Misleading aggregation of multiple translations

[Emily]

Hi librarians! Aggregated reviews are not marked as aggregations, and as Emily Wilson's translation of The Odyssey illustrates, they paint a rather misleading picture.

Wilson's translation appears both as its own book page and in combination with previous translations (see links below). Unfortunately, the aggregated page does not at all indicate that it is an aggregation. As a result, it gives the impression that Emily Wilson's translation has a rating of only 3.75 (the combined rating for ALL translations) even though she earned the higher rating of 4.62.

The Librarian Manual states that "even though many translations differ significantly, we've made the decision to combine them all, and have people note the differences in their reviews." I understand why we combine reviews, but I do not think that we should leave it to reviewers to "note the differences." The majority of readers do not read multiple translations of the same story, nor do they tend to specify in their reviews which translation they chose. And because the most popular reviews are shown first, the first several reviews on the aggregated page are all from years before Wilson's translation was even published.

Could aggregations be labeled as such? If an aggregated page at least listed all of the included translators, there would be far less confusion.

Aggregated Page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Nonaggregated Page: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The one you marked as "nonaggregated" was simply an edition that had not been combined yet. It now has been.

Both ratings and reviews can be filtered to see those of a specific edition.