Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Page Numbering Requests
>
Modern Library Editions that Need Page Editing
date
newest »
newest »
Please provide links on Goodreads to these books. Thanks.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9...https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Technically, the Eugene O'Neil entry is a duplicate as there is another edition on the site from the same year but the binding is listed as cloth but what I own is the first edition and it is in leather binding and the page number is different. I assume the cloth binding edition takes into account the preface which is why it is listed as 227 pages instead of 207.
Unfortunately we can't change the page number of the Oscar Wilde book. The page number on the last page counts, no matter what went before it. I have corrected the others.
I want to appeal that decision concerning the Oscar Wilde book. Using the last page of a book is not indicative of the page number. That's like giving the Bible a page number of 45 because The Book of Revelations only has 45 pages. It flies in the face of common sense. The point of the page number for a book is to indicate the total number of pages in the book- not the page number for a section in the book.
Here's another example and a link to the policy. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I understand the concern; if you would like to discuss the policy you would need to contact Goodreads directly (through the link in the group's description).
But that example is the opposite of what I am asking. In that case the book in its entirety is correctly listed with the correct page number because there are two books in one book continuously numbered therefore the page number must be 973 or whatever the moderator left it as. The policy states that "The number of pages in a book is meant to include all content." If you insist on using only the last page of the book which is numbered for only that particular section then you are not including all content. Only the content in that section.
Secondly the last paragraph of that policy states "Page numbers should match the page numbers as listed in the book." If the book includes a table of contents that lists sections broken out by page number then this should be the overriding standard over the last page number in the book because that is what the policy calls for....as listed in the book ala a table of contents.
In the case of this book I shall provide the table of contents to the book: https://archive.org/details/poemsfair...
OK, then someone else can hopefully clarify this for us as I might not be understanding correctly.
No worries. I appreciate your help. But would also like to see clarification to see if I misinterpreted it as well.
"As listed in the book" does not mean "in the table of contents", but "according to the number that is on the (last) page". Also, if the page count is not consecutive, I'm not sure how a table of contents would work.But I would like to know if the policy does indeed include situations where different sections have their own page numbering and none (or all) of them can be considered the main work, or if the different page counts should be added up in those cases. Either way, registering reading progress is going to be difficult.
What is a table of contents if not a listing of the book's segments by page number? Again the page number at the back of the book is not determinant of all content within the book. If the page count is not consecutive then that's why you need the table of contents. To determine the page number of the relevant section within the book.
Books were written before page numbering was a standardize thing but yet they still contained a table of contents, I shall again turn to the the Bible as an example. It is why we say John 11:35 and not page 1145 in the Bible when referring to Jesus weeping.
I would imagine that the older the book the more common this phenomenon is when multiple books are contained within one volume. I have run into this once before on this site, I believe in a Leob Classical book that contained two different works from two different authors where the page numbers restarted after each section.
Another reason why last page number should not be used as the standard for page numbering is because of Volume Two of the Oxford's Complete Works of Aristotle (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...).
This book has the starting page number printed as 1251 and ends with page number 2400 something. If you go by the standard set forth in the interpretation above that the last page number is supreme, then if one reads this book, and tracks it on this site, then their reading progress will show 2400 something pages read when in reality, one only read 1,200 something pages. To prove my point, here is the link to the book online: https://archive.org/details/completew...
Daniel wrote: "What is a table of contents if not a listing of the book's segments by page number? Again the page number at the back of the book is not determinant of all content within the book. If the page co..."
If every section starts anew at page 1, how is the table of contents going to look?
Goodreads does not use chapter and verse for calculating page counts, so I'm not sure what the Bible example is meant to signify.
"Another reason why last page number should not be used as the standard for page numbering is because of Volume Two of the Oxford's Complete Works of Aristotle (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...).
This book has the starting page number printed as 1251 and ends with page number 2400 something. If you go by the standard set forth in the interpretation above that the last page number is supreme, then if one reads this book, and tracks it on this site, then their reading progress will show 2400 something pages read when in reality, one only read 1,200 something pages. To prove my point, here is the link to the book online: https://archive.org/details/completew... "
Yet that is exactly the policy on Goodreads. If you want to challenge this policy, please contact Support.
If every section starts anew at page 1, how is the table of contents going to look?I've provided an example above by linking to the text's table of contents for the book in question about how the table of contents looks when this occurs. So I'm not sure why feigning ignorance about a provided fact helps.
