Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Additions to Librarian Manual
>
Updating the manual!
Mike wrote: "I have been adding the roll "Original Author" to the author, when the author is listed AFTER the "Adapted by," or, "Adapter," person."FWIW, I have been using "Creator" for the same purpose. I agree that we should pick a standard recommendation for this and add it to the manual.
If I may be so bold as to prefer my construction, IMO the advantages include paralleling the more common single-word roles, and reducing the temptation for newer or less clueful Librarians to well-meaningly move the "Original Author" back to the top slot incorrectly (after which, someone will undoubtedly merge the adaptation with the original work, leading someone else to lather, rinse, repeat). Also, "Creator" works well for metabooks, like Spark Notes, Cliff Notes, etc., which also suffer from repeated merges.
Mike wrote: "What's wrong with using an ASIN for books with no ISBN anyway?"Because the physical copy of the book itself doesn't have an ISBN, I would think. When you're looking at a bunch of editions trying to find the one you have, and it doesn't have an ISBN, you're not going to be looking for a book with an ASIN. That's Amazon's system, not GR's.
And while we're updating the manual I'd like clarification on the proper way to NAB a record that has no auto-NAB button, since the manual currently states that if you merge-then-delete the NAB record that it will be automatically "recreated in the GR database" and you can then edit it to say NOT A BOOK. This is apparently incorrect.
Sophie wrote: "Mike wrote: "What's wrong with using an ASIN for books with no ISBN anyway?"Because the physical copy of the book itself doesn't have an ISBN, I would think. When you're looking at a bunch of editions trying to find the one you have, and it doesn't have an ISBN, you're not going to be looking for a book with an ASIN. That's Amazon's system, not GR's."
However, Amazon now owns Goodreads, and tagging a book with an ASIN, when it has one and does not have an ISBN, it about the only way to make the Buy on Amazon button actually work.
Can we put something in the manual about those awful placeholder covers Amazon imports? In my opinion those should be deleted, since we have our own placeholder cover here and Amazon's are... ugly. But I don't know if that's official policy given the "don't remove covers" stance GR usually takes.
Mike wrote: "Maybe add it to the rules! Notice they all end with, "or."The only exception to this may be, "Adapted by," is used in books, not Adapter!"
I've actually seen "Adaptor" used a couple of times.
Mod
I disagree that this is necessary. And since it is a free-form field, and used by librarians in many languages (not to mention imports), fairly impractical. In any case, I suggest that discussion about that possibility move to a separate thread in the Policies & Practices folder. This thread is primarily meant to be a place to collect things which are already accepted policy or practice but have not yet been added to the manual. Debates about what perhaps should become policy really belongs in Policies & Practices.
I remove every Amazon placeholder cover. The eyesore ones with the arrow.Many of them happen to be attached to bad records that need to be merged, anyway.
Today I saw a person listed with the role of "with". When I checked the cover it was one person editing "with" another person. Left as it was. Did not know how to deal with that particular situation. Was the second person an editor. too?
Bea wrote: "Today I saw a person listed with the role of "with". When I checked the cover it was one person editing "with" another person. Left as it was. Did not know how to deal with that particular situat...""With" often means a ghostwriter. Famous person or celebrity is first author, second author is the person who actually wrote the book.
rivka wrote: ,,,, I suggest that discussion about that possibility move to a separate thread in the Policies & Practices folder. This thread is primarily meant to be a place to collect things which are already accepted policy or practice but have not yet been added to the manual...."I can't win. This is my second move, but I understand your point.
"Debates about what perhaps should become policy really belongs in Policies & Practices." That pretty much covers all of my replies! I don't know of any rules, unless they are in the manual.
I apologize if, I've cluttered this up with my ideas that should be elsewhere. Would you like me to delete these posts of mine here, before reposting them in Policies & Practices?
Sorry Mike, I was the one to suggest you bring your ideas here. I have started threads in the past with suggestions, then been told I was free to write things up for eventual inclusion in the manual if I wished. Hence my suggestion to move things here.Mike wrote: "I don't know of any rules, unless they are in the manual."
There are actually a lot of rules that have been codified/agreed upon in discussion threads but have never been put into the manual. You pick them up as you go along (and get corrected after inadvertently goofing them up). Just FYI.
Library of Congress and Worldcat are not offical URLs and are not required data.URLS should be linked to specific info, about the book in question, on the author/publsihers web site and not to the authors default home web address
Deon wrote: "Library of Congress and Worldcat are not offical URLs and are not required data.URLS should be linked to specific info, about the book in question, on the author/publsihers web site and not to th..."
