Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

150 views
Policies & Practices > Genre knowledge (and bias)

Comments Showing 1-50 of 55 (55 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Seth (new)

Seth | 12 comments (rant on)
When editing books in a genre, please know the genre. I was amazed to see The Faces of Science Fiction and The Faces of Fantasy combined into one edition. Even if someone doesn't think the two are separate genres, the widely-differing covers and publication years might have been a clue.

Similarly, the Hugo awards are a complicated thing with a long and messy history. Not every book edited by Asimov with "Hugo Winners" in the title is part of the same edition. Please let someone with the genre knowledge or with the time and inclination to research the subject handle long series and anthologies like that.
(rant off)

Of course, almost all of the genre editing is excellent. These just showed up on my duplicate book list and confused me for a considerable length of time. And I know I don't know enough to sort out the various Hugo collections. With a reload of the Asimov booklist on every page turn. shudder


message 2: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse oh heck the Hugo Winners is a minefield! don't drag me in there--I'm still sorting out PKD!


message 3: by Carolyn (last edited Apr 22, 2009 02:49PM) (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments I'm with you on this one Seth!
I just fell into a huge list of Sherlock Holmes stuff - audio tapes of a mystery series that a sf/f author did (Anthony Boucher) - and someone had combined anything that said 'Sherlock Holmes' into one big edition. There were almost 100 of them, almost all had specific edition info in the title (number 11, number 20, etc.) or names of the stories included in that one. I have no idea why they would DO that! Took me almost 2 hours to separate and then recombine them all correctly, because there were multiple editions of most every title, all worded differently.
Yuk!


message 4: by vicki_girl (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments Carolyn wrote: I'm with you on this one Seth!
I just fell into a huge list of Sherlock Holmes stuff - audio tapes of a mystery series that a sf/f author did - and someone had combined anything that said 'Sherlock Holmes' into one big edition. There were almost 100 of them, almost all had specific edition info in the title (number 11, number 20, etc.) or names of the stories included in that one. I have no idea why they would DO that! Took me almost 2 hours to separate and then recombine them all correctly, because there were multiple editions of most every title, all worded differently.
Yuk!


I really appreciate your help on the Sherlock Holmes. I literally spent weeks just sorting out 'His Last Bow' into the four distinct editions I could identify. After I finished, I included Librarian Notes, to make sure they didn't get accidentally combined again, to no avail. Whithin just few days someone had put them all back together. I haven't had the heart to go back and fix them again.

If you (or anyone else) is working on Doyle, here are the four editions of 'His last Bow' I identified:

1)'UK Edition' with seven stories - this edition DOES NOT have the story "The Adventure of the Cardboard Box"
2) 'US Edition' with eight stories - includes the same stories as the British edition as well as "The Adventure of the Cardboard box"
3) "His Last Bow" as a stand alone short story
4) Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes - Six? stories which does not include the actual story 'His Last Bow'

Also of Note, there are some editions titled 'His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes', which are usually reprints that go with either (1) or (2) above.

Fortunately, for most editions, I included a list of contents for the ones I was able to find via Google or Worldcat. Therefore, someone should be able to view the description for each one and get them sorted properly. For a few, I could not find any info, and had just put them with the UK edition (since I had to put them somewhere).

If no one gets to this, I will revisit it eventually, but I need more time for the coals of frustration to die down some more...


message 5: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments vicki_girl wrote: "After I finished, I included Librarian Notes, to make sure they didn't get accidentally combined again, to no avail. Whithin just few days someone had put them all back together."

I feel pretty strongly that ignoring clear Librarian Notes should be grounds for removing librarian status. :(


message 6: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
I tend to agree, although I suggest that a single case might be an accident. However, a pattern of ignoring such notes is certainly a problem -- one which I would suggest bringing to Jessica's attention.


message 7: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Or at least a short spell in Librarian Boot Camp. With the emphasis on "Boot"!


message 8: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
Laughing 17

What would LBC consist of?


message 9: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse We just give them Sisyphus's list, then watch, point and giggle.


message 10: by Carolyn (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments LOL! I like SQRL's idea!

But to give them a real taste of what they actually did, maybe we could have the system toss out all their changes every night, after, say, 10-15 hours of editing?

(Argh! my sympathies, Vicki-girl! Did you pm them once you had calmed a bit?)


message 11: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
SF SQRL wrote: "We just give them Sisyphus's list, then watch, point and giggle."

Carolyn wrote: "to give them a real taste of what they actually did, maybe we could have the system toss out all their changes every night, after, say, 10-15 hours of editing?"

You ladies are evil and brilliant. I approve. :D


message 12: by jenjn79 (new)

jenjn79 | 565 comments I think the auto-combine link (I HATE auto-combine) is sometimes to blame for wrongly combined books. Not always, but sometimes.

I like the idea of LBC, though ;) Could we send the people who seem addicted to unnecessarily manually adding books?


message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
They would make the Sisyphean list even longer! (Although infinity + a finite number is an infinity of the same size.)


message 14: by Carolyn (last edited Apr 22, 2009 02:03PM) (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments AND the people who persist in adding authors in the wrong format:
'Lname, FName'
or
'author name & author name'


But I like auto-combine - especially when I find an author with very few works, multiple copies, and it's obvious that no librarian has been on the page...one click and they are done!

