Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Redshirts
This topic is about Redshirts
285 views
Book Issues > Needs a number of fixes

Comments Showing 1-50 of 50 (50 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

JSWolf | 649 comments http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...

Redshirts by John Scalzi needs a number of fixes.

The first fix it needs is the title. The title is just Redshirts. The metadata for the eBook version does not have the the bit about "a novel with three codas" and neither does the cover image. You can see by looking at the cover image that the title is incorrect. Worldcat agrees with this. http://www.worldcat.org/title/redshir...

Next, the description is a mess. Please use the following description.

Ensign Andrew Dahl has just been assigned to the Universal Union Capital Ship Intrepid, flagship of the Universal Union since the year 2456. It's a prestige posting, and Andrew is thrilled all the more to be assigned to the ship's Xenobiology laboratory.

Life couldn't be better...until Andrew begins to pick up on the fact that (1) every Away Mission involves some kind of lethal confrontation with alien forces, (2) the ship's captain, its chief science officer, and the handsome Lieutenant Kerensky always survive these confrontations, and (3) at least one low-ranked crew member is, sadly, always killed.

Not surprisingly, a great deal of energy below decks is expendedon avoiding, at all costs, being assigned to an Away Mission. Then Andrew stumbles on information that completely transforms his and his colleagues' understanding of what the starship Intrepid really is...and offers them a crazy, high-risk chance to save their own lives.


The actual number of pages is 205.

Thanks.


message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

It seems lafon did this one earlier :)


JSWolf | 649 comments Thank you to who did do the fixes.


message 4: by JSWolf (last edited Jun 11, 2012 02:03PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

JSWolf | 649 comments I just noticed that the description was not properly fixed. The description is still a mess. The way it should be is three paragraphs with line separators in it so it reads properly. Please someone fix this. See the original message in this thread to see how the description should look. Thanks.


message 5: by Georgina (new)

Georgina Howlett (georginahowlett) | 13 comments I fixed the description as you said it to be - is that okay now?


JSWolf | 649 comments Brilliant. Thank you. It is all sorted now.


message 7: by lafon حمزة (new)

lafon حمزة نوفل (lafon) | 3557 comments Forgot to post back saying I had done it. And sorry JSWolf. I also forgot I needed to use the <br /> tags.


message 8: by JSWolf (last edited Feb 11, 2013 04:00PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

JSWolf | 649 comments June 10, 2012 I asked to have this eBook listing fixed and it was. I now see it's back to being incorrect. Someone please make the fixes as listed in the first post of this thread so the listing will once again be correct. Also, there are now new errors. It reads Published June 5th 2012 by Tor Books (first published January 1st 2012). It was never published January 1st, 2012. It only published on June 5th. This is not a NOOK book. A NOOk book is just an eBook with B&N's DRM. Under the DRM it's a standard ePub. It should not be saying NOOK book.

Thanks.


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

I'll look at it for you this time, JS. :) Will report back when done.


message 10: by JSWolf (last edited Feb 11, 2013 04:13PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

JSWolf | 649 comments What I would like to know is how did a perfectly good listing get overwritten with errors from Barnes & Nobel?


message 11: by [deleted user] (new)

Well, that's not exactly what happened. It got overwritten by Macmillan, the publisher, and after checking, I see that they have decided that the full title (the one you are disputing) is the correct one according to them. It is listed that way on the publisher's web site and it has been populated into the distribution channels that way.

I will leave it to a more experienced librarian to determine if it should be changed anyway.


message 12: by Banjomike (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments My copy of that ebook has no mention of "A Novel with Three Codas" anywhere that I can find.


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

Good to know. Where is yours from? The format in question was specifically the Nook ebook. The publisher apparently changed things mid-stream for some reason. Despite my post, I've been trying to track this down to see if any versions have it on the title page, etc so that they can at least be correct by format.

And I did fix the description formatting issue and remove the DRM info that was from B&N.


message 14: by [deleted user] (new)

And I just downloaded a sample of the Kindle version. Not there either. So that's two ebooks without the extra title info. I can't imagine the ones from Sony, et al would be different unless Macmillan is having a branding crisis of some sort.


message 15: by Banjomike (last edited Feb 11, 2013 04:37PM) (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments The author does describe the book on his blog as a "novel with 3 codas" and there are 3 chapters called Coda 1, Coda 2, Coda 3 but nothing in the title, or copyright page. I suppose he is allowed to change the title but I would have expected a cover change as well.

