Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Edition Field: What is Allowed and What isn't
I'd agree with the others on number 1. It is redundant. On number 2 that librarian was wrong. That sort of thing is not put in the edition field. I have removed it.The edition field is not for advertising free books.
I definitely agree with you on 2).On 1), I myself find the "1st edition" superfluous. Where I would use 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition notation in that field is where it says that on the cover of the book, which is pretty much going to be limited to nonfiction works, scholarly works, textbooks and the like.
Why do you consider "First Edition" to be redundant or superfluous in the Edition field?
Redundant. Superfluous. But is it *against* the rules?
Michael wrote: "Why do you consider "First Edition" to be redundant or superfluous in the Edition field?"Because there is only one edition of the book, and it hasn't even been published yet.
Also, for me personally, I just consider it superfluous in general unless the cover of the book or the title page indicates it. See post #3.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Redundant. Superfluous. But is it *against* the rules?"Not to my knowledge, but if something isn't enshrined in the manual, it's going to get changed back and forth a million times because some librarians want it there and others don't...
But why we would we necessarily have to wait until there is a 2nd Edition book to input "1st Edition"? Isn't it better to be pre-emptive inputting "1st Edition"?
Sorry, Experiment, my question was aimed at Kim and Lobstergirl, who've expressed that opinion.I can't give you an answer as to whether it's "against the rules" - no doubt a mod will give a definitive answer when they see the topic. For whatever my opinion is worth, I'd say that putting "First Edition" in that field is pretty much what it was made for, but we shall see :-)
Because it's quite obviously the first edition. Not every book has more than one edition. It may only have one print.
In my opinion....it's just clutter.It's like when people add an editor to the author field, when there's no reason to. Say, on a novel. The editor is not mentioned on the cover, or the book's title page, because it's not customary for an editor of fiction to get title page credit. But someone decides they want that editor's name to appear on GR. So there it is, cluttering the data.
Well, in my opinion, fwiw, data is good. I don't think data is clutter. And, I think it's fine to go ahead and be pre-emptive about 1st edition - after all, I don't want to go back and fix it later, when the second edition does come out. That's my 2 cents.
Kim: Not every first edition is obvious on Goodreads, particularly with older books, as the database is not complete. Stating such can therefore be very useful. If there's only one edition anyway then, yes, it would be redundant.Lobstergirl: well, I haven't seen the use of editor in the circumstances you describe, so not really sure what I feel about it. Clutter, though? It might not be useful to you, but could be for the person who added the data.
Personally, I find the addition to the title field of, say, "Paperback" to be superfluous and redundant clutter when there is a field specifically for that information - but I digress :-)
As you may or may not know, I'm the person Experiment has been conversing with.Well, I've just gone trolling through the Manual and the additions section and can't find information on the Edition field.
I was under the impression that field was for edition specific information.
But everyone seems to agree with Experiment on the Free edition information.
However, most seem to agree with me that 1st Edition is redundant.
We'll have to wait and see :)
Michael wrote: "Kim: Not every first edition is obvious on Goodreads, particularly with older books, as the database is not complete. Stating such can therefore be very useful. If there's only one edition anyway then, yes, it would be redundant."It would have to be done on a case by case basis. I am only talking about books like the one in the OP as that was the example provided.
Michael wrote: "Personally, I find the addition to the title field of, say, "Paperback" to be superfluous and redundant clutter when there is a field specifically for that information"No question. That should be deleted.
Mod
Actually, for this sort of policy question, an open discussion among those members of the group as choose to participate is encouraged until a consensus can be reached (if possible).
Please continue. :)
Experiment BL626 wrote: "3) If a particular edition is free, is it appropriate to input "Free Edition" in the edition field? "I'd put that in the description and make the description apply only to that edition. Is it going to be free forever? Five years from now, will that edition still be available?
I don't know Lobstergirl and as no one is passing out crystal balls, can anyone? It is an ebook and sometimes they just become unavailable. One of the reasons I thought it more appropriate for the edition field. Easily removable when new information comes to hand. Also more easily seen by the target audience.
We are talking PNR romance ebooks here. The most likely to be free editions, other than Classics of course.