Besides, my Sherlock Holmes case [above:] was most definitely deliberate - the titles were all completely different!


message 15: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
Carolyn wrote: "But I like auto-combine - especially when I find an author with very few works, multiple copies, and it's obvious that no librarian has been on the page...one click and they are done!"

Agreed! But it is a huge pain to undo when it is used incautiously. (Better since we have the separate tool, but still a pain.) bad enough when I have clicked it and then gone, "uh oh . . ." Much worse when someone else has carelessly clicked and undone the work.


message 16: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 963 comments My guess is someone saw the beginning of the title and not the end.

I stay well clear from auto-combine. And if I see a Librarian note, I run far far away.


message 17: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
Sherri wrote: "Could there be librarians running around on tiny power trips, in little tin god crowns, combing higgidy piggedy just because they CAN?"

Probably there are some. But there are more who sincerely think they are being helpful as they undo hours of someone else's work. Which makes them that much harder to deal with, of course.


message 18: by Carolyn (last edited Apr 22, 2009 02:56PM) (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments I don't know... a lot of them are varying types of this:

NEW ADV SHERLOCK HOLMES #7:CASE OF OUT OF DATE MURDER & WALTZ OF DEATH

NEW ADV SHERLOCK HOLMES #7:CASE OF OUT OF DATE MURDER & WALTZ OF DEATH (New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Vol 7/Audio Cassette)

NEW ADV SHERLOCK HOLMES #8:COLONEL WARBURTON'S MADNESS AND THE IRON BOX (New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) (Audio Cassette)

Colonel Warburton's Madness & Other Mysteries: The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Audio CD)

The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: Colonel Warburton's Madness/The Iron Box Vol 8 (Audio Cassette)

The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Vol. 8: CS: Colonel Warburton's Madness and The Iron Box (Sherlock Holmes) (Audio Cassette)

NEW ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES VOL #10 IN FLANDERS FIELDS AND THE EYES OF MR. (New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) (Audio Cassette)


I kinda think you have to be trying to not give a damn in order to combine all of these titles (and many more) together! This was definitely not an auto-combine issue.


message 19: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
WEIRD. I see your uncombines in the log, but no combines.


message 20: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments Maybe the combines were done by a deleted member.

I've occasionally seen incorrect data and when I've checked the librarians' log there is no information. Is it possible that some of these errors are automatically generated? I don't see how but I am curious.


message 21: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
Lisa wrote: "Maybe the combines were done by a deleted member."

Pretty sure that edits done by a member who later deletes their profile either show up as "deleted member" or as "Goodreads".


message 22: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments Rivka, Thanks. Yes, I've seen both those at edits so you're probably correct. What I don't understand though is I know I've seen books that have had edits of various sorts and there is nothing listed in their librarian change logs.


message 23: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse The librarian change log is relatively new; maybe some changes were made before it was introduced.


message 24: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments Squirrel, I think it was always actually there but just not visible to members, but maybe you're right; it would certainly explain those instances.


message 25: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
SF SQRL wrote: "The librarian change log is relatively new; maybe some changes were made before it was introduced."

Definitely. But I believe the edits Vicki is talking about were made within the past few days.


message 26: by Eva Marie (new)

Eva Marie (evamarie3578) | 755 comments Isis FG wrote: "I think the auto-combine link (I HATE auto-combine) is sometimes to blame for wrongly combined books. Not always, but sometimes.

I like the idea of LBC, though ;) Could we send the people who ..."


I agree here and with Carolyn! Those are two of my biggest pet peeves! I don't know if I'm a magnet or what but I find SO MANY additions of books that are right there in front of your face with a plain search. And I happen to come across most of them within a few days of them having been added. Am I on-line that much? :)



message 27: by Eva Marie (new)

Eva Marie (evamarie3578) | 755 comments Lisa wrote: "Rivka, Thanks. Yes, I've seen both those at edits so you're probably correct. What I don't understand though is I know I've seen books that have had edits of various sorts and there is nothing list..."

I was wondering about that myself. I didn't know that the change log was a new feature.


message 28: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse I vote we send whoever combined every book or set of books with "Master and Commander" in the title, and thought that Essays and Bibliography went well with Box Set.


message 29: by Eva Marie (new)

Eva Marie (evamarie3578) | 755 comments How about the ones who put their OWN description in where the book description goes? That goes double for the ones who put something like:
'book is about a man and woman. they have a relatonship where there are problems in it. things work out fine in the end.'

All mistakes are on purpose by the way! I've seen this with my own two eyes! LOL


message 30: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse *shudders*


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments What would LBC consist of?

Forced editing of The Eye of Argon?


message 32: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Wow...sadist!


message 33: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (last edited Apr 22, 2009 04:21PM) (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "Forced editing of The Eye of Argon?"

