Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
Announcement: Change to handling of non-book items lacking ISBN or ASIN
message 51:
by
Ekaterina
(new)
Apr 13, 2021 11:19PM
Thanks for this update!
reply
|
flag
An excellent change and long overdue. Over the years I have tried to warn people to back up reviews for short stories and other items liable to be deleted - finally this will no longer be necessary.
Thanks for this change of policy and thanks for the abstract.Dealing with one of the most prevalent not-a-book types (single comics) I always felt bad when I could find nothing to merge to, and had to delete existing reviews, which with some older series is not uncommon. This is especially true when a month or a year later those comics may be republished as Kindle, but the reviews are lost. I am happy that now these reviews will be kept somewhere, so at least theoretically they can be retrieved.
The next logical step may be to think of a process to retrieve those NABed reviews, at least for librarians.
Can you please clarify whether texts from Project Gutenberg count as books? Some of them were originally published as books(e.g. Jane Austen's novels), but others (Dicken's novels are a famous example) were first published as serials in magazines. I'm guessing that they are clearly books now, however they were first published. But what about short stories? A famous example is the short stories of Balzac which form La Comedie Humaine, and also Guy de Maupassant's short stories, some of which are now collected in books but not all of them (or not as far as I know).
I'm getting notifications there's a new post in this thread, but when I come to it there's nothing there. Are they being deleted?
Keith wrote: "Mary wrote: "Thanks for sending the update. What are non-book items?"The linked Librarian Manual section gives the following examples of what is not-a-book, among others that are a bit more obscu..."
It seems as well that they now consider paper comics as a book too as they used to be on that list. It makes sense as the kindle versions are legit and there was a lot of anger about paper editions being not counted. Many geeks, myself included, have spend a lot of time adding comics and their variant covers. It's good that they are safe in the database now.
Thanks for the update! I've been tired of deleting Movies DVDs that are based on book works.
I've also found several videogames, comics and zines, although the Manual has always said that magazines (comics or other types) should not be included in the database.
There should be a solution for comics that allows us to distinguish between comic magazines (without ISBN, but eventually with ISSN) and comic book (with ISBN or ASIN).
Keith wrote: "• easel
• movies (DVD or VHS)
• television episodes
• music (esp soundtracks) (but not bound sheet music)
• stationery
• posters
• board games
• tshirts
• toys
• stuffed animals/dolls
• bookmarks
• stickers
• puzzles (as opposed to puzzle books)
• video games (including visual novels)
• zines"
Bargle wrote: "I'm getting notifications there's a new post in this thread, but when I come to it there's nothing there. Are they being deleted?"No, there is a known issue where notifications are not updating/going away properly.
Marco wrote: "Vladimir wrote: "I just want to say that I uploaded 500 numbers of a periodical of 650 numbers, which is on since the 60s. Periodicals are comics and from Italy (I am from Serbia). Periodicals didn..."Further to this:
In Canada, for periodicals we have an alternate ISBN number called an ISSN. Which are commonly used for comics and magazines. Would these not count as books or am I misreading this article?
This is the website for ISSNs in Canada:
https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/service...
Beth Wagner wrote: "In Canada, for periodicals we have an alternate ISBN number called an ISSN."That is not just in Canada but worldwide (the I stands for International), and it is not an alternative ISBN.
ISBN = International Standard Book Number
ISSN = International Standard Serial Number (serials are magazines and such.)
Mod
Off-topic posts will be removed from this thread.
For questions about specific items, please start new threads in the Book Issues folders.
Lisa wrote: "Can you please clarify whether texts from Project Gutenberg count as books? Some of them were originally published as books(e.g. Jane Austen's novels), but others (Dicken's novels are a famous example) were first published as serials in magazines. I'm guessing that they are clearly books now, however they were first published. But what about short stories? A famous example is the short stories of Balzac which form La Comedie Humaine, and also Guy de Maupassant's short stories, some of which are now collected in books but not all of them (or not as far as I know)."My understanding of Project Gutenberg is that they offer free "ebooks", in which case they're classified as books by GR.