Sandra wrote: "We are talking PNR romance ebooks here."Okay, I have no idea what these are and don't shelve them so carry on.
LOL. Think vampires/werewolves/fae etc etc.
I still think it's inappropriate for the edition field.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Kim - but I do see your point Sandra and empathize with your intentions.
Just want to clarify. By "first edition" you're just talking about the first printing of a novel? That's interesting information to collectors, but wouldn't a second printing use the same ISBN and cover? Do we really need different versions of the identical IBSN/cover combination if a book has multiple print runs? It makes sense with non-fiction books that are substantially updated between printings, but I don't see any advantage with novels.
Here are my thoughts -1st Editions: I have a hard time with numbered editions when it comes to fictional books. When I look at textbooks I see editions - multiple books released year after year each with revisions and additions. But what is a 1st edition of a fiction book? Yes, sure, the first edition published. What if the paperback and hardback are published at the same time? Are they BOTH 1st editions? If the book has a second printing with no textual updates, that's the 2nd edition? But it's the same book! I dunno, maybe it's just me. :P
I'm not going to go around adding it to every first run of every book in my collection, but I wouldn't delete it.
Free Books: I think that all data attributed to an edition should be static information.
Once a book has been added [correctly] to Goodreads, there should be no reason to change the data. Ten years from now, The Highlander's Time with the ASIN# B0050ZKV8Q will still have been authored by Belladonna Bordeaux, it will still have been published by Decadent Publishing. Ten years from now, it may not be free.
To the Edition Field in General: I think the edition field should be used for static data that makes it different from other editions. So things like price should be out because it can always change and things like whether the book is abridged or illustrated (when most other editions are NOT illustrated) should be included.
ETA: Another use for the edition field could be for denoting that it is a special/anniversary/collector's edition.
I wouldn't add illustration information to the edition field. I would add an illustrator under the author field for that.But I agree with everything else Vicky wrote.
Just to throw in another opinion, I agree with Experiment's original post. "First edition" can be valuable information, especially on vintage books to collectors. There are very few resources for this information out there that are easily accessible. I have input similar info to differentiate between, for example the first UK edition and the first US edition. I see no problem with inputting it preemptively either. It's not hurting anything.
However, putting "Free with Purchase" feels like advertising to to me; it does not jive with the general non-commercial nature of the site in my opinion. However, again, it's probably not hurting anything and can be removed if it changes.
I fail to understand why there is a big difference between inputting "1st Edition" now on a freshly published book and inputting it then after a couple of years when new editions have been released. I believe it's best to do this as soon as possible. Why wait when you can do it now?I came across a situation not long ago where the "1st Edition" info was really helpful. I was working on Jordan Castillo Price's books when I noticed that she have released new editions. However, it was hard to discern which editions were new and which were old. I noticed some Librarians, ignorant of the rules, uploaded the new cover-arts of the new editions over the old editions. I literally have to google-fu every edition for its rightful cover-art and re-upload the correct one. It absolutely did not help that some people didn't include the publication date, and if they did, it was just the year. If people would have just input a simple "1st Edition" in the edition field, it would made a lot less work for me for which edition have which cover-art.
And then that Amazon unpleasantry happened in January. Fortunately, because I worked on Jordan Castillo Price's books and have filled out the edition info, I downloaded the edition's cover-arts from GR and re-uploaded it back on the cover-less editions.
Sometime just having the edition field filled out can be a big hint in locating the correct cover-art. Sometime having the ISBN# and the publication date is not enough. Sometime there isn't even an ISBN#, or a publication date, or both, or the ISBN13 number is in the ISBN10 field.
I can understand how it can be redundant, but there's no harm in having that extra info. If you don't want to input, don't do it. Otherwise, please don't stop people like me from doing it. This is why I'm asking a Goodreads employee to have the final say. The last thing any Librarian want is to have their edit reversed. I don't mind having my edits reversed because it goes against Goodreads' rules, but I do mind it when it is reversed because it simply doesn't please other Librarians' sense of aesthetics. I think I can speak for other Librarians too that they would mind it as well.
Vicky wrote: "Here are my thoughts -1st Editions: I have a hard time with numbered editions when it comes to fictional books. When I look at textbooks I see editions - multiple books released year after year e..."
