Messed up several book descriptions

[Baffi]

I've been a librarian for only 3 days and I'm afraid I really messed something up. I changed the description of a book just to find it reverted to the old description shortly afterwards.
I found this post which recommends marking the description as the default in such cases. I've done that for several books, mostly alternate-cover editions - and now other editions (not all, though) appear with the same description (and my note about an alternate cover edition at the end if it's one).

Examples:
I, Claudius: alternate-cover edition (created by me) | another edition
The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: alternate-cover edition (edited by me) | another edition

I suppose I've completely misunderstood something. Can I revert those changes? I've looked at the change log but I couldn't find anything. How embarrassing...

[Paula]

I have sorted them both out, by editing your edition not to be the default and setting another without the Alternate cover xxxxx as the default

[Baffi]

Thanks, Paula. :o)

So the process can't be reversed? Because I'm afraid that some non-English editions originally had their description in the edition language (Russian, German and so on).

There are several more books with that problem. I'm going to do the same with those, and I'll stay away from that clicky thing in the future.

Maybe that explains why I came across books, even popular editions like Penguin Classics, which have their description in the wrong language.


A general question concerning my original problem which led to this mess: I thought data entered by librarians had priority and couldn't be overwritten by updates from external sources. If it still happens, is there anything we can do?

[Paula]

It happens often by user and non user intervention, without going through all editions and resetting those there is not way to do it automatically. I am suprised that foreign language editions got overridden since they would not have the "use default" flag set since they had their own language description.

The post you link to does not have GR staff i.e. rivka indicating / validating that it is a viable solution.

As to your last question that is a feedback group but I don't think there is anything else that can be done