Melodramatic 2Melodramatic 2Melodramatic 2

Even they don't deserve that.


message 34: by vicki_girl (last edited Apr 22, 2009 05:15PM) (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments rivka wrote: "I believe the edits Vicki is talking about were made within the past few days. "


Actually rivka, it was about two months ago, but well after the log was established. Due to similarity of the titles I suspect Auto-combine was involved. I did add a note to NOT use Auto-combine for Doyle, so if I ever get around to fixing it, it hopefully won't happen again.

But Sherlock Holmes was incorrectly combined on purpose, some time ago. Several of the canon collections, like 'The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes', 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes', 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes', etc. (each with a different set of stories), were all combined together. I did some, and it looks like Carolyn is working on more, but it was/is pretty ridiculous.


message 35: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments Due to similarity of the titles I suspect Auto-combine was involveed.

Vicki, Titles have to be exactly the same for auto-combine to work. Auto combine won't combine editions that are even almost identical; they have to be exactly the same, sans whatever is in parentheses that is.


message 36: by vicki_girl (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments They were exactly the same. There are two versions of His Last Bow, US and UK, that have the same title, with no way to tell them apart. I spent many hours (over the course of several weeks) researching on Worldcat and Google to discern which editions belonged together.

My apologies that I wasn't clear with my last post.


message 37: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments Vicki, I see. Ugh. Thanks for all the work. Sometimes I wish info was added to make it clear which books don't belong together but given that we have librarians' notes now, those should suffice, and I think they do the majority of the time.


message 38: by vicki_girl (new)

vicki_girl | 2765 comments The sad part is, I added librarian notes (that are still there BTW), to the most popular edition of each group. Therefore I suspect auto-combine. The person may not have scrolled all the way down to where my notes were. That is why I added an author note, which shows up at the top, to tell people not to auto-combine.

Now that we have the notes that show up on the combine page, I had a thought. Do y'all think that we might reduce the mis-use of auto-combine if the link was at the bottom of the combine page, rather than the top? That way, there is an increased chance that someone will see Librarian notes for authors with many works.

If others are in favor, I can post it to the Feedback group.


message 39: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
vicki_girl wrote: "Do y'all think that we might reduce the mis-use of auto-combine if the link was at the bottom of the combine page, rather than the top?"

Doubtful. Too easy to scroll immediately to the bottom.

I'm still in favor of the auto-combine being inactive on any author with Librarian Notes -- either for the author or any of their books.


This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments I'm for getting rid of auto-combine completely.


message 41: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 44233 comments Mod
As was explained a few posts back, some of us would be very much against that.


message 42: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) | 2413 comments I'm careful with auto combine and don't use it regularly but use it. If I scan the entire author's work and I see that using auto combine will combine only editions that belong together, it can be a great time saver.


message 43: by Debbie (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Maybe auto-combine could at least come with a warning, an "are you sure?" kinda thing with a list of what will be combined.


message 44: by Carolyn (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments SQRL's idea is good, and I'd like to see that in all cases, but I also like rivka's idea of turning auto-combine off on any author with Librarian Notes.

This way the people messing with ones that have had extensive work done by Librarians would have to put effort into it to do that kind of combine. (Although it would still happen with misguided souls...)

Or what about disallowing auto-combine completely on any titles that have a Librarian Note on a book with that title?


message 45: by Debbie (last edited Apr 23, 2009 06:17AM) (new)

Debbie Moorhouse Or maybe Super-Librarians could have a reset button for librarian edits. "Rollback all combines after such-and-such a date, or by such a person."


message 46: by jenjn79 (new)

jenjn79 | 565 comments Maybe there could be a way for auto-combine to be disallowed for some authors...like a SuperLibrarian could go in and click a check box to disallow it on an author when requested.


message 47: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 963 comments Isis FG wrote: "Maybe there could be a way for auto-combine to be disallowed for some authors...like a SuperLibrarian could go in and click a check box to disallow it on an author when requested."

Like Nora Roberts :) I always see your note there :p


message 48: by BJ (new)

BJ | 27 comments Maybe some things could be locked and not allowed to be combined? If a librarian has the power to make the decision that a work can be combined, maybe they should have the equal power to say it can't, assuming they've already assessed the situation or wouldn't be writing a note to begin with. Of course someone higher up could override that.

Alternately, maybe there is a way to force someone to read a librarian note (like a pop-up) when making changes to books that have them. "Read this and make sure you want to make the changes"


message 49: by jenjn79 (new)

jenjn79 | 565 comments Jessica wrote: "Like Nora Roberts :) I always see your note there :p

Yeah, there's a set of books of hers that get combined by auto-combine when they shouldn't. I got tired of uncombining them. I spent weeks getting her stuff in order last year; I hate seeing it get messed up.


message 50: by Otis, Chief Architect (new)

Otis Chandler | 315 comments Mod
I had no idea auto-combine caused such problems! Though I know if a book is uncombined (either new or recently messed up and separated) that it's a useful tool. I'll move it to the bottom of the page with a warning if the author has more than 3 combined works.


« previous 1
back to top