Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

I have a question about the combining/separating of certain children's books. At the moment my question pertains to folk/fairy tales in particular, but may apply to picture books in general. The librarian manual and what little discussion I've found seems to suggest that all versions of a fairy tale should be combined, no matter how little they have in common. As a result, we have for instance 163 editions of Snow White and they range widely both in length and content as the style and quality of illustrations. The most popular edition, and thus the one to pop up in search, is a Golden Book version of the tale. The artifact of this is that this Disney story now sports a Caldecott Honor, whereas the true recipient would have been Nancy Ekholm Burkert, but to find her version among the 163 editions she's now buried in may be quasi impossible. Among all these different editions, many of course are reprints of the same book and should by all means be grouped together, but the fact that all versions are combined makes it very confusing to see which is which. Many instances could be named where picture books differ drastically depending on both who illustrates them and whether they contain original stories or redactions/adaptations. So, is the strict order always to combine everything, regardless? What about when one version is an award winner? Would that justify keeping that one apart from other editions?

The policy is to combine all editions with the same (or roughly the same) content. Adaptations are separated out (e.g., if the author is "Disney" it's an adaptation). Abridged editions are not separated out. When it's obvious that some editions are very juvenile (like a Little Golden Book, or a board book) those should be grouped together separate from, say, an adolescent/adult edition which has 140 pages.

Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell what each edition contains.

Award winning versions would not be separated out. The illustrations have nothing to do with combining and separating - it's only the text that is at issue.

Okay, I see what's causing additional confusion. Among the 165 editions that are combined (with the most popular being a 24 page Disney adaptation), there are all sorts of different primary authors.

So the editions need to be separated according to primary author. That way, Snow White by Disney would not be able to be combined with Snow White by Randall Jarrell (this latter edition is the one that should have the Caldecott Honor attached to it):

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

It's separate because its author is Randall Jarrell, not Disney.

Thank you, Lobstergirl, can I then assume that the adaptor of the fairy tale would qualify as primary author here, instead of the Brothers Grimm? In which case many of the editions could be separated out? This would make it easier to find in particular some of the award winning versions. A search by illustrator unfortunately typically just takes one to the most popular edition of the story, instead of locating the relevant version.

It complicates the issue further that the Caldecott is awarded to the illustrator. Now, the illustrator isn't primary author, but I think the argument could be made (for picture books, in any case) that illustrator ranks very much as "primary" if not "author". In fact it would be really neat sometimes if Goodreads allowed one to sort/group by illustrator as well.

So, to reiterate, another example: The original children's book about Flat Stanley has since been abridged and reillustrated to be republished on one hand as a picture book Flat Stanley, on the other as an early reader, with Flat Stanley. These still mostly follow the same story, with just some details and minor events left out. I can see the point in combining the Flat Stanley versions, but when it comes to the fairy tales, there's often so little left of the original story and intent, that it seems misleading to refer them all as the same book.

I don't see why those first two versions of Flat Stanley would not be combined. You'd have more of a case that the third one, the early reader, might be separated. But I don't know if there's enough of a difference in the stories that they should be separated. My inclination would be to leave them combined. And they all have the same author, Jeff Brown.

An example of two editions that definitely would be separated is when an adult book is published, and then later a children's version of the same book is published. Example:

Adult edition:
Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School at a Time

Young Reader's edition:
Three Cups of Tea: Young Reader's Edition

I then assume that the adaptor of the fairy tale would qualify as primary author here, instead of the Brothers Grimm? In which case many of the editions could be separated out?

Yes.

This would make it easier to find in particular some of the award winning versions.

But we already know the award winning edition is by Randall Jarrell, not Disney or the Brothers Grimm, so it's easy to find already.

Fjóla wrote: "when you search for edition by artist/illustrator, Goodreads still returns the most popular edition but not the one having the artist I searched for. "

Yes, that's just the way it works and will probably never change. Your only option is then to look through all "other editions" or to use some outside database, like a large library database, or Amazon, to find the correct ISBN and then search GR for that ISBN.

I notice that you, Lobstergirl, are pretty much the only person here on the forums who seems to have a problem with the author spamming of the Listopias.

Actually there are a lot of people who are severely irritated by it, but not all of them are active members (or members at all) of this group or the Feedback Group.

This is a pet peeve of mine, so yesterday I commented on a post where an author was asking for help so that his "readers" (read author/review circle) could "push" his book to the top of a certain list. I commented about whether this practice was actually tolerated by Goodreads and my post was actually deleted WITHIN THE MINUTE and the topic closed by force. I was a bit shocked, as I hadn't realized the extent of censorship applied, but I'd noticed any thread on authors hijacking Listopia lists quickly gets closed by moderators.

Did your post get deleted in this group? Feedback Group? Or some other group? Because yes, you are correct that in the Feedback Group and Librarian Group it is very taboo to talk too much about author/crony spamming - the Author Circle Jerks, as I call them. But it is highly unusual for a post to get deleted in Feedback Group and Librarian Group. If you mention another user by name, or link to another user, you will be asked to edit that out - but your entire post will not be deleted. So I am thinking this must have happened in some Author-related group, where the mods do have the power to delete any post.

It is not at all unusual for threads discussing Author Circle Jerks to be quickly closed. Staff does NOT like talking about Author Circle Jerks. Yes, there is censorship on GR about Author Circle Jerks. That's one reason I have the black tape over my mouth.