"Yet that is exactly the policy on Goodreads."
Except its not because again I linked to the Goodreads page for the Aristotle book and the page count is not 2400 something despite the last page of the book stating that.
I am not necessarily saying the policy should be changed thus I don't want to challenge the policy because I've reasoned pretty well here that my interpretation of the policy fits within the guidelines of the written policy. My challenge is to the moderator's arbitrary interpretation of why last page number is put above other supporting evidence of calculating a book's page number count and have shown with links above that the policy is arbitrarily applied.
Daniel wrote: "If every section starts anew at page 1, how is the table of contents going to look?I've provided an example above by linking to the text's table of contents for the book in question about how the..."
I now see you posted a link in msg #8. Personally, I think that table of contents makes no sense, but that is a difference of opinion.
""Yet that is exactly the policy on Goodreads."
Except its not because again I linked to the Goodreads page for the Aristotle book and the page count is not 2400 something despite the last page of the book stating that."
It is of course nonsense to claim the policy is not the policy just because a page count is registered differently on one particular book. (By the way, the page count was originally added incorrectly by an import bot.)
I checked with Worldcat, the last page is 2487. I have changed it now.
As I said before (msg #11), I too am interested to know if the policy also applies in cases where different sections have their own page numbering and none (or all) of them can be considered the main work, or if the different page counts should be added up. The Librarian Manual is not exhaustive, it does not provide for every possible situation, and this one is rare enough that it isn't specifically mentioned.
Maybe rivka (Librarian Moderator) can give a ruling.
But why change the page count of a book with a unique ISBN to a page count that is incorrect when your interpretation of the policy is unsure. That seems premature and if overruled would mean of course you need to go back and fix your edit to Aristotle. Especually since that particular book does not have have 2487 pages but rather the total volume in the series has 2487 across multiple books. Your emphasis on last printed page numbers opens up too many instances of reducto ad absurdums.I have submitted my complaints to the production team.
Daniel wrote: "But why change the page count of a book with a unique ISBN to a page count that is incorrect when your interpretation of the policy is unsure. That seems premature and if overruled would mean of co..."In the case of Aristotle I am 100% sure my "interpretation" is correct, that has been confirmed by both the manual and the moderator time and again.
The thing I am not sure about is the Wilde book with different page counts for different sections that are all part of the main text as opposed to being an introduction or index and the like.
Cool beans. I have challenged that policy as well with the production team in regards to Aristotle.
I'd like to know if there has been an updated on this.
Daniel wrote: "I'd like to know if there has been an updated on this."You would need to contact Goodreads directly for an update, as no policies have changed in the meantime. I see the point about the Wilde book but the members of this group have no influence on policy or procedures.
I have found an additional book where the page numbers restart. It is the Modern Library's Plays of Oscar Wilde. (again with the Wilde). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
I do not see any page numbers listed for this edition on Goodreads but the page numbering starts over 3/4 through the book. As you can see from the table of contents here: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Book....
I have attempted emails to customer service, posting in the librarian's group, and submitting an idea but yet I have not heard of any type of resolution to this page numbering issue. I doubt anybody would ever change the policy despite the injustice of it but I do take a little pleasure in finding more books that fit outside the policy.
Mod
Should books with numbering that restarts during the book either (a) reflect a total page number on Goodreads that adds both sections together, or (b) reflect the number on the final page?
I'm discussing this with the team and will share any updates here.
Please let me know what comes of those discussions. In addition, to the two Oscar Wilde books, another book that renumbers is the Modern Library edition of the Studs Lonigan trilogy. On Goodreads, this edition is listed as 465 pages. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
However, this is only the page number of the last section. The pages renumber after each novel within the book. The sections are numbered 201, 412, and 465 respectively. Unfortunately this book does not have a table of contents but since I own the book I was able to confirm with this listing that the section numbers are accurate as seen here: https://www.brennersbooks.com/pages/b...
Mod
Closing this thread to continue the conversation in one place.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The 1959 Modern Library Edition of Jerome Wiedman's I Can Get it For You Wholesale needs to be edited to have 309 pages.
The 1950 Modern Library Edition of Rudyard Kipling's Kim needs to be edited with the correct published year and page number which is 345.
The Complete Poems and Fairytales of Oscar Wilde published by Modern Library in 1950 has the incorrect page number. The page numbers in the book start over half way through. The current listing has the page number on the last page but that is incorrect- that is the last page of the second section of the book. The actual page number is 474.