Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

100 views
Book Issues > I might have made a grave error combining Black Beauty

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments So, I just combined a bunch of editions of Anna Sewell's Black Beauty. I did not combine the edition with a librarian's note saying not to combine. Now I've realized that perhaps some (only some) of the editions that had already been combined in one group might be books that are not the full novel.

Since this might be my error, I will try to check and see if this is so.

But, if any of you know this book well, I'd appreciate any help with any separating that needs to be done.

Thanks!


message 2: by Sherry (new)

Sherry (ssaccoliti) | 523 comments First. Don't panic. I think it is a rule that at one point, each of use has combined something or deleted something that was not supposed to be. (Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was my downfall ...).

Anyways. Not sure if I can help, but someone will.

Thanks.


message 3: by Sara ♥ (new)

Sara ♥ (saranicole) | 318 comments I just wish there was an undo button... I could have used it a time or two! But alas! Don't worry too much. It might be a pain to separate them again, but it can be done!


message 4: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Thanks. Yes, I know. I have all Wednesday afternoon to work on it. BUT, I'll have to look at each edition separately. Ugh. Before I combined a bunch of stragglers and the two larger groups I did check some editions in each group and they were all the full length version of the novel. But, I guess some of the editions (probably some in each group) are of a significantly abridged nature. So, the only way I'll know to tell is by page number, I guess.

If anyone wants to work on this, I'd be very grateful, but otherwise I can tackle it on Wednesday. There are a lot of editions.


message 5: by Sherry (new)

Sherry (ssaccoliti) | 523 comments If you go to this thread http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

there are direct references to Black Beauty.

Read the entire thread as routine abridged versions are combined, (as the plot and the gist of the story are the same), but only very short versions are kept separate.

Have I got that right?



message 6: by Lisa (last edited Aug 03, 2009 08:02PM) (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments You know, There is supposed to be an undo feature. I went and found where my edit it but I don't see an undo link.

Rivka? Anyone? Thanks.

Sherry, I'm about to go read your link... (I had seen a librarian note attached to just one edition.)

Edit: Sherry, Well, I ruined what "deleted member" fixed, whatever that was. I did see "deleted member" had worked on Black Beauty when I realized I might have combined incorrectly.

Finding editions that aren't the "real" book might be time consuming and I'm not sure how short they are. Someone said something about a 48 page book and that obviously would not belong with the novel Black Beauty.


message 7: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42456 comments Mod
I don't think combines have an undo. Just individual books edits.


message 8: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Rivka, Well, that's why I can't find it. Too bad! I imagine an undo feature wouldn't be needed very much for this type of thing. I can't believe I did that. Well, it can be fixed.


message 9: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments I need some information/advice from Rivka and other librarians.

I started working on correcting my mistake with Black Beauty. (I'll try to finish up by the end of the day Wednesday.)

So far I'm just separating the editions I know are not the novel. I'm not talking about simple abridgment, but books that are 32, 64, 90 pages long, Black Beauty combined with other stories, etc. etc.

Earlier today there were some straggler editions and then two big bunches of combined books. Each of the two sets of editions had editions of the full novel and (I think) editions that are not the novel.

My thought now is that the non-novel books should not be combined together. They are different books from one another, often very different.

The editions of the novel should, of course, be combined.

I'm afraid if the many non-novel editions are combined again, it will be an easy mistake for members to assume those combined books are the novel itself, and either add one to their shelves or combine editions improperly as I did.

What are your thoughts?

Also, I might appreciate some help at some point. There are many editions that have no page numbers and no other information that makes it easy to tell whether or not those books are the novel or some adaptation that should not be combined with the novel. I'll do my best. I will try to finish by Wednesday evening. I'll repost if there are still problems.

Thanks.


message 10: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Of course, the "Black Beauty" books that are far from Sewell's novel shouldn't have Sewell as the first author listed and therefore will not be combinable anyway. Correct?


message 11: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Lisa wrote: "Of course, the "Black Beauty" books that are far from Sewell's novel shouldn't have Sewell as the first author listed and therefore will not be combinable anyway. Correct?"

