Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Book & Author Page Issues
>
"NOT A BOOK" VANDAL STRIKES
date
newest »
newest »
If you have a book that was called a magazine in its description and then given Not a Book status by a librarian per the definition of a magazine not being a book, then it's probably more a question of interpretation rather than vandalism.You make a good case for it being kept as a book. I'll contact the librarian that made the change and point them this way so they can look into the issue, and provide more information if that's needed.
At any rate, it doesn't look like a situation involving vandalism or sabotage, but simply interpretation. Most librarians have better things to do than intentionally falsify book records or be unfair to reviewers.
ETA: I see that you're a librarian and that you've changed the book record back. I did give the librarian a head's up to this thread. In future instances, I'd suggest that step first.
I know the posters that did it. They said they did it because, according to a head librarian, it was not a book. It is also marked for deletion. I will see what I can do, but if it's marked for deletion, there's not much that I can do.
I don't see why it would be deleted; at most, it should be NAB'd. Esp. something with a review. Unless something has changed that I've missed, I can't understand a deletion. Clarification would be helpful.If I'm not confused, perhaps someone (RIVKA?) should have a word with the offender.
It was not deleted - it was NAB'd It has no ISBN and is a "magazine"
I'd be inclined to side with Tentatively on this. It's not like it's an issue of Newsweek or Family Circle. It's something with serious content, and no advertising. 293 pages.I don't see any difference between this publication, and something like Antaeus, a literary journal.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83...
Antaeus was available either by subscription, or you could buy a single copy in a bookstore. I bought my copy in a bookstore. It has an ISBN. Far from being a "magazine," it's more of an anthology of essays. Maybe we need to rethink the difference between magazines, and literary journals which look just like trade paperbacks.
Yes, but Goodreads shouldn't be confined to books. After all, it's Good
reads
. You don't just read books, you also can read magazines. It doesn't matter if it has an ISBN or not, all that matters is that it can be read. Otherwise, it would be Goodbooks. I believe that Goodreads shouldn't be confined to books.
Magazines/journals are allowed, if not encouraged, as the "unofficial" policy says. There are several threads on this.NAB'ing is inappropriate in this case, I believe. There are some librarians who seem to have a problem with magazines/journals, though, and take it upon themselves to NAB them, even though they are allowed. It would be nice if this could be stopped.
And, Btw, I agree with Nathan re "GoodReads", not "GoodBooks".
I don't think we should read too much into the name Goodreads. Let's acknowledge that every single thing that can be read is not appropriate or desirable in the database: brochures, newspapers, memos, emails, signage, the backs of cereal boxes.
Well, since a search for the item in question by author or title comes up empty, it's been deleted, inappropriately, from the database, no matter how you define it.
This is the book in question, I believe. So it has not been deleted and has been switched back to being a book. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12...
Did not come up when I searched; another victim of the search engine am I. Never mind.
Lobstergirl wrote: "I don't think we should read too much into the name Goodreads. Let's acknowledge that every single thing that can be read is not appropriate or desirable in the database: brochures, newspapers, me..."Fortune cookies, shirt size tags, greeting cards, medicine labels.
MissJessie wrote: "Did not come up when I searched; another victim of the search engine am I. Never mind."hah! It's because the person who changed it back to a book made the author "Bejamin" instead of "Benjamin." I just fixed it. ;)
LOL. I can't blame the search engine then :) Sorry guys.
MissJessie wrote: "LOL. I can't blame the search engine then :) Sorry guys."Sorry to burst your bubble, lol! ;)
I think it should be NAB'd if it is a magazine. If it is a bound publication with ISBN then it is ok. If it is just a magazine then where is the line drawn? The reason the OP is up in arms is because he is a contributor to this issue as can be seen here - http://www.the-open-space.org/current...
Why? Presumably because this person objected to my reviewing "The OPEN SPACE magazine". I want to point out that some magazines are, indeed, books. They're called "magazines" partially so that subscription money can be raised to support their printing. They contain no advertising & are usually targeted at small specializing readerships. That's the case here.
There are many things on Goodreads that some might object to as being described as "books": when I was a child, for example, a comic book (despite the presence of the word "book" in its name) would've never been taken seriously as a book. Now they're exalted, even when they're serialized (as their predecessors were), as "graphic novels". I welcome this change. Many books are published as issues of magazines. On Goodreads we can find, for example, "Angry Women" (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51...) - this is issue 13 of Re/Search magazine.
What constitutes a "book"? According to probably any dictionary one is likely to consult (I chose http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...) one is likely to get this:
book /bʊk/ noun
1. a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.
That certainly describes "The OPEN SPACE magazine".
I use GoodREADs as an online place where I can post reviews of things I READ. Since what I READ is often somewhat more scholarly & esoteric than vampire novels & comic books, these GOOD READS are often unfamiliar to other Goodreads folks.
I object to any Goodreads person's VANDALIZING my careful reviews of unusual materials for any reason whatsoever. The editors of "The OPEN SPACE magazine" are NOT NAMED "NOT A BOOK" & the person who VANDALIZED MY REVIEW IN THIS WAY IS ACTING IMMATURELY, OBNOXIOUSLY & UNFAIRLY.
I haven't written this in order to engage in argument. I'm simply informing my fellow Goodreads librarians that one of our number is acting in this censorious way. I have no intention of even monitoring any replies from this person or of engaging in this dispute any further. I have better things to do - like write books!