Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Based on this thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Personally, I agree it should not be tracked, to me GR is a cataloging site and as such I don't really care about OOP in terms of buying.

That said and why I indicated it "could" be added to edition field was that I would rather have a discrete "OOP" in the edition field than the Italic Bold

"This book is no longer published blah blah blah, go to this link to see the available editions"

that is being added to the beginning of descriptions on out of print editions by authors and librarians.

I would like to see a definite policy statement on this so.

If such a bold /italic message is found in the description - do we remove? or is this going to be permitted?

Do we allow OOP in the edition field?

or nothing at all

I would say OOP is fine. The Italics are a bit much. People can then search at second hand book stores if they wish.

Personally, as I said before as a reader I would rather know a book may not be available from say Amazon and thus source it elsewhere.

I would say though it might be misused and we need to determine who inputs the info - for GR authors is it theirs? Or a librarian? I suppose we need to trust the info.

Just my tuppence worth:)

I put up a suggestions thread in the Feedback group to see if there were another way to manage this information, by the way, but there hasn't been much support for having this available in any way:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Paula wrote: ""This book is no longer published blah blah blah, go to this link to see the available editions" "

If I saw this in the description field, I would delete. It's not unlike reviews being in the description field. That information is not part of the book description.

I think that is a fair comment Elizabeth, it doesn't need to be quite so obvious.

If people don't want it they don't want it.

Alexandra, this is one example of what currently happens, not very often thankfully.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59...

Oh lol. No missing that then.

Alexandra wrote: "Oh lol. No missing that then."

Not much. Usually it is much more subtle.

Damn pesky authors.

Alexandra wrote: "Damn pesky authors."

Exactly, you are learning!

Rofl.

The OOP information aside, I didn't think any bookseller links were allowed in book descriptions or official url field. Period.

Absolutely no links in description that might get outdated or have to be kept updated (purchase, giveaways or freebies available currently on certain sites that tomorrow or next week will have changed, moved, or even gone completely oop without anyone coming back to book description to edit).

The only links I thought got put on the book page would be official url for publisher or author website, possibly a link to a series or rpg gaming universe type of site for the fans if author or publisher had set up a dedicated site.

I'm very leery of putting "available from ..." info along with oop or other info in book descriptions that might be purchase related or that are advertising for or against specific publishers, agents, etc. (goodreads does not need any slander/libel issues from authors posting about how edition oop because someone did them wrong).

I'm open to some policy exceptions that clarify oddities about editions (including discreet oop mentions if not from an author with books constantly going in and out of print at different publishers, sites, names, covers, etc.—might as well become their product page if that happens) , links to an author or publisher page explaining some series information, correcting typos, pronunciation or cast of characters — links that actually are related to the book versus to bookselling sites can be a part of legit book data if not allowed to overwhelm the synopsis.

Promotions, bookseller links, direct purchase links, blog tours, non-goodreads giveaways, etc. (even if piled behind a this-edition-out-of-print so buy this-one-from-this-site instead) don't ever belong.

I think authors should first try setting the edition they currently want to sell or that is available for sale as the primary edition to make sure it gets featured in searches, author page, etc. before posting long out of print explanations on older editions. Goodreads has members who go for the primary edition shown without caring about anything else and members who look for specific editions; specific edition members are after specific editions whether or not anyone marks as in or out of print.

Well, I agree that we need to make a decision. In the past authors were encouraged/allowed to add notes to the description indicating an edition was no longer available.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/6...
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

(There are other examples in the "Please delete" threads, but I an not very good at linking specific posts.)

I personally would advocate allowing "Out of Print" in the edition field, though not required. That way those that are concerned about it can add it (e.g., authors directing readers to the correct edition), and everyone else can easily ignore it.

I would like to emphasize the not required. No one is hunting down every "50th anniversary edition" available and making sure that it is added to the book page. (Not to my knowledge anyway.)

Also, there was a point made in the other thread, I believe, that a book that is out of print may come back into print. That does happen, but in my experience, the new edition would at the very least have a new cover and in most cases a new ISBN. Therefore, the original OOP edition would still be OOP, and the newly available edition would have its own entry. I don't see many books coming back into print with absolutely no changes to the edition data.

Banjomike wrote: "Alexandra, this is one example of what currently happens, not very often thankfully.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59..."

Has been again corrected to match description to current policies since Banjomike posted the link; but, just wanted to note for the nonlibrarians perusing the thread that the change log behind the scenes showed a whole lot of changes talking about in-out-print/reprint-available-from/rights-revoked-from/etc. on this one same edition of the book. Too much back and forth for what should be fairly static book data page (changes are usually adding missing information or editions, correcting typos, and adding entire new editions—not usual or desired for book description/synopsis or other fields to constantly be changed). All that changing might work for product pages but is a headache for book library/catalogue/database/inventory sites nevermind what it does to the poor members trying to shelve the thing.

