Goodreads mass editor deleting books

[Banjomike]

Lobstergirl wrote: "It also would have been nice to get a heads-up from management about this new policy before it went into effect.

Just because transparency is always good, and also because countless librarian ho..."

True.

[MissJessie]

I'm glad for the change.

But agree with Lobstergirl; I spent many hours, and recently working on those dam things. What a waste of time!

It certainly doesn't make one feel one's work is of value, that's for sure; a head's up would have been useful/pertinent/polite. But perhaps I am oversensitive (sarcasm intended here).

Anway, good on ya for the change, better late than never.

[Krystal109]

Hindsight people.

[MissJessie]

Hindsight,perhaps. But I imagine if we weren't Volunteers but employees, there would be Foresight. The expense would not have been tolerated.

But a much needed policy change, either way.

[❂ Murder by Death]

I don't think it's necessarily chalked up to hindsight - GR has always been pretty good in the recent past about posting in the group when they are running a script that is going to make changes to the books. I'm sure it was an oversight that an announcement wasn't posted about this one. ;)

[Alessandra]

Well, hooray. I'm glad Goodreads is purging those ridiculously proliferating print-on-demand out-of-copyright books that no one has shelved. While I would like old books to have a presence, they don't seem to be helped by having a dozen different blank-covered modern editions each.

And I am ecstatic that Goodreads is removing those horrible, verging on fraudulent Wikipedia books, although I wish I had known, because I spent a lot of time adding caveats to the descriptions of many of them.

With ten million members, perhaps Goodreads needs to consider increasing its staff.

[Alessandra]

Huh. I went back and looked at the listing for my old Art Nouveau book, "Breakfasts and Teas."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...

It still has *ten* p-o-d editions, and I just noticed that a user named Mohsenin, who has zero ratings, zero reviews, and a blank profile, shelved the p-o-d versions *four times*!

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/43...

Is this some nasty way to keep useless p-o-d books around? Phantom shelvers?

[Banjomike]

Mohsenin has read 45000 books. Impressive.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Alessandra wrote: "With ten million members, perhaps Goodreads needs to consider increasing its staff."

We're hiring!


Alessandra wrote: "Is this some nasty way to keep useless p-o-d books around? Phantom shelvers?"

We'll take a look.

[^]

Alessandra wrote: "I do wish Goodreads would tell us about these things, rather than our having to speculate and be detectives.

That said, I won't be sorry if they're getting rid of those thousands of badly-scanned ..."


Totally agree. I, too, own a fair number of original pre-1923 books. Part of the very real pleasure lies in the beauty, character, and typeface of the physical edition. And also, in England, the charmed pleasure of browsing the shelves of dusty secondhand bookshops (online, such as Allibris, only if desperate).

So it's nice to be able to create edition records on Goodreads which remind people that older editions are still out there for the buying (at all price-points).

[rivka, Former Moderator]

rivka wrote: "I'm being told that the estimate is about a week. Someone should be able to post here once it has stopped."

Finis. A script to fix the affected authors' stats is now running, but that shouldn't prevent anyone making edits.

[Lobstergirl]

Lobstergirl wrote: "Suppose every single edition of a work in the database is one of these that is being removed automatically: e.g. Books LLC, or Kessinger, or IndyPublish. Does that mean that every single edition will be removed? Leaving nothing?

Because for many older works, only the POD or similar type editions are in the database, and no one has shelved any of them. "

Bump. This has not been answered....