Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Questions (not edit requests)
>
Gutenberg Project
I don't think there has ever been a finalized agreed upon practice. However, here is an example of one already in the database:http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/76...
I would add others in a similar fashion.
If the book has a real ISBN, it probably originally belonged to a printed book, and in fact may already be in the database. Gutenberg books are technically ebooks and probably should be added as a separate edition. You could note that the edition was a digital version of that ISBN in the description.
Thanks for the answer Vicky ^^I was not sure if you could use those ISBN because some of them are hard to prove that they exist, besides the copy published in the Gutenberg Project, because some of them are so old is like finding a needle in a haystack (some portuguese books are not part of our national library virtual database [buh for manual archive] and reference of their existence can only be found in the legal deposit) and didnt want to create a double of something that already exists in goodreads database.
Hi,A follow-up question along the same lines: What page count should I put for a book added from Gutenberg? The example above
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7...
has 249 pages, though I wasn't able to see on the original Project Gutenberg page where this count came from.
Thanks!
AFAIK, Gutenberg books should be added according to the edition that was digitized, i.e. with the original information, not the Gutenberg files themselves.Judging from the cover of the link in msg #2, that was not done correctly in that instance.
lethe wrote: "AFAIK, Gutenberg books should be added according to the edition that was digitized, i.e. with the original information, not the Gutenberg files themselves.Judging from the cover of the link in ms..."
I see, thanks!
(Is there a set of guidelines on this somewhere that I can read?)
Now that I know this, googling the edition that was named on Gutenberg in the Island of Dr. Moreau example above, I think I see where the 249 came from:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record...
Why'd you think the cover is a clue to it not being correct?
(I'm wishing that the Gutenberg file included this in its Bibrec or at least in the transcription file itself.)
Quiver wrote: "lethe wrote: "Why'd you think the cover is a clue to it not being correct?"Because it is clearly a scan of a print cover and shows publisher information that was not included in the record on GR.
lethe wrote: "Quiver wrote: "lethe wrote: "Why'd you think the cover is a clue to it not being correct?"Because it is clearly a scan of a print cover and shows publisher information that was not included in th..."
Hmm... I think the cover is of the correct book (though obtained from elsewhere).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond! This exchange has been helpful :)
Another great way to check page count is on the archive.org website. Look up the same title as Gutenberg shows, and about 85-90% of the Gutenberg entries are there as scans. There are also more cover images on archive.I've always seen entering books from Gutenberg as somewhat similar to checking out a book from a library. I go with the original publication info instead of the library's info, i.e., the date the book was published rather than the date the library added it to its system, so Thurston of Orchard Valley has a 1910 publication date rather than a 2005 publication (or whatever year Gutenberg listed a copy).
I would disagree with your latter comment. These are different editions, so it's a facsimile really, rather than a copy of that edition. An ebook with a 1910 date looks odd, and is. I would suggest using the date of conversion or creation, whichever is available. Both PG and IA are pretty good about documenting this information. In short, the 1910 date in your example, is not the date of that edition, but the date of the original edition that it was created from.
Emy wrote: "In short, the 1910 date in your example, is not the date of that edition, but the date of the original edition that it was created from."I thought the original date should be used and the book not added as an ebook, but as a print edition, with the original data.
lethe wrote: "Emy wrote: "In short, the 1910 date in your example, is not the date of that edition, but the date of the original edition that it was created from."I thought the original date should be used and..."
I've always entered them as print editions with original info, too (usually only when the print edition wasn't already in the database, though). Treating Glutenberg info like a publishers seems... iffy.
If they are releasing the work in a new format, then they are publishing it, really. As a website they can't share the physical edition with you, although it is a facsimile of the original. It's a digital surrogate, technically.
Treating them as an “imprint” of a long-gone publisher better highlights that they carry the same responsibilities regarding proofreading and accuracy as the numerous ebook publishers these days. It also indicates to the uninitiated that this is an ebook not a facsimile *print* copy (because there exist many such facsimile prints by profit-making publishers).
Emy wrote: "But it's not a print edition is it?"It is a scan of a print edition.
I found these comments regarding GR policy:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
They basically say to add the original edition and not add the Gutenberg file.
(I tried to find an official staff comment on this, but didn't succeed. I do seem to remember though that rivka said somewhere that Gutenberg editions should not be added as such.)
So according to the criterion that every copied edition should have a separate entry and publication date, then getting ebooks through Overdrive/Libby/etc wouldn't be entered with the original copy info?Gutenberg is like a pass-through. Archive.org is the same. They are providing copies of what someone else created. According to viewing the pass-through as a "publisher" then we would have three versions of the exact same cover, original, Gutenberg ebook, and archive.org ebook. I also would like to point out that Gutenberg and archive.org both offer multiple formats for a single entry—ePub, kindle, .pdf, etc—so we would have even more entries for those books. Having a policy of entering for every single variant of a copy that has unlimited copyright could be a major mess very fast.
