Announcement: Updated Policy on ISBNs and ASINs

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Oh dear lord, thousands of editions of classics will have ISBN moved to some public domain kindle reprint ocr'ed with a book description talking about how good their OCR process is (or ripped off from Project Gutenberg and Open Library) and being sold for $75 ...

[Alexandra]

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Oh dear lord, thousands of editions of classics will have ISBN moved to some public domain kindle reprint ocr'ed with a book description talking about how good their OCR process is (or ripped off f..."

Yup. Lovely, huh?

[Emy]

Moloch wrote: "But it might be useful to put THIS request (same ISBN usable for different records) in the roadmap finally and work on it because it's a very important aspect of the database."

May I suggest that rather than requesting reuse of an ISBN, we add a cross-linking field. In a similar way to the cross referencing in Genres/Shelves, where we can say that B is also A.

Regardless, I think this aspect is possibly a discussion best taken to Feedback.

[Moloch]

Alexandra wrote: "Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Oh dear lord, thousands of editions of classics will have ISBN moved to some public domain kindle reprint ocr'ed with a book description talking about how good their OCR process is (or ripped off f..."

Yup. Lovely, huh? "

I still haven't formed a clear opinion on this, but I doubt this will happen. We're not going to move ISBNs and ASINs at random. An ISBN used by Serious Publisher for a 1996 edition will be moved to the 2018 edition of the same work by the same Serious Publisher, not to some random Kindle edition. I don't understand this worry

[Emy]

Indeed, what Moloch says. It's not move ISBNs at random, just move within alternate covers. An OCR-ed or "rpiped off from Project Gutenberg and Open Library" edition would still only have it's OWN ISBN. So,

Old Classic Title by Classic Author, has:
Three Routledge covers - ISBN moves to newest edition (and I agree as suggested upthread that best practice would be to add links to the older editions and newer editions as we currently do).
One 19th edition - No ISBN, so nothing changes
One edition of a modern OCR - Keeps it's own ISBN if it has one.

Only the re-issue of the Routledge edition with a new cover would get the ISBN(s) moved.

[Alexandra]

Moloch wrote: " An ISBN used by Serious Publisher for a 1996 edition will be moved to the 2018 edition of the same work by the same Serious Publisher, not to some random Kindle edition."

I don't see "Serious Publisher" stated in the announcement, I see most recent edition.

"Going forward, ISBNs/ASINs should be moved to the book’s most recent edition."

[Moloch]

But if you look to the Manual https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/8... where rivka linked in a previous post it is explained that this is meant for alternate cover editions.

It can be no any other way because frankly if that was like you are suggesting that would be total chaos. (edited to add: and it is highly improbable IMO that Goodreads is meaning it in the way that you think)

[Emy]

#59 This!

This announcement is about ACEs ONLY.

This announcement is NOT about moving ISBNs between editions in general. It is about moving ISBNs from an older ACE to the newest one ONLY.

[Miriam]

The manual says we move the ISBN for different books with the same ISBN. So any instance where there would have been a reused ISBN , and an ACE created, the ISBN gets moved to the newer edition. (See paragraph 3 of the manual entry)

Personally, without reciprocal ACE links, this is just going to be a lot of work to create a bigger mess.

[Dobby]

Virginia wrote: "The new policy makes sense. And there are so many reliable resources that it should not be an issue to verify and validate information (sometimes tedious but that's what librarians do even ones at ..."

From a volunteer librarian standpoint, I respectfully disagree that the new policy makes sense. As a librarian who habitually searches out incomplete records to clean up, I also respectfully disagree that it's not an issue to verify and validate. I have spent hours searching for details—from an acceptable source—for book records. Many times the information simply was not available from a source I could use.

This is a fact: the new policy will cause additional work for Goodreads volunteer librarians. It will also cause a lot of second-guessing, because we run the risk of losing our librarian status if we guess wrong too many times.

Because Goodreads are volunteers, not staff. We donate our time.

The purpose of the community is for readers in general not just book collectors of older editions, people, in general, want to locate the most recent edition of a book they want to read.

As others have pointed out, not really. I want to catalog the books in my library. I want to shelf the edition I have. Some of my editions are pre-orders with brand new ISBNs, some are years old with many releases. Goodreads is many things to many people.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I find it interesting that there was no discussion of this policy before implementation. When I see proposed policy changes there is usually much discussion here. Problems are put forth, compromises made. There was nothing here, just Wham! all of a sudden this drastic and time-consuming policy put in place. Obviously, from my comments upthread, I'm beyond disappointed.

[Alexandra]

Moloch wrote: "It can be no any other way because frankly if that was like you are suggesting that would be total chaos."