I am with Vicki on this as well, personally would not add edition info unless non fiction and it should be static data in the field.
Things like free on line fiction I don't believe belong neither does the hyperlink to where it is free. I would rather links like that if we have to have them go in the author profile. It's not always going to be free and web pages change.
Experiment BL626 wrote: ".This is why I'm asking a Goodreads employee to have the final say."And as rivka has previously indicated things like this get debated by the group
mlady_rebecca wrote: "Just want to clarify. By "first edition" you're just talking about the first printing of a novel? That's interesting information to collectors, but wouldn't a second printing use the same ISBN and ..."I do add different printings and record that information in the edition field, e.g., "Seventh Printing". Why? Because if the book I have on my library shelf was printed in 1979, not 1972 like the first printing, I want the correct information on my Goodreads shelf.
Or if, as often happens, the Goodreads edition is the later printing and I have the earlier one, again I add the earlier edition and record the difference in the Edition field.
vicki_girl wrote: "Just to throw in another opinion, I agree with Experiment's original post. "First edition" can be valuable information, especially on vintage books to collectors. There are very few resources f..."
I agree with all of this.
Michael, but hardly relevant to MMP which is what this thread started being about.
Sandra wrote: "Michael, but hardly relevant to MMP which is what this thread started being about."Clearly, it's a wider issue :-)
True, but I don't think it's a one-size fits all answer. I can certainly appreciate that vintage books and non-fiction benefit from the 1st edition addition, I just don't see it being relevant to MMP.
I've probably been putting 1st edition in the edition field for MMP, mostly b/c I get carried away with data-entry on books I own. :) I do think it's good information to have for hardcover fiction though, because, as previously mentioned, it can be valuable for collectors. (An example: a 1st edition copy of Janet Evanovich's One for the Money is worth a bit over 100USD. To clarify, this would be a first edition/first printing.)
Perhaps you all want to leave the US-centric view on editions and have a look at how other countries handle editions? By far most fictional German books for example don't state an edition at all, and if they use the same ISBN as the first print, you've no chance to determine what edition you hold in your hands. The only hint you *could* have is a slightly different cover and the time, when it was published. But even by the time you just know that it's not the first print. And you should know on top, that the German national library doesn't have each print in its database. The things I put in the edition field are for example "Jubiläumsausgabe" (anniversary edition), "Lizenzausgabe" (licensed edition), "gekürzte Fassung" (abridged version) and so on.
I should think that all of the examples you give Cornelia are perfect examples of what should go in the edition field (along with, in my opinion, 1st if the designation is available). A lot of books that have been adapted for TV series are also being reprinted with new covers to reflect the TV series (ex. True Blood/Sookie Stackhouse). I'd have no problem putting something in the edition field along the lines of "TV tie-in".I don't really think the discussion thus far has been US-centric - I think the edition field can meet the needs of a lot of culturally specific definitions as long as they are true to the definition of "edition" - which is really what this conversation is about. :)
But the point is what kind of use is made of the edition field. Goodreads is by no means a source for book collectors (read: collecting books for their monetary value), it is a source for tracing what you've read, what you want to read and what you have on your shelves. Collectors have other sources and need more information than the edition.Personally, I'd really feel screwed over if I read "1st edition" as information for a fictional book, because there's no difference at all in text. It's okay if you add another edition, because the cover changed, but other than that I don't see any sense in adding edition after edition just because it's the second, third, fourth and so on. Often enough books are so popular that they have several editions per year. Do you want to add them all for completeness' sake?
It's an entirely different thing, though, considering non-ficitional books. Then I need to know with which edition I'm working.
I agree Cornelia, I also don't think we should be adding a new 'edition' for a new print run of the an edition - that is not in my mind a new edition
If every print would be added as a new edition, then database would become really an huge mess. I just picked the first book I could find in my room, it has had 30 print runs in nearly 2 years.
I put 1st edition b/c 1st eds usually worth noting, for all kinds of books.I put 2nd/3rd/4th edition info, limited to non fiction such as lonely planets, referenctial books, etc., if there is a specific additional information/difference about it.
