Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Setting up series order...(comma?, #?, etc)
I heard from him and he's very sorry. Now he knows. Sounded like he had only the best of intentions. I'm sure it won't be the only time this happens. Thank you so much for helping, Isis. It was just too daunting for me when I saw it. Broke my heart, really.
Back at it.
Well, at least he didn't tell you to bugger off ;) And yes, it'll happen again. Though I think if someone screws around with all the work I did on Nora Roberts, I might just cry.
p.s. - I just PM'd you Kathrynn about an issue labeling the Sisterhood series.
I know you spent a very long time straightening out Nora Roberts books. I remember. Wow. I would cry! I saw your PM and gotcha! Thank you for the heads up.
;-)
Way to go, Isis. You are incredibly fast! (I'm doing a little dance!)
Thanks :) I've worked out a good system for doing mass edits like that.Anywho, the fix on author Fern Michaels is done. But who knows what other books the librarian changed.
Mod
I can send him an email (with a link to this thread and a pointer to your first message from today), but it might be better coming from you. Justified righteous indignation and all that. ;)
Isis, you can see his edits by clicking on the librarian link in his profile. (I actually do this with Otis sometimes, because auto-edits done by GR are often attributed to him.)
Rivka...I did poke a little in his edits...but unfortunately, in the couple months he's been a member, he's made 16,000+ edits...which is like 416 pages of them. I may be persistent, LOL, but not that much!Oh well. They'll get fixed sooner or later when someone stumbles onto them.
Mod
Kathrynn asked for the policy change a while back ago in the Feedback group and she was shot down. I think she was just lamenting the fact here.
Wouldn't this also be a good time to idly wish for the ability to lock up our work so someone else can't mess it back up?
Mod
I know. I think the only way we might change Otis' mind is to be sure he is aware -- in detail -- every time something like this happens. ;)
I think that along with the librarian manual, there should be page with directions explaining how each and every field of the book edit/manually add pages should be used.It would be someone very direct, easy to read and look at. And maybe it might help prevent some problems. Maybe GR could email it to every person accepted as a librarian.
Just my thoughts...
Mod
Isis_FG wrote: "I think that along with the librarian manual, there should be page with directions explaining how each and every field of the book edit/manually add pages should be used..."I would really like that. Great idea, Isis_FG!
I wouldn't have a problem writing it. If everyone thinks it's something that would be helpful, and GR approves that idea, I'd be happy to work on it.(p.s. - I also posted this idea in the Feedback thread about the librarian prerequisite that Kathrynn started)
Thanks, everybody, for averting crisis! I'll put in a word for increased librarian controls with the programming powers that be.
Mod
I think it would be extremely helpful.
Isis_FG wrote: "And yes, it'll happen again."Actually, I'd like to point out that this kind of problem will eventually go away, although other problems will creep in.
The problem in this case is that there is no intuitively obvious way of dealing with series. (Similar problems creep in because there is no intuitive way of dealing with pseudonyms, etc.).
As Otis (et al) tune and tailor the software, he will eventually create a system that is obvious enough that even a beginning librarian will see the trick.
For example, if there were a "Series Name" and "Series Number" field below the Title field, then we wouldn't be cramming the series name and everything else in the world in parentheses after the title.
This is the same problem that iTunes has gone through over its generations -- today, iTunes has not just "Artist" but also "Album Artist", "Sort Artist" and "Sort Album Artist". They also have number fields for tracks and discs, so an optional "total" can be added -- the Goodreads equivalent would be:
Title: Stone for an Eye
Series Title: Wick Poetry Chapbook Series
Number: 3 of 5
rivka wrote: "If everyone thinks it's something that would be helpfulI think it would be extremely helpful."
Yes, I think this would be helpful. I know when I first started editing as a librarian, it was truly addictive and if there is no external feedback and mentoring, then it is easy to not realize that many of these topics are already under discussion and a consensus may have been reached, and to just edit until the wee small hours of the morning. (It's my OCD coming out!)
Maybe we could make it mandatory to have to check these discussion threads periodically, especially with new librarians. It took me a while to realize how truly useful they were. Now I alway read these discussions first, see what is under consideration, and go from there.
