Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

This is a continuation of a previous thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

i've been routinely adding 'nook' to relevant ebook editions for over a year. unfortunately, it would take me forever to scroll back through old threads to where that policy was told to me. i really liked that practice since it allowed users who were not familiar with the '294' or '123' ISBN system to easily shelve their preferred edition versus generic ebook or kindle. i assumed it was kosher since we (used to) add 'Audible edition' for audiobooks. same with 'kobo'.

anyway, just to confirm, we are NOT supposed to indicate nook or kobo in the edition field? or anywhere else?

[and as a grumbly aside, i really wish the 'oral traditions' for GR librarians was more extensively codified every once in awhile. things like this issue, or how to create an ACE for an ARC, or first-to-GR-keeps-the-ISBN for ACEs, etc. i only learn them by screwing up first. there's got to be a better way...]

Z-squared wrote: "anyway, just to confirm, we are NOT supposed to indicate nook or kobo in the edition field? or anywhere else?"

Not in the edition field. Kobo is sometimes the publisher of record; I don't think that's ever true for B&N, but I am not certain.

As far as additions to the Manual, any member of this group is welcome to start a new thread in the folder for such additions.

rivka wrote: "Z-squared wrote: "anyway, just to confirm, we are NOT supposed to indicate nook or kobo in the edition field? or anywhere else?"

Not in the edition field. Kobo is sometimes the publisher of record; I don't think that's ever true for B&N, but I am not certain."

I also liked that practice, and was unaware that we were not supposed to do that. I always select "ebook" as the format but then specify "Nook Edition" or "Kobo Edition" in the "edition" field, since it makes it clear why the ISBN starts with the 294 or 123 instead of the standard 978 and it also makes clear where that particular ebook can be found.

I'll stop doing them that way, but I am curious as to why we're not supposed to do so. I always figured the more information provided for an edition, the better.

Well, I always remove nook or kobo when I see them in the edition field as I know from previous discussions that wasn't correct.

I'm sure most people with Nooks know that the 294 means them.

Sandra wrote: "Well, I always remove nook or kobo when I see them in the edition field as I know from previous discussions that wasn't correct.

I'm sure most people with Nooks know that the 294 means them."

I think the problem would be more with people who don't have Nooks (or Kobo devices) and don't know what the 294 or 123 numbers mean, because then they may be inclined to remove or change those ISBNs. (The system, after all, tells you to check/change the ISBN when editing those records because it thinks they're wrong.)

Well, if librarians aren't sure of something they are directed to ask, not just change or delete things.

And I personally find it irritating that the system hijacks you whenever you work on a nook book etc. Not your problem Andrea, I know, just couldn't help venting :)

Sandra wrote: "Well, if librarians aren't sure of something they are directed to ask, not just change or delete things.

And I personally find it irritating that the system hijacks you whenever you work on a nook book etc. Not your problem Andrea, I know, just couldn't help venting :)"

True. But based on the editions I've shelved that have had their covers changed or that have been merged into other, different editions, it is still a problem.

Re. the "system hijacks", do you mean how the system tells you the ISBN is incorrect? Or something else?