Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Policies & Practices
>
Page numbering for books with numbering that restarts [Feedback closed]
date
newest »
newest »
For me that would be (a), I want to register the amount of pages I have read of the complete book not just a of part of the book.
Jaclyn, just a heads-up that the link you posted in the now closed Modern Library thread does not lead to this thread :)
It should be the page counts added together. Having only the page count of the last part makes zero sense.
Goodreads has a very idiosyncratic way of counting pages*, so I don't know if regular users should have a say in how it should be done in this particular instance (which hopefully is rare).* - Introductions in Roman numerals are dismissed, even if they are quite hefty;
- For volumes with consecutive page numbering, only the last page number counts. Example:
Vol. 1 is numbered lxvi, 1-200 pages - page count to be entered: 200
Vol. 2 is numbered 201-400 pages - page count to be entered: 400
Vol. 3 is numbered 401-600 pages - page count to be entered: 600
So a user having read all three volumes, has a read page count of 1200 instead of 600.
I know this has been done to prevent users having to calculate what page number they are on, but it still feels strange.
I don't know if all Modern Library editions have restarting page counts for main sections of the book, and if there are many omnibus editions with the same issue. This is the first instance I have come across. If it really is rare, maybe an exception can be made in that the page counts are added up, but in general I say the fewer exceptions, the better.
I have a paperback that includes Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Each part restarts the page numbering, with the last story being only 75 pages. Should this entire book be 75 pages? Ridiculous.
Scott wrote: "It should be the page counts added together. Having only the page count of the last part makes zero sense."I agree. The combined page count - ie, actual pages read - is the logical solution.
I'm on the fence. I often used Otis's line about not wanting librarians to have to do maths to add page counts to members unhappy with the way GR does page counts. But on the other hand, when it is two separate books in one volume & the page count starts again, it is ridiculous. & lethe's example is even stranger!As long as long as the decision is entered in the manual, so we can refer members to it, I'll be ok with whatever GR decides.
Edit; I wouldn't like roman numeral pages at the start added in though.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I'm on the fence. I often used Otis's line about not wanting librarians to have to do maths to add page counts"How often does it actually come up though?
I think the question refers to a single volume that includes 2 or more books. The scenario that Lethe mentions is the correct page count, in my view (600).I don't really care if the member is credited with having read 600 pages or 1200 pages. It is their own record and I am not in competition with them. Personally, I want each of the books to count so I rate and review individual editions.
However, I think Jaclyn's question is about books where
Book 1: 1-200
Book 2: 1-300
and which page count should be used for this volume. I think most members would want to see 500, regardless of how they rate and review. They would want to know up front how many pages they can anticipate for the work.
Scott wrote: "Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I'm on the fence. I often used Otis's line about not wanting librarians to have to do maths to add page counts"How often does it actually come up though?"
With introductions in Roman numerals - used to come up quite a bit. (also some members don't like indexes & acknowledgements being included)
Also where the book started on say page 10, members (& a couple of librarians) used to want an accurate page count. (please don't change this!)
Like I say I'm easy either way- & so far most of you want an accurate page count.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "With introductions in Roman numerals - used to come up quite a bit. (also some members don't like indexes & acknowledgements being included)Also where the book started on say page 10, members (& a couple of librarians) used to want an accurate page count."
No, I'm fine with both of those. Even if the intros are longer, they would still be a small fraction of the entire work. And of course many books start counting a few pages in. The difference would be negligible.
I am thinking of books where the numbering is restarted somewhere in the middle, like my example above. Or multi-volume sets that are together on one record. Relatively speaking, these are surely uncommon. I don't think "avoiding math for librarians" is a solid reason for simply using the last page number.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I don't really care if the member is credited with having read 600 pages or 1200 pages. It is their own record and I am not in competition with them."I'm not in competition with them either, but I've seen users who are very meticulous about their reading statistics complain about this rule.
Scott wrote: "Or multi-volume sets that are together on one record."
Oh yes, I had forgotten about those! For box sets with non-consecutive page numbering we already add up all the pages, so we can do the same for these omnibus editions.
I don't see this practice reflected in the page numbering section of the Librarian Manual though, so I would like to see this added, for box sets and omnibus editions.
Mod
Thanks lethe! Always helping me with my daily work struggles! 😄
A 700-page book marked as 75 pages would not only mess with stats, but also the Year in Books where it would likely be displayed as the shortest book I read that year.