Debbie wrote: "Has been again corrected to match description to current policies since Banjomike posted the link; but"

It wasn't the description that I was pointing out. It was the title.

Yes I think it is right in that someone can't put in available from Amazon (or whatever). Sorry that was a bad example. That is what the search bookseller whatsit is for. And besides that would be a pain for anyone who has a book at half a dozen venues.

I think that is right, if a book goes out of print any new editions would be a new ISBN.

If remember correctly there is a field the author or poster can add into like 2nd edition or whatever.

Yes it was "Book title NO LONGER AVAILABLE."

Book data for reference in case it goes again, i.e. is fixed permanently...

Wedded Magic-no longer for sale anywhere
by Sapphire Phelan (Goodreads Author)

[BLURB]

ebook
Published 2006 by No longer published
edition language English
original title Wedded Magic

--

Bolded the bits of relevance to the conversation.

vicki_girl wrote: "Well, I agree that we need to make a decision. In the past authors were encouraged/allowed to add notes to the description indicating an edition was no longer available.

http://www.goodreads.com/..."

Notes were mentioned on the threads (since not shot down I guess that means "encouraged/allowed"); I have not seen a thread encouraging lengthy explanations with bookseller links of where book was or was not available.

Of course if out of print with a publisher or rights revoked, the publisher should not still be showing on their website. But that's not anything to do with goodreads; strictly between author/agents and publisher.

Just that fine line between brief availability or oop notes that help clarify edition differences and too much extraneous detail (bookseller/promotional info, ongoing legal battles, dated or changing notes) that do not need to be clouding the edition field or the synopsis in the description field.

I think if oop policy is clarified to be allowed, a suggested location and format is a good idea.

And any author changing a book in/out-of-print more than a certain number of times should absolutely not be allowed to put that in the edition or description fields anymore for that particular book (any edition)—definitely all the changing could confuse members trying to shelve or purchase and likely be a sign of authors just trying to funnel purchases to a particular bookseller available edition.

Based on the various threads and discussions with other staff, a more concrete policy has been added to the manual: http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/32...

rivka wrote: "Based on the various threads and discussions with other staff, a more concrete policy has been added to the manual: http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/32..."

rivka, can you add that this information should be added to any existing description and should not replace it?

rivka wrote: "Based on the various threads and discussions with other staff, a more concrete policy has been added to the manual: http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/32..."

Excellent. This is an ideal solution.

I would add that for readers who want to indicate that a certain edition they've shelved is OOP, the private notes field can be used. No reason to foist this on other readers who don't care and don't want it cluttering up the metadata.

Works for me.

Maybe something about "the information should be listed as a simple statement with no ALLCAPS, italics, bold, editorial comments or explanations."

Although not something I'm going to go looking for, if they enter a long url to get to another edition on goodreads is it okay to replace that link with the shorter "add book/author" code inside the square brackets? (Not wrong and not necessary, just an aesthetics issue for me with the way goodreads truncates url information.)

A very tidy solution. If we see it in the edition field going forward, shall we remove it?

Looks very easy & simple. Yay! to have an official policy.

❂ Jennifer wrote: "A very tidy solution. If we see it in the edition field going forward, shall we remove it?"

Yes, please. As a courtesy, if the log indicates that information came from the author (or publisher), please add it to the description field when removing it from the edition field.


I tweaked the manual entry slight, by the way.

So ISBN XXX is out of print in description field ADDED to the field. Please see ISBN 12345 or something is fine.

That seems neat and tidy.

Coming in late, just want to say I like the addition to the manual.

Ok I put a note at the bottom. Can someone please check that is acceptable. Happy to take it away if not.

9781471760020 ISBN one.

Lol and I just noticed that was the wrong cover, I think I had problems uploading the cover at the time as so I used the ebook one. I am not sure I even know where the old cover of the old PB is. It is not very different. Would you like me to try and search it out, it is basically the same only a bit less grainy.

Alexandra wrote: "Ok I put a note at the bottom. Can someone please check that is acceptable. Happy to take it away if not.

9781471760020 ISBN one.

Lol and I just noticed that was the wrong cover, I think I had problems uploading the cover at the time as so I used the ebook one. I am not sure I even know where the old cover of the old PB is. It is not very different. Would you like me to try and search it out, it is basically the same only a bit less grainy."

The note looks fine.

As far as the cover goes, you've probably noticed that we don't change covers. That edition seems to have always had that cover and the people who have it on their shelves can keep it.

The only variant I can find is this one:
http://theswordofhope.com/wp-content/...
you don't have to have another edition created unless you want another version of the edition that is out-of-print. Your choice.

That is fine, thanks. I think I had issues uploading the cover it should have had, which is why it didn't. I forgot about it until all this started.

It is hardly a big thing, they were essentially the same anyway.