Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
This topic is about
Defending Jacob
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Book & Author Page Issues
>
Please delete
date
newest »
newest »
Um...The paperback version will exist in March 2012 from a UK publisher which was listed on that record.
Why have a record for an edition of a book that doesn't actually exist?
There are lots of records in the database of editions that haven't been published yet. I don't know if yours had an ISBN or not, but if something had an ISBN it was not possible to keep it from being imported automatically, really. I assume that's still the case.
This Listopia, for example, contains tons of books which haven't been released yet.http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/66...
There's a problem here. I just looked at a book that's not yet been released and it has almost 5 stars. That's just wrong. Something really needs to be done about these books that don't exist yet. They should not be allowed to be imported. If the date is past the current date, then have GR ignore it. That would work. All this does is make the ratings system worthless.
Some people have advance copies of a book when they rate it. They may have gotten an ARC, know the author, or be a beta reader/editor.Also, some of us like being able to shelve books that are coming soon. As long as it is a valid entry there is no reason to delete it.
JSWolf wrote: "There's a problem here. I just looked at a book that's not yet been released and it has almost 5 stars. That's just wrong. Something really needs to be done about these books that don't exist yet. ..."Two things.
1) Some people use the rating system as a hype meter. It's been debated before and Goodreads has deemed it acceptable. See here. Disagree or agree, the rule stand — rate however you please as long you're not sockpuppeting.
2) There is no rule against adding yet to be published books. There has never been one and there will never be one. In fact, Goodreads recommends it IIRC.
Sorry for deleting it. I wasn't really looking into it and thought it wasn't coming out or something.
please delete this. i am the author, and never plan on printing it. i didnt even put it on here.http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...
Experiment BL626 wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "There's a problem here. I just looked at a book that's not yet been released and it has almost 5 stars. That's just wrong. Something really needs to be done about these books that do..."But what GR needs to do is prevent ratings/reviews from being allowed for a book that's not yet published. Nobody can review/rate a book fairly unless it's first been read.
Msg 9 provides a link to where this has been discussed http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...
GR are not going to chnange this - people read ARC's prior to publication and should be able to rate and review. As also pointed out people use the rating system for different things.
In addition, this is a feedback group issue not a librarian one
JSWolf wrote: "Experiment BL626 wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "There's a problem here. I just looked at a book that's not yet been released and it has almost 5 stars. That's just wrong. Something really needs to be done ..."I'll tell you what I told the other user who brought it up here and it's this: A zombie apocalypse is more likely to happen than Goodreads changing its rating system. Once that happen, then Goodreads will think about it... if they're not all zombies already. ;)
So why not get all the librarians to delete the reviews since we know they are not valid?
Mod
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Please delete this entry.
This is listed as a paperback edition. Such does not actually exist as it was just released as a hardcover/eBook/audio on January 31, 2012.