SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Group Business
>
Problem with the May Poll (resolved)
date
newest »
newest »
Well, it does have 195 pages in Kindle edition. I think it counts. Who says that paper is more important? Maybe they used super small font?
Can't we just say "Tsk tusk" and go with the winner?
LOL. I did feel weird when THREE of the books I voted won the polls for May.
Option C would be my default, since you're not ignoring the issue; but I probably won't be able to join since I've got my hands full until at least some time in June, so I'll go with the flow.
Mod
thank you all for the feedback! keep it coming!
Olga wrote: "Well, it does have 195 pages in Kindle edition. I think it counts. Who says that paper is more important? "My thought exactly. Unless the "most popular" edition is an audiobook and lists the pages as like "8" or something, I think going with the page count of the edition that returns in the search is fine.
I say stick with it. :)
I'm fine with letting it ride, it's still over 600 pages to read if you plan on reading both books.
The reason why ”the ebook has 192 pages” isn’t enough is that it’s incorrect information. The 160 pages rule is the typical cutoff for novellas, but what we’re really looking for is word count. Since we don’t know the word count of most published works, page count is all we have. If a book has about 100 pages (print, Kindle), but Kobo has decided to list it as 192 Kobo pages, the 100 is what counts, since it’s the actual length of the work, not an arbitrary number a seller came up with.I am a GR librarian. I could change the page count of The Name of the Wind to 25 and say look it’s a short story, but that wouldn’t be true. The page count would be incorrect, just like 192 is incorrect for Tusks.
If we all shelved The Velveteen Rabbit as scifi, that wouldn’t make the book scifi, nor would it make it eligible for a scifi theme.
What counts is what the work actually is, not what GR’s often incorrect tags/data make it seem.
I hope that makes sense?
Also, for imaginary bonus points, guess which mod was behind each suggested option? 😂
I'd thin reopening the poll plus adding the next book that didn't qualify would work for me
What determines "what the book actually is" though? Is it enough that it's just a publisher's page count on a printed edition, or does format matter? MMPB vs Hardcover page count varies greatly. I just pulled a hardcover of Wolves of the Calla off my shelf and it's 709, while the Wolves of the Calla paperback edition is 960. The MMPB is the one that comes up first in the search. Regarding changing the NOTW page count - that would be silly. Nobody would believe that Rothfuss could write something as short as 25 pages. His grocery list probably qualifies as a novella. :P
For the record, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just looking for clarity. :) I'm happy to keep Tusks because I'm more interested in that than Dauntless, but if the decision is to replace to meet the eligibility, then that's fine too.
Mod
Yeah that’s what I mean, we don’t know, we can only go by what publishers tell us. Macmillan says print is 112 including author’s note and ebook 192, but since it’s fair to assume the content is the same, and Kindle length is 105, the majority of the editions we can look at are 105-112, and that’s what we use.
Many ebook sites list ”pages” as what fits on their ereader, that has nothing to do with actual length.
Mod
Mod
The question is not whether Tusks is eligible, it’s not, but whether people are OK with that, or we do something about it.
Mod
Mel got 1/3 right, and to make clear which one 😅 I only care about things being fair! Why should Ryan get to cheat but members have to stick to rules?! Revoting is the only fair option, and this thread also counts as revoting if the current results stand.
Anna wrote: "The question is not whether Tusks is eligible, it’s not, but whether people are OK with that, or we do something about it."Melanie wrote: "Ryan wants to go with runner up. I agree but for selfish reason not related to the principal of the thing."
Although I suggest keeping it, there could be issues down the road. The kind with someone irritated that their nomination was disqualified due to insufficient page length when this one went through. I'll be surprised if that doesn't happen, frankly.
(Ryan didn’t cheat, it was an honest error and no one noticed, Ryan picked the poll books is what I mean.)
Mod
stick with the winner(I'd even be fine with novelettes.)
Mod
Melanie wrote: "Ryan wants to go with runner up. I agree but for selfish reason not related to the principal of the thing."
