Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

I know this isn't policy, but I wish it were. In any case, I'd like to ask librarians to cross-reference (with links) alternate cover editions at the top of descriptions.

Yesterday, I was at the home of an elderly friend who is not especially computer literate. I've introduced her to Goodreads and she has adopted the position of shelving her edition and I've taught her to search by ISBN. The wrong cover came up with her search. The book had comparatively few editions - only 221! As we were on her computer and account, we couldn't look at the combine page (or the edit page) to find a librarian note for the other edition. I wasn't about to have her scroll through so many editions!

When I came home, I fixed this book and next time I see her I'll show her how to switch editions. This is all well and good because she has me, but how many members are out there without experienced help?

+1

We must not forget that these notes are intended to help readers find their edition. Failing to copy librarian notes to the description where they can actually see them, doesn't help them at all.

Oh yes, please!

While I agree fully with you all that the cross-reference is very helpful, sometimes absolutely crucial to have in the description field, in my humble opinion it should not be a burden placed on unpaid volunteers to add manually. It should be added to the description as part of the automated ACE creation process. I do hope the developer team makes this improvement at some point in the future.

annob wrote: "It should be added to the description as part of the automated ACE creation process."

Not sure if this is possible without replacing existing descriptions, but that would be for the developer team to figure out, I guess.

I'm certain it's technically possible, at least going forward. Retroactively (edits in the past), much more difficult if not impossible.

I'd be happy with the first, easier to implement option, and manually help out with the older ACE book records.

annob wrote: "in my humble opinion it should not be a burden placed on unpaid volunteers to add manually. "

If unpaid volunteers aren't willing to do this, then they should just skip doing ACE edits entirely and leave them for someone else. I am an unpaid volunteer. I think it is no problem to do this. (When the new policy was introduced, I was refusing to do ACE edits. Now that there is a button, it's a simple process.)

On the other hand, there are other edits I'm reluctant to do and so don't do them.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "If unpaid volunteers aren't willing to do this, then they should just skip doing ACE edits entirely and leave them for someone else"

I understand your frustration, as I was similarly upset when the 'new' ACE rules abolished the requirement to add cross-reference to the description. I don't like removing valid data from a database record. But is it realistic to expect all Librarians to avoid the current process of ACE creation? When it follows current policies? The majority of Librarian members doesn't even frequent this group and will never see our discussion, unaware there is an issue.

That's why I think a modification of the automated ACE process is the only long-term solution that will deliver what you're asking for.

annob wrote: "I was similarly upset when the 'new' ACE rules abolished the requirement to add cross-reference to the description."

To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement to add ACE notes to the description.

ETA Found confirmation: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

annob wrote: "as I was similarly upset when the 'new' ACE rules abolished the requirement to add cross-reference to the description. "

This was never a policy/requirement.

Please note that my first post says that I know this isn't policy, but that I wish it were. This is a request, just like the request to mark requests done in the librarian group. That isn't policy, just a courtesy. I know the cross-reference I'm requesting isn't policy. It is a courtesy to the membership we serve.

lethe wrote: "To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement to add ACE notes to the description."

Lethe, Elizabeth, thank you both for correcting me on this.


Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Please note that my first post says that I know this isn't policy, but that I wish it were."

We agree on the core issue, even though we wish for different solutions.