Mine is ISBN 9781429963602 from the [cough]Sony[cough] store.

Title page:
Redshirts ..... John Scalzi

Copyright page:
REDSHIRTS
Copyright © 2012 by John Scalzi
All rights reserved.
A Tor Book
Published by Tom Doherty Associates, LLC
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010
www.tor-forge.com
Tor® is a registered trademark of Tom Doherty Associates, LLC.
ISBN 978-0-7653-1699-8 (hardcover)
ISBN 9781429963602 (e-book)
First Edition: June 2012

EDIT: The Sony site does now list it as "Redshirts : A Novel with Three Codas"


message 16: by [deleted user] (new)

Yes, I just saw that on Scalzi's blog as well. And I, too, would have expected something more than just "we're gonna call it something different now" for a title change.

I also just did a run through the formats in that book record and... well, it looks like on each one, the description is the same but with different formatting issues. So I'm about to run through and set the default, and get them all in line. All 14 of them.


message 17: by Banjomike (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments This review site has a cover for the audiobook with "Redshirts : A Novel with Three Codas" on it.
http://mybooksmylife.com/redshirts-mi...


message 18: by Vicky (last edited Feb 11, 2013 04:49PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments JSWolf wrote: "What I would like to know is how did a perfectly good listing get overwritten with errors from Barnes & Nobel?"

Looking at the librarian edits I can tell you this:

The title was changed by a Librarian. The Macmillan website has "A Novel with Three Codas" on the page. I've never seen it with this subtitle, but it must exist somewhere so it's not a total stretch.

The original publication date is also recorded as being changed by a librarian. I'm not sure if these were intentional changes or not. Several of the changes listed seem like they might be side effects of combining or merging editions, but I can't be sure. Actually, I'm going to post something about this in feedback, looks like it might be a bug.

The "NOOK book" designation was also added by a librarian.

The description is trickier. There are several edits that make it look like the description was removed entirely which I suspect is a change to the default description for all editions of the work, but I'm not entirely sure. At any rate, the description was blank when the importer ran on August 6 and thus it imported a description.

ETA: Crista's updates to the descriptions just confirmed my theory. When you set an editions description to the default description it effectively leaves no description and thus allows imports. The exact text from the log is:

description: '[old description]' to ''


Long Story Short: Not overwritten by an import.


JSWolf | 649 comments Banjomike wrote: "The author does describe the book on his blog as a "novel with 3 codas" and there are 3 chapters called Coda 1, Coda 2, Coda 3 but nothing in the title, or copyright page. I suppose he is allowed ..."

What Sony lists this as is irrelevant as what you posted is direct from the eBook. The copyright page trumps a listing at a store.


message 20: by [deleted user] (new)

Ah, okay. I could see onix macmillan on some of the edits but sometimes that log is hard to parse, so thanks for figuring that out. :)

I fixed the descriptions by assigning the default where applicable (only English editions using the same text).


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

JSWolf wrote: "What Sony lists this as is irrelevant as what you posted is direct from the eBook. The copyright page trumps a listing at a store. "

Yes, we know. But we have found a format (audio) where it seems to have been used, and it's coming from the publisher / author, not the store. But I did fix the descriptions for you while we sort out the title stuff.


Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments Now that I'm looking at it, the original publication date issue isn't a bug, but an odd side effect.

The last edition combined into the work was an edition that only had a publication year, effectively listing that edition as published 1/1/2012. When it was combined, Goodreads took the earliest date (1/1/2012) and made it the original publication date.


JSWolf | 649 comments As for the name, please look at the cover image. No place on the cover does it even say "A Novel with Three Codas". Worldcat doesn't say "A Novel with Three Codas". The copyright page doesn't say "A Novel with Three Codas". There's enough proof of the book not having "A Novel with Three Codas" as part of the title then having it.


message 24: by Banjomike (last edited Feb 11, 2013 05:01PM) (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments JSWolf wrote: "As for the name, please look at the cover image. No place on the cover does it even say "A Novel with Three Codas". Worldcat doesn't say "A Novel with Three Codas". The copyright page doesn't say "..."

There is one, as mentioned in #17:
http://mybooksmylife.com/redshirts-mi...

and Worldcat has:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/redshir...


