Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

47 views
Book Issues > What about this one?

Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by MissJessie (new)

MissJessie | 874 comments Armstrong 1961 Product Catalog

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18...

book or not a book?

No ISBN

If NAB, needs a super. If AB, never mind.


message 2: by Melody (new)

Melody (runningtune) | 13278 comments I'd put it in the category of "cereal box" (of which we've had a few) and delete it. But I'll let more people weigh in. The user who added it and rated it has not been on the site since April 2009 if that sways anyone.


message 3: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
I agree with deletion.


message 4: by MissJessie (new)

MissJessie | 874 comments Go for it Rivka.


message 5: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl It's a hardcover book. I don't really see the justification for deleting it.


message 6: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
It's a product catalog.


message 7: by [ A ] (new)

[ A ] | 51 comments It appears to be a catalog from the hardware flooring manufacturer Armstrong. I can't manage to find any info about this anywhere on the web. But I suspect it to be similar to the hardcover sample books you find when you go to a wallpaper store, furniture store, etc.

But I guess the question is.... does a "product catalog" count as a book? Do we have any other examples of such a thing?


message 8: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
The only similar item I can think of is the historically-significant early Sears catalog. I doubt this really meets the same criteria.


message 9: by Abcdarian (new)

Abcdarian | 22280 comments Goodreads has old Sears Roebuck & Montgomery Ward catalogs, stamp catalogs, type catalogs, coin catalogs, software catalogs, tons of catalogs for art objects of various kinds, etc. etc., all products when you come right down to it. I don't really care one way or the other, but where would you draw the line?

Might also take into consideration the reasoning of the person who added the book/not book: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/32...


message 10: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Who hasn't been active in over a year. And not one other person has shelved the item. Unlike the old Sears catalog.

The other catalogs mostly have ISBNs. Which makes it not a deletion issue but a NAB one -- and I've certainly NAB'd some.


message 11: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Also, a book listing lots of stamps, art items, or what-have-you is very different than one listing flooring samples. What next, the little booklets of paint chips?


message 12: by Abcdarian (new)

Abcdarian | 22280 comments Sorry, wasn't trying to upset anybody!


message 13: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
<-- not upset

<-- argues discusses with vigor! ;)


message 14: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl rivka wrote: "Also, a book listing lots of stamps, art items, or what-have-you is very different than one listing flooring samples. What next, the little booklets of paint chips?"

In the eye of the beholder, etc. Floor samples might be of historical or aesthetic interest to someone just like stamps and artworks are of interest to another. Maybe that member was interested in the history of Pergo. And I think judgments about works here ought to be independent of whether a member has been active in X amount of time. It's about the book, not the member.


message 15: by MissJessie (new)

MissJessie | 874 comments I still say go for it Rivka.


message 16: by MissJessie (last edited Sep 28, 2010 07:58PM) (new)

MissJessie | 874 comments I was just thinking, I got a Coldwater Creek catalogue today, along with a J.Jill and a ULine that is quite huge with every imaginable plastic container known to man. Yesterday, LL Bean. Shall I add them too?

And my Digikey catalogue is beyond compare.


message 17: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Are they hardcover like this one is?


message 18: by willaful (new)

willaful Does the format matter? Ebooks have no cover at all, but they're still books. A hardcover shouldn't have more legitimacy than any other format.


message 19: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl I would privilege a hardcover "catalog" over a catalog with no cover and staples holding it together, like in Jessie's example. That's the only sense in which I'm emphasizing hardcover.

I think there's a tendency to be delete-happy and I don't quite see the point of it. I would include all coloring books as books, for example. I don't think it hurts to err a little on the side of being more inclusive rather than less.


message 20: by willaful (new)

willaful Funny, I feel exactly the opposite, that there's a tendency to keep too much. I don't like clutter. ;-)


message 21: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl There are many Goodreads books I wish didn't exist, like everything from Books LLC, and some other categories. Unfortunately, they do, so I am one of those people who un-Nabs them when I see them.


Petra X 95% hiatus, no time for play just work (petra-x) Lobstergirl wrote: "There are many Goodreads books I wish didn't exist, like everything from Books LLC, and some other categories. Unfortunately, they do, so I am one of those people who un-Nabs them when I see them."

There are some very good books from LLC. I have a few favourites where someone (or an algorithm) has done a massive amount of research and put together histories from articles that would otherwise be a heck of a lot of work.


message 23: by Carolyn (new)

Carolyn (seeford) | 579 comments I'm in the 'declutter' group myself - I'd vote to delete it.


message 24: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments I wish there were a way to be sure that it was something republished in 2007 -- in which case it would clearly have some historical significance which is escaping us non-flooring-fan plebes -- or if it was, more suspiciously, something without a publication date which picked up the year in which it was added to the GR catalog.

Philosophically, I am absolutely on the side of "when in doubt, keep it in the catalog", though.


message 25: by James (new)

James (james_k_bowers) | 152 comments willaful wrote: "Funny, I feel exactly the opposite, that there's a tendency to keep too much. I don't like clutter. ;-)"

Clutter isn't clutter as long as it's organized. More to the point of this discussion, though, wouldn't this be something of interest to say... interior designers, home improvement contractors, architects, etc. who happen to like books? If the decision was mine to make, I'd say leave it there...


message 26: by MissJessie (last edited Sep 29, 2010 09:55AM) (new)

MissJessie | 874 comments Paperbacks are books too as has been pointed out (or, softcovers, if you prefer).

And my Digikey and Uline catalogues are many hundreds of pages long, with great pictures (Uline anyway). I have purchased based on the photos. Digikey, mostly little drawings. NOt to mention the really excellent Fire Mountain catalogue of all things for the beader, with brilliant photos. Purchased too much here too.

But none of this is pertinent to the question, really.

I don't think product catalogues are books. Exhibit catalogues, etc., of course. But catalogues for a particular product line, be it flooring, plastic containers, or clothes, or every bead known to man, not.

I grant you the historical reference, but none of these will be historic for another 80-100 years or so. I doubt that GR will be around in this form, or any of us either, then.


message 27: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments By way of comparison, when I worked in an academic art library in college, they kept on the shelves the art auction catalogs for some of the big auction houses like Sotheby's, because the collections offered for sale functioned like exhibits and because the auction catalogues contained a lot of information which was very useful to academics.

I'd consider catalogs of most kinds analogous to periodicals, actually, and for periodicals we generally consider them books if they are "book-like", which is not a terribly helpful term but which seems to be the best we have. Binding is often a consideration when determining "book-likeness", though, which means that Lobstergirl's point about it being listed as hardcover is pertinent.


message 28: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
Cait wrote: "I wish there were a way to be sure that it was something republished in 2007 -- in which case it would clearly have some historical significance which is escaping us non-flooring-fan plebes -- or i..."

Given that Google's only reference for this volume in the GR listing, I think this is pretty clear.


message 29: by Lobstergirl (last edited Oct 07, 2010 09:04PM) (new)

Lobstergirl In the meantime, someone has seen fit to create an author named "to delete" which is what, some kind of book purgatory? And they also changed the format of the Armstrong Product Catalog from "hardcover" to "catalogue" - which seems more like a genre than a physical format.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/...


message 30: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 45058 comments Mod
At least some of those should have their correct author, and then get merged with their correct companions.


back to top