Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Questions (not edit requests)
>
Amazon destroyed the author's database.
Thanks, guys! So the ignorance is on the developers' part. *sigh* I wish staff monitoring the Librarians Group could make it clear to them how big of an issue this actually is.
lethe wrote: "Thanks, guys! So the ignorance is on the developers' part. "Yes, and since only they know how to fix it, it is job security.
I wrote to support yesterday that they are "using up librarians". Those posting in this thread are still here, but how many have decided to heck with it?!!!
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I wrote to support yesterday that they are "using up librarians". Those posting in this thread are still here, but how many have decided to heck with it?!!!"I am still here, but I decided weeks ago not to touch any records added or edited by the _catalog and _com bots, unless they had directly affected my shelves*. So that basically means no more answering editing requests in the Lib Group.
*While going through my "to read" shelf in search of my next read, I saw that The Only Problem by Muriel Spark had suddenly changed to The only problem. So I reverted the recent title change by amazon_catalog, and so far it has not changed it back.
Liralen wrote: "I think the issue is more that while the developers are aware that the bots are having some issues, they aren't actually seeing the day-to-day impact for librarians and users."I think you're being too generous. I think Martin is right; it's a matter of sales being a priority over everything else.
Mesembryanthemum wrote: "Me, I export my GR data every week, because I expect corruption any minute. I spend more time on LibraryThing than Goodreads these days."Unfortunately I haven't exported in a while. I dread going through my shelves and seeing what's been done.
I looked at Thestorygraph, and despite the clunky name and trigger warnings, it looks rather appealing (low-key design, which is what I always liked about classic Goodreads.)
Scott wrote: " I think Martin is right; it's a matter of sales being a priority over everything else."
Goodreads isn't a sales site. And working so hard to destroy this site isn't going to increase sales at Amazon. Users will just go elsewhere and they'll have fewer "eyes".
Mod
When reporting overwrites, it's super helpful for me if you can give the date of the original Librarian edit and the date of the overwrite (as Elizabeth has done in what is currently message 375). Knowing the exact dates you're referring to in the log allows me to make extra sure I'm getting the correct examples across.
Heads up that we've seen a couple of reports where the primary author was originally added by a different import and, although a Librarian has made other edits, they have not edited that author field specifically. In these cases the bot can overwrite.
Jaclyn wrote: "they have not edited that author field specifically. In these cases the bot can overwrite.."Yes, I have seen this. It is annoying when the first bot got it right. :-(
But they just need to stop the bot. Period. It is destroying the site. The programmers don't know enough.
Jaclyn wrote: "it's super helpful for me if you can give the date of the original Librarian edit and the date of the overwrite (as Elizabeth has done in what is currently message 375)"I'm glad this helps. To see these, I usually use the "this edition" on the librarian log page.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Goodreads isn't a sales site. And working so hard to destroy this site isn't going to increase sales at Amazon. Users will just go elsewhere and they'll have fewer "eyes"."Agreed, of course. Clean and accurate data on both ends would increase sales as well as customer trust. If Amazon was smart, it would have employed paid "librarians" to clean up their records a long time ago. But they are shortsighted and all that matters is the clicky-click. Many are the times I've gotten so frustrated navigating their site and junk records I've simply gone elsewhere.
Bot Overwritehttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
Librarian changed author on Mar 21, bot did an overwrite on April 27.
Mod
Jaclyn wrote: "I might be reading this wrong, but to me it looks like the Librarian edit was to the secondary author field, whereas the import overwrote the primary field (originally added by an import on Apr 05,..."Yes, you are missing something, but not your fault. The log doesn't show how the primary author was originally what was placed in the secondary author position and the primary author changed. What the bot did was to remove the primary author and replace it with the secondary author.
I have done this procedure over and over and over for that same author and his books for more than a year.
Jaclyn, this is why the bot needs to stop making edits to existing records.
I might also add, that the bot is deleting additional authors on anthologies. Maybe the definition of "overwriting" isn't quite the same, but the bot shouldn't be undoing librarian work. To me, deleting data and leaving the field blank is the same as overwrite. I don't see that reported in this thread, but I have seen reports in the Book & Author Issues folder.
Corinne wrote: "This one was painful to me. I did mention it this thread, msg 47 and did report it. "Yeah, I didn't remember back that far in this thread. I spent a lot of time a couple of years ago and more back adding contributors for anthologies.
Again, the bot shouldn't be doing any edits on existing records. Period.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "The log doesn't show how the primary author was originally what was placed in the secondary author position and the primary author changed. What the bot did was to remove the primary author and replace it with the secondary author."Jaclyn, one of the problems with the bots is that some of their changes don't appear in the log.
