Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
(answered) Rumored or unconfirmed releases should not be added to the catalog.
date
newest »
newest »
I have the same questions and concerns.I no longer have routine access to Publishers Weekly. I don't haunt publishers websites looking for official announcements. I'm far more likely to learn about a book release elsewhere, for instance from author or narrator.
Thirding the request for a bit more info! Is a book confirmed if, for example, there's a 'coming next fall' at the end of an author's (published) book but nothing on the author's or publisher's website?
Mod
It's fine if a book is stated as "coming next fall" or if a book is bought for publishing and that's announced by the publisher. What we're trying to avoid is people assuming someone is releasing a book. For example: a publisher or elsewhere hints at an upcoming release, and someone assumes it's x author and adds a placeholder book to their author page.
I wish amazon_catalog and amazon_com would finally have their "status revoked" for adding all those invalid items to the database. That seems more productive than threatening librarians.
lethe wrote: "I wish amazon_catalog and amazon_com would finally have their "status revoked" for adding all those invalid items to the database. That seems more productive than threatening librarians."+1
lethe wrote: "I wish amazon_catalog and amazon_com would finally have their "status revoked" for adding all those invalid items to the database. That seems more productive than threatening librarians."++
lethe wrote: "I wish amazon_catalog and amazon_com would finally have their "status revoked" for adding all those invalid items to the database. That seems more productive than threatening librarians."Yes, I agree! They are among the worst offenders.
It's also marking books Invalid that should be Public. It definitely should have its librarian status revoked.
I think Dream of Spring should stay, but that would have to be a Goodreads-level decision. It's planned, but if that's not enough someone might have to deal with it on a case by case basis.
I'd like to widen this to having series needing to have at least two books published before they are added (as well as meeting present guidelines of course) We have no way of knowing if the second book will meet GR guidelines & at best we can have authors coming back to us saying "Oops, changed my mind there isn't going to be a series now, can you remove this non-existent book(s)", at worst they are just abandoned, for more clutter.
Mod
- The Doors of Stone by Patrick Rothfuss nvmd I assume it's fine, it has identifiers (ISBNs)
- [book:A Dream of Spring|6382055..."
All of these examples are fine to include. There's a reasonable expectation that these books will exist. We're talking about an unsubstantiated assumption about a book being written / published.
There shouldn't be many of these cases, and we'll can deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Mod
That's interesting. Is this a common occurrence?
Fairly. There are some requests near the top of the series folder.
Jaclyn wrote: "That's interesting. Is this a common occurrence?"It's very common for authors to ask that a series page be created when there's only one existing work. Not sure how common for those pages to then never be updated again, but much less common for an author to come back and say 'actually, never mind, can you delete this page'.
Personally, I prefer having a series page with one work over having a series page with one existing work + three empty book pages that the author has created, titled Untitled (Series #2), Untitled (Series #3), and Untitled (Series #4)—all of which are books that technically meet the broader 'confirmed book' criteria but feel more like clutter than a series page with one book.
I agree with Carol that a series should have at least two books before a series page should be made.
Liralen wrote: "Jaclyn wrote: "That's interesting. Is this a common occurrence?"It's very common for authors to ask that a series page be created when there's only one existing work. Not sure how common for thos..."
I don't like your example either. With everything so behind now (I think there are book requests from December that still haven't been filled) I think priority should be given to published books.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I don't like your example either. With everything so behind now (I think there are book requests from December that still haven't been filled) I think priority should be given to published books."Fwiw, I'm not talking about books that the author has posted about in the librarians group and asked someone to make a page for—I'm thinking of placeholder book pages that an author has created from their dashboard because they're planning more books in a series. It's sort of tangential, but I wouldn't want more of those created because the author's been told that they need at least two books to create a series.
I don't personally mind series pages with one book—the clutter feels minimal, especially compared to other kinds of *cough*bot*cough* clutter. At least when an author asks for a series page for their book, that's impetus to change the title from Title - a fab new read for summer!! (Series Book One) to Title (Series #1).
If it is a major, blockbuster author I don't mind, because it is usually certain that they have already nailed down the next book.
If author is known to write series it doesn't seem unreasonable to create series starting with first book. Something could happen so that the next book isn't published but that doesn't change the book being written as first book in series. Series page seems ideal place to indicate that author is not writing more in series at this time but plans to do so in the future or indicating story continues in another series.edited for clarification
One book does not a series make.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "One book does not a series make."Agreed. I delete them when I see them.
As for self-published books, how should the new rule be applied?