Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Edition Field: What is Allowed and What isn't
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Actually, it's usually on the copyright page, if you know how to find/decode it. I just pulled 4 random MMP's from the shelf behind me, and each had one. (29th, 2nd, 1st, and 1st, if you were curious. ;) )
I have seen it explicitly stated in a few cases, e.g. "Seventh Printing, March 1987". I also know that the number line 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 indicates a first printing, though most readers probably wouldn't even know that much. The number lines for later printings are a mystery to me. Going to google it . . . Okay, here's a link in case anyone is curious:
http://www.terisagreen.com/2009/09/08...
I can't believe I didn't look this up before. Probably because I was more interested in identifying first printings. :)
Mod
But it's useful to see an image of what to look for, and the link does that. :)
I am not sure that just because someone (not throwing stones here,ANYONE) thinks something is "clutter" renders it useless to the people who view the records, or search for a apecific. Particularly if it's not a book that anyone not interested in looks at or for.
Which is more important, a set of "rules" for each every possible thing that could be imnputed or making the database useful for the users?
GR is, I believe, aiming for a large target audience, not to necessarily have each and every possible choice limited to what a small group of people (*us, the librarians) necessarily think works FOR US. Why is it necessary to P/O the people who look at the specific items in question, while the rest of us don't?
Badly expressed here and I apologize in advance for perceived harshness.
NB: I delete "first edition" from the titles too, but if someone wants to put them in the edition, have at it as far as I am concerned.
Paula wrote: "Things like free online 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."Off topic here but there are many things I disagree with you there and I wish to make a rebuttal. Going to have break it down into numbered points.
1) Hyperlinks by nature are unstable. Static data are good, but the official URL's data will never be static no matter how much we want it to be.
2) This shows a bias against free online fiction. This is the rule that I see from the Librarian Manual:
This field is for entering a URL officially associated with that book, such as a page on an author's site for the book. It may also be an author or publisher's website for the book, if it contains additional information or resources. Fan sites, reviews, book sellers, Wiki pages or other such pages should NOT be listed.The links pointing to the free online fiction *are* from the author's site and publisher's site. Nowhere did I see that this rule only applies to paid books—
3) and it shouldn't. Goodreads shouldn't be in the bibliobigotry department of saying or implying that only paid books are books we should catalog. We can official URL-link for paid books with its authors and publishers, but we should be discouraged for doing it for free books? No way.
4) Depending on which book and its edition it is free. I always input "Free Edition" for fanfic. Even if facfic one day gets "unpublished," it's still going to be free regardless because of the nature inherent in facfic. For non-fanfic work, it is important and useful to denote a particular edition as Free. Take this short story for an example: Glitches. There's a free edition available on the publisher's website but you can also get it for 99 cents in any book store. It's a short story published by one of the Big Six, but I really shouldn't have to mention that.
#
I just want to re-emphasize and clarify issue #2 in my OP. I don't mind having the info "Free on publisher's website, with purchase" on GR book page, I just mind it in the edition field. I agree with Sandra on the belief that such info is relevant to readers, however transient it may be. I just think it's more appropriate in the book description field at the top.
vicki_girl wrote: "Cornelia wrote: "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 edit..."Believe me, we do have new editions with no changes at all here - and those are what I meant. On top of that we do have printings which don't change the text but the cover. And then we do have licensed editions with identical text, different cover and no ISBN at all. :-P Which means if there isn't anything specific to an edition, I simply leave the field blank.
Hmph, at least here book collectors frequent antiquarian bookshops and their pages, but then I do have a whole city with antiquarian bookshops just around the corner. Considering that I do own books from the late 19th century on - and I really don't care, what edition they are. But that's probably just me. I like my personal librabry, but it's the content that matters for me, not if it is a first edition.
Cornelia wrote: " 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?..."Yes.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Off topic here but there are many things I disagree with you there and I wish to make a rebuttal. Going to have break it down into numbered points."1/2/3. I would agree that URLs are the exception to the static data rule, and that online fiction should follow the same rule you quoted in the librarian manual. If there is a "book" on Goodreads (whether it be physical or web based), it deserves to have an official URL.
