Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

S., there are two different ways to group book editions together: there is combining, which merely indicates that these are two editions of the same book, and merging, which deletes one edition because it is an exact duplicate of another edition. There are limits on merging because it should be a rare occurance. There aren't any limitations on combining, because this keeps all of the editions and is very common; it's what allows people who have read different editions of the same book to compare their responses.

Translations and critical editions should be combined, not merged. (Hopefully this will make reading through this group easier! There have been a number of discussions on what should or shouldn't be combined.)

Only exact duplicates -- the same publisher, the same cover, the same ISBN, etc., should be merged.

Also, welcome to being a librarian! :)

Unfortunately, looking at old posts will be confusing on this issue. We were not so clear about the distinction until a few months back, and used the two terms interchangeably. oops!

I think books with different illustrators should not be combined. Once example of this is Casey at the Bat. The illustrators are what make the different editions distinct. This is also true of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. I was very disappointed not to see the editions I had with prominent illustrators not listed. The illustrator can affect the whole tone of a picture book. There are numerous other examples I could site. When an illustrator of the stature of Kate Greenaway or Patricia Polacco is not allowed a separate edition listing, it's sad.

Barbara, it used to be that Goodreads strictly limited the number of "authors" on a book to three, and therefore we had a policy that only text authors should be listed as authors; since the new addition of multiple authors and roles for authors, we've been going back and trying to fill in illustrators and others into the author fields with explanatory roles so that you can search on them as well as see them listed on the book.

But it's only been a month since the new roles and more than three authors, so we haven't gotten to most books yet! Links to specific books would help us get to those more quickly.

I have a question while this thread is open, and Im sure its been addressed before, but partly due to laziness and partly due to an old slow computer with three pages open (thats a lot for this old girl) Im going to ask it, perhaps, again.

First off, when is the last time someone paid ol Fyodor Dostoyevsky a visit? That boy is a MESS and quite lonely too I might add. Anyways, its operating on him (for the last 2 hours I might add) that has me asking this.

He has a bunch of "volumes" of the same work. Im not *that* savvy on him (somehow managed to escape him in high school), but Im assuming these are single works being cut into tinier bites for easier digestion, am I right? So....do I combine all of them together? There are special volumes for large print books, the regular editions, and audio books so...can volume 1 of the audiotape be combined with, say, volume 1 of the large print edition? Are we determining this by where the "to be continued" part would be on any given physical piece of work?

The biggest problems are the Brothers Karamazov versions and the ones for The Possessed (which I know is the same thing as Demons/Devils) and The Idiot

Ive combined a few that look more obvious than the next, but Im puzzled as to the next step to take. I dont want to have to do a bunch of work only to have to retrace all my steps.

When combining parts of larger works, I generally focus on how many parts there are. If something is part 1 of 3, I'll combine it with something else which is part 1 of 3, but not something which part 1 of 4. The problem is often determining how many parts make up a given division.

And there is not guarantee that two different "part 1 of 3"s are even the same, but without more data it's a concession to organization.

So what youre saying is go ahead and do it as long as the x out of y corresponds to the other even though they may have different start and stop points?

Yes, that is what I would do. Other opinions?

Actually, I don't do that. If a book has one set with volumes 1 & 2 and another set with volumes 1 & 2 & 3, I try (try being the word since I do tend to combine same numbered volumes) not to combine those volumes 1 & volumes 2 because they're no more the same than combining volumes with entire works. Just my thoughts.

That's what Michael said.

If something is part 1 of 3, I'll combine it with something else which is part 1 of 3, but not something which part 1 of 4.

Oh, ok. I misunderstood. Sorry. Maybe it was the x & y "math." ;-)

I read what he said, but I not only wanted to make absolutely sure, but I kinda also wanted a second opinion. NOt that I dont trust Michael's opinion, its just that its a group effort, and you know...

I agree with him and do the same thing.