JSWolf | 649 comments Christa wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "What Sony lists this as is irrelevant as what you posted is direct from the eBook. The copyright page trumps a listing at a store. "

Yes, we know. But we have found a format (audio)..."


Thank you for the fixes and I do await the title dispute to be settled.


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

You're welcome, JS.

Okay, unless someone wants me to do otherwise, I'm going to change the KNOWN formats - the ones we've laid eyes on, which at this point is Kindle and ebook to what the covers / title pages say. I'll leave the audiobook with the long title, since we've seen a cover for it, even though it's not the cover here. I'll do an ACE for that one if I can source the cover from an appropriate location. For all I know, the blogger could be using a cover for another edition.

Everything I've seen, and the links banjomike provided, indicate that Macmillan has deliberately propagated these changes in the various distribution channels and databases. I just wish they'd made it more "official" by updating covers instead of making it seem so random.

I'll check back in a bit to see if anyone says no to me making the changes. (I'm actually going to go eat first.)


message 27: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Feb 11, 2013 05:35PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Well, the hardcovers and paperbacks author was handing out at a last summer booksigning I attended had subtitle on jackets and promotional materials.

I'm not positive how that matches to the specific editions or publisher information but I might be able to drag out some photos of said covers when I get back to my work camera. Otherwise I'm staying out of this one. Except that it does seem awkward having "A Novel" as part of the title.


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Just a side question, because I actually don't know—publisher description will overwrite an edition description left blank; but, will it still overwrite if instead of just left blank "use the default description" gets selected?


message 29: by [deleted user] (new)

Thanks for the info, Debbie. I'm about at the point of sending an email to Scalzi. :)

Given the info you've just provided, I'm inclined to go with what the author and publisher want. For now, anyway.

On top of the title issue, turns out other info is incorrect on a couple of the editions, but I can't independently verify it (at least not so far) outside of retail sources, so I can't fix it. Incorrect publisher on one of the kindle editions, for one.

I wondered about the overwriting as well, as I was setting the default. I hope that's not the case, but I'll add this book to my list of "book records to keep an eye on". When I make edits, I start to feel attached to making sure they stay correct.


message 30: by Donna (new)

Donna Davis (seattlebookmama) | 41 comments Does every nook book have to be individually imported, title by title?


JSWolf | 649 comments Is this an isolated event or should I check more of my past listings?


message 32: by Vicky (last edited Feb 11, 2013 05:54PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments JSWolf wrote: "Is this an isolated event or should I check more of my past listings?"

Since we've traced all the edits back to librarians, it could hardly be called isolated. There's no saying what edits may have been overwritten by librarians.


message 33: by Cait (new)

Cait (tigercait) | 5005 comments Debbie wrote: "Just a side question, because I actually don't know—publisher description will overwrite an edition description left blank; but, will it still overwrite if instead of just left blank "use the default description" gets selected?"

Yes, since as far as the import is concerned "blank" and "use the default description" are identical.


message 34: by [deleted user] (new)

Cait wrote: "Yes, since as far as the import is concerned "blank" and "use the default description" are identical."

Well alright then. I'm off to work on preventing an overwrite. Thanks for the info! :)


message 35: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Feb 11, 2013 09:35PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Donna wrote: "Does every nook book have to be individually imported, title by title?"

No. Some get imported like other data from publisher and industry data feeds. In fact, just becauseavailable on Barnes and Noble site in nook format does not mean it needs its own distinct edition if the nook book for sale has same isbn 978### as publisher uses for all their ebook editions. Just one editon on goodreads needed in that case (correct isbn 978## information in isbn13 field and format just saying "ebook"—in the case of the original post example it was wrong for someone to mis-identify the format ebook as being solely for nook book).

If a nook book uses the distinct bnid number that starts with 294### that does gets an ebook format edition all its own (bnid goes in isbn13 field and isbn10 should be left blank (not what happened in the case of the Redshirts book thread is about)). Again, that data can come from publisher and other feeds like Ingram.

A lot of nook, kindle and other ebook editions are self-published and not on the data feeds goodreads uses. Those will need to be added by authors, by librarians, or by goodreads members.

Amazon and Barnes and Noble data does not automatically feed into goodreads. Amazon actually yanked their data feed permissions goodreads used to be able to use months ago—leading to a lot of "unknown author/title" books librarians are still not done cleaning up.