If the official URL is the location where the book is free, that's fine. But if there were a case where a site other than that of the author/publisher offers the site for free, that link should not override the official URL. Which I think might be more what Paula was referring to.
4. I don't think there's a reason to put that a fanfic is free, I think that in 99.9% of cases anything that is fanfiction or webfiction is free and those readers who spend a lot of time reading those types of works will know that.
I think that a case like Glitches could be the exception to the rule, because the fact that that particular edition is free (while the others are not) makes it different. In the OP, the book in question was the only edition of the book, there was nothing for it to be different from.
I understand what you are saying about free being relevant to the readers, but what is "free"? Free is a price. We don't go around labeling things as the $0.99 edition or the $6.99 edition, that seems silly - yet it's just as relevant to the reader's as "free."
I don't like the idea of listing books as "free", even if they are. It feels like advertising. To me, that's not relevant information about the book's data. I don't think price should ever be listed here, but that's just my opinion.
vicki_girl wrote: "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."That's probably my fault. It sounded like they were talking about print runs, but using the term "editions".
But if we're simply identifying the first edition published, doesn't the publishing date alone give you that information?
ஐ Briansgirl "Book Sale Queen"ஐ wrote: "I don't like the idea of listing books as "free", even if they are. It feels like advertising. To me, that's not relevant information about the book's data. I don't think price should ever be liste..."True, but about the forever free books? Those are what I'm referring to.
Vicky wrote: "4. I don't think there's a reason to put that a fanfic is free, I think that in 99.9% of cases anything that is fanfiction or webfiction is free and those readers who spend a lot of time reading those types of works will know that."
I know it's redundant but I find it best if I can fill out all the fields on the book page with as much info as I can. I don't see how inputting "Free Edition" can hurt.
"Free Edition" is more important that the other prices edition is because free is forever. Didn't we just discuss about wanting static data?
#
Where do we stand on inputting "1st Edition"? I'm disliking how my edits for these are being reversed.
I don't understand why it seem to be a bad thing filling out the edition field even if the info seem redundant. Shouldn't Librarians be encouraged to input as much info as possible?
mlady_rebecca wrote: "But if we're simply identifying the first edition published, doesn't the publishing date alone give you that information? "Yes. Thank you for pointing that out.
But the publishing date would have to be compared to the other editions' publishing dates every time someone wanted to check, no? Whereas if the field that asks us to fill in "x# edition" is filled in, then one only needs to look at the book description for the edition of interest to determine which edition it is.
mlady_rebecca wrote: "But if we're simply identifying the first edition published, doesn't the publishing date alone give you that information? "Not really. The "first edition" might not have a date on the record (especially after the Amazon purge). Or the first edition might not be in the GR database yet, so the record with the earliest date wouldn't be the first edition. Also, sometimes books are only listed with a year given (this happens a lot with older books). There might be two editions in the same year, like the US and UK editions might be published 6 months apart in the same year but the GR record doesn't tell you which is the earlier publication.
"ஐ Briansgirl "Book Sale Queen"ஐ wrote: "I don't like the idea of listing books as "free", even if they are. It feels like advertising. To me, that's not relevant information about the book's data. ...I totally and emphatically agree with this. It also sounds a lot like spammy marketing, which I find repugnant.
"Free Edition" is more important that the other prices edition is because free is forever. Didn't we just discuss about wanting static data?
What? Free is absolutely not guaranteed forever. A copyright holder can choose at any time to move something from 'free' to 'for sale', without changing a single other thing about a work, so not creating a new edition. And if a copyright holder dies, their Estate has that right, so it doesn't really matter if the author makes a solemn promise to never sell their work.
An author in one of my groups was just talking about some promo built into Smashwords, where the author can choose to set days on which their work will be offered for free, and the rest of the time it is *not* free.
On the other matter, of whether to put/allow the information 'first edition', I feel that this falls into the 'do no harm rule' I have. If another librarian/user cared enough to record that information, if it is factually correct, and if it doesn't violate GR policy: leave it alone.
