Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Book Issues > Same ISBN, same cover, different page count

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Bruno (new)

Bruno (bpadinha) | 15 comments

These two have the same ISBN13 (though only one states an ISBN10), the same cover as well (except for prices in back cover), but very different page counts, so we split them into two editions.

Is that correct?

Check the additional images in the book record, if you want.



message 2: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
I can see no support for the large page number, and think the librarian who changed it was mistaken (or confused with another edition). I'd merge the two editions and add the ISBN-13 to the one with just the ISBN-10 (or v.v.)

message 3: by Bruno (new)

Bruno (bpadinha) | 15 comments Hi Rivka,

We both posted a photo of the last page of our editions, mine's clearly smaller than the other one. And looking at the sentences I see they decreased the margin space, probably in order to save on costs, and thus decrease the cover price, which is also visible in the attached photos of the back cover.

Did you manage to look at the photos? They're posted here, please take a look and let me know:



message 4: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Interesting that none of the various online sites have the longer page count. But sure, if y'all care about keeping separate editions due to page count alone, go for it. I suggest a Librarian's Note on each, though.

message 5: by Bruno (new)

Bruno (bpadinha) | 15 comments Sure. In my experience, page counts online (at least on amazon) are very inaccurate. Personally, I think it may be relevant in the future for collectors, and the publishing year is also different.

Lib note added to "original" edition as well (latest one already had).

message 6: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Amazon's page counts are horrendous, and B&N only slightly better. However, WorldCat's are usually correct (or very close) and so are many library sites.

message 7: by Dori (new)

Dori (adorible) | 198 comments Dumb question, but should the two different editions each have one of the ISBN's? It just seems a little odd. Shouldn't one edition have both?

message 8: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Yes, probably.

message 9: by Bruno (new)

Bruno (bpadinha) | 15 comments I see your point. The criteria was that the older one (both in publishing date and in GR record) lists only the ISBN13 on the back cover, and the other one lists both.

But I think it's ok either way.

back to top