Annuals

[Seth]

Should annuals be combined? Writers' Markets, Physician's Desk Reference, various CRC books, Llewelen's Almanacs, Shooter's Bible, Guinness Book of Records, certain Janes publications, etc.?

On the one hand, I would expect most people to rate and review the series independently of any given year (I'd do that for all of the above).

On the other hand, one particular year may have standout features someone feels should get a special review or rating (such as a Llewelen's Almanac with especially good/bad articles).

My inclination would be to combine and let people put any year-specific information in the review.

I do notice that each of these annuals has the property of having no clear auctorial presence. They are data and collections of essays.

Any guidance? I'd suggest combining, but it's not my database. What's the official view?

[rivka, Librarian Moderator]

My inclination would be to combine and let people put any year-specific information in the review.

Mine as well. It seems consistent with the general guidelines regarding editions and translations.

[Otis, Chief Architect]

The official view, which was decided in an earlier discussion thread in this group, is that they should be combined. Then members can review multiple editions or just one and mention the differences in their review.

For the full guidelines, check out the Librarian Manual:

http://www.goodreads.com/about/librar...

[Seth]

Great. Will do.

Should I assume this doesn't apply to annual anthologies (Year's Best , award winners, etc.)?

[Otis, Chief Architect]

I think thats a judgment call you can make. The lines are certainly gray, but the general consensus is that if people generally view the logical entity of the book as one thing, it should be combined.