Adrian wrote: "It seems as well that they now consider paper comics as a book too as they used to be on that list. It makes sense as the kindle versions are legit and there was a lot of anger about paper editions being not counted. Many geeks, myself included, have spend a lot of time adding comics and their variant covers. It's good that they are safe in the database now."Comics have always been a grey area. Many have added them anyway, which is why we tend to leave them nowadays. The current advice on the NAB page is this:
"- periodicals and bound comic books with ISBNs
- periodicals without ISBNs but substantially similar to books (e.g., perfectbound literary magazines), although they should be typed as "periodical" in the work: media type field"
There is no mention of individual comics either way.
Although, from what I'm aware, most comics don't have ISBNs (at least the last time I bought any). Although digital editions, with ASINs, will always be classified as books. For example: Doctor Who: Missy #1.
Mod
Thank you for the update. I hope this works for all writers.
rivka wrote: "Hi Goodreads Librarians,As per the updated section of the Librarian Manual, we have changed our policy regarding non-book items which lack an ISBN or ASIN. This change will allow us to preserve u..."
I have several books without ISBN, for example some books by Voltaire published in the early 19th century.
These are shelved in my category owned books but they have no review.
When a librarian decides to delete such a book, will it also disappear from my shelf?
Björn wrote: "I have several books without ISBN, for example some books by Voltaire published in the early 19th century.These are shelved in my category owned books but they have no review.
When a librarian decides to delete such a book, will it also disappear from my shelf? "
No actual books will disappear.
Susie wrote: "There is no mention of individual comics either way.."
For reference here is the page where they are mentioned.
https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/...
Emily wrote: "No, there is a known issue where notifications are..."OK, thanks.
rivka wrote: "Hi Goodreads Librarians,As per the updated section of the Librarian Manual, we have changed our policy regarding non-book items which lack an ISBN or ASIN. This change will allow us to preserve u..."
Thank you for the update.
Emily wrote: "For reference here is the page where they are mentioned.https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/..."
Brilliant, thanks! I just couldn't find it back again, although I was sure it was there somewhere... Things were much easier to find with the old manual, IMO.
I remembered a discussion about it all five/six years ago, where a few were reluctant to remove comics. With digital comics coming about, it does make it even more controversial. Maybe one day this will be reconsidered. But, for now...
Anyway, at least with the new NABbing procedure, it'll protect those somewhat better, if/when/maybe there is any change.
So, in a nutshell: *Only non-books (ie, pamphlets, zines, magazines etc.) with no ISBN or ASIN will be deleted IF they have no text reviews; while old books lacking isbn or asin will remain here.
I do read a lot of old magazines that lack asin, and sometimes I don't review them. Guess I'll have to do now.
Dario wrote: "There are a lot of books in many countries which do not use ISBN. Furthermore most old books have no ISBN. For example, on my shelves I have more than two thousands books without ISBN. ISBN is not ..."Many indie books don't have ISBN numbers. Nor do books sold by gift shops in some cases where it's a locally owned and printed book.
It's generally not a good idea in IT to misuse a category for something it is not. Calling a book notabook is exactly that. There is enough literature to tell you what future problems you attrack.The solution is simple and easy to implement: create a category name that is actually a name for the books without a number.
Call the non-books in our database NOTABOOK.
Call the books without number (ISBN/ASIN) NOISBN.
That way:
* you do not mislabel many thousands of books
* do not have to sort to a huge pile of notabooks if, in the end, you want to have a policy on notabooks that really are no books but that does not apply to books that simply lack ISBN.
* you do not have to field users who are offended that you label their whole cultural heritage not a book because their country is not using ISBN
* you cannot be persecuted for etnocentrism
* you will not have your librarians question your wisdom
* you are acting in a future proof and widely used way in an IT environment.
Where can we appeal against this rule?
Are the owners of Goodreads aware of the way you are acting in this case?
Emma wrote: "It's generally not a good idea in IT to misuse a category for something it is not. Calling a book notabook is exactly that. There is enough literature to tell you what future problems you attrack...."