And, I add, not to Amazon pages, not even if it's a Kindle edition or a Kindle only book (right?). Because I found some and I always deleted them
Too late for inclusion in the NAB section. Sorry.I've seen a few items with "Smt" in the title which I've seen described elsewhere as "Counterpack filled".
Not to be confused with the dozen or more valid uses of SMT.
We're happy to make any additional edits, so feel free to continue posting suggestions! Would you mind posting an example of a book with "Smt" in the title? Happy to take a look at it to see what's going on.
The section on NABing goes off the rails at step (d):...
1. If the item has been shelved by any users, attempt to determine whether these users (or at least some of them) intended to shelve an actual book. If this can be determined, shift their reviews onto the actual book like so:
a. Copy down the ISBN of the not-a-book.
b. Follow the instructions for merging two identical editions to merge the not-a-book into the actual book.
c. Search for the ISBN of the not-a-book.
d. The not-a-book record has been recreated in the GR database with no users shelving it; all of the users were transferred to the actual book in step (b).
Suggested edit:
c. Search for the ISBN of the not-a-book. Once the merge in step (b) is complete, this search should result in no hits.
d. Create a new book record with the not-a-book ISBN. Add a title and the author NOT A BOOK. Change the media type of the work to "not a book".
Following these steps ensures that the not-a-book record has been recreated in the GR database with no users shelving it; all of the users were transferred to the actual book in step (b). This procedure also prevents future additions of this not-a-book to the Goodreads database.
I'd also tweak the following bit to be a little clearer, too:
2. If moving only one item: Edit the record of the item to change the following fields:
* Any secondary authors should be removed from the book record.
* The primary author should be changed to NOT A BOOK.
* The media type for the work should be changed to "not a book".
* Optionally, the title should have "NOT A BOOK" added to the beginning of the title.
* Optionally, if there is a description of the item, it should have a librarian's note added to the beginning of the description: Librarian's note: This item is not a book and should not be rated on Goodreads.
to
2. If the item has not been shelved by any users, edit the record of the item to change the following fields:
* Remove any secondary authors from the book record.
* Change the primary author to NOT A BOOK.
* Change the media type of the work to "not a book".
* Optionally, add "NOT A BOOK" to the beginning of the title.
* Optionally, if there is a description of the item, add a librarian's note to the beginning of the description: Librarian's note: This item is not a book and should not be rated on Goodreads.
According to this thread, ABEbooks is an acceptable source for covers, now that Amazon owns it:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Can we get that removed from the unacceptable cover list?
https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/2...
Meg wrote: "Thanks to everyone for your patience; here are some updates."Thank you for the updates! I have three questions:
1. For Kindle editions with ISBNs, is that referring to Kindle editions that have an ISBN printed somewhere inside the edition or to Kindle editions that list an ISBN on the product page?
2. Regarding cover images, I know we can't change a cover from one image to another, but can we replace broken, poor quality, or poor resolution images with better quality versions of the same cover?
Examples:
- Images that display the broken image icon when browsing shelves or viewing the edition page (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...)
- Images that have the "Kindle edition" or "Look Inside" insignia on them (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...)
- Images with extra white or black space surrounding them that isn't part of the cover (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...)
- Images that are so tiny or grainy that the title can't be read (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5..., https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...)
- Scanned images of covers with stains, damage, price tags, or library stickers on them (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...)
- Photographs of covers that are misaligned / have other things in the background (ex: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3..., https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...)
I had been of the belief that it was acceptable to replace such images as long as the image you replace it with is of the same cover and you note in the librarian comment why you're updating the image.
3. Finally, also regarding images, what can be done when an incorrect cover has been applied (usually by an import feed) to an edition? For example, this edition of Peter Pan: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1.... It's a Kindle-specific edition published by Vook that has had the same cover since it was published. But on Goodreads, the cover is that of the Barnes & Noble Classics series edition, which isn't even available in Kindle format with an ASIN, let alone the correct cover for that edition. That same Barnes & Noble Classics cover has been applied to a large number of the Kindle editions of Peter Pan (mostly ones that did not list, or no longer list, a publisher): https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio.... The same sort of thing has happened with many of the classics, in which the bulk of the Kindle editions bear the Barnes & Noble Classics cover or the Dover Thrift cover or some other publisher-specific cover.
Z-squared wrote: "According to this thread, ABEbooks is an acceptable source for covers, now that Amazon owns it:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Can ..."
The Book Depository could be added to the approved list also according to that thread.
Z-squared wrote: "According to this thread, ABEbooks is an acceptable source for covers, now that Amazon owns it:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Can ..."