"I don't know if all Modern Library editions have restarting page counts for main sections of the book, and if there are many omnibus editions with the same issue. This is the first instance I have come across. If it really is rare, maybe an exception can be made in that the page counts are added up, but in general I say the fewer exceptions, the better."I'd like to point out that Modern Library is one of the largest publishers in the world. So its not a matter if its rare in occurrence in terms of number of books affected but rather it would be common in terms of the amount of readers affected. In other words, while it may be rare that a book is renumbered after each section, the amount of people who are likely to encounter that book would be high. Its not like its some mom and pop publisher renumbering things just to be different and set themselves apart.
Secondly, the point made about number of pages continuing across multiple volumes is a very valid criticism of how page numbering happens on this site. For example, the Oxford Collected Works of Aristotle has two separate volumes where the page numbers continue over from book 1 to book 2. Many people would probably choose to read only volume two because it contains Aristotle's more famous works. But they aren't reading 2500 pages if they choose to read only volume 2. They are only reading 1200. This site originally had the correct amount of page numbers for that book until I brought up the point that the emphasis of using last page number to assign the page number value was being arbitrarily applied.
As far as allowing regular users to have a say in how the site works is lunacy in my opinion. Its the same as saying we don't think our customers should have a say in the products we sell them. The current policy is wrong because it simply is not accurate.
lethe wrote: "I'm not in competition with them either, but I've seen users who are very meticulous about their reading statistics complain about this rule."Then they shouldn't be using a multi-volume work to log their page counts. I have a shelf "Multiple Works". Most of them have zero page counts because the contents don't have page counts for any of the included titles. Would they like to use those for their statistics or would they rather use the individual titles.
"Then they shouldn't be using a multi-volume work to log their page counts....Would they like to use those for their statistics or would they rather use the individual titles" Except if you read one of the volumes out of a set then you would want your stats to reflect the number pages you read (its kinda the whole point of the stat in the first place).
If I read volume one of Jane Austen's collected works but not the second. Are you suggesting that I go find individual titles for Emma, Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility? Good luck trying to figure out which edition has the same amount of pages from the plethora of editions out there for Jane Austin books. So then what's the point of having page numbers tracked if we aren't supposed to log the pages we actually read?
Do the people who edit these rules and enter stats for books work for Goodreads? Are they paid employees?
Daniel wrote: "Do the people who edit these rules and enter stats for books work for Goodreads? Are they paid employees?"The official rules are set by staff, yes.
Thanks. That's good to know. It seems that the rules should reflect the multiple ways folk use the site and not be dictated by the tyrannical whims of personal experience of some moderators. Some of us are using it to track what we are doing, others for promoting, others for social relationships. I don't think the rules in entering page counts should be exclusionary for those who accurately track what they have read and what they own.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I wouldn't like roman numeral pages at the start added in though."This. Other than that, I'm fine with either option.
Daniel wrote: "I don't think the rules in entering page counts should be exclusionary for those who accurately track what they have read and what they own."
I think the site practice of entering page counts should be consistent. It shouldn't vary according to a member's own preference.
I go for A.I know a series of omnibuses that are all set up as 3 novels and 2 short stories in each volume where in the older volumes the numbering restarts for each work in the omnibus. The short stories are at the end, so a 500 pages volume could end with page 20.
It would require some maths, but I assume most librarians have access to a calculator on their computer or telephone. Finding the right information might be the more difficult part, but that could also be an issue the other way around, if you would have to find out what exactly is the numbering of the last story.
I have a strong preference for approach (a). The confusion caused by showing a too-small page count (for example, 75 for 300-page book) seems a more serious issue than the desire to avoid simple addition for a "numbering restarts" type of book. (I'm a librarian, and I have a calculator app on my phone and computer.)
I'm sure that publishers and libraries don't use approach (b) when recording page counts. I'd like GR policy to be as close to the one used by publishers as possible.
Mesembryanthemum wrote: "I'd like GR policy to be as close to the one used by publishers as possible."Definitely not the one used by publishers, but by libraries, yes.
lethe wrote: "Mesembryanthemum wrote: "I'd like GR policy to be as close to the one used by publishers as possible."Definitely not the one used by publishers, but by libraries, yes."
Agree with Lethe. Publisher page counts are too inconsistent.
Mod
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
I'm starting to work through the outstanding questions in this group. First up is this thread.
The question under discussion is:
Interested to hear your thoughts! I'll close this thread to feedback on the 14th June.