JSWolf | 649 comments Vicky wrote: "JSWolf wrote: "Is this an isolated event or should I check more of my past listings?"

Since we've traced all the edits back to librarians, it could hardly be called isolated. There's no saying wha..."


But why was this entry edited? I don't see any requests for any other edition for this book being requested to be edited.


message 37: by Anki (new)

Anki (shadrachanki) | 6 comments JSWolf wrote: "But why was this entry edited? I don't see any requests for any other edition for this book being requested to be edited."

Librarians don't have to wait for someone to make a request before they edit a record, so the fact that there aren't any other edit requests for editions of this book doesn't mean changes won't be made.


message 38: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Feb 12, 2013 01:18PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) I'm not sure all the edits mentioned were librarian ones (didn't some come from the publisher data feeds?).

@Jswolf ?..why was this entry edited? I don't see any requests for any other edition for this book being requested to be edited.


I'm not sure how you can say that the edits were never requested. A rather moot point, since librarians make edits all the time without posting in groups or being in response to edit requests (particularly when we find typos or stuff agains policy)—But, group search features have been wonky lately (frequently unavailable) and not always easy to find all discussions about a book (including edit requests) unless, like this topic, someone specified topic was about the book or used the "add book/author" —otherwise would not show at bottom of book page as one of the discussions. Okay, honestly, I did not capture every url link to every edition on goodreads and search this and other likely groups for each of those specific url links to see if edit requests were made or not—not sure how that would help anymore than what's already in changelogs.

The only thing "sure" about book edits is that they are all in the change logs. Nothing ever has to be posted in this or any other group.

(Admittedly, personally, I find it irritating when a request for help is posted in this group, someone works on, and fails to post that they fixed so that one or more other librarians go to the effort of trying to fix something already done instead of helping the next person.)


JSWolf | 649 comments I did make sure that the what I posted originally for corrections would make the entry correct and after they were applied, it was correct. So there was absolutely no need to edit the book's entry. Why was a perfectly good entry edited to make it go from correct to incorrect?


message 40: by Banjomike (last edited Feb 12, 2013 02:42PM) (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments JSWolf wrote: "I did make sure that the what I posted originally for corrections would make the entry correct and after they were applied, it was correct. So there was absolutely no need to edit the book's entry. Why was a perfectly good entry edited to make it go from correct to incorrect? "

Usually because 'someone else' thought that they were correct. There is a lot of confusion about the title of this book. As we've seen, the cover of most editions doesn't match the title that both the author and publisher say is correct.


message 41: by Vicky (last edited Feb 12, 2013 02:45PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments Debbie wrote: "I'm not sure all the edits mentioned were librarian ones (didn't some come from the publisher data feeds?)."

The only edit that was imported was the description - and that was only able to be imported because a librarian had changed the description to the default description.

JSWolf wrote: " Why was a perfectly good entry edited to make it go from correct to incorrect?"

The title change was unnecessary, yes. But since the subtitle is attributed to the book in some cases and especially since the publisher website for that particular ISBN has the subtitle listed, I would hardly say it's incorrect. And please don't don't say "but it's not on the cover" or "but it's not in the ebook" again. We've heard those excuses. The subtitle is on the publisher's official page for that book and that gives it some merit. There's some judgement required in being a librarian - some changes are certainly black and white, I wouldn't say this one is.

The original publication date was not a change made directly by a librarian, but caused by combining an edition with only a publication year into the work. When an edition only has the year, the date defaults to January 1st of the given year. Thus the combined edition had a publication date of 1/1/2012. When this was combined into the work, the work updated the original publication date to 1/1/2012 - which so far as the database is concerned is the earliest publication date. So, while this was incorrect, it was not an intentional error. It's a bit quirky, but the only solution to this is in the programming of Goodreads. You would have to take it to Feedback if you want it fixed, but I doubt it's an easy fix.

The "NOOK book" descriptor was certainly wrong. Though, were I a betting woman, I would probably bet that the librarian did not know that NOOK books are not a class of their own. Kindle editions have long been at the forefront of eReading and are certainly in a class of their own, if someone was new to eReaders, it wouldn't be outlandish to suspect that made an innocent mistake in thinking that an eBook purchased from Barnes&Noble was a Nook book. Honestly, it's a little ridiculous to be up in arms about this.