With the amount of cleanup work needing to be done in the database, it really makes no sense to tick off another person just because of your/my personal sense of aesthetics, as someone said earlier.
Just my two cents.
It has to be a published work to be on here.
Limited time free editions haven't to my knowledge been included in the edition field. In every group of which I am a member, there is a free folder where the transient books are listed for those interested.The only free books I've seen listed, and there have been many, are those, usually on author or publisher websites, where they have been written as free stories. And whilst there are no guarantees in this life, I've yet to see one of these revert to a paid copy.
fanfic did got published, and some of them are here.example:
http://www.goodreads.com/series/45293...
vicki_girl wrote: "As an amateur collector of modern first editions (e.g., books published after ~1950), I can tell you that it is shocking how little info there is out there. I can spend hours searching the web, just to find out if a particular book/ISBN is a first edition. The older the book, the harder it is, especially if it is a pre-ISBN book, or something obscure. Why shouldn't I save someone else that hassle?Also, if I have a first edition on my shelves, shouldn't I be able to share that info with others?"
I second this. I collect modern fiction and 90% of them are First Editions. While I take pains to catalogue my books locally and preserve that information safely, I feel even more secure having GoodReads keeping a catalogue of my books "off site" as well. Do I think GoodReads should cater to collectors? Of course not, but if I can enter information about my books into already existing and relevant fields in GoodReads it would be in my best interest and in the best interests of others who might collect these books, to take the time to enter that information and create as complete a record as is possible. It harms no one and might help someone. Plus, if my house ever burns down and I have to submit an inventory to my insurance company, I'm going to be very grateful that the complete book data is there in GR's databases. :)
Nenangs wrote: "fanfic did got published, and some of them are here.example:
http://www.goodreads.com/series/45293..."
Yeah not sure if I'd consider that published, but that's a whole other argument.
I'm seeing some confusion between "edition" and "printing" in this thread, so am not sure everyone is arguing about the same thing. Here's a site with an explanation: http://www.lib.k-state.edu/depts/tech...
mlady_rebecca wrote: "But if we're simply identifying the first edition published, doesn't the publishing date alone give you that information? ..."In theory it might, but in practice it often doesn't. I own many books where the earliest edition listed on Goodreads is not the first edition. Once that edition is input, positively identifying it as such is useful.
How does everyone feel about inputting "Alternate Cover-Art Edition" info in the edition field? I say yes, we should be allowed to do so.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "How does everyone feel about inputting "Alternate Cover-Art Edition" info in the edition field? I say yes, we should be allowed to do so."I think that any Alternate Cover Editions should be noted with their corresponding ISBN/ISBN13. That said, I think that piece of information is a little long for the Edition field.
Putting "Alternate Cover Edition of ISBN/ISBN13" in the description field is, I feel, a much better solution to the alternate cover issue.
Vicky wrote: "Putting "Alternate Cover Edition of ISBN/ISBN13" in the description field is, I feel, a much better solution to the alternate cover issue. "That idea is much better. *agrees heartily*
rivka wrote: "And it's not only long-standing policy, it's even in the manual."That policy only regards the notice to the book description field and the librarian's note field. Moreover, in the example given in that policy, why does that book has '2006' in its edition field?
Vicky, I thought of a potential problem with your idea. What happens if that edition is an alternate cover-art edition for multiple ISBNs? What would we do then? Any ideas?
Mod
I don't believe we've often (ever?) had an alternate-cover edition for multiple ISBN's. But if we did, it would be simple enough to so indicate.
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Vicky, I thought of potential problem with your idea. What happens if that edition is an alternate cover-art edition for multiple ISBNs? What would we do then? Any ideas?"For that to happen, one book would have to have two ISBN numbers. Is that even possible?
If it is - "Alternate Cover Edition of ISBN/ISBN13; ISBN-2/ISBN13-2." Simple.
Mod
More likely, two existing editions would both be reprinted with the same new cover under both old ISBNs. Possible, but not terribly likely.
