Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book Issues
>
Reviews mixed between two additions
date
newest »
newest »
The editions should stay combined. People can use the filter if they want to see the reviews for specific edition instead of all reviews for all editions.
Really? My book is a separate entity with new content, the reviews of the original have nothing to do with the new copy. As the one review says, it's got another book's contents in it, essays behind each chapter. This is not a new printing of an old book, it's a separate entity.
The issue might be that I'm listed as an Editor and not Author--would that change its designation at all?
Annotated editions are combined with the original texts on Goodreads. Bayard Taylor is the primary author of the book.
Okay. Why can't this edition be found on an independent search, and how are people supposed to review the separate editions? My editor gave a review to the original book, what separates the two? The first answer said something about a filter that only shows a specific edition's reviews, where is that?
I still think this is an issue--I should be added as an author on this edition (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...), not just an Editor. Also if editions are separated, then why on my author page are the 1-star reviews for the 1870 book still reflected on this book, which has 50% new original content?
Annotations simply do not count as "new content" as far as editions go. If there were additional stories, they would.I have changed your designation on the book to "annotations" as that is how it reads on the cover.
Different editions of books are combined on Goodreads. A search will find the default edition (usually the one with the most shelvings).If you go to the book page, you can click on 'Other editions' and see them all listed on the page.
On the book page, if you go to the Community reviews, you can filter by rating, but also on 'this edition'. Then you will see all the ratings and reviews for that single edition.
If the editor reviewed the wrong edition, they can switch to the right edition either on the book page, or on the editions page.
There are new stories, over 30 essays, I will explain the contents of the book more clearly: I should be considered primary author of this edition because the content written by L.A. Fields is greater than the original book. It begins and ends with my new content, the Bayard Taylor chapters are nested in between my new content, and reviews of my work--which again takes up more than the Bayard Taylor portion of this book--have nothing to do with the original. This is not "annotations" as in just footnotes, it's more like a single-author anthology of essays surrounding the Taylor book. The table of contents will help reveal that, can I provide any more information that will show this should be a separate listing?
If the edition should be separated due to the amount of extra content is a question for the Librarian moderator, who is staff and not around on weekends.In my opinion, Bayard Taylor should remain the primary author, because he wrote the original book which is contained in full in the new edition, and your annotations and essays are based on that text.
How should I address the issue to the moderator?
Again, the contents of the book do not fall under the traditional idea of "annotations"--my annotations and essays are not based exclusively on the Taylor text. For example, there are whole sections devoted exclusively to Walt Whitman and his content, the history of Quakers in America, the history of gay literature in America, the relationship between contemporaries like Oscar Wilde and Bram Stoker, etc. I understand how the cover makes it appear, but that was a decision made by the publisher; the content of this book is not predominately by Bayard Taylor, it is original work by L.A. Fields.
L.A. wrote: "How should I address the issue to the moderator?"This thread is fine. I expect the moderator to look in on Monday or Tuesday.
Mod
And so there are no solutions to the fact that (1) it still can't be found independently on a search (like the Annotated Pride and Prejudice or the Annotated Alice in Wonderland can be), and (2) that my editor can't give 3 stars to the original book and 5 stars to the Annotated version? The books are that different, and yet aren't be separated enough to be rated differently. She also wants to put the Annotation on the shelf of written-by-women, which doesn't apply to the un-annotated copy either. It looks like separate editions can be reviewed separately but the rating applies across the board to the original book regardless of new and additional content.
Many people, myself included have reviewed different editions of a book. People collect & review different translations, audio vs paperback, all kinds of different versions.I have many books that are different editions of a particular work.
To review a specific edition add that edition to your shelves, and review. You just need to ignore previous ratings that show up until you open the review page. You can shelve it on different shelves and give different ratings as well.
L.A. wrote: " it still can't be found independently on a search (like the Annotated Pride and Prejudice or the Annotated Alice in Wonderland can be)"Those should not be found independently. If they are, they either have the most shelvings, or someone who didn't know better separated them against policy -- ETA: or they were added as new books by an import bot and simply haven't been combined yet.
L.A. wrote: "And so there are no solutions to the fact that (1) it still can't be found independently on a search (like the Annotated Pride and Prejudice or the Annotated Alice in Wonderland can be), and (2) th..."Working on combining them.
Got Pride and Prejudice.
Annotated Alice's Adventures in Wonderland has many editions to be combined. Am not there today.
Only one review was posted for the Annotated copy before they were conflated, can the two be separated out?