Yes, that's what I've done for a few of the more radical abridgments: made sure that the abridger was the primary author.

By "editions that are not the novel", do you mean the various radical abridgments? I recall that the decision was to combine them; I argued against it on the "different books" line, but the counterargument was that people would be looking for "editions of a kid's version of the book" and searchability won. You make a good point about the fact that we really have to leave Sewell as the primary author in order to combine those, which leaves them vulnerable, but it also allows one stern librarian's note to cover all of them, so there's that....


message 12: by Lisa (last edited Aug 04, 2009 09:26AM) (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Cait, On the positive side, I see that Sewell's books were in poor shape in the database before I made my mistake. On a negative note, this seems like a huge project.

Did we agree to combine all Black Beauty books?!? If so, that will be easy. I wish I thought we should do this.

However, I'm not just talking about abridged editions. There are 32 page picture books and retellings and books of BB combined with other horse stories, and so many more that wouldn't make sense to be combined.

So, I still have questions.

Thanks Cait! So, are you saying my combines that I did might have all been correctly done?

Other feedback? (I might try to work on it some today if/after I know what I'm doing is right. Otherwise, it's tomorrow afternoon that I will have free.)

So, I'm not sure what to do.


message 13: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Did we agree to combine all Black Beauty books?!?

No, no, I mean that there was to be one combo group of the novel itself and another one of the novel abridgments that were radical enough to be separated from the novel.

Hmm. Let me see if I can find it....

books of BB combined with other horse stories

Those would always be separated out, unless two or more had the exact same set of stories.

Cait, On the positive side, I see that Sewell's books were in poor shape in the database before I made my mistake. On a negative note, this seems like a huge project.

Yeah, I had a go at it quite a while ago, but it's always going to be one of those unstable ones, I fear!


message 14: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments and another one of the novel abridgments that were radical enough to be separated from the novel

Thank you, Cait.

Well, I assume these are by different primary authors. Maybe that's why Sewell is/was still listed as primary author for all of them.

I'll do what Goodreads/the members of this group say, but it's seems to me they shouldn't all be combined.


message 15: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Hmm, and now I can't find that previous discussion, either, which means I may have pieced it together in my head from something else. Perhaps we should revisit this policy?


message 16: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Ok. Except for continuing to separate out not a novels from the novel, I'm waiting for some consensus before proceeding. I agree with Cait that we should make a decision, and write a clear librarian note stating whatever policy we adopt.


message 17: by Werner (new)

Werner | 87 comments Speaking for myself (and I don't do much combining of records anyway --I usually just fix typos and factual errors, or add missing contributors), I'm strongly against combining unabridged editions of classics with "abridged" or "condensed" versions for kids. Contrary to what some may have argued, there are adult readers who want to read the actual versions of these works themselves, not just find dumbed-down versions for their kids. Those users won't appreciate finding the abridgments mixed in indiscriminately with the genuine article. (And what genius in the publishing industry decreed that kids are too stupid to read the unabridged editions?)


message 18: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Werner, I don't think we're talking about combining the non-novels with the novels, but whether or not to combine the non-novels with each other.

I changed the librarians note on Anna Sewell's combine page last night:

Some books that are not the full novel Black Beauty have been combined with the editions of the novel. Goodreads librarians will decide how these other Black Beauty stories will be listed in the database. For now, if you see an edition of a book that you know isn't the novel improperly combined, please separate it. Thank you very much.

If somebody has a better way to phrase it, please do so.

Also, I'm still waiting to work on this until we decide what to do with the non-novel editions of Black Beauty.

If we combine them, we'll have to leave Sewell as primary author. If we do not, we should make her secondary author and start adding primary authors for those editions.

Thanks.


message 19: by Werner (new)

Werner | 87 comments Thanks for the clarification, Lisa; I see that I misunderstood before!


message 20: by Lisa (last edited Aug 05, 2009 01:48PM) (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2409 comments Werner, Yesterday I also got confused about what people meant. Anna Sewell needs a lot of work!

Edit: If we decide to list her as only the second author on the adaptations of BB, I think that will clear up a lot of things, but from what I understand, we'd have to change policy re BB.


back to top