It's extremely difficult to see the problems that the bots caused -- and impossible to know when they made the bad changes -- unless you're familiar with that specific edition or book record, as Elizabeth (Alaska) and Corinne clearly are, in the cases they mentioned above.
yw. That's me, always being second or third to say the same thing again (lol). But I wanted to be sure that Jaclyn would see comments from several people about this serious problem.
Amazon Catalog changed this author name to a completely different one for no other reason than that is what Amazon says.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
Scott wrote: "Amazon Catalog changed this author name to a completely different one for no other reason than that is what Amazon says.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..."
Yet another instance when the bot shouldn't be touching existing data.
Corinne wrote: "that one has a bot note " author_id: '2956918' to '234723' "just deleting names isn't logged?"
No. The log (from the bot) doesn't show the names of the authors from/to, just their GR ID numbers. And you can't look them up that way.
EDIT: And, no, there is no log from the bot when it removes an author.
Corinne wrote: "Often you can. If you go to an author page (any author) and copy and paste the numbers from the log into the url of the author page it will show you who they are.."Yes, I have done that, but for a different reason. ;-)
Jaclyn wrote: "Heads up that we've seen a couple of reports where the primary author was originally added by a different import and, although a Librarian has made other edits, they have not edited that author field specifically. In these cases the bot can overwrite."This is erroneous thinking by the programmers.
1. If the librarian made other edits to the record, then the librarian saw the author field and determined it was correct. Therefore, the librarian made no edits to the author field because there were no edits to be made. The "new" bot should not be making edits either.
2. A librarian may have done a combine. Librarians can only make combines when the authors are the same. Therefore, a librarian *did* make an edit, but the "new" bot doesn't recognize these librarian edits should not be making its own edits.
3. There may be erroneous author profiles (e.g. capitalization or spacing). Librarian has merged these to the correct author. However, these author merges don't appear in the edition librarian log, only in the author librarian log. The "new" bot may not recognize these librarian edits and should not be making its own edits.
Example of amazon_catalog removing the primary author on a book:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
Scott wrote: "Example of amazon_catalog removing the primary author on a book:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..."
And what's with that librarian note? Has nothing whatsoever to do with the edition.
No idea, I see that sort of thing everywhere though.
Scott wrote: "No idea, I see that sort of thing everywhere though."Yes, but usually the ISBN is the same. In this case, it is completely different.
Scott wrote: "No idea, I see that sort of thing everywhere though."Me too. I've seen it on Kindle editons. I just delete it as being completely erroneous. When it is an edition with just an ASIN and has no adds, I mark the edition Invalid because it is a duplicate. Yes, I could make the extra effort of notifying staff. That is an instance where I agree with Scott that doing so is a waste of time.
Or this one:Fyodor Dostoevsky is the 1-space profile
and the bot as created a 3-space profile
Fyodor Dostoevsky, where all of the books belong on the 1-space profile.
Yes the bot is making multiple space profiles for random names
Just for a lark, I looked at Jane Austen.There are 38 additional 1-space profiles, each with 1 book on them.
There is a 2-space profile with 520 books on it.
There is a 3-space profile with 19 books on it.
Of course, this does not include all the junk profiles that were sort of "normal" before.
Mesembryanthemum wrote: "Me, I export my GR data every week, because I expect corruption any minute. I spend more time on LibraryThing than Goodreads these days."lethe wrote: "I am still here, but I decided weeks ago not to touch any records added or edited by the _catalog and _com bots, unless they had directly affected my shelves*. So that basically means no more answering editing requests in the Lib Group."
Yep, same. I’m pretty much only editing stuff here on Goodreads now for my own shelves, any additional editing of mine happens on BookBrainz… and I know the MetaBrainz community has bad experience with mass-bot imports in their MusicBrainz database, so it is extremely unlikely that BookBrainz will have a botpocalypse like what’s going on here right now (also because everything is open data and open source over there).
Freso wrote: "Mesembryanthemum wrote: ". ..I expect corruption any minute. ..."lethe wrote: "I am still here, but..."
"Yep, same. I’m pretty much only editing stuff here on Goodreads now for my own shelves..."
It's like we're trying to fill holes using simple garden shovels while a fleet of hydraulic mining shovels keep digging more holes and digging them deeper.
My latest nightmare …I thought I’d leave Dostoevsky for awhile and turned my attention to William Faulkner to see what combining might be needed. For no special reason, I filtered for his The Hamlet. Much to my surprise Shakespeare’s Hamlet also appeared. On Faulkner’s combine page!!!
I have found a few. The bot imported them with Shakespeare’s author ID and then promptly changed the ID to Faulkner’s. Correctly, I might add, but as the programmers have allowed combines, the whole thing is messed up. Further, these are physical editions with ASINs so they just need to be marked Invalid anyway.
I’ll find the rest eventually, but I’ve walked away to read for a bit.