It's not the way I am suggesting (I'd never make such a suggestion), it's the way it has been actually stated, "Going forward, ISBNs/ASINs should be moved to the book’s most recent edition."

Further:

"2. Click on “Add a Librarian Note” at the top of the book edit page. Add a comment explaining that you’re moving the ISBN/ASIN to the latest edition (preferably with a link to the other edition, though this isn’t required).

"moving the ISBN/ASIN to the latest edition..."

Now, if it's not correct that it will be "moved to the book's most recent edition" fine, then the announcement is in error and needs to be corrected. Because that's what it actually says.

There's absolutely nothing there about "Serious Publisher".

" (edited to add: and it is highly improbable IMO that Goodreads is meaning it in the way that you think)"

Great! I think GR is saying ISBN/ASIN's will be moved to the latest edition carrying that ISBN/ASIN, because that's what it says.

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Moloch wrote: "We're not going to move ISBNs and ASINs at random. An ISBN used by Serious Publisher for a 1996 edition will be moved to the 2018 edition of the same work by the same Serious Publisher, not to some random Kindle edition."

This is correct. The ASIN/ISBN will be moved to the new cover edition of the book that has been published using that ISBN/ASIN. If a new edition is not published with that ISBN/ASIN, then the number has should not be moved to the book page.

[Emy]

Alexandra wrote: "I assume if that were the case then the announcement would actually say that. It doesn't."

It does, but it doesn't seem to be clear enough.

I would suggest that in this section be rephrased:
"If a subsequent edition was released with the same ISBN/ASIN, the number remained with the original edition. This policy is now changing. Going forward, ISBNs/ASINs should be moved to the book’s most recent edition."

"If a subsequent edition was released with the same ISBN/ASIN, the number remained with the original edition. This policy is now changing. Going forward, ISBNs/ASINs should be moved to the book’s most recent edition released with the same ISBN or ASIN."

In each case where the policy in #1 is referring to Alternate Cover Editions, it is using just "edition" as shorthand. I feel that this is proving unclear and should be spelt out.

I would also suggest an addition to cover this possible misunderstanding (wording subject to debate of course!):
"Please do not move ISBNs or ASINs onto an edition which was not released with that ISBN or ASIN. ISBNs and ASINs relate to specific editions. Although an ISBN or ASIN may be re-released with different covers, the identification number should only be moved if the new cover has the SAME ISBN/ASIN as the older edition. Where a new edition is released with a new ASIN or ISBN, do not move the identifier from the older edition."

[Alexandra]

Emy wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "I assume if that were the case then the announcement would actually say that. It doesn't."

It does, but it doesn't seem to be clear enough.

I would suggest that in this section ..."

Yup, that would be clearer.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

It would be truly handy if the new manual language were linked in the original post in this thread. I have to keep scrolling to find where Rivka linked it.

[Hannah]

I think the simple fact is that this is yet another change to encourage reading on one's kindle and making it easier to link up editions within an automated system. I feel like it's just becoming a glorified sort of kindle reading forum instead of a community of readers who are joined by reading tastes instead of choice of device and reading style. As a reader of hard copies where identifiers don't switch to new covers with every electronic update, I'm feeling marginalized.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Hannah wrote: "As a reader of hard copies where identifiers don't switch to new covers with every electronic update, I'm feeling marginalized. ."

Don't feel marginalized! Most print editions use new ISBNs, though sometimes - especially years ago - a publisher re-uses an ISBN. I do read Kindle editions, but not new authors who can't afford to use a new ASIN and don't turn out a finished product the first time. Those authors aren't worth reading anyway.

[Hannah]

What I mean is that by the time I get to something on my TBR, it's likely going to be outdated. Ebooks update the covers when you update the apps, but not so with hard copies.

I don't agree with authors who do extensive repackaging of their books...it's hard enough for me to recall when/where I saw books just between HC/PB editions. Indie authors are terrible about doing hugely unnecessary changes, and I feel as though this change will encourage them to do it even more by making it easier to direct people to the new files.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I really don't see this policy as making any sense whatsoever unless this is just in response to authors of the ASIN/ASIN-also editions because so many of those authors constantly issue new cover editions and even new editions of fiction without obtaining new identifiers. Amazon sites are the only retailers using ASINs -- couldn't this policy be reconsidered to not trash ISBN records and only apply to ASIN products and Createspace paperbacks? Or at least not apply to works that are not on Amazon or do not have an ASIN edition?