Thanks for the links, Lethe. I also seem to recall a Rivka comment about it.(Note: just because I provided a link to a book above that was originally added from Gutenberg doesn't mean anyone should feel free to monkey with that entry, because I bought a print copy that exactly matches it earlier this year.)
lethe wrote: "Emy wrote: "But it's not a print edition is it?"It is a scan of a print edition."
So are many editions published by public domain publishers yet we use the PD publisher as the publisher. Some of those are print editions and some are digital.
Hannah wrote: "Having a policy of entering for every single variant of a copy that has unlimited copyright could be a major mess very fast."Indeed, and I do believe that that is not the policy.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "lethe wrote: "Emy wrote: "But it's not a print edition is it?"It is a scan of a print edition."
So are many editions published by public domain publishers yet we use the PD publisher as the publ..."
They are actual publishers though, and use (new) ISBNs. Project Gutenberg isn't, and doesn't.
I think it is time that we, once and for all, hear from staff what the correct policy is.
Which is why I've entered hundreds as print copies over the years....
Hannah wrote: "Having a policy of entering for every single variant of a copy that has unlimited copyright could be a major mess very fast. "You mean like Pride and Prejudice which currently has 4694 editions?
Please, Elizabeth. You know very well what we are talking about here.
Isn’t that ironic? Anyway:Let’s make this specific and address a real-world issue non-librarian users of GR face.
Here’s the source of my quandary which initiated this thread today.
Take:
Dreams by Henri Bergson
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
It has 50+ editions and most are ebooks that I assume use Gutenberg or other publicly available resources. They all get their entries, but Gutenberg doesn’t.
Alright, the question:
I read the Gutenberg copy the other day. So which non-Gutenberg edition should I be reviewing?
And if you say the “original”, how’s a user going to know what the original one is? I mean sure you can go back to the Gutenberg copy, locate the small-print etc... but how many people can be bothered?
Is the case of Dreams, the original is The World of Dreams, second most popular entry. The small publishers churning out public domain stuff may or may not be using PG or Archive for their source, but it's definitely not their only source. These folks are out to make money on their efforts and are selling copies of old stuff—and have hundreds of books listed that are either not on PG/archive at all or predate there being a listing on such sites. They have spent money on ISBNs for their works and are putting them out as a new edition—not as a copy of an old. Some of these editions are sloppy OCR editions and some of them are edited for the modern reader.
Gutenberg on the other hand also has a strict policy of adhering to the original content of the book they are listing.
Quiver wrote: "And if you say the “original”, how’s a user going to know what the original one is? I mean sure you can go back to the Gutenberg copy, locate the small-print etc... but how many people can be bothered?"I would assume people would look up or add editions the same way they do with other editions: looking at the cover and the information in the colophon or at the beginning of the file. Based on that, they can find the edition in GR or add a new one.
Hannah wrote: "Is the case of Dreams, the original is The World of Dreams, second most popular entry. "
So let's see. I still don't quite get it. The link that you provide is to a book with the following data: Published January 1st 1958 by Philosophical Library.
But if you look at the beginning of the Gutenberg file for "Dreams"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20842...
you see "Published by B. W. Huebsch, 1914".
So why are you thinking the 1958 copy is the correct one? As far as I can tell there is no 1914 edition added at the moment, and I would have to make one (e.g. this would be the original book... https://www.abebooks.com/Dreams-Bergs...).
What am I misinterpreting here?
I was going by the original publication date on the listing here, so yes, if you have an earlier edition it needs to be added.
lethe wrote: "Please, Elizabeth. You know very well what we are talking about here."I know what we're talking about, so exactly why is it that it's confusing to have a lot of editions of PD books from Gutenberg or Archive.org? The example of Pride and Prejudice is exactly why it should *not* be confusing to have a lot of editions.
lethe wrote: "I would assume people would look up or add editions the same way they do with other editions: looking at the cover and the information in the colophon or at the beginning of the file. Based on that, they can find the edition in GR or add a new one."I partially agree here.
For the Bergson book "Dreams" that I mentioned in my response to Hannah above, it says clearly "Published by B. W. Huebsch, 1914" at the beginning of the file. So fine, I know where to start.
However in another book by Bergson that I'm reading now (and this is not the only time the problem has ocurred):
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4352
it says "Authorised translation by..." and lists a bunch of names. But no discernible publisher and no date.
So what happens in that case?
I've looked at this a number of time trying to suss it out, but it's arduous and I can't really see a good way of nailing which one is the correct one. Searching for "laughter bergson" brings up a bunch of editions which are all of the same book, but who knows which one's the Gutenberg. There's one from 2018 which carries the correct translators (so clearly not the correct period), and the correct translators are listed on a Turkish translation etc. (Of course there are the odd-balls from 1379 (?!), wrong by circa half a millennia, but let's not go there.)
Perhaps it's time to add the original based on which the Gutenberg file was made? (If I can find a reference somehow.)
