Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

This is an annual Best of the Year that went for 21 years.
Years 1 through 16 were edited by Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling. Years 17 through 21 were edited by Ellen Datlow, Kelly Link and Gavin J. Grant.
See ISFDB for details: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?1...
Thanks!

If I understand correctly, you're referring to books such as The Year's Best Fantasy: First Annual Collection and The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Thirteenth Annual Collection.

Edited collections don't typically meet GR requirements for a series—on GR series need to share elements such as world, characters, etc. Edited collections can be grouped together on Listopia: https://www.goodreads.com/list

Hmm - that's curious - I did a quick check and found a number of edited series without shared elements that have been set up as series here on GR:
Isaac Asimov Presents The Great SF Stories 1: 1939 - Isaac Asimov
Wizards: Isaac Asimov's Magical Worlds of Fantasy 1 - Isaac Asimov
Intergalactic Empires - Isaac Asimov
Full Spectrum 1 - Lou Aronica
The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One, 1929-1964 - various
The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume One - Neil Clarke
The Year's Best Science Fiction: First Annual Collection - Gardner Dozois

I'm sure that I could find many, many more examples were I to continue looking. The requested Datlow series is no different than the examples listed above - are you sure that the policy excluding edited series is a firm policy? It would seem that the policy is, at best, inconsistently followed.

Engelbrecht wrote: "are you sure that the policy excluding edited series is a firm policy? It would seem that the policy is, at best, inconsistently followed."

It is a firm policy. Most librarians creating these series most likely do not understand that they are not actually series, but imprints for Goodreads purposes.

From the Librarian Manual: https://help.goodreads.com/s/article/...

Imprints and other unrelated collections of works (usually by multiple authors) are not series. They can be grouped with a Listopia list, or the collection/imprint information can be listed in the edition field, but they should not be grouped into a series, or listed on a book's title line.

As a general rule, a book is only part of a series if that designation would apply to all editions of a work. To be a series, books should have characters and/or universes in common. In the case of imprints and other non-series collections, it is common for some of these books to be published under numerous other imprints as well.

You're right that collections are often listed as series anyway, but they're not supposed to be.

Thanks to both of you for your quick and clear reply.

To my mind it's an unfortunate policy, as it's helpful to be able to see all the books in such a "series", but it is what it is.

A side question: one of the books linked to above - The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Thirteenth Annual Collection confusingly shows as being part of The Diogenes Club Series. Presumably, this is because one of the stories in the anthology is a story in this series. However, to me, it doesn't seem to be a good practice - what if an anthology contains multiple stories that are part of different series? A reading of the help article on series doesn't seem to support this practice. And, as I said, it's simply confusing.

Thanks.

Engelbrecht wrote: "A side question: one of the books linked to above - The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Thirteenth Annual Collection confusingly shows as being part of The Diogenes Club Series. Presumably, this is because one of the stories in the anthology is a story in this series. However, to me, it doesn't seem to be a good practice - what if an anthology contains multiple stories that are part of different series?"

That is actually correct and if multiple series are involved they can all be listed (although only one will show with the title--awkward I admit.)

See Robert Silverberg's Legends series for a classic example.

Engelbrecht wrote: "To my mind it's an unfortunate policy, as it's helpful to be able to see all the books in such a "series", but it is what it is."

I suspect that if the system were being built from scratch now some things would be done differently (with, among other things, a way to indicate this type of series, separate from series that contain the same characters/worlds). As it is, I understand (rightly or wrongly—I have no insider knowledge here) some of the policies to reflect the fact that we're working within the current system's limitations.

Thanks to all for their feedback and help!!