What are you on about? For the nth time, this is not about books that don't have an ISBN. This is about items that are NOT A BOOK.
Dario wrote: "There are a lot of books in many countries which do not use ISBN. Furthermore most old books have no ISBN. For example, on my shelves I have more than two thousands books without ISBN. ISBN is not ..."Precisely so.
This is NOT about books that have no isbn. Please read.
I'm assuming we also need to remove the NAB record from any series they were added to in error (I'm seeing this with some if the subscription only stories)
Mod
Yes, please.
Mod
Thanks for the update. And thank you for your infinite patience for the commenters who are fixated on non-ISBN books instead of addressing the new handling of NAB items.
Emma wrote: "It's generally not a good idea in IT to misuse a category for something it is not. Calling a book notabook is exactly that. There is enough literature to tell you what future problems you attrack...."
think I rather like that well laid out opinion. I'll second that. And I don't thing Goodreads is here to offend. And we need a single site to post on. Not another for books without ISBN's. Been thru sites that have don't just that .. Then they go poof. :( and I lose alot of info
Lee wrote: "Emma wrote: "It's generally not a good idea in IT to misuse a category for something it is not..." think I rather like that well laid out opinion. I'll second that. ..."Please see Rivka's explanation in post #84, above. This change has nothing to do with books lacking an ISBN/ASIN.
This thread has almost reached a comical quality now. Lol. Sorry. I mean I know how this happens, of course. Someone reads the first post, misinterprets it, and writes a reply without reading all of the other posts first. And frankly, you just don't always have the time to read all of them, right? Still, for me, who has read all of them, it is kinda funny.Anyways, as someone who reads a lot of short fiction and has lost several reviews (along with all the comments) in the past, I'm very happy about that change. So, thank you for that. :)
One question. If I understand it correctly, nothing that has a text review gets deleted anymore. It just gets NABed if it is indeed not considered to be a book according to the current librarian manual. Has it been considered to just take away the delete button then?
Thanks for the update. There has been quite some confusion regarding self-published comic books. I think this is a good compromise.
Dennis wrote: "If I understand it correctly, nothing that has a text review gets deleted anymore. It just gets NABed if it is indeed not considered to be a book according to the current librarian manual. Has it been considered to just take away the delete button then?"That wouldn't work. Librarians need the delete button in order to merge duplicate editions (which may have reviews) into the correct editions.
Ah, that's too bad. This would require more changes to the code then. Probably not going to happen. I guess I will have to continue to back up my reviews then. Oh well.Thanks for the quick reply, lethe. :)
Dennis wrote: "I guess I will have to continue to back up my reviews then. "And you don't have to write much. "Enjoyed it" would be enough.
Lee wrote: " And we need a single site to post on. Not another for books without ISBN's."Why do you think this policy is about books without an ISBN?
Hi, I have a question about the correct way to mark a book as NAB.I've noticed in some cases the librarians add "NOT A BOOK" next to the author name like in this case:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
And in other cases the authors' names are completely removed, making it impossible for the story to be connected to the authors at all on their author pages. Examples:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
Shouldn't it be better to have one process for all NAB books based on 2 authors: author name + Not a book author? Because if you leave it only as "Not a book" we now confuse them with the plagiarized books.
Example: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Just my two cents.
Xia Xia wrote: "Hi, I have a question about the correct way to mark a book as NAB.I've noticed in some cases the librarians add "NOT A BOOK" next to the author name like in this case:
https://www.goodreads.com..."
The whole point of NAB'ing books is so they cannot be found through search. So no, the author name should always be replaced with NOT A BOOK and not be kept on the record.
The fact that NOT A BOOK appears next to the author name in the first link you provided, is because her co-author "Wilder Thoughts" (apparently a publisher of journals and notebooks) had their author profile merged into NOT A BOOK: https://www.amazon.com/Hope-You-Write...
ETA I removed the NOT A BOOK co-author and added the description from Amazon. Maybe the part about how the journal is "Filled with prompts, poetry and artwork" is enough to allow it on Goodreads.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Dennis wrote: "I guess I will have to continue to back up my reviews then. "And you don't have to write much. "Enjoyed it" would be enough."
