways to the series.
Some add one set first and then the other, so you get 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and then 1-3, 4-6
Others follow the numbers, so you get 1-2, 1-3, 3-4, 4-6, 5-6.

I prefer the first way, but I don't want to go editing series without knowing what other people think.

[Philip]

I like the First way also, but can see where somebody would put them the other way.

[lethe]

I have a slight preference for the second way, but the first way is probably less confusing (keeping each omnibus edition together).

[Empress]

Rarely series with multiple omnibus versions are that simple, therefor I end up arranging them mostly the second way. Some series will also have omnibus version such as (1-3, 5).

Anyways that doesn't bother me as much as people not properly numbering series. As proven in this thread naming a book 2.1 does not imply in how many parts a book is split and as can be seen here (in the notes section) in the notes someone things translations should not be part of the main series page.

[Scott]

I would prefer keeping the omnibus sets together.

[Krazykiwi]

I also prefer the second way.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

The first way is clearer to me because the number of titles in the omnibus editions first listed all include 2 titles, followed by editions that include 3 titles (and etc. if such has been published). But I should also say that I read few enough series that my opinion shouldn't carry much weight.

[Empress]

Just stumbled on this and decided it is a good example of what I was saying: https://www.goodreads.com/series/7177...

However, I wouldn't go and mess it up because I have a preference. Someone has done a lot of work on this.