[Updated] What new rules means for invalid shorts (Was: Hugo Packet Short Fiction - You must have a valid Membership)

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

I thought with the change in policy that you just mark entries like this as invalid (replaced nab)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Corinne wrote: "I've been combining and deleting (merging) when there is a valid source. if there is no valid source then I would mark invalid.

But, the super's note is saying it's valid. You would mark a short t..."

Its hard to say without seeing the entry. This new policy came in last October. Is the note older than that?

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

My understanding was that it would stop so many members being unhappy that their short stories were being merged with where they were actually published. Their record was preserved even if they could no longer edit it. & if the entry did become valid (for example published as a single short story with an ISBN & ASIN) the entry could be made public. & no reviews or rating were lost.

Possibly we need a moderator ruling on this?

I don't work a lot with short stories.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

As a general comment (not directed just to the op) any librarian super or author back from an absence should read the stickied comments in the general & the Announcement folder see if there have been any changes.

[Miriam]

For my $.02, I read the policy same as Corinne.

Invalid is for items that have reviews, but do not have a valid merge target. If it's a short that was never published separately, then it would merge into the overall work. If the invalid item was never published as part of another valid work, then it goes straight to "Invalid" status (since there is no merge target).

Part of the issue previously was not with merging shorts with the anthology/collection they came from. The issues came from people merging a short with a valid record from the same series.
Example: A prolific works short for a series would be merged with book 1 of the series to preserve the reviews (this was before we started to NAB those works).

If there was something that states we shouldn't be merging invalid shorts into the valid anthology/collection I'd be interested in reading that.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Miriam wrote: "For my $.02, I read the policy same as Corinne.

Invalid is for items that have reviews, but do not have a valid merge target. If it's a short that was never published separately, then it would me..."

Me too. There has been no change for this situation.

[Arenda]

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I thought with the change in policy that you just mark entries like this as invalid (replaced nab) "

Same.

The new “Invalid” status exists so that books that don’t meet Goodreads policies as a valid book record are preserved if they have member shelvings.

(Quote from the Announcement in the Librarians Group: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...)

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Arenda wrote: "Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I thought with the change in policy that you just mark entries like this as invalid (replaced nab) "

Same. "

The short stories referred to in Post #1 of this thread were never NABbed. They were merged into the magazine/anthology in which they originally appeared. It's hard for me to see how it could be interpreted that we now treat them differently.

[lethe]

I find the wording in the announcement ambiguous.

I think the "Invalid" status is only for items that have no merge target, and the "Deleted" status for duplicates and items that do have a merge target (short story not published separatedly --> its anthology), but the announcement can also be read as "merge (delete) true duplicates, and leave the short stories with reviews/shelvings as separate records, but mark them as invalid".

I think we need a staff ruling on what is meant exactly.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I think there are 2 issues. Shorts that can be merged and shorts that cannot. Obviously the shorts that cannot be merged should be marked Invalid. I think whenever a short can be merged, it should be done.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

lethe wrote: "I think we need a staff ruling on what is meant exactly.
"

Yes. I'm so glad this came up. Whatever we can do to eliminate gray areas in policy is a good thing.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "I think we need a staff ruling on what is meant exactly.
"

Yes. I'm so glad this came up. Whatever we can do to eliminate gray areas in policy is a good thing."

For sure. Merging can cause people to lose reviews. In my feed (a few years back) I had someone who reviewed an individual short story & as a precaution put the review in the online magazine. The merge left him without a review.

To widen this a bit more - maybe there should be a best practice about what you merge into. Someone I follow read a Eudora Welty short story. Her review was merged into an anthology. Yet this book was available https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... - a far closer match. She has deleted her original review & put it there.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "For sure. Merging can cause people to lose reviews. "

I think lost reviews is very rare. Merging simply transfers shelvings and reviews of the deleted edition into the default edition.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Corinne wrote: "i do think there was a change that GR did to save reviews and show that "merged review" statement. perhaps the one you are referring to was before the change."

That "merged review" is new/different.

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Thanks everyone for bumping this to my attention. I've been out for the South African public holiday and need a bit of time to read through this and check my own understanding with that of others within the team. I'll close this thread in the meanwhile, and respond tomorrow (23 March). Appreciate your patience while I catch up.

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Thanks for your patience.

The policy here requires clarification, and I don't have the answers just yet. There's an argument for either process.

When the new book status system was launched there wasn't clear communication on a process change regarding short stories. On the basis of this, for now, current process should remain, which is to merge short stories into another book record, if they are part that book record (e.g. an anthology).

However, there is ambiguity in the book status system's announcement where it states: "The new “Invalid” status exists so that books that don’t meet Goodreads policies as a valid book record are preserved if they have member shelvings." Added to this, this Help article, which links out from the banner on invalid book pages, names "A short story (or short stories) which have only been published in an anthology or magazine" as an invalid book item. This wording could be interpreted to mean shorts should be set as invalid, and it seems Rivka was doing this before she left (💔).

The policy therefore requires further clarification, and we're actively discussing it within the team. Apologies that this wasn't considered when we first changed the system, and thanks for raising it now. I'll post here once I have a decision (which will be within the week).

[lethe]

Jaclyn wrote: "The policy therefore requires further clarification, and we're actively discussing it within the team.."

Thank you for your update, Jaclyn (and I hope you had a nice holiday :) )

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

I think just marking as invalid is such an easy solution & takes a job from our overburdened Supers. They remain on the member's shelf & if they are published in an acceptable way the member can alert a librarian to change the classification from invalid back to public & then the record can be merged.

But if we are going back to merging, librarians need to get the best possible match. Someone I follow read a Eudora Welty short story. This was merged into an anthology. The reader deleted her original review & put her review under a collection of only four Welty short stories that had an ISBN.

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Thanks everyone for continuing to share useful information. I'm closing this thread for now, but will reopen when I have a decision from the team.

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Hi all. After talking to the team, I've posted an announcement defining the process for invalid shorts.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

At least we have clarity (and consistency?)

Members will just have to note in their review that they read only a short. That will be confusing, but probably no more confusing than the short having been merged.