Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Questions (not edit requests)
>
What is up with the "audio" format?
date
newest »
newest »
It may happen with an import. However, there is more than one audio format, so just converting audiobook might not be accurate either.
Thanks, Elizabeth.I've found it persistently with audiobooks and Audible audio. Granted, what I've read is but a small sampling of the bazillions out there, but I'd guesstimate I run into this with at least half of the ones I look for. I usually find they've entered audio CDs and whatnot correctly for the same titles.
I don't know anything about imports...how do they even work?
Valerie wrote: "I don't know anything about imports...how do they even work?"GR imports digitally information from other sources. I believe now that most of the imports come from Amazon, but in the past many different sources were used. It depends on how the information has been entered in those databases how the information appears here. Some of it is better than others.
You can look at the recent librarian edits and see that two sources are being used now: onix ingram and amazon_kcwhttps://www.goodreads.com/librarian/r...
Thanks. ISTM that whatever magic allows this importation could and should be tweaked to better sync the terminology.
And I'd hate for the tweaking of the format list to be lost. I find it quite useful, but I'm not the one using audio. LOL.
Maybe we need three broad categories -- print, digital text, audio -- and then a bunch of subcategories under those -- hardback, paperback; Kindle, PDF; Audible, CD; etc., etc. I think we're suffering the growing pangs of an embarrassment of literary riches!
+1 for ValerieChange the dropdown that's there to have indents under the broad category names and add category "upcoming" or the like for as yet unplublished works that have a blank field now, and no option for "other" to be written in, I've seen some funny stuff there. I'd also add a dropdown to the (OOPS I meant description field here) edition field for Large Print, Out of Print, Clean, etc.
Valerie wrote: "Maybe we need three broad categories -- print, digital text, audio -- and then a bunch of subcategories under those -- hardback, paperback; Kindle, PDF; Audible, CD; etc., etc. I think we're suffer..."They aren't going to change the structure of the database, especially not for such a minor item. You didn't seem to understand the situation. The wording comes from other sources, not Goodreads.
Samantha wrote: "I'd also add a dropdown to the edition field for Large Print, Out of Print, Clean, etc."No.
As to "out of print" being put in the edition field, please see this help topic. Out of Print should only be put in the description field. https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/3...
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Samantha wrote: "I'd also add a dropdown to the edition field for Large Print, Out of Print, Clean, etc."No."
+1 to No.
Large Print may be put in the edition field, but, as Elizabeth says, OoP belongs in the description, where appropriate. And what do you mean with Clean? The language?? I've only seen GR authors add that to the description (not the edition field!). Otherwise, it has no business being anywhere but in a review IMO.
In almost every case where I've seen the format showing as 'Audio', it was due to an import from a publisher for the Digital Audiobook edition. Most publisher's just list those as Digital Audio on their site, so it gets imported as Audio. I've always changed them to Audiobook when I see them as that's what they are. I've never seen Audio used for any other audio format (not to say it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it).
I just caught that, I meant description where I put edition there, added a note to the post.I've seen Clean Version in the description of several books, it seems to show up when they do have a regular adult version of the book be it language or graphic descriptions and an edited version for the folks opposed to that stuff, I've never seen it without the other version though.
Samantha wrote: "I just caught that, I meant description where I put edition there, added a note to the post.I've seen Clean Version in the description of several books, it seems to show up when they do have a reg..."
And so you want a drop down for the description? How would that work?
Samantha wrote: "I just caught that, I meant description where I put edition there, added a note to the post.I've seen Clean Version in the description of several books, it seems to show up when they do have a reg..."
I think it's much simpler to just add it to the description instead of creating a dropdown menu where you can only choose one option.
Anyway, this is all about site functionality and shouldn't really be discussed in the librarians group.
@Melanie, changing 'audio' to 'audiobook' is the right thing to do IMO. I understood from Rivka that 'audiobook' is the general term. Audio CD, Audio cassette, MP3 CD are all types of audiobook. Much as a mass-market paperback is a type of paperback.
Ok I obviously need more coffee and to stop multitasking.I propose something along the lines of in the FORMAT field having the dropdown indented with subcategories of the 3 or 4 major categories (print, digital, audio, unpublished).
Then there are a few ways to accomplish what I meant with regards to what is actually the EDITION field (this is where more coffee comes in) make the edition field a drop down for the specifics of the format ex. Large Format; or it could be a tag-like field with commas ex. Large Format, Alternate Cover.
Or you could go way out and make things more similar to Amazon and have a specifier checkbox in the DESCRIPTION field where the background gremlins simply add a form statement into the field such as Out-Of-Print or Alternate Cover.
Yes, you need more coffee. Alternate cover doesn't go in the edition field either. It's not clear to me why you can't simply type in this information.But, as Lethe points out, this is a site functionality issue. If you want feature/function changes, the Feedback group is the appropriate place.
Melanie wrote: "In almost every case where I've seen the format showing as 'Audio', it was due to an import from a publisher for the Digital Audiobook edition. Most publisher's just list those as Digital Audio on ..." That's my experience, too. Which is why I think some sort of automated clean-up function that always changes "audio" to "audiobook" would be the simplest fix. I'm no coding wizard, but I'm confident that those who are could make that magic happen without breaking too much of a sweat.