While "first edition" is not usually useful or even available information for a fiction book, when it is relevant I believe the obvious place to put it is in the edition field. More often I would expect to see things like "original edition", "extended edition", that sort of thing that's really more of a description (but might be safer stored in the edition field, since descriptions can be overwritten by defaults so easily). Fiction can and does change between editions, though: consider a common scenario these days, where a first edition of a novel is self-published and a later edition is issued by a publishing house with some editorial changes, and while you'd want to put changes like that in the description, you could additionally make the strong case the "first edition" is very relevant for that edition.I agree with the others who say that edition information should be static, so things like pricing are usually not appropriate. I could see exceptions being made for editions which are only briefly in print for a special occasion, so that something like "free ebook given away for release of book four" would then be equivalent to "fifth anniversary edition" as static edition information, since any other printing of this book would be a different edition of it. In that case, though, the rule would still be that pricing is not edition information with the exception of this sort of scenario.
The field for Edition is valuable when shelving books published by Harlequin. Some of the series romances are re-released in collections. For example: Marie Ferrarella's Caitlin's Guardian Angel was released first as Silhouette Intimate Moments #661 in 1995, re-released as part of the Dangerous to Love USA collection in 2003; and again, re-released as part of the Safe Haven collection in 2008 .. each release has different cover art and some have editorial/author notes that differ from the other releaseshttp://www.fictiondb.com/author/marie...
Some book collectors may collect multiple copies of what may seem the very same book. In this instance, I would say marking which edition that particular copy may be would be ideal. I have collector friends that are such fans of particular authors that they'll collect the same book even if the only difference is the addition of an author's foreword
(the same is true for movie collectors)
That's pretty clear and it's already done for good reasons. But there's no reason to mark different editions as such when there are no changes at all.
Sandra, I opine that as much as possible we should have guidelines that suit all books, whether they're MMP or not. When there are options, we get librarian's changing each other's edits, and we get confusion from new librarians.Editions (not print runs, that's a different thing) totally matter. Think of the 109 editions of Roughing It. Some have lots of additional material. Some have language excised. Some include illustrations by one artist, some by another. Some of course are in other languages.
Anything that is data that can help us distinguish among them, and avoid the challenges Experiment faced with Price's books. If you don't like to see redundant information, don't fill it in yourself. But please don't excise others' work.
Cornelia, that's really cool information. And I certainly wouldn't change any of your edits. But those of us who are working on English books don't generally have that information available. So we couldn't use the edition field for that data.
I guess I err on the side of what some would call clutter and redundancy because the way I see it is, the field is available, so use it. Or at least let those who care do so.
Cornelia wrote: "That's pretty clear and it's already done for good reasons. But there's no reason to mark different editions as such when there are no changes at all."I think that there might be some confusion regarding different printings and different editions. A given edition of course can have many, many printings (I've seen up to 50 or more). That is not what we are talking about here. A new edition would have to have something new about it (new cover, or new binding, or new ISBN, or new foreword, or new discussion questions, etc.), otherwise by definition it is a new printing, not a new edition.
In previous discussions, it has been stated that GR does not include various printings of a given edition, unless there is a new cover or something for that printing (which to my mind makes it a new edition). As an example, I have included information like "Seventh Printing", if that printing was the first time a particular cover was used. I do not add previous printings (e.g., printings 2 through 6) that are identical to the first printing.
Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "Sandra, I opine that as much as possible we should have guidelines that suit all books, whether they're MMP or not. When there are options, we get librarian's changing each other's edits, and we g..."I totally agree with this post.
I know what printings and editions are, and I don't think there's any real debate about not recognising differences. But - and that's probably a cultural difference - if a new edition (not printing) is published it'll usually have a new ISBN, and so there is no chance of mistaking the one for the other. On the other hand you often can't tell here the number of the printing.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Glitches (other topics)Roughing It (other topics)
Steel's Edge (other topics)
1) On the book Steel's Edge, I input "1st Edition". The other librarian deleted it because it seem redundant. Is inputting "1st Edition" against GR rules?
2) On the book The Highlander's Time, the other librarian input "Free on publisher's website, with purchase" in the edition field. I find this inappropriate for the edition frield and more appropriate for the book description field. Am I wrong?
3) If a particular edition is free, is it appropriate to input "Free Edition" in the edition field?