The trick will be to make sure the new librarians do this as well. :)
Sherry
Mod
I have asked for that, but there are two problems: enforcement (what, do they have to post in some minimum number of threads? ;) ) and non-English speakers.
but there are two problems: enforcement (what, do they have to post in some minimum number of threads? ;) ) and non-English speakers.If a user doesn't speak at least rudimentary English, how does he or she navigate the site in the first place? The menus and the help screens are all in English.
Mod
Now I'm scared of screwing something up! Can someone else please check out W.E.B Griffin's books and confirm that all the series stuff is in the wrong format, please? I'll change them, I just want a little reassurance first. Thanks!
JG, Book Title (series info #)
I didn't look at all of them, but most look BACKWARDS.
The book title needs to be FIRST, followed by open parenthesis, series info #, closed parenthesis.
Book Title (Series info #)
Sometimes, stuff repeats on the title line. Safe to remove repeating info.
Example:
Right now this edition of this book looks like this on GRs:
The Victim: Badge of Honor 03 (Badge of Honor) WRONG
I would change it like this:
The Victim (Badge of Honor 3) CORRECT
Another edition of this book looks like this right now on GRs:
Badge of Honor, Book 3: The Victim WRONG
I would change it to this:
The Victim (Badge of Honor 3) CORRECT
I'd be glad to fix them for you, if you would rather not. Looks like character info and synopsis (from the back of the book in lieu of someone's review), book covers, language and setting (if known) also needs to be found on that author's books.
Wow! After looking at the recent librarian edits for W.E.B. Griffin's books, it appears more than one librarian did not know:Book title (Series Info #) either.
(gulp)
It's so hard not to have that comma in there. Ack! I wanna comma. (Whaa!) ;-)
Yup, I thought they were backwards, but it looked like someone had spent a lot of time putting them in that way, and I didn't want to show up on a Wanted poster on here! I'll go change them, Kathrynn. But I wouldn't say no to some help! :-)I have to say that it did look kind of nice to have all the series together and in order though... :-)
I've got a question regarding decimal series numbering (1.1, 1.2, etc.).What if that's how the publisher numbers the books (in this case: Big Finish Stargate audiobooks).
I did some preliminary cleaning of the series GR entries, so that they at least keep to one format, but I want to clean it up further and don't know if I should keep the series order this way, or change it to something else.
An additional problem is that the audiobooks alternate between two different TV shows, which leads to a lot of info that's needed in the title/series field. Would something like
Stargate SG-1: Shell Game (Stargate Big Finish audiobooks series 1.3)
be okay?
Isis, I would appreciate and use the guide if you created it!Thanks
w
Kathrynn, Thanks for the examples above. I recently edited a few series titles and did not do them in the best way, but I always had the title 1st and the series information in ( )'s but with a comma. Also I included the word Series. Until a series field is created, I'm concerned that the fact that the information in the ( )'s is series information might not be immediately apparent to all.
I'll work on a "guide" to each field on the book edit page. If GR doesn't want to officially use it, we can always just have it available as a resource here in the Librarians Group.If anyone has anything they want to make sure is included, let me know.
And lastly...what was the final decision on series format? I thought we'd decided on:
(Series name, #_)
with the comma, but recent talk sounds like no comma. So I'm confused.
Nope, don't think a consensus was ever made except to say that the few of us that participated did not have the power to dictate a uniform policy and going through and trying to make everything a certain way would just be undone by others who want it another way.Unless or until the "powers that be" rule here or update the manual to be more detailed and specific or rewire the edit screen page so that all we have to do is input the data, we are running loose.
I had my preference and others had theirs. Most agreed to this (or quit responding):
Book Title (Series Name, #1)
At this point, I'd be happy to see the title before the series info, ya know. ;-)
There was no consensus on whether we use the comma or number sign in the series info. When Otis stopped by, he just said he'd bookmark the thread for their work on series info. But it doesn't sound like it's the top of their to-do list.The argument in favor of keeping the comma and number sign was that it might make the conversion to the new system easier. A programming thing. Therefore, I've been leaving those in place, as long as the whole series is consistent.
