Same ISBN, same cover, different page count

[Bruno]

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/93...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23...

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.

Cheers,

Bruno

[rivka, Former Moderator]

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.)

[Bruno]

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:

http://www.goodreads.com/photo/work/1...

Cheers,

Bruno

[rivka, Former Moderator]

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.

[Bruno]

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).

[rivka, Former Moderator]

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.

[Dori]

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?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Yes, probably.

[Bruno]

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.