ISBN 0771093853 (and a discussion about page numbering in general)

[Ibis3]

Main text ends on page 402.

[[deleted user]]

Got it.

[Ibis3]

Thanks. Both this and the other book I posted about have afterwords of a few pages, but I'm assuming we don't include them in the page count?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Afterwords should be counted. Also book discussion questions, about the author, indexes -- anything that is text of the actual book or stuff about it, as opposed to previews/ads for other books.

[[deleted user]]

The Librarian Manual says:
"The number of pages in a book is meant to include all content except for advertisements and preview chapters for other books. Included end material may include acknowledgments, afterwords, appendices, author biographies, glossaries, indexes, notes, and suggested discussion questions."

So I guess we do.

[[deleted user]]

But then again, I usually don't include acknowledgments, afterwords, appendices, author biographies, glossaries, indexes, notes, and suggested discussion questions either. For me, the book ends at the final page of the story.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Please stick with the policy that was reached by consensus in this group.

[Ibis3]

Hmm. Can I suggest the Librarian manual be changed?
Here are my thoughts on this....
1. When counting progress, which is what I gather the most important thing that page count is used for here on Goodreads, it seems counter-intuitive to include indexes, glossaries and the like. I mean who reads them front to back?
2. Afterwords are often written by a person other than the author. They aren't really part of the body of the work in most cases.
3. Including an author bio? or discussion questions provided as promotional material by the publisher? That's really getting extraneous. Those pages aren't even numbered.
4. Front matter isn't included (unless people are counting them up on their own and adding them to the total) since they either don't have page numbers at all or have small Roman numerals.
5. If both front and back matter are to be included, I imagine most of the page counts given by publishers are correct. So why are there all these requests for new page numbers?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

There was a lengthy discussion that included all these points. It is what led to what is in the manual -- which is a compromise, like many things in it.

[Lobstergirl]

Sky wrote: "But then again, I usually don't include acknowledgments, afterwords, appendices, author biographies, glossaries, indexes, notes, and suggested discussion questions either. For me, the book ends at the final page of the story..."

That's ridiculous. Index and endnotes are integral to any book. Besides, they have page numbers. Why would you ignore numbered pages when giving a page count?

[Lobstergirl]

Ibis3 wrote: "Hmm. Can I suggest the Librarian manual be changed?
Here are my thoughts on this....
1. When counting progress, which is what I gather the most important thing that page count is used for here on ..."

Counting your own personal progress is not the most important thing when it comes to a page count. (Why would you assume that?) Goodreads records have to reflect the accurate number of pages in any book. This is why we make our best effort to see that book records conform to those of the Library of Congress or Worldcat.

I imagine most of the page counts given by publishers are correct. So why are there all these requests for new page numbers?

Page counts from sources like Amazon are almost always inaccurate. Why, I couldn't tell you. But in my experience 95% of the time they are totally wrong.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The "why" has to do with the fact that the numbers are usually estimates. There are certain standard page lengths, and books are assigned one of them. The actual book may be quite a few pages longer or shorter -- they are approximations.

[Lobstergirl]

it seems counter-intuitive to include indexes, glossaries and the like. I mean who reads them front to back?

Many people. You forgot bibliographies. Which I always go through.

[Lobstergirl]

rivka wrote: "The "why" has to do with the fact that the numbers are usually estimates. There are certain standard page lengths, and books are assigned one of them. The actual book may be quite a few pages longe..."

Why aren't they getting numbers from the publisher though?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The estimates come from the publisher, long before the actual book is printed.

[Lobstergirl]

[Ibis3]

Lobstergirl wrote: "That's ridiculous. Index and endnotes are integral to any book. Besides, they have page numbers. Why would you ignore numbered pages when giving a page count?"

They may be integral to a book or to a certain edition to a book. They may be valuable (or not). But when I'm counting my progress, I'm done (i.e. at 100%) when I finish the main body text. I don't sit down and read through the index. If an afterword is written by someone other than the author, it's an option whether to read it or not, but I don't wait until I've read some random professor's critique before I consider myself to have finished David Copperfield or The Republic. That's Dickens' or Plato's job. Same goes for notes. That's an editor's or an author's offer of help or further information, but if I'm content to read the author's text alone (in the first case), or am not researching to the depth that the author provides citations (in a scholarly/scientific work), I'm not compelled to read that just so I can say I'm finished the book.