The point I'm trying to make is that I had to go through all this effort to discover the Gutenberg one was *not* present. I wish there'd be a quicker way so I didn't have to spend so much time cutting to the chase.
This is why I agree with you partially:
Yes, you can look at the beginning of the file, but in some cases the data isn't there (or if it is, it's hard to spot). And even if a GR librarian goes to the effort of creating a new, correct edition, how is a user going to know that this original is the Gutenberg version unless this is somewhere tagged—the missing data link will remain missing.
Hannah wrote: "I was going by the original publication date on the listing here, so yes, if you have an earlier edition it needs to be added."Just to check, what "original publication date on the listing here"? I was talking about the Gutenberg file for Bergson's "Dreams" (which doesn't seem to have its own edition on GR...)
Quiver wrote: "Hannah wrote: "I was going by the original publication date on the listing here, so yes, if you have an earlier edition it needs to be added."Just to check, what "original publication date on the..."
And 1914 would be the date of the English language translation, not necessarily the original publication of the work. I think Gutenberg indicates the publication date of its edition is 2007 (when PG published it).
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "And 1914 would be the date of the English language translation, not necessarily the original publication of the work. I think Gutenberg indicates the publication date of its edition is 2007 (when PG published it).."Indeed, yes, and if we're going with adding PG editions, I'd be happy to put 2007 as the publication date (of course the original date would stay as whatever the original date is.)
When you click on "other editions" it says "first published 1958" so if we know there was a 1914 copy we can edit that date in.As a rule of thumb, librarians tend to enter the earliest known date of publication, even if there could be an older publication. For the longest time the computer automatically defaulted that date to the oldest edition listed, but now we have to enter it manually. (Argh)
I don't think we got a final answer about if it was okay to add PG. There were more of us against than for.
There's a relevant section at the very end of the Gutenberg information attached to the end of all their books: "Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. ...
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition."
Hannah wrote: "I don't think we got a final answer about if it was okay to add PG. There were more of us against than for. I think those are definitely published. Just because they are free on the internet doesn't mean they aren't published, which they obviously are.
I really think we should hear the final verdict from rivka. I have always understood that PG is not considered a publisher.
While this is about page numbers, and enough years ago the process is changed, the context of this post by Rivka indicates that Gutenberg editions are published by Gutenberg.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Alright folks, so how's it best to go about clarifying this? I think none of us want to add numerous Gutenberg books then have to add them again etc., and it sounds like we all agree it'd be good to have a definitive, authoritative answer.
Quiver wrote: "Alright folks, so how's it best to go about clarifying this? I think none of us want to add numerous Gutenberg books then have to add them again etc., and it sounds like we all agree it'd be good..."
Nowhere are you required to add numerous Gutenberg books. Add what you want and ignore the rest.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Nowhere are you required to add numerous Gutenberg books. Add what you want and ignore the rest. ."Let me try to clarify: I meant, I'd like to know whether to be adding ebooks or originals and which information to be using (publication dates, page count etc). From what has passed above, it seems to me that there is no consensus. Shouldn't we be striving for a consensus?
Quiver wrote: "I meant, I'd like to know whether to be adding ebooks or originals and which information to be using (publication dates, page count etc). "The answer is both. If the original does not appear on Goodreads, then it can be added. However, the ebook on Gutenberg is not the original and should be another format/edition.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "However, the ebook on Gutenberg is not the original and should be another format/edition."I'd like to see a staff decision/clarification on that, because I am not sure this is indeed the policy.
lethe wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "However, the ebook on Gutenberg is not the original and should be another format/edition."I'd like to see a staff decision/clarification on that, because I am not sure ..."
So the post by Rivka I linked to above in #40 isn't the staff position?
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "So the post by Rivka I linked to above in #40 isn't the staff position? "As you say, it is about page numbers and also a very old thread.
lethe wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "So the post by Rivka I linked to above in #40 isn't the staff position? "As you say, it is about page numbers and also a very old thread."
It looks to me that Rivka is referencing Gutenberg editions, not original editions. And so what if it is an old thread? Policies in place from the onset haven't changed, and those are even older.
Maybe this helps with the thinking. The books that Gutenberg has on their website were books originally published long ago. The original books should be on GR with the original publication date and publisher if they are not already here. It may be that research is required to determine the format of the original publication. However, as ebooks published sometime this century, the publisher is Project Gutenberg with a 21st Century publication date. I don't understand how this is confusing.
I am with Elizabeth here, and I feel that her last explanation is good.
Goodreads Librarians Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The World of Dreams (other topics)The World of Dreams (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Thurston of Orchard Valley (other topics)
I'm a huge fan of the Gutenberg Project (yey free books!) and I was wondering how to add their books to goodreads. What is the common practise? Some of them have an internal ref number, others have the real the isbn number of the original book (cases where the ebook is in fact a scanned copy), so do i add them with no isbn and just put the internal ref in the description field, do i use the isbn provided?