Or even as someone suggested upstream to have this be something the ASIN publishing and other goodreads authors be able to do on their own books (on the theory that they are the ones re-using ISBN and ASIN when putting out new editions so would be the ones to know that is what happened). That would save some vandalizing of member catalogs. Surely the new policy is in response to their needs/wants anyway? I hardly see the big five publishers or literary trusts of deceased authors wanting this change to ISBNs?

Not all goodreads members even use Amazon sites or shelve anything with an ASIN so at least they could keep their carefully maintained book catalogs.

I'm still old fashioned I guess what with thinking the ISBN number itself contains in those digits a publisher identifier and a format for the book. It's mindboggling to me that an indie author reusing the ISBN of ine publisher no matter where published or with which publisher means it keeps getting moved even if the publisher identifier portion of ISBN should means it shouldn't be reused when no longer published that way,

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I find it interesting that there was no discussion of this policy before implementation. When I see proposed policy changes there is usually much discussion here. Problems are put forth, compromises made. There was nothing here, just Wham! all of a sudden this drastic and time-consuming policy put in place. Obviously, from my comments upthread, I'm beyond disappointed."

Quoted in full because I wholeheartedly agree.

The way this was implemented without discussion beforehand makes me suspect all the more that it was Amazon pushing for this (with perhaps a little help from self-publishing GR Authors).

Ugh.

[lethe]

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Or even as someone suggested upstream to have this be something the ASIN publishing and other goodreads authors be able to do on their own books (on the theory that they are the ones re-using ISBN and ASIN when putting out new editions so would be the ones to know that is what happened)."

I did not necessarily mean that they should be allowed to do it (it could be librarians doing it for them), but yes, this could work. They often move ISBNs and ASINs around already. Now they can do it without going against policy.

[Philip]

Still not sure what I think about it, but can see where it could get messy or complicated. I will follow the policy, and I will try to make links to the ACE when I do it, but have to say that there is no way that for the Kindle authors that release the same book 20x under the same ASIN, that I will put a link to every single cover edition in the description, because that is all that a person will see at that point.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Philip wrote: "I will put a link to every single cover edition in the description, because that is all that a person will see at that point. ."

Yes, to this, even if I were going to do these. The requirement should be for titles with more than 20 editions so that they might appear on more than one other editions page. (I didn't mean I wasn't going to follow policy, I meant that I wouldn't do ACEs anymore because it requires moving ISBN/ASIN.)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "It would be truly handy if the new manual language were linked in the original post in this thread. I have to keep scrolling to find where Rivka linked it."

Emy wrote: "I would suggest that in this section be rephrased"

Thank you for these suggestions. They have been implemented.

[annob [on hiatus]]

rivka wrote: "[...]Going forward, ISBNs/ASINs should be moved to the book’s most recent edition released with the same ISBN or ASIN."

What about the automated imports of editions from Amazon, Smashwords etc? How should edition which arrive that way be handled? My guess is there are daily imports of hundreds, if not thousands of new editions of books into the GR databases. Not a small number of those will be an edition which reuses a ASIN/ISBN.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

annob wrote: "What about the automated imports of editions from Amazon, Smashwords etc?"

Imports are blocked when an edition already exists on Goodreads with the same ISBN or ASIN.

[Dirk]

Why not requiring both a ISBN/ASIN and a printing number. There's e.g. countless versions of Asimov's I, Robot sharing the same ISBN, but having wildly different printings (and sometimes even covers differ).

[Lizz]

As a developer, I propose that Goodreads implement a search function that shows all editions with the same ISBN/ASIN, so that the readers can choose among them. The database can keep them separate by item or entry ID. I do not believe that it should be one way or the other. You can accommodate both sides of the argument.

[Melody]

Processing all this. But have to admit - I don't know what an ACE is, or an SPA.
Anything that moves GoodReads farther away from being like a library and more like a bookstore is disturbing to me.

I don't have many books with re-used ISBNs. Are there really that many?

[Z-squared]

Can I get a clarification about what to do when isbns have been recycled for completely different works? I muck with old Harlequins a lot, and they frequently reused isbns for works by entirely different authors decades later. Should I be moving the isbn to the newest work and leaving the older edition orphaned?

[Alexandra]

Lizz wrote: "As a developer, I propose that Goodreads implement a search function that shows all editions with the same ISBN/ASIN, so that the readers can choose among them. The database can keep them separate ..."

That sounds like a great idea. :D

[Ismail]

If we gave ISBN10 for one edition and ISBN13 for the other one (ACE), both will be searchable by ISBN. That will not work with ASIN but old books don't use ASIN.

[Laina]

Melody wrote: "Processing all this. But have to admit - I don't know what an ACE is, or an SPA."