So, let's say I'm reading a book--The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. The text ends on page 629. To me, I've read it when I get there. However, following that is a "Further Reading" page (631), "Notes to Phylogenies and Reconstructions" (632-637), "Bibliography" (638-655), "Illustration Credits" (656-660), and the "Index" (661-685). So are you saying that unless I read every word between aardvark and Zuckerkandl, Emile (not to mention all the citations to obscure scientific papers I'll never look at), I'll never finish this book? That's ridiculous. At the end, the percentage is 9% off and all the way through the numbers will be off too.

[Lobstergirl]

You can claim to have finished the book whenever you want to. All I'm saying is that a page count, whether on Goodreads or Worldcat, has to be accurate. It can't be tweaked to fit your personal definition of how long the book is.

At any rate, when you designate the book "read" Goodreads considers you 100% finished. Goodreads doesn't care whether you read every numbered page or not. Since you haven't read every page, consider yourself to be getting extra credit for all those unread pages.

[[deleted user]]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Besides, they have page numbers. Why would you ignore numbered pages when giving a page count?"

I don't ignore the page numbers because in most of the book I have read, interviews with the author, discussion topics for the book etc aren't numbered. But I'll keep looking for them and if I see them in the future, I'll change the page number of the book.

[[deleted user]]

I was reading through the Librarian Manual when I came across this:

"Ads, book previews, author biographies, and other such unrelated text should NOT be included in the page count."

Here it says that author biographies shouldn't be included, but at another place it says they should. (please see message #5)

What now?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Sky, can you please link to the two relevant entries in the manual? I agree that it should be internally consistent.

[[deleted user]]

Okay...
The entry which says author biographies should be included is http://www.goodreads.com/help/librari...

and for the other one, please go to
http://www.goodreads.com/help/librari...

there you can see the other entry under number of pages.

[Linda2]

Ibis3 wrote: "1. When counting progress, which is what I gather the most important thing that page count is used for here on ..."

Ibis3,
I've been following this with some interest and a little amusement. GR has these progress graphs and scorecards as if reading books were a game. The most important thing is whether the book has added something to your life or taught you new ways of looking at things, or even whether you found it entertaining. If you were to read 1000 books and gained nothing from them, what would the scorecard mean? And would it matter if you read a really awful book and stopped at page 100, never to finish? I've probably left dozens of books in the middle over the years. Some of the most erudite members I know here don't keep a "My Books" list. We need to put the graphs and scores into perspective.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Thanks, Sky. I corrected them (going with the one that had been edited most recently) so they now agree. No author bios.

[Velma]

Lobstergirl wrote: "All I'm saying is that a page count, whether on Goodreads or Worldcat, has to be accurate."

Not that it matters, but I am in complete agreement with you 'cuz facts is facts. If a physical page is numbered, it goes in the count, natch. Personally, I always feel a bit cheated that preface pages, although numbered (in italics), aren't included in the count.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Velma, we considered that, but it's too hard and too confusing to implement.

I agree with you entirely, though.

[Sandra]

Velma wrote: Not that it matters, but I am in complete agreement with you 'cuz facts is facts. If a physical page is numbered, it goes in the count, natch...."

The problem with that, is that a lot of books have excerpts from the next book or many books, and they are numbered pages, just as if the book continued.

Now I would never include them, but your argument would suggest they should be and I know you didn't mean that at all.

[Velma]

rivka wrote: "Velma, we considered that, but it's too hard and too confusing to implement.

I agree with you entirely, though."

I didn't realize GR considered including the preface in page count - intriguing. I can see why it would be problematic, and was really only giving my inner stickler a bit of airtime. We're on the same page (so to speak)!

Sandra wrote: "Now I would never include them, but your argument would suggest they should be and I know you didn't mean that at all."

Actually, you are incorrect: I did mean exactly that. I'm advocating that all pages included in a sequential pagination schema be included in a page count; obviously, if addenda such as excerpts from other books are under a new pagination sequence, they would be excluded. IMO.