Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Please combine/merge
date
newest »


The page number listed in the eBook version is incorrect. It should be 390. That's the number of pages for the ePub version.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69...


The only electronic formats that have page numbers are LRF, ePub, and PDF.

"EPUB is designed for reflowable content, meaning that the text display can be optimized for the particular display device." from Wikipedia.

Sorry, that was kind of rambly.

Clarification is on this thread. See post #28 and following.
Jessica wrote: "I think ebooks should have page numbers so users can update their status of the book (I use a percentage method to figure this out). Using the number of ePub pages is good, since that format is popular (disregarding Kindle editions, which do have their own entries on goodreads)."
That seems reasonable.
That seems reasonable.


according to the manual....
official URL
This field is for entering a URL officially associated with that book, such as a page on an author's site for the book. It may also be an author or publisher's website for the book, if it contains additional information or resources. Fan sites, reviews, book sellers, Wiki pages or other such pages should NOT be listed.
So yes, a publisher link is acceptable. But since I did just find a link that would do on the author's website, please use the following link for all the versions of The Windup Girl. Thanks.
http://windupstories.com/2009/09/30/r...

Adobe Digital Editions show us the page numbers. And most stand alone readers use ADE to handle ePub and ADE is on Windows and OS X. So yes, we do have page numbers. I can go to say page 63 on my Sony Reader and page 63 on ADE for Windows and I'll be at the same page.

The only electronic formats that ha..."
I was sort of wrong... LRF does have page numbers, but that is depending on the size of the font. So that really doesn't count.
ePub's page numbers are not font size dependent.



JSWolf, have you ever heard the phrase 'beating a dead horse'? The thread I linked to in post #11, is from a thread not three weeks ago in which both the topics of the official URL and the reasons for leaving off the versions of the ebook are thoroughly discussed - with YOU. Feel free to reread the thread to refresh your memory.
There is no need to cite the definition again - as rivka said, the key phrase applying to a publisher's website is "...or publisher's website for the book, if it contains additional information or resources." The link that I deleted had no such additional information or resources.
As for whether to add the link you provided as the Official URL, I'll leave that to TPTB or a SuperL to make the determination on whether to add it or not.
What you provided is a link to the author's blog (on WordPress), and that particular page is only a post with links to reviews of the book in question.
Personally, I wouldn't call a blog post with reviews the 'official page' for the book, after all there are a number of posts about the book, here are two more:
http://windupstories.com/2009/07/03/c...
http://windupstories.com/2009/07/10/w...
Finally, it would be helpful if you would try to avoid insulting everyone for not immediately falling in line with what you think. As you've mentioned in other posts, you're new to this, and it would seem that you might possibly want to respect that a lot of policy and processes have been dicussed and decided upon in the years predating your arrival on the site. (I know there's plenty predating mine, and I've been here almost two years now.)
Since you've been told several times that on GR the policy is to NOT put the format in an edition of an ebook, implying that everyone who made and follows the policy is not "smart" is just antagonistic and insulting. We really do try to work together collectively and build consensus for the decisions that are made (unless there is a flat-out technical reason for why something needs to be the way it is.)
As was mentioned on the other thread, if you want to make the case to change the policy, feel free to open a thread in the appropriate section to begin a discussion of the merits of it. However, badgering and belittling the folks who are responding to your requests for edits to a book is not very productive.
Carolyn wrote: "We really do try to work together collectively and build consensus for the decisions that are made (unless there is a flat-out technical reason for why something needs to be the way it is.)"
Amen. We work very hard to foster than environment. :)
Amen. We work very hard to foster than environment. :)

I do want to apologize.
What I will do then is put the eBook format in as part of the description. I've been putting the ISBN numbers there if it's already used.

Okay.
The philosophy of edition records in the GR catalog is this: one ISBN = one edition, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.
Current compelling reasons are: the edition was published prior to the use of ISBNs; the edition was published by a press which does not use ISBNs; the edition is a reprint of an edition with the same ISBN but different cover art; the publishers have made a mistake and used the same ISBN for two completely different books.
Example 1: If a book is published in epub format with an ISBN of 1234511111 and in pdf format with an ISBN of 1234522222, then in GR we will have two edition records, one for the ISBN of 1234511111 and one for the ISBN of 1234522222, and both will have the format "ebook".
Example 2: If a book is published in epub format with an ISBN of 1234511111 and in pdf format with the same ISBN and the same cover art, then in GR we will have one edition record and it will have an ISBN of 1234511111 and the format "ebook".
Example 3: If a book is published in epub format with an ISBN of 1234511111 and in pdf format with the same ISBN but with different cover art, then in GR we will have two edition records, one with an ISBN of 1234511111 and one without an ISBN but with a note that it is an alternate cover edition for ISBN 1234511111. Both editions will have the format "ebook".
Example 4: If a book called "Some Book" by publisher "Some Publisher" is published with an ISBN of 1234511111 and a completely different book called "Unrelated Book" by publisher "Not Even The Same Publisher" is also published with an ISBN of 123451111, then in GR we will have two edition records, one which uses the ISBN 1234511111 and one without an ISBN but with a note that it is a different publisher's accidental use of an ISBN already otherwise used.
Note: An ASIN is the same as an ISBN for the GR catalog.
Example 5: If a book is published in epub format with an ISBN of 1234511111, in pdf format with the same ISBN and the same cover art, and in Kindle format with an ASIN of ABCDEFGHI, then in GR we will have two edition records, one with an ISBN of 1234511111 and the format "ebook" and another with an ASIN of ABCDEFGHI and the format "Kindle".
Examples 3 and 4 are the only circumstances under which an edition published with an ISBN will be added to the GR catalog without its ISBN in the ISBN field.
Under the current guidelines, it is incorrect to create a new edition record for different ebook formats when the ISBN is the same as an ISBN already in the catalog as an ebook edition for that book. If there is additional valid information which can be provided for the edition already using that ISBN, the edition can be edited to show that additional information. It is valid to put the format or list of formats associated with the ISBN in the edition or description fields.
These are the current rules. If you disagree with them, they are open for discussion; however, while the rules are still standing, librarians will continue to correct the catalog to meet the rules.

I agree. That was so nicely worded, we should capture it.

When I tried to combine them I could only find the latter one listed.

I went ahead and fixed it and combined.
ETA: It looks like the first book has an incorrectly entered ISBN-10. In all other aspects it's identical to the other listing. It will need to be deleted by a super. I re-copied the link below.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/79...
Paula wrote: "Beautiful - should we add to the librarian manual to assist in further clarification"
Hmm. I agree that it was very well put; I'm not sure how it would/should/could be listed in the manual. I'm open to suggestions!
Hmm. I agree that it was very well put; I'm not sure how it would/should/could be listed in the manual. I'm open to suggestions!

Maybe a new section under ISBNs titled "How do ISBNs work with eBooks?" Although, in that case, you might need to add the fact that eBooks sometimes just duplicate the ISBN of the hardcover/paperback they are associated with.
The one I created is http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/79... and the one that existed before is http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69...
In the one that existed before, the published date is incorrect as it should be September 01, 2009. And the Official URL is missing.
Thanks.