Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Questions > Editions that don't match published books???

Comments Showing 1-7 of 7 (7 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Hannah (new)

Hannah (bookwormhannah) | 193 comments Recently I've noticed some weird editions floating around. They claim to be nook format, with a Nook ISBN, but are listed by the original publisher's name instead of the name of the company who released the Nook version.

For example, in George Doran was the original publisher and is listed as such. Obviously, they did not publish the book as Nook, as they were bought out by Doubleday in 1927 and have been long defunct.

My instincts are to remove the Nook format code and the isbn and leave the rest of the info to match the book that was actually published in 1917, since no such book as is currently catalogued here ever existed, and I have no way to research the Nook version without sourcing from the Nook site, which is not an accepted data source.

Any opinions before I work on this issue? Thanks.

message 2: by Paula (last edited Jun 10, 2016 08:18AM) (new)

Paula (paulaan) | 7027 comments Never remove an valid ISBN/ ASIN/BNID/Kobo id from editions on GR.

The book was imported via the BN auto import so was available on BN at some point. The data may be wrong that should be corrected once known.

Edit: I suspect the cover may be wrong but it was uploaded by a librarian. I would suspect that this is a digitised version of the original book

message 3: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 22764 comments I don't see any problem confirming with B&N that they have the book. So I did and they state that it is a a new release of the 1917 original.

So it is a Nook book and shouldn't be removed or altered.

message 4: by Hannah (new)

Hannah (bookwormhannah) | 193 comments So is it now officially okay to gather the publisher info from Barnes and Noble?

message 5: by Hannah (new)

Hannah (bookwormhannah) | 193 comments What I'm saying is that Doran didn't publish this file because Doran is defunct. Some other publisher had to release this. The other info (cover, page numbers, publisher, year published) matches the original release.

When two different books (original and rerelease) are smashed into one file, do we make the call to go with the book based on the isbn listed, or based on the most info that is correct?

message 6: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41704 comments Mod
Hannah wrote: "So is it now officially okay to gather the publisher info from Barnes and Noble?"

B&N is still not a source we can use for book data. However, in this case a librarian simply looked there and confirmed that the data was the same.

We did used to have an import from B&N, which appears to have been the source of these records.

message 7: by Hannah (new)

Hannah (bookwormhannah) | 193 comments Okay...still need an answer on the reissue question.

Data I have:
-book was published in 1917 with no isbn by Doran
-original copy was hardcover and had this cover picture
-Doran was bought out by Doubleday in 1927
-page number is also from print edition

(Also own a copy.)

This is the ONLY source for the info:
-This edition is published without a cover image
-No page numbers are listed
-Since Doran is out of business, they did not publish the book. The book was reissued using data from the original edition.
-If it was a true reissue, the creator of the ebook would be Doubleday. However, that is not stated, so cannot be added.

My actions:
If I was adding the Nook version, I would add it with the isbn, leave the publisher, book cover, and pages numbers blank. The description would be the one given on the site, "This is a reissue of the 1917 George H. Doran edition."
Do I simply take out the data (cover, etc) that does not match the Nook file?
Do we get to assume the page number for the Nook based on the print edition?

For my copy, I guess I will add a new edition, though only the two bits of info (format and isbn) are different. This file matches the book I own more closely than it does the BN. com file.

Basically, you are saying that an isbn trumps everything else about the book, even if the other info is not given, and that a book sourced from an incorrect source can be left if it matches the original source?

back to top