Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

The Kindle edition of The Inconsolables by Michael Wehunt has an unused earlier version of the cover art. The correct, actually used cover art includes a praise quote at the bottom and can be found on the Amazon page here: https://www.amazon.com/Inconsolables-...

Can somebody please correct this edition?

Bumping the thread.

How do you know the earlier image was never used?

Martin wrote: "How do you know the earlier image was never used?"

Before the book even came out the publisher made a Twitter post with a picture of the book's Amazon listing, which used the version with the praise quote. It's blurry, but you can definitely see the praise quote text at the bottom of the cover in the picture. Link to that post for proof: https://twitter.com/bad_hand_books/st...

It's possible that the version that doesn't have the praise quote was uploaded to Amazon to use as a pre-release placeholder, but it was definitely changed to the praise quote version before the book was ever released.

We cannot use social media as a source for information or covers.

Martin wrote: "We cannot use social media as a source for information or covers."

Does a valid source like Amazon not count if it's a screenshot?

A screenshot of the Amazon page that can be confirmed as predating the publication date would serve as confirmation.

Martin wrote: "A screenshot of the Amazon page that can be confirmed as predating the publication date would serve as confirmation."

So does the fact that the Twitter post is from before the publication date not confirm that the Amazon screenshot is from before the publication date? Twitter does not have the ability to backdate a post, and I doubt the people at Bad Hand Books have the ability to time travel.

I didn't realise that was an Amazon screenshot, but as it appears in social media we cannot use it as a source. Even if the source were acceptable there are no issue details there to confirm format or ASIN.
As you know librarians are not allowed to change cover images unless they are absolutely sure the existing image is incorrect. If you want to catalogue the Kindle with current cover it would have been far easier to ask for an alternate cover edition.
If you are unable to provide proof that the existing image was never used I will go ahead and add ACE.

Martin wrote: "I didn't realise that was an Amazon screenshot, but as it appears in social media we cannot use it as a source. Even if the source were acceptable there are no issue details there to confirm format..."

You don't need to make an alternate cover edition. I closely follow enough indie horror presses to know that creating ACEs is something that almost never happens with indie publishers. Usually they don't have the resources for it.

I'm not sure if this is enough proof by Goodreads standards, but here's an archived version of the Amazon page from before the release date: http://web.archive.org/web/2023032720.... As far as I can tell, this is the only actual evidence that the non-praise quote version was ever even used. The only other place I can find the non-praise-quote cover is the publisher's Twitter, which is not a valid source for cover art images. The Internet Archive has post-release versions also archived where the praise quote cover is present.

As usual, I would like to point out that that logically speaking, the burden of proof should be on the person trying to prove that cover art that is not present anywhere on any bookselling website has been used. Librarians don't make new ACEs for "coming soon" placeholder images on the off chance that maybe a book was published with a grey cover and nothing but the publisher's logo and it's still out there in the world somewhere. There is far less evidence in favor of the quoteless art being used than there is evidence against it.

I already know that that image was previously on Amazon as that is where the Goodreads image came from.

To answer a couple of points you made -

'...creating ACEs is something that almost never happens with indie publishers. Usually they don't have the resources for it.' Clearly they created two distinct covers for this book as they uploaded both to Amazon.

'...logically speaking, the burden of proof should be on the person trying to prove that cover art that is not present anywhere on any bookselling website has been used.' The only valid source for Kindle artwork is Amazon and we know the image was taken from there. The logic doesn't really apply here as it isn't a philosophical debate, anyone requesting a change from librarians will be asked for a source to confirm the validity of the change if they haven't already provided one.

I have added an alternate cover edition
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

So wait, hang on. I provided proof about the change through the link to the archived version of the Amazon page. You can see that the quoteless version of the cover was used before the book was actually released, thus making it a pre-release placeholder. The version with the quote was used when the book actually released. The ASIN has never changed. Is this not enough proof?

Also, the new edition you created needs to have its publication date set to June 20, 2023. Link to the Amazon page as proof: https://www.amazon.com/Inconsolables-...

I already know that the earlier image was used prior to release date as it was uploaded from Amazon at an earlier date. I also know that there is now a different image on Amazon. What I haven't been able to establish is when the image was changed.
The date shown at Amazon is original Kindle publication date and does not relate to cover variants. The date shown for ACE is automatically generated by Goodreads system, I can't override it as I don't know the release date for this cover.