Setting up series order...(comma?, #?, etc)

[Kerry]

I can't wait to be able to sort books by series # :)! I hope that's part of the plans (I figure it is - but if not - just wanted to mention it). I've read through some (but not all) of this thread - so sorry if it's a duplicate suggestion.

[Phil]

I also endorse the idea of having "series" as a separate object, and would like to suggest the possibility of allowing a series to belong to a series in turn.

This would cover a situation like say the Velgarth books by Mercedes Lackey in which the books are clustered in sets of 2, 3 or 4 books, and each cluster belongs to the overarching sequence.

Of course this could also be covered by having each book belong to the "cluster" and the "overarching sequence" in which the latter are both series and are collated independently; we would simply have to be careful to keep the collation consistent between related series.

I would like to be able to mark a series so that if a new book is published it could be added to my "to-read" shelf automatically, and also the system could keep track of my progress through a series as well as through the individual books.

So many fun possibilities, so many ways to make the programmers' heads asplode ;-)

[Foppe]

To put in my 2c: "(Series, #1)" has the added advantage that it's pretty much language-neutral/independent (as it's understood to mean 'number' in most western languages), with the comma being useful for the above-mentioned, as well as aesthetic purposes (sort order is information of a different level from series sorting, and it makes parsing easier).


PS/rant: I wish the French and Germans would stop arbitrarily re-organizing series they translate (I'm sure not-michael knows what I'm talking about :P). I really don't understand what they hope to gain by making 4-volume works suddenly consist of 3 volumes, or vice versa.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Actually, we use multiple parentheses in that case: http://www.goodreads.com/help/librari...

[Foppe]

rivka wrote: "Actually, we use multiple parentheses in that case: http://www.goodreads.com/help/librari..."
Ah, yes. I'm glad that the manual is now less ambiguous on how to name these things. (And I hadn't run across books that are part of multiple series yet, so I'd forgotten that the manual mentioned it already)
Anyway, now that all that is resolved, what to do with Second (or third, etc) editions? Parenthesized? (and if so, presumably in front of series parentheses?) Comma-separated from the title? (that is, there doesn't appear to be anything in the manual about them.)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

I see no reason that edition number should appear in the title at all.

[Cait]

rivka wrote: "I see no reason that edition number should appear in the title at all."

Actually, for textbooks that's a pretty important signifier -- I'm all for combining different textbook editions, but I'd still like to be able to tell them apart at a glance in the list of editions.

[Foppe]

Cait wrote: "rivka wrote: "I see no reason that edition number should appear in the title at all."

Actually, for textbooks that's a pretty important signifier -- I'm all for combining different textbook editio..."

For most academic works, yes. (Which were the ones I had in mind.)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Doesn't year do a better job of distinguishing them? Especially with the lovely practice some publishers have of releasing multiple "6th edition"s (for example).

(As the person who has to get book data to our students, I have seen this a LOT.)

[Foppe]

rivka wrote: "Doesn't year do a better job of distinguishing them? Especially with the lovely practice some publishers have of releasing multiple "6th edition"s (for example).

(As the person who has to get book..."
Well.. Yes, and no. That's where you run into problems when publishers decide to reprint something, and use that date for the reprint. (Usually with a different ISBN, too; though I see less of this practice in academic publishing.)).
Basically, publishers are a PITA.
OTOH, I've never yet run into the problem that publishers print different books with the same edition information attached. They're usually far too happy to point out that they've found yet another few typos they've corrected, requiring them to call this a spiffy new edition.
Also, putting the edition in the title has the advantage that you can see which titles might belong together without having to hover over the details button.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

If it has been 2 or more years, expect a new edition with a new number. If it has been 6-12 months, and/or the new edition is for a different market than the other one, expect as many as 4 different ISBNs all called "6th edition" -- with different numbers of pages, and sometimes significant other differences.

[Foppe]

rivka wrote: "If it has been 2 or more years, expect a new edition with a new number. If it has been 6-12 months, and/or the new edition is for a different market than the other one, expect as many as 4 differen..."
Ah, yes. Still, they're generally more similar, and it's a better indicator than the publishing date is. (Though if one is confronted with publications in the social sciences often, this might skew one's perspective, and ruin that person for life :P).
So unless someone on the GR staff is willing to make a neat little box for edition information, [preferably:] with drop-down entries (like Amazon currently has on the 'submit updates' pages for every entry), I would humbly suggest that the information is relevant enough to be put in the title field.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Foppe wrote: "Though if one is confronted with publications in the social sciences often, this might skew one's perspective, and ruin that person for life :P"

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about.

Also, business textbooks are every bit as bad in this regard as sociology or psych. :P

[Foppe]

rivka wrote: "Foppe wrote: "Though if one is confronted with publications in the social sciences often, this might skew one's perspective, and ruin that person for life :P"

I'm sure I don't know what you're tal..."

Well, most of my science textbooks (e.g., "Linear Algebra" might have a new edition every decade), whereas certain other fields (or publishers, I'm never really sure who is chiefly to blame, though I suspect the latter of the two) can't quite manage that.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Pfft. Basic math textbooks have new editions every 2-3 years. I'm sure precalculus has changed TONS in two years, no? ;)

[Sherry]

Just when I think I have this down pat ...

for Winston S. Churchill
He wrote a 4 volume set that I think I have correctly separated into the individual volumes and then the complete set. However, I think that there are every single one of the permutations of title, subtitle, sub-subtitle and volumes for each book. No wonder that they were a mess.
as an example: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...

The Entire set is the "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples"
Each Volume has a different subtitle: The Birth of Britian - in this case

And a unique sub-subtitle: 55 B.C. to 1485

as well as a Volume number: #1.

Don't think that this is a series - it's a book in 4 volumes.

Do we have a convention on the correct format for this?

Subtitle: Sub-subtitle (Set Title, #Vol) ??

[Foppe]

I would suggest using either
"Main series title: volume title: sub-volume, part #: sub-sub (Main Series, #, part #-#)"
or
"Main series title, volume #, part #: volume title: sub-title"
But really, for academic works I'd say the fact that something belongs to a "series" counts for a little less than in fiction works, so the parenthesized series/volume bit might be overdoing it.

[Lindig]

Watch out for Winston S. Churchill, an American novelist of the 19th century, not the same as Winston [no middle initial:] Churchill, British prime minister who wrote The History of the English-Speaking People

[Lindig]

Wait wait. I may have them just backwards. Sorry. But there is an American author named Winston Churchill, that I do know -- we used to have shelving problems in my bookstore if we didn't look closely at which W.C. we had in hand.

Winston Spencer Churchill is the British prime minister; I checked. Frequently, the middle initial is not used, but sometimes it is.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Lindig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_...

I did have them backwards. And here's the Wikipedia page on the novelist.

[Sherry]

Lindig wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_...

I did have them backwards. And here's the Wikipedia page on the novelist."

Lindig wrote:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_...

I did have them backwards. And here's the Wikipedia page on the novelist."

Absolutely. that's what took a while to get them sorted out. Plus someone had originally merged "CHURCHILL" into the prime minister. I've got it straight for now.

In addition, there is a great existing librarian's note for both authors.

[Lindig]

And Wikipedia says there are more Winston Churchill's out there! Let's hope they're not writers, too.

[mlady_rebecca]

Sherry wrote: "Just when I think I have this down pat ..."

I'd tend to call the book you're referencing:

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain (55 B.C. to 1485)

Not sure where the volume would go. After "A History of..."?

Is this kind of thing common enough that we need a standard?

[Sherry]

This actually seems to be clear. Volume could also be added in the description.