Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

This is a 50 volume set of books. This can be added as a series, right?

From what I can tell there are a lot of reprints in the database that have been added as separate books instead of as new editions. There is also a lot of information that is missing. Would you want me to start new threads elsewhere for these?

Here's a complete list of the series - http://www.sacred-texts.com/sbe/

This seems to me a publisher's series (OUP), not a series according to GR policy.

Where is the policy on series? It doesn't seem to be in the librarian manual.

https://www.goodreads.com/help/show/2...

Alright, thank you. Even though it isn't a series. How should I go about fixing these. Some of them have the series in the title, as well.

I know this thread is old, but I came to it because I was looking at another book in the series(ish).

The linked policy seems written only with fiction series in mind: "To be a series, books should have characters and/or universes in common." So I'm looking for clarification on non-fiction series qualifications under GR policy.

Specifically, I tend to think of an "imprint" as being something specific under a given publisher, as implied under the Publisher section of the Manual. A non-fiction series, however—especially an old one like this—may have been published by more than one publisher/imprint, and are often numbered and titled separately from the publisher/imprint.

So, taking this specific numbered and titled (and thematically connected) series as an example, is this really not a series in the sense Goodreads intends that feature to be used? And if not, is there a handy example of a non-fiction series that is and should be a Goodreads series to use as an example of when to use correctly apply the Goodreads series feature?

Thanks for any additional clarification.

The first question to ask, especially with non-fiction books, is: does the series apply to all editions of each work? That is rarely the case with imprints, which often have the same book reprinted with another publisher under a different "series" with completely different numbering. It doesn't sound like it would apply in this case, unless I am misunderstanding "are often numbered and titled separately from the publisher/imprint".

Most non-fiction does not meet Goodreads criteria for being a series. Just having a common theme is not sufficient.

As far as I have ever seen (and I have a lot of these, and access to many more in physical libraries I help to tend) they are always numbered the same as in the original series. For example, even this 1968 Dover edition of the Jaina Sutras Vol II is prominently labeled as "The Sacred Books of the East vol. xlv, translated by various Oriental scholars and edited by F. Max Müller". So that would appear to answer your "first question" yes. (Aside: someone keeps changing F. Max Müller to Friedrich Max Müller, frustratingly, since he never published using the latter form as far as I have ever seen, and certainly not in this series.)

I do get your general point, and if I am following it correctly this series at any rate would appear to me to be an exception even if no other non-fiction series is (though I also would think that https://www.goodreads.com/series/6482... would count, which it may not, though someone certainly seemed to think it did). And making it a proper series would be a lot of work, so I'm certainly not about to start in at all unless you give the go ahead.

But this "series" includes quite a number of books which have been published separately -- the Upanishads, the Tao te Ching, etc. That seems to rule out meeting the rule, except perhaps accidentally.

Ah, now I see what you're driving at: the fact that these are translations, and thus other editions exist which are not part of the same series is the bar because "series" functions at the "work" level, and many of the associated "works" in other editions would be tied to the series even though they are not properly part of it, yes?

In which case, Sacred Books of the East would be not-a-series, but Pop-Culture and Philosophy would be a series, right?

Keith wrote: "Pop-Culture and Philosophy would be a series, right?"

From what I can see it's ok.

Got it, thank you.