This thread could be closed. We'll see, I guess.

It was in this group and it wasn't a short comment. I didn't link to the author nor the lists he spammed, however the author himself had earlier in the post (*chuckle*). This is what I wrote:

But this just looks exactly like the Listopia abuse that is being described in these two recent discussion threads: Goodreads Authors Listopia Voting Schemes and Listopia Abuse - Goodreads Authors Gaming The System. I don't understand why this is being tolerated by Goodreads. The primary reason this book "is on a number of lists and placed quite high on some" is because the author put it there and summoned his friendly author/review circle to vote on it. The first clue should be the fact that about every single person who rated it also voted for it on Listopia. The ratio for books who make it onto the list "naturally" will be more like 10-20 votes per thousands of ratings. The readers (actually authors) aren't supposed "push" the books anywhere, they're supposed to spontaneously vote for the books that have left an impression on them and fit the list criteria.

This sort of author behavior is so aggravating, it's what's ruining Listopia ...

I was in shock for a moment, because I think deleting comments like this without notice is a type of forgery and way over the top as far as censorship on a social site. Quickly downloaded my book catalogue, just in case. Well, I guess I know better now. And I expect this thread will be closed, less it fly under the radar of the censorship committee ...

Hi all
Just a comment regarding fairy tale authorship again. I tried finding the answer in the manual and the closest policy is that of sacred texts, where the first author is to be listed as Anonymous and the editor/adapter as a second author. Should this be the policy for fairy tales of unknown author, and where the actual story author is known (eg. "Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont for Beauty and the Beast), they are listed first and the adapter/reteller second?

I would go with whatever the title page says, or if that's not available, Worldcat...although occasionally Worldcat is wrong.

If the author of the fairy tale is truly unknown, and the book is the original tale and not an adaptation, the author would be Unknown. Is there a specific book you can link to? There may be other examples of this book in the database that are done correctly and your book should follow the same practice. I don't really understand the "for" in the title you used as an example.

I meant that Beaumont is the original author. I've just modified a version of this story to reflect the title page, in which Stephanie Paquet is the adapter of the story for French language learners.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

In your example Dr, it looks like Stephanie Paquet adapted the story written by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. Therefore, Paquet is listed first as the adapter, with Beaumont second.

Sacred texts are a special case. Anonymous is listed first to allow combining (and prevent arguing). Also, many times all or part of the sacred text was published without a known author.

Most published versions of Beauty and the Beast have a known author. Your link is for an adaptation of a story by a known author, so it should be Adapter, then Original Author.

Possibly, but the publisher prominently shows Beaumont as the author on the cover and inside, with fine print for the name of the adapter. The adaptation follows the original story quite closely but uses much simpler language so that I'd say there probably isn't a single sentence that is identical.
However, consider the case where a text adapted for more advanced learners with a 3,000 word vocabulary only modifies 10% of the (hard) words. Surely the original author would be listed first in that case.

If it is different enough that it should not be combined with the original, then the adapter goes first. This prevents unintentional combining by other librarians.

Fjóla wrote: "I have a question about the combining/separating of certain children's books. At the moment my question pertains to folk/fairy tales in particular, but may apply to picture books in general. The li..."

This whole fairy tale mess is a pet peeve of mine here on Goodreads. No reputable library cataloger would combine the editions that are combined here. Each book with a different illustrator would be on a separate book record. It has been VERY DIFFICULT for me to locate some of the exact editions I read, because I did not have the patience to wade through all the editions thrown together just because they have the same title. And I did finally have to resort to searching by ISBN, which is a pain in the *&^*!!

OK, thanks. I can see now that it also makes sense to list the adapter first due to the limited way that Goodreads presents search results. They could really do with some advanced search options. Also with the default way of displaying a book by first author only in listings.
Will do this way in future.

I'd just like to raise my hand and say I'm also annoyed by Listopia spam. Listopia is one of my favorite Goodreads features and I have flagged lists before as being full of spam, but I don't know if any action was ever taken on those flags (I suspect not).

Beverly wrote: "This whole fairy tale mess is a pet peeve of mine here on Goodreads. No reputable library cataloger would combine the editions that are combined here. Each book with a different illustrator would be on a separate book record. It has been VERY DIFFICULT for me to locate some of the exact editions I read, because I did not have the patience to wade through all the editions thrown together just because they have the same title. And I did finally have to resort to searching by ISBN, which is a pain in the *&^*!!"

Agree. Also, doing an ISBN/ASIN search doesn't work if the ISBN/ASIN in question has had multiple covers associated with it. The search will pull up the edition that actually has that ISBN/ASIN listed in its correct field, but won't pull up the editions that mention it as part of a librarian note regarding an alternate cover edition.

And regarding picture books, and illustrated books in general, it is very, very frustrating that when searching by title + illustrator, the Goodreads search returns the most popular edition of that title, whether or not that edition bears that illustrator's name. Each edition has its own page on Goodreads, so theoretically each edition should be able to be displayed in search results. (And we know they can be, since doing an ISBN search returns the edition with that ISBN, even if it's not the most popular edition of that title.) For those of us who read and catalog picture/illustrated books, the illustrator/illustrations is a key element of the book, and "The Ugly Duckling" illustrated by "Joe Smith" is a very different book from "The Ugly Duckling" illustrated by Susan Smith.