Fwiw, I regularly move things like "Clean edition" from the title to the edition field, especially where the work is combined with alternate editions. But oop is specifically supposed to be in the description, not the edition field
Krazykiwi wrote: "Fwiw, I regularly move things like "Clean edition" from the title to the edition field, especially where the work is combined with alternate editions. But oop is specifically supposed to be in the ..."How can an edition be clean?
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How can an edition be clean?"Not "dirty", i.e. no smut and/or no profanity.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How can an edition be clean? "It's a descriptor commonly used for romance novels. An author might put out the same book twice. Once with all of the sexy scenes in it and another 'clean' version without any of that.
Melanie wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How can an edition be clean? "It's a descriptor commonly used for romance novels. An author might put out the same book twice. Once with all of the sexy scenes in it an..."
To me, that belongs in the description, not the edition field.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "To me, that belongs in the description, not the edition field. Agreed.
Oh my word. I would HATE for "clean" to become some sort of identifier. That is content that should be discussed in the blurb. Besides, the "clean" definition changes depending on who you're talking to.
I've seen it mean:
-no profanity (but words like shit and damn are ok)
-no profanity at all (but using the word "swear" and "God's sake" is ok)
-no swearing! (including using the word "swear")
-no "blasphemy"
-no sex on page (but off page is ok)
-no sex at all (on or off page - but kissing is ok)
-no kissing on page (but off page is ok)
-no kissing at all
And let's not get into the full religious options.
So. NO. Please let "Clean" be something the author discusses in their blurb or the reviewer discusses in their review. Otherwise it will turn into a big tub of FUBAR.
I would suggest that when there are different versions, "Clean Edition" is appropriate, but not as a general descriptor. Saying "this is a clean story" is very different from identifying different versions of the same story. On the other hand, ACE is definitely not mentioned in the edition field (partly I would suggest because it's in-house terminology).
Emy wrote: "I would suggest that when there are different versions, "Clean Edition" is appropriate, but not as a general descriptor. Saying "this is a clean story" is very different from identifying different ..."I'd think - that if there are different editions - one would be abridged and the other not.
I mean, I've never seen a book that had a "clean" and "not-clean" (gosh I hate those terms and feel they do not apply) edition to only change a few swear words. Normally those kinds of things have whole swaths of text/content changed.
I think "ACE" isn't common terminology yet but something like that will become common. I think it's a rather new thing that started after SPAs did multi-publishing over dang near every book.
In a sense, they are abridged, by removing certain words / scenes. Bowlderisation is not a new thing but authors doing it to their own works seems to be. I have seen "Steamy Edition" I think used to contrast with "Clean Edition", and similar wordings.
Emy wrote: "In a sense, they are abridged, by removing certain words / scenes. Bowlderisation is not a new thing but authors doing it to their own works seems to be. I have seen "Steamy Edition" I think used t..."Yes. It does seem to be the "thing" now. I even saw one author write a fanfic of her own work, so...
"Steamy" edition. *headdesk*
Is a decent blurb too much to ask????
MrsJoseph wrote: "a fanfic of her own work"Um...isn't that called a sequel?
Save some space for my head on that desk! ;^)
LOL Very entertaining thread, but should probably be in the Feedback Group as suggested above :)
Valerie wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "a fanfic of her own work"Um...isn't that called a sequel?
Save some space for my head on that desk! ;^)"
*scoots head over to make room*
Weeeelllll...the author turned a Contemporary Romance into a PNR by making all the humans into vampires, werewolves and IDK what else, lol.
Sandra wrote: "LOL Very entertaining thread, but should probably be in the Feedback Group as suggested above :)"Whoops. I'm just so used to posting in the librarians group that I forget there are other groups out there!
Emy wrote: "I would suggest that when there are different versions, "Clean Edition" is appropriate, but not as a general descriptor. Saying "this is a clean story" is very different from identifying different ..."This. It's only useful in the edition field when there's a "not-clean" edition it's combined with.
There's also a thing where some PNR authors are doing "YA edition" of their own books, essentially the same thing - editing out the "steamy" content. My "favourite" (and I use that in a "Really, wtf?" kind of way) is when authors turn heterosexual romances into gay romances by simply gender switching one or more characters. Most of the time these have the same titles and very similar covers, although sometimes they're entirely retitled too.
It's obviously not appropriate in the edition field when it's about the work, only when it's something specific to a particular edition.
It's no different when you see it in that context to "annotated edition" or "abridged edition" or "Book club edition" - they all denote added and/or removed content, in otherwise the same book.
But to me, 'clean' implies a subjective value judgment, which 'annotated' etc. don't have. I still think it belongs in the description rather than in the edition field.
lethe wrote: "But to me, 'clean' implies a subjective value judgment, which 'annotated' etc. don't have. I still think it belongs in the description rather than in the edition field."I agree, but I'm unlikely to come across these, so my opinion probably doesn't matter in the real world.
Mod
That may be. But when the author or publisher so designates some of the editions of a work, that information does go in the edition field.
Why does the "audio" format category exist? Shouldn't it be "audiobook"? It's vexing to try to find a specific edition when it's been given this label, because "audio" isn't a searchable category. And it's not on the list of options when adding a book, so whoever persists on using it when they enter new titles is having to go out of their way to be annoying. It seems as if some back-end finagling could take care of this: limit format options to the ones on the list, and retroactivly find and replace all instances of "audio" with "audiobook." Any chance?
Thanks for the space to vent. ;-)
~Valerie