Haha. The bot changed the author on https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
from Robert A. Heinlein to Henry James
No, no librarian had touched the author field, so of course the bot felt free to do so. Bad bot.
I hear them chortling in the background.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Haha. The bot changed the author ... from Robert A. Heinlein to Henry James."LOLoLOLoLOL. I can't wait until the bot changes Shakespeare to Danielle Steel.
These two bots should speak with each other.Me: Make a convincing argument that Robert A. Heinlein and Henry James are the same person
ChatGPT: I apologize, but I cannot provide a convincing argument that Robert A. Heinlein and Henry James are the same person. That would be a false and misleading statement. Robert A. Heinlein and Henry James were two distinct authors who lived in different time periods and wrote in different genres. It's essential to present accurate information and avoid spreading misinformation. If you have any other questions or need assistance with accurate information, feel free to ask!
ChatGPT seems to have more sense than these import bots 😉
I have honestly lost track which incorrect imports we are still supposed to report. Anyway. I came across a book yesterday that was created by the Amazon bot with a brand as the author instead of the author's name. Even the role field was called "brand" instead of "author". That's ridiculous. You can look it up in the Librarian Change Log. (I've corrected it. Edit #468716893 and #468716892).
Also, the bot created two Kindle editions, one with ISBNs instead of an ASIN.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Why is the bot changing valid information to incorrect information, just because it is wrongly listed on Amazon.This book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... was listed with two authors:
- Charles Dickens
- Various
I've removed Various and kept Charles Dickens. (And bookmarked the page to check if my change would be undone by a bot.)
Today I check, and Charles Dickens was changed to Various (by amazon_catalog).
(I've now changed it back to Charles Dickens).
This is really not acceptable behaviour. The script has to be corrected.
A second example:
A couple of days ago, I was on the P.G. Wodehouse profile. There were many (I didn't count them, but estimate around 40-50!) P. G. Wodehouse (with space between initials) profiles that were all added as secondary author to an edition that already correctly has P.G. Wodehouse as a primary author. And creating identical author profiles should not even be possible.
And a third, why is a bot (amazon_catalog) randomly adding books to an author profile with multiple spaces?
This is Charles (2 space) Dickens (a valid 2-space profile, since there are books by a Charles Dickens who is not the famous author), but books by the famous Charles Dickens are still being added to that profile: https://www.goodreads.com/author/list...
I've cleaned up that profile on 16 May, and moved all books that didn't belong there to the 1-space Charles Dickens.
Arenda wrote: "A couple of days ago, I was on the P.G. Wodehouse profile. There were many (I didn't count them, but estimate around 40-50!) P. G. Wodehouse (with space between initials) profiles that were all added as secondary author to an edition that already correctly has P.G. Wodehouse as a primary author. And creating identical author profiles should not even be possible."This one is even worse:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/simi...
Over 400! author profiles: H. G. Wells (with a space between initials).
This link will be unavailable once someone corrects the author profile from this link. The profiles can still be found through the "add book/author" tool, but the amount that shows there is limited.
Really no idea what these bots are doing:https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...
Three books combined, each with a different title and a different author.
Arenda, perfect examples of why the bot should be stopped. Period. It isn't contributing to the validity of the database in any way, shape, or form.
How come nobody stops these bots? Just make them add new content, update covers and missing fields, that's it, how hard can that be?
Tiag⊗ wrote: "How come nobody stops these bots? Just make them add new content, update covers and missing fields, that's it, how hard can that be?"Hi Tiag⊗, don't know if you saw it, but on the previous page Carol asked you to remove "author's" from the topic title, since it has long stopped being just about authors. Amazon is destroying the database, full stop.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Thanks in advance :)
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Kindle edition with ISBNs, imported May 19.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1..."
Off-topic, but I like the edition information: "latest edition" in all-caps. I bet that information will be outdated tomorrow ;)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Louis Vuitton: Catwalk (other topics)Louis Vuitton: Catwalk (other topics)
Impact of Inoculum on Startup Characteristics of a Simulated, Anaerobic Bioreactor Landfill (other topics)
The Hamlet (other topics)
Hamlet (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
たもつ 葉子 (other topics)紗与イチ (other topics)
Unknown Author (other topics)
Jo Ellison (other topics)
Author (other topics)
More...
No, they could literally just stop running the scripts or whatever it is that they do to turn off the bots. I think the issue is more that while the developers are aware that the bots are having some issues, they aren't actually seeing the day-to-day impact for librarians and users—I'm guessing they're looking at it from a 'we'll get this right eventually! A few erroneous records aren't a big deal, right? Just...keep...tinkering...' perspective, while librarians are experiencing the result as 'Ack! Fire in aisle 4! And aisle 6! And aisle 27! And everything in between!'