Automated feeds changing covers

[Antonomasia]

In the last few months quite a few of my books have changed covers (one also changed publication date) - it's usually the fault of other users. That's impossible to control, but sometimes it's the automated feeds, eg Onix Ingram, changing the cover for a given ISBN. Is there anything that can be done programming wise to stop this and force them to create other editions with these new covers rather than replace existing images?

[Julie]

Just chiming in to say this happens all the time--I always try to shelve the edition I actually read and/or own, but then I'll go back through my shelves and see the cover has changed and no alternate edition to match the one I originally shelved has been created. I figured this was due to some kind of automatic import, but it's frustrating because Goodreads always insists it doesn't delete covers or editions precisely so readers can shelve the one they read.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Antonomasia wrote: "Is there anything that can be done programming wise to stop this and force them to create other editions with these new covers rather than replace existing images?"

Unfortunately not. We did look into this, and a lot of the time such changes are replacing a placeholder image or similar, and we want those to happen.

However, imports will only replace covers from other imports, not from users. And if a librarian reverts such a change, it will then count as a cover from a user, and will not be overridden by the next import.

[Plethora]

For grins ;)

It would be nice to know just what % of these are "placeholder" replacements versus "illegal" cover changes. I would suggest perhaps instead they create a new edition, which the original can be merged with if indeed it was a placeholder image. I think now days it is much more common for covers to get constant facelifts and to assume that a cover that hasn't been user touched was a placeholder and can be overwritten by the data feed seems a bit ill advised. [Just my two cents, FWIW]

I don't regularly go looking (trolling) through the 1000's of books on my shelf to see if an auto import over wrote the original cover I shelved.

Granted, I haven't spent years on the site, but in my limited time here I have seen very few "placeholder" covers.

[Antonomasia]

Just found another one for a title which has been given a new cover over a year after the edition with that ISBN was released. Annoying! There are thousands of real copies in the country with the old cover.

An idea: to stop the feeds replacing covers automatically when it's more than a certain amount of time, say, 6 months, after the initial publication date, and then force them to create alternates.

[Lobstergirl]

I think 95% of the time this happens (via automated imports), it's two publishers: Vintage, and Penguin. These two publishers constantly assign new covers to the same ISBN.

If I see it happening, I create an alternate cover edition using the NEW cover just imported. Then I replace the original cover onto the original ISBN. I am very particular about shelving the precise cover/edition I own or read, so I know what cover it had when I shelved it.

[Plethora]

I find that the reasoning "replacing a placeholder image or similar" to be more of the exception of an exception and that it more often is illegal overwriting. But what do I know, just seems that way with the books I have shelved.

I guess every time we shelve a book we can go in and "edit" the data so it has a librarian name as the last to touch it. That way the auto-imports will quit overwriting the covers.

[Andréa]

rivka wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Is there anything that can be done programming wise to stop this and force them to create other editions with these new covers rather than replace existing images?"

Unfortunately not. We did look into this, and a lot of the time such changes are replacing a placeholder image or similar, and we want those to happen.

However, imports will only replace covers from other imports, not from users. And if a librarian reverts such a change, it will then count as a cover from a user, and will not be overridden by the next import. "

Is there data on the number of times the imports are replacing placeholders versus the number of times they're replacing actual images? As others have mentioned, I don't come across many placeholder covers, but I have come across a large number of books that I have shelved that have had their covers changed -- often many times -- by import feeds.

It's difficult and time-consuming to constantly patrol one's shelves to make sure the covers haven't changed and, when they have, to flag, revert, or otherwise fix those changes that shouldn't occur in the first place.

Frankly, I'd personally be happier having to manually replace placeholder covers -- which are much easier to spot and much more acceptable to fix -- than to have to monitor and fix covers that have been erroneously changed by imports.

And while I understand a librarian reverting one of those changes will prevent it from happening again, what can be done to prevent it from happening in the first place? If the original import brought the cover in correctly, there's no reason for a librarian to go in and update/change/otherwise touch the cover and, in fact, we're repeatedly told not to touch covers once they're in place. But, if a librarian hasn't gone in and done anything to the image, then the feed will just keep replacing it.

Case in point: https://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/...

"onix smashwords" has replaced the cover at least 10 times since the first cover was added.

[Plethora]

Andréa wrote: "Frankly, I'd personally be happier having to manually replace placeholder covers -- which are much easier to spot and much more acceptable to fix -- than to have to monitor and fix covers that have been erroneously changed by imports..."

Agree!

Perhaps a compromise Rivka, as it appears our other request to have this stop as a practice have gone out the window, a date parameter? It can change it for the first X month(s), after that, no go.

I just reverted one that it changed almost everything, page count, publisher, binding, etc.

I barely have time to read, I certainly can't police all of my ones on Goodreads to monitor for overwrites.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

I am not the person who makes these decisions, but I will certainly pass that suggestion along.

[Andréa]

A Bookworm Reading wrote: "I barely have time to read, I certainly can't police all of my ones on Goodreads to monitor for overwrites."

Exactly.

rivka wrote: "I am not the person who makes these decisions, but I will certainly pass that suggestion along."

Thank you.

Regarding undoing a cover change made by an automated import feed, how can we determine which cover change is the change to undue? Since the Librarian Change Log displays the current cover next to every change, it's hard to actually track cover changes. Do we just undo the first time an existing cover was changed? So, for example, on this edition: https://www.goodreads.com/book/edits/..., would the change to undo be the one from Tuesday, August 26, 2014?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Compare the change log to the publication date. Changes before the publication date are unlikely to be problem. Then I would try undoing the first cover change after the pub date. (If you undo the wrong one, just undo your undo.)

As always, if you are unsure about how to fix a book, a post in this group (if all the problem edits are from imports) or a flag or email to support (if some of the edits you are concerned about are from other users) is better than guessing.

[Andréa]

rivka wrote: "Compare the change log to the publication date. Changes before the publication date are unlikely to be problem. Then I would try undoing the first cover change after the pub date. (If you undo the wrong one, just undo your undo.)

As always, if you are unsure about how to fix a book, a post in this group (if all the problem edits are from imports) or a flag or email to support (if some of the edits you are concerned about are from other users) is better than guessing."

Thank you for the advice!