Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
A posteriori addition of series in TITLE
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
It may be that in some cases the series does not meet Goodreads criteria, or for some other reason the book should not be part of the series. In that case, that is the issue -- not adding valid series info to title lines.
rivka wrote: "If it is correct that they belong to the series, why would it be problematic to have that information added to the title line?"It becomes problematic when the definition of the "series" itself is questionable. Is "Cannery Row" a series? "Little Big Man"? There are many books with a follow-up, often published years later (often for purely commercial reasons, but this is irrelevant, of course :-) ), without any intention of turning this into a "series".
And: Why is the same information duplicated by two different mechanisms (the "series in title" mechanism AND the "series as a series" mechanism itself)?
I understand that the series is the more "modern" approach, so why not phase out the old one (in the title)?
I just would like to understand the rationale...
The series information in the title field makes it possible to search for it specifically.Also, many series are called differently in various languages. The series link only contains the main title, but in the title field it is possible to note the title according to the language of the edition. See for an example https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...
Mod
And to show up in some additional places, like users' bookshelves.
is it really necessary/acceptable/irreversible that books which have happily belonged to a series for years, to have this series suddenly added to the title as well (especially when there is no indication of a "series" whatsoever in the published titles)?
Just asking.
Thank you!