Please combine these two.

[Mark]

This listing:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

and this listing:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

are for the same story

it's the first listing (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...) that is correctly positioned within the series listing, but there are unique reviews and ratings on the other listing that should be added to this one.

Many thanks.

[Tami]

The description reads "25,000 word novella. Jalan and Snorri set sail for the New World. Included in the limited signed & numbered special edition omnibus."

Goodreads policy says https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/... "A short story or short stories only published in an anthology or magazine" and "Extras only published at the back of a specific book edition" are Invalid. This is why the first record was marked invalid. According to the description added this is a story that appeared within another book and shouldn't have its own page. It's against Goodreads policies.

I see no indication the red cover was published in a way Goodreads consider valid for inclusion in the database as its own separate listing.

I see there's a valid edition here https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio... the blue kindle cover published in 2023. That's the one that should remain the kindle one, there's also an empty blue one that should be merged. If you wish to retain the ratings and reviews then move this post to the superlibrarian folder. So they merge the records and please refrain from adding book record that are invalid per Goodreads policies.

This merge requires a superlibrarian. You can move this request to the superlibrarian folder.

This is only possible when on the desktop site:

1. Click the (edit) button above & to the right of this discussion heading
2. Change the FOLDER to: Requests for Superlibrarians
3. Save

[Mark]

You're pointing me at a policy document that didn't exist when the item in question was posted.

[Tami]

Jun 13, 2023 is the last time the page was updated, not when the page was created. This policy has been in place for years. It existed back in 2020. You can confirm it with this announcement https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... the last time the policy was updated (the update does not relate to the topic of this request.)

[Mark]

Tami wrote: "Jun 13, 2023 is the last time the page was updated, not when the page was created. This policy has been in place for years. It existed back in 2020. You can confirm it with this announcement https:..."

I know. It was created in September 2020.

The listing was made in March 2020.

[Mark]

In any event - thanks for the advice. I've shifted this to the superlibrarian folder as requested.

Hopefully the ratings from 2020, being for exactly the story listed in 2023 will be deemed valid.

If not, that's life.

[Tami]

I'm not lying/making it up, this policy has been in place for years that short stories/extras/bonus at the back of an edition shouldn't have their own listing. I can point you to posts going as far as 2013/2014. Maybe it was written in another page than that one in the manual before, not everything was/is in the manual. Some pages have changed names. Before it was NAB, now we have invalid status for example. Things change. I can't find the announcement post, but Rivka there replying in the link. She's a former Goodreads staff/employee.

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

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

I'm not accusing you of a crime, just letting you know for the future and so you know why it was marked invalid. It's frustrating to not know why, at least it would be for me. So that's why I wrote all that. Sorry if it made you feel bad in some way. Also, giving you the information you might realize you published it in a valid way I don't know about. I'm not familiar with your work.

And yes, the rating from 2020 are valid if the story is the same story. It seems to be the same story (in my opinion.) You also said it was the same story we have not reason to doubt you. You wrote it.

[David]

For the "red cover" edition, my understanding is that it was never released on its own and therefore falls under the "shorts" definition Tami quoted. Although policy is to set shorts as Invalid, the reasoning is that this was preferred over merging them with an omnibus, since the reviews are for the short, not the omnibus. In this case we also have the option of merging with a valid edition, which I think is preferred as it will move the reviews to a more relevant place.

As for the "blue cover" editions, I see a redundant edition which I have queued for merging.

[Mark]

David wrote: "For the "red cover" edition, my understanding is that it was never released on its own and therefore falls under the "shorts" definition Tami quoted. Although policy is to set shorts as Invalid, th..."

Many thanks.

Currently, I can't see the blue cover edition, the red cover edition although listed as #3.5 in the Red Queen's War series isn't on the series listing, and the 130-ish ratings on the blue cover edition have vanished with it. But I guess once the queued merging has gone through this may resolve itself?

[David]

Short answer: it will take time

Longer answer: The blue cover edition is here: The New World. It can be reached by searching ASIN B0C71XXX3Q or, in a few days through other search methods. Merging it with the empty edition usually takes less than a day but lately has taken up to a week. I will merge the red cover edition after that, which will take another few days. None of these processes causes any reviews to be lost, they are just moved around between the editions.

[David]

This went faster than I expected. There should only be one edition now, the Kindle one with blue cover. I also added it back to the series, listed as #3.5, and you should be able to see all of that in a couple of days.