As for the description, I suspect someone was going to continuity in using the default description for all editions (which, for the record, WAS the same as the one you gave in your first post here) not knowing that the default description functions as an empty description and invites the importer to overwrite. Again, I myself was unaware that this was the behavior there.

I don't mean to be rude, but I frankly feel like you attack librarians every time your library is anything but perfect. This is a social and dynamic site that has many people making changes - if you want to keep such an anal record of your library, use excel or an alternative program that can't be edited by other people. It's impossible to keep track of which books have been updated to "correctness" through the information of someone who owns the book and those that librarians have updated through educated guesses as we attempt to fill in all the data that we can. In the grand scheme of things that other librarians, authors and importers do to muddle the data on Goodreads - these changes are fairly insignificant. They aren't offensive, only one is "incorrect" and even then likely due to misunderstanding.


message 42: by Banjomike (new) - added it

Banjomike | 5530 comments Vicky wrote: "not knowing that the default description functions as an empty description and invites the importer to overwrite. Again, I myself was unaware that this was the behavior there. " My Bold

Damn, is that right? Many default descriptions are carefully crafted and there is a secret 'please overwrite me' flag somewhere? Double damn.

I agree with the rest of your post.


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Probably correct and incorrect are not the best phrases to use. Too subject to opinion unlike data from publisher/author sources.

Just posting in this group, whether or not is "correct" or "incorrect" data according to poster doesn't warrant an edit or stop future revisions.

Goodreads is a crowd, not an individual (even as "correct" an individual as JSWolf) sourced site. As Vicky posted, it's all a work in progress and continually being edited.

Once an issue does get settled (usually by staff weigh-in or additonal research) the only sure way future changes are prevented is if staff add a librarian note to prevent.


Vicky (librovert) | 2459 comments Debbie wrote: "Once an issue does get settled (usually by staff weigh-in or additonal research) the only sure way future changes are prevented is if staff add a librarian note to prevent."

True - but I think librarian notes should be reserved for major issues, none of which these are. It would be obnoxious to have to put a note that a book had been compared to a physical copy and is correct on every book we update. ;)


JSWolf | 649 comments I just took a look at the ePub. The ePub's metadata has the title as Redshirts. The cover image used only says Redshirts. Given that this is an entry for the eBook edition and given that it is not an Amazon eBook, it's ePub. So, the entry in question is for the ePub edition and there is no subtitle associated with this ePub in the copyright, cover or even the metadata.

I'll leave it up to the librarians to figure this one out. But before you do go with the website entry, please make sure it is the eBook you are looking at and not the print version. One final word. Do you go with a website entry or do you go with the actual book?


Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) Vicky wrote: "True - but I think librarian notes should be reserved for major issues, none of which these are. It would be obnoxious to have to put a note that a book had been compared to a physical copy and is correct on every book we update. ;) - ..."

I agree about major issues; but, also if something is being continually edited back and forth, or if there's a question that got answered...also useful to note.

And, no, JSWolf, we do not purchase every book we edit. Just not feasible (this one is in print at least). In this case, the author is one that will communicate back and I expect that will be the resolution. Not all web entries are usable or always completely accurate; but, correct or incorrect in anyone's opinion, I rather doubt what the publisher or author has to say will be ignored.

(Just had a mental flash on that insurance commercial with the girl believing everything on the internet has to be true as she goes off on her date with the "French model").


message 47: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 362 comments Banjomike wrote: "Vicky wrote: "not knowing that the default description functions as an empty description and invites the importer to overwrite. Again, I myself was unaware that this was the behavior there."

Indeed. Yikes.


message 48: by [deleted user] (new)

Just an update for JSWolf - I have contacted Mr. Scalzi but have not yet heard back. I'm sure he's quite busy, but he's known for reading the emails he receives. He may have decided to pass it along to a pub rep for clarification. I do not know. Once I hear something, I will post back.


message 49: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Feb 14, 2013 05:35PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) JSWolf correctly made this topic show it was about this book; likely Mr. Scalzi (or staff) will notice quick enough next time on goodreads even if email takes a while.


JSWolf | 649 comments Thanks for that. I didn't think of contacting the author directly. If I had know back when he was in Boston for his Redshirts Tour, I could have asked then.


back to top