Thanks for the catch! Removed the duplicate literary awards listing and removed AbeBooks from unacceptable sources. I also added Abe, Book Depository, and Audible to the list of acceptable sources at the top. And thanks for pointing out the issues with the NAB section and your suggested language - we're still working on cleaning it up, and we hope to have it completed soon. I'll definitely post when that's done!
Andréa: 1. The ebook designation for Kindles applies to both cases. It should only be listed as a Kindle if it's listed in the database with an ASIN.
2. You can definitely replace poor-quality cover images, but we strongly recommend that you leave a change comment when doing so, and double-check to ensure the cover you're replacing it with is identical.
3. You can revert these - since the log will then have registered a librarian as responsible for the cover change, these won't be overwritten by future imports.
Hope that helps. :)
Can we be more explicit in terms of URL and links to publisher sites. It is my understanding that a link to the publisher site is fine IF there is more than just a buy link. Lots of people link to publishers like LULU.com but while it is a publisher they only have a book description and a buy link
Meg wrote: "We're happy to make any additional edits, so feel free to continue posting suggestions! Would you mind posting an example of a book with "Smt" in the title? Happy to take a look at it to see wha..."
Various Smt. Most titles on Goodreads are valid uses of SMT but a few are odd.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Several are from publisher Price Stern Sloan so it might be one of their key phrases. Perhaps the import scripts could be asked to do something with them
I think it would be helpful to cross-reference the section Adding book cover images with Acceptable sources for covers and book data because they are rather far apart in the text of the manual, which means that somebody reading the first section might not be aware of the second and vice-versa.
Mod
I helped determine which items our filters should keep from importing, and it's very difficult to set filters to prevent items like these but still import valid uses of SMT, as you say. These are definitely NAB-worthy items, but doesn't our existing list already include such items?
rivka wrote: "Banjomike wrote: "Perhaps the import scripts could be asked to do something with them"I helped determine which items our filters should keep from importing, and it's very difficult to set filters to prevent items like these but still import valid uses of SMT, as you say. These are definitely NAB-worthy items, but doesn't our existing list already include such items? "
In general, yes. But the Not A Book section has a whole load of things to watch out for and SMT isn't included. There are certainly more valid uses of SMT than invalid ones (at least at the moment) so it might be better to NOT add it to the scripts OR the Manual.
Hi Paula! Links to publisher sites are fine as long as information is included that's not on Goodreads. For instance, some publishers include a Reader's Guide. I edited the official url text in the Manual slightly, to say "not included on Goodreads." Please flag any incorrect adds to our attention and we'll follow up as needed. If it continues to be a major issue, let us know.Greg, I really like that idea - I'll crosslink these two pages and keep my eye out for other areas of the Manual where crosslinking would be helpful. Thanks!
I suggest that under "adding an alternate cover edition" that adding a librarian note indicating this is an ACE for ISBN xxxxxxxxxx be made mandatory rather than optional.Current language:
You can also use the Librarian Note feature found near the top of the book edit page to attach a note to the book (this helps prevent the book from accidentally being deleted by a librarian who thinks it is an invalid entry).
It makes life so much easier for librarians to see what is and what isn't an ACE on the combine page that I really think this should be mandatory. All of us have probably deleted such an ACE because it was not clearly enough marked.
When I create an ACE, I create a librarian note, as well as copying and pasting the librarian note at the top of the book's description, in italics.
Lobstergirl wrote: "It makes life so much easier for librarians to see what is and what isn't an ACE on the combine page that I really think this should be mandatory. "I agree that the note should be compulsory (or even automatically added), and obvious, and also in the description but Librarian notes are too easily deleted (especially deliberately by [cough]authors[cough]. ACE notes should harder to remove.
I've just had to remove an ACE note from the default description where it had been added (I think by the author). They would probably decide to remove it from the default description at some point at which time it would disappear from ALL editions including the correct ACE edition. That happens a lot.
Ultimately it would be nice to have a field in the database for tagging these ACE editions. So if one is searching it pulls up all editions attached to a particular number. But, I know, wishful thinking! But such a PIA when looking for a ACE on a popular classic with pages and pages of editions.
A Bookworm Reading wrote: "Ultimately it would be nice to have a field in the database for tagging these ACE editions. So if one is searching it pulls up all editions attached to a particular number. But, I know, wishful thinking! But such a PIA when looking for a ACE on a popular classic with pages and pages of editions."Agree 100%! It is so difficult to search through the editions of popular books, regardless... which is also why I wish we could narrow by more criteria than just format, like language or publication year or publisher.