In order for it to not be deleted, yes. Although that isn't my main motivation when writing a review. But, yeah, it would also be nice to not lose any ratings.
lethe wrote: "The whole point of NAB'ing books is so they cannot be found through search. So no, the author name should always be replaced with NOT A BOOK and not be kept on the record."Thanks for the answer, @lethe!
An average GR user does not follow the librarian manual, some are not even aware of it. They will search the story, and if they can't find it, some will start adding it, creating more work for the librarians who will have to delete the duplicate entries. This will lead to a never ending cycle of frustration from both sides. I believe there is room for improvement in the NAB process.
rivka wrote: "There seems to be some confusion around what content this new rule applies to, so we just wanted to jump in and help clarify the matter."As this policy change and the confusion around it seems to have led to a flurry of furious NABing and deletion, I could use further clarification on a corner case that is not (yet?) explicitly addressed in either the don't add list nor the valid and invalid records list linked by rivka above.
The part of the former policy that I have hitherto been extrapolating for this corner case regards shorts:
Shorts are retained in some cases. Shorts that belong are those that are:
• Published separately
• Published online as a specified short story (i.e. not a "bonus")
The corner case itself regards U.S. Supreme Court decisions. These get periodically collected and published as bound volumes with ISBN called U.S. Reports, and these massive tomes generally do make it into GR, as for example United States Reports, V. 557, Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 2008, June 15 Through October 2, 2009, End of Term which appears to be the most recent we have—bound publication tends to lag the court by several years, and our database tends to lag publication, as the most current available volume from the GPO is 573 according to the official GPO book sale page.
Until the time of binding and official aggregate publication, people obviously need access to these often-precedential opinions, and so they tend to be individually published online, both with and without paywalls, such as through FindLaw, several law schools such as Cornell and the Supreme Court's own website. Generally speaking, these are what people actually read—it is a rare sort of geek who would sit down with a 1,600-page book of legal decisions and plow through the whole thing, which is why few of those bound volumes have ratings or reviews.
Both before and after binding, these decisions also often get published as standalone print books if they are important enough (e.g., Obergefell v Hodges, and Roe v. Wade Decision: The Complete Text) and occasionally in anthologies by topic (e.g., 50 Most Cited US Supreme Court Decisions and First Amendment: Historic Supreme Court Decisions). Just as is true for short stories, which our present policy does explicitly address.
So it would seem to me that these individually published decisions, which are often book length (typically 60–200 pages), while non-fiction rather than fiction and while not (yet) having an ISBN, often are or amount to "shorts" that are "published separately," and "published online," but not "only available via subscription," and that they therefore should be retained. And while we do still have some that have been added in the past (e.g., Davis v. United States, Decision and Opinions), the one I spent this week reading and was about to complete and review this morning got deleted just since yesterday. Evidence of the previous existence of Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt remains in the librarian edits, but of course without a book record there is no way to determine who deleted it or when (unless that is accessible to employees on the back end), nor to flag that deletion for review.
So can we get a definitive interpretation or policy on whether the online PDF versions of pre- and/or post-ISBN individula Supreme Court decisions do or do not belong before I waste more time in an edit war with busybodies launched from this new and poorly-understood NAB policy?
Goodreads won't let me add the ISBN number for FISH TOWN by JOHN GERARD FAGAN.It just says I only have access to the meta data. Please could you help me
Julianne wrote: "Goodreads won't let me add the ISBN number for FISH TOWN by JOHN GERARD FAGAN.It just says I only have access to the meta data. Please could you help me"
Two things:
1. Firstly, this has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.
2. Secondly, you are a GR author and not a librarian. That means that you have only limited powers to edit your own books.
Therefore please create a new discussion topic under this discussion board: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group....
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
United States Reports (other topics)Obergefell v Hodges: United States Supreme Court, #14:556, decided June 26, 2015 (other topics)
Roe v. Wade Decision: The Complete Text (other topics)
50 Most Cited US Supreme Court Decisions (other topics)
First Amendment: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (other topics)
More...