The one thing I would like to mention is that a lot of librarians do not take the time to stop off on this site, so I do agree that maybe that should be a part of the requirement. I do try to pop in periodically to catch up on what's going on. However there are a lot of threads, so I'm always playing catch up.Since I started as a librarian early 2008, I have been following the Librarian manual. I would imagine that most librarians who do not come on this site for what ever reason only have that to go by. I up until this point have used:
Title (series name, Book 1) as the manual suggests.
Now I'm seeing mention of getting rid of commas and using # signs. Which I have no problem with, but until the Librarian manual is updated your going to constantly run into problems.
From the Librarian manual:
syntax for listing book titles
Most titles on Goodreads follow the syntax of having the title list some extra data in parenthesis following the title. This data can be either format information (hardcover, paperback, audio cd, etc), publisher information, or series information (eg. if the book is in a series "book 1"). If no extra data is present but the book does have a format listed, it will be automatically added in some areas of the site. It is preferred to list the data in the title however, as it greatly helps in distinguishing books and it's easy to strip out where needed.
Some examples:
* Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (book 1)
* The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, Part 1)
* The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Paperback)
* The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (Penguin Classics)
Perhaps others already know about this, but I recently found a database called what's next which lists series order. Could be helpful in the initial labeling of titles: http://ww2.kdl.org/libcat/WhatsNextNE...
If I remember right from reading this thread before, the general consensus was to use the simplest form to name a series (i.e. not having to say "Cynster Series" but instead "Cynsters" and saying #3 or just 3 instead of "book 3").If that's the case, how do we go about getting the info on the edit pages and wherever else changed to reflect this? Because lately I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth changes. One librarian changes it to the simple label, then someone else goes in and changes it to the longer form because of the examples given on the edit pages (and wherever else). Then back and forth again.
It just seems like this could be alleviated if it were stated officially somewhere.
I didn't realize that there was disagreement on the best way to do it! Our general "rule of thumb" is to go by the book's cover. Does that not always work?I'm open to suggestions on how the librarian manual can be improved!
http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/22...
Mostly it's just about formatting...A) Harry Potter (Harry Potter Series, Book 1)
B) Harry Potter (Harry Potter, #1)
C) Harry Potter (Harry Potter 1)
...etc
Most of those who responded in this thread previously seemed to agree that the first example is rather bulky with unneeded info and think that the other ways are perfectly fine.
So many of us have been following either example B or C. But lately I've seen a lot of back and forth changing. I'm guessing because people see the example on the book edit page and think you have to say "Book #_" and the word "Series" so they'll change an already correctly labeled series to the way example A is formatted.
It would just be helpful if there was a supported standard way to label a series. Or even just saying that various formats are accepted and that it's not necessary to change an already labeled series because these back-and-forth changes over the formatting are kind of annoying.
I agree back-and-forth changes are annoying and should be avoided by some better guidelines. I changed the librarian manual a bit to reflect that various formats are acceptable: http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/22.... In my opinion that's the easiest way to do it, but let me know if you think otherwise.
The primary arguments against (A) were that "series" and "book" (and similar words such as volume) are implied and otherwise redundant. A number of people preferred (C) for its simplicity, but (B) has the advantage of being much easier to auto-parse if you wanted to build a script that separated the series name from the book/volume number.Of course, none of this discussion would be necessary if some sort of special series field(s) were created for GR (wink, wink, nudge, nudge :-)
Lol. Series fields are coming soon I promise :) And by soon I could mean a month or 9.
I definitely missed this information, but glad I found it now. Will start editing those book series I have on my shelf right away. Until now, I always wrote (series, book #) as I found this to be used most, but of course this has redundant information.
Personally, I like using option D)Harry Potter (Harry Potter, Book 3)
I understand a lot of stuff is pre-loaded in by Amazon, so have been cleaning up as I find errors while surfing the db. HOWEVER, I leave things that 'work' well-enough alone. "Work" being defined as the books being able to be identified as to series and number if a search is performed.