I agree with lobstergirl! I had to re-edit books of a GR author because she deleted my descriptions that stated that certain editions of her book was ACE!
Lobstergirl wrote: "I suggest that under "adding an alternate cover edition" that adding a librarian note..."There should be a note on the edition itself, as well, stating there are ACE's entered, so redundant ACE's are not created. Maybe even something like [Ace] in brackets after the title so one can search for the ACE's. It's not a problem when there are only 30 editions, but when you are dealing with "The Shining" having 208 editions, "Dracula," with over 1200 editions or "Frankenstein." with over 1400 editions, it becomes a nightmare! Ha! But seriously! They need a way to link ACE's with their perspective ISBN listing and vice versa.
Mike wrote: "There should be a note on the edition itself, as well, stating there are ACE's entered, so redundant ACE's are not created. Maybe even something like [Ace] in brackets after the title so one can search for the ACE's. It's not a problem when there are only 30 editions, but when you are dealing with "The Shining" having 208 editions, "Dracula," with over 1200 editions or "Frankenstein." with over 1400 editions, it becomes a nightmare! Ha! But seriously! They need a way to link ACE's with their perspective ISBN listing and vice versa."Yes, this would be excellent.
Mike wrote: "They need a way to link ACE's with their respective ISBN listing and vice versa. "Hopefully this can be made to happen.
Z-squared wrote: "The section on NABing goes off the rails at step (d):"That's what I was trying to say in comment #54, but so far nobody has responded ?
Meg wrote: "Greg, I really like that idea - I'll crosslink these two pages and keep my eye out for other areas of the Manual where crosslinking would be helpful. Thanks!"You're welcome, Meg! :)
Sophie wrote: "Z-squared wrote: "The section on NABing goes off the rails at step (d):"That's what I was trying to say in comment #54, but so far nobody has responded ?"
Meg responded in comment 75, halfway through the first paragraph. Looks like the NAB section is still a work in progress. :P
Re ACEs: What if there was a box to check if the book is an ACE that asked then for the ISBN associated? That would negate the need for a comment that could be removed and would associate only the books involved.
I think one way to resolve the issue of the durability of the note that the book concerned is an alternative cover edition is to require librarians to make a librarian note which has the added functionality of a tick box (or check box). If ticked (or checked), the librarian note would always appear at the head of the book's description without the possibility of its deletion by merely editing the description itself. I think it would then be best that only a super librarian could untick/uncheck the box concerned in the librarian note. The librarian note would also be divorced from being linked with a default description. This is partly a coding issue as well as an editing one of course.
These idea's need to be raised in the GR Feedback group not the Librarians group where new functionality is discussed
Z-squared wrote: "Meg responded in comment 75, halfway through the first paragraph. Looks like the NAB section is still a work in progress. :P"Haha, whoops. Reading comprehension fail.
Paula wrote: "These idea's need to be raised in the GR Feedback group not the Librarians group where new functionality is discussed"I haven't joined the feedback group yet but I could raise it there if you want. How do the ideas sound from a librarians' point of view though?
We don’t want to make more of the ACE steps required, because the creation of ACEs is so important, to both readers and authors. Adding more requirements to the process will lead to less creation of ACEs and more attempts to change covers completely, and we really want to avoid that. We are looking for a solution to this problem, and one that isn’t a workaround or a bandaid. Please feel free to continue the discussion in the Feedback group, though.
The NAB section now has correct instructions, and covers items with ASINs as well: https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/1...
Meg wrote: "The NAB section now has correct instructions, and covers items with ASINs as well: https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/1...""A single year in a title (e.g., 2008) often indicates a calendar. Presence of one of these terms does not automatically indicate that the item is not a book, but in most cases you should be suspicious. "
I am *never* suspicious because 100% of the time I see this, it is in reference to the year of publication of a public domain book. Perhaps the wording should be changed to:
A single year in a title (e.g., 2008)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Best American Comics 2008 (other topics)The Best of America's Test Kitchen 2008: The Year's Best Recipes, Equipment Reviews, and Tastings (other topics)
The Best American Short Stories 2008 (other topics)
Victory 1918: The definitive history of the end of the Great War (other topics)
,,,,,
- use the ASIN only for Kindle ebooks (not for old books without ISBN that have ASINs on Amazon)
"
I did not know this, nor can I find this rule listed in the manual. I'm not sure if I have used the ASIN for a book, but I know there are plenty to be found. If this is the rule it should be listed.
What's wrong with using an ASIN for books with no ISBN anyway? I've read up on ISBN to the base 11, very cleaver stuff the way it prevents typos from dyslexia, but I know little about ASIN.