In either case, that solution works.
rivka wrote: "It was a 2006 reprint of a 1992 edition, I assume. (With a new cover, thus an alternate-cover edition.)I don't believe we've often (ever?) had an alternate-cover edition for multiple ISBN's. But ..."
May I suggest you change the '2006' info into something that would communicate the '2006 reprint of a 1992 edition' info better? As it stands, '2006' alone near the publication date makes me think the book is, IDK, confused about when it was published.
As for the Alternate Cover editions, I'm referring to the situation where many indie authors update their old cover-art. If you browse the 'Book Cover Help' discussion folder, there are many of them who are quite disagreeable to the idea of an Alternate Cover edition.
Vicky, that's a good solution.
Mod
rivka wrote: "I think that book is perfectly clear. It has been that way for several years now, and it seems to be working."Doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. Anyone else here think it's confusing too or is this just a me thing?
rivka wrote: "It was a 2006 reprint of a 1992 edition, I assume. (With a new cover, thus an alternate-cover edition.)..."If the alternate cover edition was published in 2006, why hasn't that been entered in the date field instead of entering the earlier, and therefore wrong for this edition, date?
Mod
rivka wrote: "Questions about that specific edition should probably be directed to the librarian who entered the data."That would appear to have been the super, Isis FG, although, rivka, you've undone changes of the date when it's been set to 2006.
It should so obviously be 2006 in the publication date that I can't begin to see the logic of it being set to 1992. However, as it's not, and likely never will be, on my shelf, I guess that I'm not really that concerned :-)
Mod
But if you look, that was me undoing all the changes a problem librarian had made to it -- including changing the cover, and changing the title to another language, etc. I didn't check any of them specifically, but undid them all (and not just on that book, IIRC).
OK, I didn't look that closely - I wasn't accusing, just noting :-)
Mod
Surely not at the right place here, but was does happen to a librarian who causes such an amount of obvious mistakes?
Cornelia wrote: "Surely not at the right place here, but was does happen to a librarian who causes such an amount of obvious mistakes?"Firing squad at dawn
may I suggest a tickling squad instead?
Mod
It depends on the exact situation, but repeated issues usually result in loss of librarian privileges.
MissJessie wrote: "1) Hyperlinks by nature are unstable. Static data are good, but the official URL's data will never be static no matter how much we want it to be."http://web.archive.org/
Roberto wrote: "MissJessie wrote: "1) Hyperlinks by nature are unstable. Static data are good, but the official URL's data will never be static no matter how much we want it to be."http://web.archive.org/"
Link is currently down... proving the point made. =P
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Roberto wrote: "MissJessie wrote: "1) Hyperlinks by nature are unstable. Static data are good, but the official URL's data will never be static no matter how much we want it to be."http://web.arc..."
Not me! See Message BL626
Mar 08, 2012 10:17am
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Glitches (other topics)Roughing It (other topics)
Steel's Edge (other topics)
Ah, okay. It is similar in the US. The printing number is almost never included in the book info here either. However, it is also impossible in most cases to tell which ISBN is the first edition either. A few books include on the copyright page "First edition". Many, many don't. In those cases, you have to research it and/or know that a particular ISBN is the first edition (like if you were the author or publisher or something).
BTW, I was responding to your earlier comment:
But there's no reason to mark different editions as such when there are no changes at all.
If there is no change at all it can't be a new edition. Even if the only thing that changed was the ISBN, it's still a change and still a new edition, even if the text is same, so I was confused by what you meant.
Cornelia wrote: "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."
As an amateur collector of modern first editions (e.g., books published after ~1950), I can tell you that it is shocking how little info there is out there. I can spend hours searching the web, just to find out if a particular book/ISBN is a first edition. The older the book, the harder it is, especially if it is a pre-ISBN book, or something obscure. Why shouldn't I save someone else that hassle?
Also, if I have a first edition on my shelves, shouldn't I be able to share that info with others?
To be clear, I am not posing these questions to be confrontational. I am sincerely asking why this would be a problem. Also, I am not trying to single you out in this discussion. You brought up some very good points, and I just wanted to respond. :)