Goodreads Developers discussion
      bugs
      >
    'Format' not always showing in API
    
  
  
					date newest »
						  
						newest »
				
		 newest »
						  
						newest »
				 Are you a librarian by any chance? If you are, go to the librarian edits page and you'll see that the data came from Ingram. We can't forward a lot of data we get from them in our API due to our agreement with them. Format is unfortunately among those data.
      Are you a librarian by any chance? If you are, go to the librarian edits page and you'll see that the data came from Ingram. We can't forward a lot of data we get from them in our API due to our agreement with them. Format is unfortunately among those data.
     Sadly, I am not a librarian. But thanks for the explanation.
      Sadly, I am not a librarian. But thanks for the explanation.I don't suppose it's possible for users to 'override' proprietary data based on their own books so that it becomes available via the APIs?
 That is absolutely possible...though you either:
      That is absolutely possible...though you either:- must be the user who first entered the book (and no one has changed your data afterwards)
- or must be a librarian (anyone can apply, part of the fun is finding out how ;) ). It's enough to have a copy of the book (or a record of a version you had at one point) and enter data from that to update an existing book.
 I am now a librarian, and now I don't see any way to set the format to 'Hardcover' (and become the source of the data) when it is already hardcover...is this something I am supposed to be able to do?
      I am now a librarian, and now I don't see any way to set the format to 'Hardcover' (and become the source of the data) when it is already hardcover...is this something I am supposed to be able to do?
    


 
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73...
clearly shows (correctly) that it is Hardcover.
The book.show, book.show_by_isbn and review.list APIs all return a blank format, eg.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73...
I had thought that missing data was caused by Amazon rules, so I assume this is a bug.