series that seems mismatched with edition

[Lobstergirl]

This may have been covered in another thread but I didn't see it, so. I understand there is a rule that all editions should belong to a series, or none should. (Although technically I didn't find it in the librarian manual, where it should be, I found it in a thread.) So for a book like this:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...

which is a New York Review Books edition, it gets the series tacked on "Crime Masterworks #13". But that particular series has nothing to do with NYRB editions. That series appears to be created by a specific publisher, Orion:

http://www.goodreads.com/series/52263...

So shouldn't only the Orion crime masterworks (and not the NYRB or other editions) carry the Crime Masterworks series label?

[Sandra]

You're right Lobstergirl. This is the series vs collection debate.

Every edition of a book should be part of the series, if not, then that series shouldn't exist.

[Lobstergirl]

I kind of think the rule is flawed. Because the Crime Masterworks series does exist (in real life), it just doesn't apply to all editions. Someone remind me why we have this rule?

[Gerd]

It's the same with the SF Masterworks series.
From a collector's viewpoint the specific editions belong together, but from a reader's point they share nothing in common other than genre.

The database programming would need to be changed so that one could select if a series affects all editions or only specific ones.