Perhaps that should be listed in the librarian guidelines - that book series/# info should only be changed to make it consistent to what the majority already looks like. That might help keep some overzealous folks from constantly 'reinventing the wheel' and changing series back and forth.
Also, I often use what is listed on the cover (if there is a cover pic), but sometimes a publisher changes that format mid-series. If they do, I stick with the format of the first book.
I agree with Michael. Series fields can't come soon enough. Option B is definitely better than A; the fewer extraneous words the better. By adding 'series' or 'book' every time you add series info to a title, you're making it impossible for people to search for books that actually have these words in their title.For this reason, when it comes to series that are a marketing tool of the publisher (e.g. penguin modern classics), I think this info should be put in brackets after the name of the publisher in the publisher field. Otherwise, books about penguins and modern classics become impossible to find.
The title field should be reserved for author-originated series, e.g. Wheel of Time, Harry Potter.
Otis, you should definitely remove the 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Paperback)' example from the librarian manual. Given that book format already has a dedicated field, do we really want zealous newbie librarians adding this information to all their book titles?
Another thing: in creating series fields, you need separate fields for 'publisher series' (e.g. Fantasy Masterworks) and 'author series' (e.g. Harry Potter) because some books have both.
Isis FG wrote: "Mostly it's just about formatting...A) Harry Potter (Harry Potter Series, Book 1)
B) Harry Potter (Harry Potter, #1)
C) Harry Potter (Harry Potter 1)
...etc
Most of those who responded in this t..."
Option B gets my vote, too.
The only time I use "Book 1" instead of "#1" (assuming that there aren't a bunch of titles already doing it a particular way already) is if the series has been published with several different numberings -- for example, with Ashok Banker's Ramayana series, I labelled the six singleton books (Ramayana, Book 1) to (Ramayana, Book 6) and the three omnibus books (Ramayana Omnibus, Volume I: Title / Title) to (Ramayana Omnibus, Volume III: Title / Title) just to make it clear that this was the same series but not the same numbering. I'm not sure that that was the best way to do it -- does anyone have good recommendations for that sort of situation?
Todd wrote: "Another thing: in creating series fields, you need separate fields for 'publisher series' (e.g. Fantasy Masterworks) and 'author series' (e.g. Harry Potter) because some books have both."I second this! I wondered how the upcoming series feature would work for the Harlequin and Silhouette series romances because all are part of an imprint (Intrigue, Blaze, etc) and then many are also a part of a mini-series.
Also...I know Otis fixed the suggestions in the librarian manual for series labeling, but what about on the edit page?
Right now, it says:
If the book is in a series, put which book it is in parenthesis after the title. For example: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1)
...so people see that "Book" part and think they have to say "Book" in the label. Shouldn't that last part be changed to:
For example: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter #1)
?
About nine months ago, there was a suggestion by the GR powers-that-be that they were thinking about implementing "series" as some sort of rateable/shelvable object (to allow people who wanted to rate, review or shelve entire series as a single entity). In response, I posted a personal wishlist for series as objects on GR. I don't feel like tracking down the old post at this moment, but among my suggestions was the idea that books could belong to multiple series at the same time, to allow for both publisher and author series and the fact that sometimes even author series have subseries (or superseries). Items in a series should be orderable/numberable, but there should be options for non-numbered items at the same time. There might even be options for multiple numbering systems within a single series (for series where the numbering has changed through time, perhaps to reflect the order books were written vs. the chronological order of the series universe) Also, series should not belong to specific authors since there are many multi-authored series.
There were other ideas as well, but this is one way to think about implementation which would be more powerful (and way more difficult) than a simple series field.
Clearly series information is more complicated than just "Book X of Y". When we build series' we will definitely make sure we cover all bases.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (other topics)
Bite (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Winston S. Churchill (other topics)Mercedes Lackey (other topics)
Janet Evanovich (other topics)
Kresley Cole (other topics)
...and it even tells on the combine page and edit page about how to list series info. *sigh* Gotta say this sucks.
If someone contacts GR, they may temporarily suspend his privileges until he understands protocol better and to keep more incorrect changes from being made.