ACE = Alternate Cover Edition
SPA = Self Published Author

[Alexandra]

Melody wrote: "Processing all this. But have to admit - I don't know what an ACE is, or an SPA."

ACE = Alternate Cover Edition, SPA = Self Published Author.

"Anything that moves GoodReads farther away from being like a library and more like a bookstore is disturbing to me. ..."

I agree.

[Andréa]

Melody wrote: "Processing all this. But have to admit - I don't know what an ACE is, or an SPA.

ACE = alternate cover edition
Since Goodreads only allows each ISBN or ASIN to be assigned to one edition, regardless of how many times that ISBN or ASIN has been used for different editions, ACEs are created to reflect the changed information.

SPA = self-published author

Melody wrote: "I don't have many books with re-used ISBNs. Are there really that many?

Yes, many! As indicated in the thread above, it's most common with self-published authors who release their book with a new cover and/or editorial changes without getting a new ISBN or ASIN. But I've also seen it frequently with Scholastic editions. I've even run across books where the same ISBN was used for completely different books -- different authors, different titles, etc.

As some of the comments above have indicated, all of this ISBN/ASIN / ACE / searching mess could be reduced or even eliminated by making it possible for multiple editions to have the same ISBN/ASIN assigned to them.

[Java]

I think this is a good change, and long overdue.

[Mark]

Thanks for the heads up, Rivka!

[Melody]

Thanks!

[Jemima]

Alexandra wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "No, they don't. They want to locate the edition they have...Do I have the most recent edition? I don't really care. I just want to be able to find it on GR and I want to ..."

I often have a different edition from the Goodreads one, but I can usually find it using the all editions link.

I'm all in favour of the change.

[Arthaey]

Remember folks, Amazon owns GoodReads.

When people in this thread are commenting, "what next, Amazon ratings as authoritative? GoodReads folded directly into Amazon?" … well, that very well could be the plan.

Amazon didn't acquire GoodReads because they loved our book community, y'know? :/

[Philip]

Lizz wrote: "As a developer, I propose that Goodreads implement a search function that shows all editions with the same ISBN/ASIN, so that the readers can choose among them. The database can keep them separate ..."

It was mentioned they are looking into allowing multiple books to have the same ISBN. But knowing from experience how DBs work, the problem is depending on how their DB is configured that could be a pretty decent undertaking, because they may have to re-arrange/change the DB tables/links/indexes/etc...

Hopefully that happens, since it would be awesome, and solve the issue completely, but doubtful it will be soon.

[Miffy]

If ACEs are an issue, to me it doesn’t make sense to move the ISBN. Why not make it that librarians can add multiple covers to a single ISBN and all the ACEs are visible to all users? The ISBN belongs to the CONTENT not the cover.

[Rick]

Seems to me this is a positive change. I don't really understand some of the criticism. If readers aren't looking for the current edition, but rather the edition they have, then what difference does it make what the default edition is? What data is going to be deleted or otherwise become unsearchable because of this change?

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Rick wrote: "What data is going to be deleted or otherwise become unsearchable because of this change? "

Without requiring cross-referencing of the ACE, any edition without the ISBN is unsearchable.

[Kathleen]

Change makes good sense. Thanks!

[Philip]

Miffy wrote: "If ACEs are an issue, to me it doesn’t make sense to move the ISBN. Why not make it that librarians can add multiple covers to a single ISBN and all the ACEs are visible to all users? The ISBN belo..."

That would never work, because that would only allow multiple covers, but different editions with the same ISBN can have different page counts/pubdate/etc...

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Kathleen wrote: "Change makes good sense. Thanks!"

so you are willing to research which edition is oldest/newest, verify with the publisher, etc. before adding an edition with an existing ISBN/ASIN? Because Amazon might not have the correct information, as I've noticed many times. In fact, Amazon might not have *any* information on older editions and these must be looked at too. In fact, the edition might be no longer at the publisher's website. Will you know which was the earlier release if you don't have the book in hand and you're just trying to help someone in the librarian's group?

[lethe]

Unsurprisingly, all those in favour so far are Goodreads Authors.

Rick wrote: "Seems to me this is a positive change. I don't really understand some of the criticism. If readers aren't looking for the current edition, but rather the edition they have, then what difference doe..."

It means a helluva lot more work for librarians, especially if they want to make sure the editions are all linked correctly.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

Rick wrote: "Seems to me this is a positive change. I don't really understand some of the criticism. If readers aren't looking for the current edition, but rather the edition they have, then what difference doe..."

Because many, many of us actually care that our book records are accurate. We (people who care about accuracy) do NOT just pick whatever book pops up.