Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
Announcement: Combining works with many shelvings no longer temporarily disabled; merges now up to date
For me it completely stopped. Of my 4 pages of deletes nothing was done in the last couple of days.
I know I still have deletions pending that I queued on Feb 16th, so it doesn't seem to be speeding up any sadly. If anything, it's getting slower.
I'm stopping. Now that a whole batch of books have been recombined despite a note on every. single. edition.
Lisa wrote: "I'm stopping. Now that a whole batch of books have been recombined despite a note on every. single. edition."Ouch.
Mine seem to be left alone, perhaps I'm working in the darker corners of the library. Perhaps a reminder to all librarians should be sent not to combine before checking comments.
Librarian notes are visible on the combine page. You would think that should be enough.
Perhaps not Lethe...it doesn't take weeks for a deletion normally,and I assume not every librarian is (actively or passively) in the librarians group and therefore doesn't know about this enormous backlog and perhaps just think "oh old note" and ignore it. (Or they're just ignorant ... and if it's the same person everytime I would flag it) I would appreciate a message to librarians... perhaps backlog will stop increasing so fast because everybody should know then not to delete an entry several times because they just think it didn't work.
If the deletions didn't take so long the librarian notes wouldn't be necessary in the first place. If a librarian sees a note about a pending merge or a 'do not recombine' on an edition that is separate with another edition and does not understand the note is still valid, they either are stupid or don't speak English. I'm not sure a message would help in either case. (Sorry, bit grumpy today.)I still think membership of the Librarians Group should be mandatory for all librarians, whether they actively participate or not.
It really is unacceptable for them to ignore the note. Privileges should be revoked.
I've been putting the date on my librarian notes, though that does no good for those who don't read them. The whole mess is a major frustration, that's for sure.Lethe, I agree with the mandatory Librarians Group membership requirement, although I know that being a member and reading the posts do not necessarily go hand in hand. I would like to see some sort of monitoring system in place for new librarians, as someone else has suggested. Mistakes are understandable, but ignoring librarian notes is not.
lethe wrote: "I still think membership of the Librarians Group should be mandatory for all librarians, whether they actively participate or not. "Perhaps. But I don't read probably 99% of the posts, and membership does not require you to do so.
No, but at least then people wouldn't have an excuse for not knowing about these things.
lethe wrote: "No, but at least then people wouldn't have an excuse for not knowing about these things."So. The librarian who deleted a over 100 editions of Ethan Frome that had valid ISBNs should know better. The librarian is a member of this group. Does that get the wrongfully deleted editions back?
Sigh. No of course not, but they can't claim ignorance. Membership of the Librarians Group presupposes knowledge that this sort of thing is not allowed. Their edits should be flagged and they should have their librarianship revoked, because there simply is no excuse.
Deletes from February 16 just went through. Those from February 18 are still queued. So the backlog is 16-18 days.
I wonder if some have actually "fallen" out of the queue. I have some that went through from the 15th but others from the 12th still waiting.
lethe wrote: "No, but at least then people wouldn't have an excuse for not knowing about these things."If they can't claim ignorance, there will be something else they could claim. "Must have been an oversight on my part" is one example.
I had several merges from Feb 17th, 18th & 19th complete in the last 12 hours, so it looks like it's speeding up some.
Mod
Mod
I was just able to confirm that some of the changes the devs have been making have successfully increased the rate at which pending deletes are being processed.
rivka wrote: "I was just able to confirm that some of the changes the devs have been making have successfully increased the rate at which pending deletes are being processed. "Yay! This is excellent news. Definitely give them our thanks.
Yup, going much faster now, a lot to catch up.
Yes, two of mine, from 1st March and 3rd March respectively, just went through. Thanks.
Mine are being a little more random - some older ones have gone, and two from this week... Mid-range ones haven't (yet).
Mod
While we hope all deletes have now completed, it is possible that a few (especially any that were attempted more than once on the same edition) might not have gone through. If so, it's ok to retry them now -- but please just do so once.
A huge bouquet of gratitude (extra-fancy style) to all the staff who worked so hard to get this issue resolved! Thank you!
Glad it is resolved. I can confirm the majority of my merges has gone through now.
Thanks to everyone that worked on this + rivka & Arenda for your patience with us!
I did a merge earlier that went through in a couple of minutes; such a relief! Good job!
Such a relief to go back to normal. Thanks!
But (looking at the topic title) am I correct in thinking that combining works with many shelvings is still disabled? So not completely normal yet.
lethe wrote: "But (looking at the topic title) am I correct in thinking that combining works with many shelvings is still disabled? So not completely normal yet."I succesfully combined two editions of Pride and Prejudice yesterday.
In January when this thread was made, when I tried to combine a popular book, I got a message that this function was disabled.
Mod
I can do it, but often with errors requiring additional attempts.
I noticed the same thing yesterday, sometimes with authors who didn't have that many books. The more popular authors definitely took an extraordinarily long time, and as happened to Lisa, often returned errors.
I've sometimes received a 'Sorry, error occurred' message when combining popular books but the combine did actually go through despite the message.
Oh my, the merges are now super quick!
Mod
Hello , I need help in adding this Arabic edition of Bukowski Ham on Rye to the original edition , can you help?https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Thank you ..
Betal wrote: "Hello , I need help in adding this Arabic edition of Bukowski Ham on Rye to the original edition , can you help?..."I have combined the editions, but this is not the correct thread for requests. As the topic title says, this is an announcement thread. Next time, please post your request in the Book Issues folder.
Mod
Mod
Thanks for your patience! After lots of testing, we are comfortable saying that large combines should now be ok.
Have fun!
Yay!! Thanks to all who worked behind the scenes to fix these issues. :-D
Can I please get https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... merged with https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... merged with https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
and https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... merged with https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Thank you.
Can I also please have https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... as the primary edition over https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...Thank you
#98/99 Please start a new thread for this in the Book Issues folder, as this is an announcement thread and not intended for requests.Also, librarians cannot set the default edition, only authors can. See the Author FAQ: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
I've had this issue with other requests as well. I think I should go through them all and add "Do not recombine" to all notes. *sigh*
In any case, I am keeping a close eye on the requests that are approaching their deletion time, so nothing should go through wrong... unless the backlog is suddenly cleared with great speed.