Original publication date when it hasn't been announced?

[Liralen]

I was sorting a shelf by publication date and saw that one had had its original publication date of 2023 removed because (per librarian note) an official release date has not yet been announced. Is there an official policy on this? (I don't see anything in the publish date pages in the manual.)

My preference would be to revert it to 2023 so that my shelves will sort properly, with the understanding that it can/will be updated in the future, but I also don't want to get into an accidental battle of the librarian edits, especially without knowing what is best practice here.

Thanks!

[Dobby]

I would replace the 2023 publication date. When I'm adding new editions that have a pub date in the future, I use that date for the original pub date.

[lethe]

Personally, I don't fill in the original pub date anymore if it is a date in the future. When the pub date changes, people often forget to change the original pub date as well.

[Miriam]

I would say without an official publication date, you can't have an original published date.

[Liralen]

To clarify - I wouldn't put in an arbitrary future date/year. It's more a case of whether the year-of-unknown-origin should be deleted if it already exists (given that it's not clear where whoever put in 2023 in the first place got their info), and, if not, whether it's appropriate to return it if it has been deleted (after, of course, digging to see if there's current info available).

@lethe - I don't generally either, unless it's on my own TBR, because that way I can see at a glance what's coming out soon.

[annob [on hiatus]]

I think it's important to be aware that the original publication date fields needs to be filled in for several Goodreads functionalities beside user shelf sorting. It's needed for books to show up on:
- The New Releases page
- The New Releases email
- The Most Read This Week section of the Genre pages

It also enables accurate Date sorting on the Author pages.

This is why I'm highly in favour of filling in even a tentative upcoming date in those fields, ideally the month + day too if a source list the book with such details. Only a year filled in might in some places of the site be treated as if YYYY-Jan-01 was filled in.

[Miriam]

But in the original case listed, there isn't an official release date yet. So how can there be an original publication date.

For the new release page/email, that only works well if you have the whole date. So not relevant in this case.

[annob [on hiatus]]

In my personal opinion, for an upcoming title it's better to have tentative upcoming release date filled in than a blank field. Data that can be updated when more info emerges, or the release date changes.

But of course there are variables that are unknown in this case, such as what is the unofficial source? I wouldn't fill in a date just because I have a 'gut feeling' a book might be released a certain year.

For me an edit would also depend on the 'size' of the upcoming release. Is it from a major publisher, or self-published. If the latter a tweet from the author that mention a tentative release date could suffice. For a major release I would want a more 'official' data source, preferably a retail listing.

[Dobby]

annob wrote: "In my personal opinion, for an upcoming title it's better to have tentative upcoming release date filled in than a blank field. Data that can be updated when more info emerges, or the release date ..."

This is my thinking as well. I also use the same criteria for deciding on whether to add the upcoming release date.

[Liralen]

annob wrote: "For me an edit would also depend on the 'size' of the upcoming release. Is it from a major publisher, or self-published. If the latter a tweet from the author that mention a tentative release date could suffice. For a major release I would want a more 'official' data source, preferably a retail listing."

Oh, that's an interesting distinction! I think I would personally have fewer qualms putting in a tentative future date based on a tweet for books with major publishers, because it's more likely that someone will see and update/request an update if it changes. (Again, I'd love to know if there's policy!)

Meanwhile: In this particular case, digging deep enough on the authors' website turned up 'summer 2024' for this book (so 2023 was wrong regardless), but I have no real way of knowing whether 2023 was added because someone saw, e.g., a tweet from the author, or if at the time 2023 just seemed like a far-enough-out holding date.

[L J]

I too would like to know policy on this.

There's a book on Goodreads with date this month but that's wrong. This book has been delayed again. The only dates close to recently updated and official, amazon.ca and b&n, list January 2, 2079, an obvious fantasy date.

In this case no dates might be closest to accurate as last official word from author's staff was almost 2 years ago and essentially said they were too ill to write.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Liralen wrote: "... Meanwhile: In this particular case, digging deep enough on the authors' website turned up 'summer 2024' for this book"

I'd be in favour to consider the author's website official enough to at least add '2024' to the book record.

You could leave a changelog comment to clarify your source/why you disregarded the note - assuming it was not from a staff member of course. I wouldn't overrule those :)

Changelog comments doesn't seem to save if we only change the Work data, but we can trick it by also editing some small Edition data. For example add/remove the comma in the series info in the title. Doing that will save the comment into the changelog.

[Liralen]

annob wrote: "I'd be in favour to consider the author's website official enough to at least add '2024' to the book record.

You could leave a changelog comment to clarify your source/why you disregarded the note - assuming it was not from a staff member of course. I wouldn't overrule those :)"

That's exactly what I did :) I'm still hoping for some more general policy guidance, but this book at least can rest easy in its accurate-enough-for-now sort order.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

There is no general policy because (as even just the few examples in this thread indicate) there are so many variables involved.

I agree with taking all of these into account: annob wrote: "In my personal opinion, for an upcoming title it's better to have tentative upcoming release date filled in than a blank field. Data that can be updated when more info emerges, or the release date changes.

But of course there are variables that are unknown in this case, such as what is the unofficial source? I wouldn't fill in a date just because I have a 'gut feeling' a book might be released a certain year.

For me an edit would also depend on the 'size' of the upcoming release. Is it from a major publisher, or self-published. If the latter a tweet from the author that mention a tentative release date could suffice. For a major release I would want a more 'official' data source, preferably a retail listing."


I would only add that it is important to use the Note feature to indicate when you are adding (or have confirmed) a pub date that is uncertain or an estimate. Please make it easier for Librarians coming across the record a year or two from now to figure out where the date came from and why. (And sometimes that future Librarian may be you!)

[Liralen]

Thank you, rivka!