Although I suggest keeping it, there could be issues down the road. The kind with someone irritated that their nomination was disqualified due to insufficient page length when this one went through. I'll be surprised if that doesn't happen, frankly
Hah! I wanted this conversation to happen in the poll comments thread or the first impressions thread so that if Tusks was allowed on the shelf we'd be able to point out why the precedent was made (and why it wouldn't be allowed to happen again if someone argued otherwise). I'll drop a link to this thread in both for future reference.
Not being a fan of democracy, I would have preferred we abandon Tusks and instead all read The Outskirters Secret. Tusks is good but it's not the short story I would ever have bent the rules for. Not that I would ever deliberately break rules.
Ryan wrote: "Not being a fan of democracy, I would have preferred we abandon Tusks and instead all read The Outskirters Secret."that wasn't in the poll was it?
Mod
I vote to keep the winner. No harm no foul.
Mod
For the record, I didn't vote for Tusks. I voted for The Scourge Between Stars (which I am now thinking about nominating for the June SF poll).
Ryan wrote: "Seems like a lot of people saying to stick with Tusks are people who voted for it. Not that I have any problem with that. I'm happy to hear from all of you. Please don't hold back from posting just..."I didn't vote for it, just for the record!
I also had a thought. Why can't the page-count rule be modified to something lower retroactively? I don't think it would bother many people to have shorter things allowed in the polls.
Mod
Ryan wrote: "@Michelle, I'd be happy to read opinions on that in a new or different thread!"Never let it be said that I don't know when to take a hint...
I have read this book.. here is my review The Tusks of Extinction
by Ray Nayler
A cross over book of modern problems and future catastrophe. The book looks at human invention in a new light, how we can create through DNA extraction the re establishments of extinct species. How the modern worlds problems like poaching and over use of resources seen as commodities, with out looking at the ramifications? If we brought back a species from extinction how could we, how would we protect them from the same poaching, and resource commodities that took them out? This is a book that introduces the problem in a new and alluring way. Using scientific advancement to personalize the problem of commodities, illegal trade, and animal resources. The short nature of the story could make it useful in school settings providing discussion about these economic and political topics.
Option 3. Tusks is ineligible, even though accidentally included in the vote. And Dauntless was only 3 votes behind anyway, so clearly lots of people wanted it.
Michelle wrote: "Ryan wrote: "@Michelle, I'd be happy to read opinions on that in a new or different thread!"Never let it be said that I don't know when to take a hint..."
Here's the thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I would vote to keep Tusks. It's the anomalies that make reading the shelf more fun.
HeyT wrote: "I would vote to keep Tusks. It's the anomalies that make reading the shelf more fun."This!
Mod
While we can't make everyone happy, it seems the majority is okay with allowing a one time anomaly and will let sleeping elephants lie.
Thanks again, see you in the discussion threads!
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Scourge Between Stars (other topics)Wolves of the Calla (other topics)
Wolves of the Calla (other topics)
The Name of the Wind (other topics)
The Velveteen Rabbit (other topics)
More...
We're coming to you with hat in hand. The winning "book" on this month's poll is The Tusks of Extinction and we've come to learn that it is too short to meet our eligibility critera.
We added this book to the poll because the default version had 190 pages, which would make this book eligible. However, it turns out that the page count is actually closer to 112 pages and the default was for the Kindle page count.
Obviously, that makes this book much shorter than our 160 page limit. This was an oversight. It would not, in normal circumstances, be eligible, and if we'd scrutinized it to the same level we would any other nomination, it would not have been added to the poll.
So now we have to decide what to do.
Do we:
1. Live with the mistake and honor the winning selection for our May BOTM
2. Reopen the poll, remove Tusks of Extinction from the running and allow an additional 24 hours for voting on a replacement
3. Simply strike Tusks from the poll and go with the runner up, Dauntless, which was only 3 votes behind Tusks.
We apologize for the mistake, and appreciate your assistance in selecting the most equitable path forward for our group!