Edition field - adding '1' or '1st'

[[deleted user]]

Is that proper protocol?

[Emy]

Not as far as I'm aware.

[[deleted user]]

I've been coming across it more and more.

hmmm re-looking at the manual says you can use it for 2nd etc...

Help Topic
edition

This field is for such things as "2nd edition", "Film Tie-In Edition", "Large Print", "Special Illustrated Edition" and other edition-specific data that belongs neither in the title nor the format fields.

The following should not be added to the edition field:
* information regarding alternate covers (use the description and Note fields)
* information regarding audiobook length (use the description field and see page numbering)
* information regarding cover artists (use the description field)
* information regarding printing number (many printings of the same ISBN and/or cover may be published)
* retailer-specific information, such as “Nook,” “Kobo,” “Amazon,” etc.

[Emy]

Yes, definitely for second.

My memory from a VERY old discussion was that first editions were only noted when there were subsequent editions published. Otherwise, first edition means nothing.

Also, be cautious with ones with just the number -they're often incorrectly indicating a printing not an edition.

[[deleted user]]

TY for response.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

There is nothing wrong with indicating a book is a first edition. It's not as common as for later editions, but it's perfectly fine.

[Z-squared]

This is a good example of why adding just "1" to the edition field is a bad idea:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Maybe we should officially add to the manual that the ordinal form (first, second, 1st, 2nd) is preferred...?

[[deleted user]]

wow. very timely example. TY

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Z-squared wrote: "This is a good example of why adding just "1" to the edition field is a bad idea"

While that does happen, I'm not sure it warrants enforcing a format for editions. (I personally try to use ordinal forms, though.)

[☕ Lachgas ♿]

happened to me also Z.
As someone with not the best vision that comma is really hard to see there :)
And yes I'm always using ordinal forms too - looks nicer in my eyes.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Interesting discussion as I happen spend most of my Librarian edits on new books, mainly Kindle editions. I have a habit of adding edition information in the format '1 edition', as that is how the information is displayed on Amazon.com. (And I am an advocate of copy-paste practice since it is the best way to avoid adding more human errors to data).

And even though I'm schooled to use ordinal forms, in light of GR having multilingual users I prefer '1 edition', '2 edition' etc because
- it works better regardless of language. Whoever reads the number will add the 'ordinal form sound' of their native tongue to the numerical.
- if the edition field would become sortable in the future, sorting based on 1, 2, 3 etc is more future proof than trying to sort First, Second, Third in order, in various different edition languages.

If I added edition information to a book in my native language, the field data would say 'Första', 'Andra', 'Tredje' and be much harder to understand for other Librarians and GR users who view the book record.

[Emy]

I usually add in words in the language of the work. If I can read the language, I can read the book. If I can't read the language (or Google it for Goodreads working), then it's irrelevant to me :)

[annob [on hiatus]]

I understand your point of view Emy. I don't see any opinion previously mentioned as wrong, more like several right ways to chose between.

I view the edition field as part of a data cluster which is displayed with preset English language values on Goodreads; edition format, edition language, so to me it's somewhat natural that edition number could also be entered in English. But personally I prefer a numerical value to an alphabetical indication in the edition language.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

When I see a numerical value in the edition field, I change it, because "1" is confusing. It isn't clear on the book page that the number refers to the edition.

[Emy]

Additionally, a lot of times I see just "1", it's a printing designation, not an edition statement.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Since I'm not a real life librarian nor work in the publishing industry, I looked up the ISO 2108:2017, the international standard for ISBN. It surprised me to learn a new cover art is not considered a new edition, and hence doesn't warrant a new ISBN. Does anyone know if there are discussions about to change this since the arrival of ebooks onto the market? I could see practical use of numbering as "1st Edition, version 2" to clarify the exact version of an ebook it is. Perhaps there is already such a practise within the publishing industry, and I'm only unaware of it?

[Emy]

Professionally we honestly don't care if it has a new cover, we're only interested in what is on the actual pages - i.e. whether the actual content has changed. I think most people would be rather irate to buy a "New" edition of a work only to find out it is a cosmetic alteration to the exterior. On the other hand, I can also see the argument that that is in practice the difference between formats too...

For some publishing houses, they use "reissue" or "impression" to show different printings of the same interior content. So I've seen "1995 reissue" and "nn impression" many times.

On the whole though I would only differentiate (again speaking professionally only here) between printings/reissues/impressions when the book actually indicates it.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Emy. I did not know the business definition of 'reissue' even though I've seen it on copyright pages. And I agree with you fully regarding adding such info to GR records only when it is stated in the book itself.

I've seen some self-published authors stating on their copyright page, 'version 1.0' or 'version 1.2'. Should that phrasing be entered exactly as it is into GR edition field, or entered as 'first / 1st / 1 edition'? I can see this type of numbering become more common in the future for ebooks, as it is already used in many other types of file history, from software applications to documents.

[Emy]

I think in these cases, if the book has a different ASIN or cover, then adding Version x.x is probably worth it because it identifies a newer edition. If it has the same other data on Amazon (since that's the greatest source for us of self-pub material), then I would personally not bother to add it as it would involve a number of otherwise identical editions where the only difference is the "version x.x" statement.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Emy wrote: "I think in these cases, if the book has a different ASIN or cover, then adding Version x.x is probably worth it because it identifies a newer edition. If it has the same other data on Amazon (since that's the greatest source for us of self-pub material), then I would personally not bother to add it as it would involve a number of otherwise identical editions where the only difference is the "version x.x" statement."

Agreed.