Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

On Listopia, I wanted to check off science books I've read, but the tag "science" brought up mostly lists of science fiction. Only one list was mostly science. Can these be tagged differently?

I don't think there's anything wrong with some people choosing to tag science fiction lists with "science".

They're two different genres, one fiction, one non-fiction.

Clearly, others disagree with that perspective.

Rivka, count me among those who think they differ significantly.

Science

# a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"
# skill: ability to produce solutions in some problem domain; "the skill of a well-trained boxer"; "the sweet science of pugilism"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

and inherently non fiction. I shelve things under "science" in my own library when they apply to botany, biology, etc. I think that's a usually accepted definition.

Clearly Non Fiction



Science fiction

# literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative ...


Clearly Fiction.

I think it's not a difference of opinion, but rather of people fond of science fiction who don't ever read science just taking a shortcut.

It makes searching for "Science" books on shelves less than effective (and I have).

But what cant be done about it since shelving titles are sacrosanct I don't know.

Actually, it looks like a lot of those tags were probably added by mistake: I'm betting most of those list creators intended to put in "science fiction" and the tag broke in half. I assume that they could edit their own lists and fix it if they wanted to.

(Which is not to say that I think "science" is an invalid tag for a list of science fiction books! It seems like a perfectly useful tag to me.)

But... there is science in (most/alot/much of) science fiction. A lot of science fiction does use plausible science (and obviously, some of it doesn't). Tags are not meant to be genres-- they're more descriptive identifiers. So I guess I don't see a problem with it. :)

It hardly matters, does it? People tag books however they like.

It matters because I wanted to check off only science books, and I don't read science fiction. I mistakenly thought the librarians have control these things.

Like MissJessie, I think of my books in genres, and there's no library or bookstore in America that mixes their science fiction and science on the same shelves. I really don't understand tags, which seem to be a strange way to classify books. It might be a generational thing.

Rochelle wrote: "I mistakenly thought the librarians have control these things."

Librarians CAN edit the tags on a Listopia list. But they should be doing so only for truly egregious errors, not differences in opinion like this one.

And Jessie, considering how many times you have championed the right of users not to have quotes they have entered corrected, I am surprised to see you pushing for editing in this case.

Maybe it should be suggested in the feedback group that the ability to select multiple tags when looking at lists (like we do with shelves) and that way you could look for lists with both science and non-fiction as tags.

I agree Dori - if nobody else has taken this to feedback, I will.

I totally disagree that the difference between science and science fiction is a matter of opinion. I'm relatively new here, and don't understand tags, but I have 64 years of books and many years as a teacher under my belt.

Let me see if I can sum, and maybe clarify a bit:

The books that get entered on the listopia lists, the tags assigned to the lists, and the lists themselves, are all member-generated. There is no way to police those members opinions, even if we wanted to. What some members are arguing is that sometimes one would want to make a list, perhaps, of 'science-fiction books that have good science.' And that's ok.

Of course you're right that science and science fiction are two different genres. But that's an issue that doesn't matter on goodreads, because goodreads doesn't assign genres. The closest thing we have here (in addition to listopia) is 'members shelves.' If I'm picking up a book and I don't know whether it's science, sf, or something else, I go to the book's page and look at the (member-generated) shelves people have put the book on in each of their 'my books.'

I hope and assume that the librarians would use their power to edit tags only for things like a list that was tagged both 'erotica' and 'children.'

What we're hoping to suggest to GR staff in the feedback group is that we can find some sort of workaround in listopia to account for the interesting ways people tag their books. Since the data is member-generated there will be no way to get a fully satisfactory search, but being able to select multiple tags, as Dori suggests, would help.

You misunderstand what I said. I agree there is a difference between (nonfiction) science and science fiction. I disagree that people who wish to tag SF lists with the tag "science" are wrong to do so.

Heh - you said it quicker & better.

I'm finding a majority of nonfiction science books when I try the search at Listopia. Perhaps the broken tag was fixed?

Anyway, the thing about tags is they're very personal. They're not a formal cataloguing system; they're created by readers classifying things as it suits their purposes. When I said it hardly matters, I meant that the question was academic because GoodReads seems generally committed to letting people use the available tools as it suits them. But perhaps there's another solution to your problem.

Cheryl wrote: "books that get entered on the Listopia lists, the tags assigned to the lists, and the lists themselves, are all member-generated. .."

Yes, and I've seen some other weird categorization, but with 8 million books in the database, and who-knows-how-many members, it will never be perfectly logical.

If you post at Feedbacks, Cheryl, I'll follow the thread.

We at the Victorians group were looking for Victorian children's books, and still don't know if there was a list, because it's two-word tag. So we started a new list. I guess that's the same problem.

Sorry Rivka, I can't see the connection between not wanting editing/deleting of people's favorite quotes, which is IMHO arrogance at its finest, and weird tagging.

Actually, I think that tags ought to have (optional, minimal) standardization, so there aren't dozens of variations on science fiction, like sci fi, scifi, SF, etc. So that searching would be easier. This would be a great improvement and could be in the form of a suggested tag list somewhere maybe. But if people didn't want use them, that's fine too.

But if someone wants to tag, for example, the Bible, as science fiction, I might be offended but it's their right to do so.

But actually, I don't care if people want to label science fiction as fiction, novels, science, fantasy, whatever. It's personal and tends to show us how a person thinks (or doesn't, if we don't agree).

You're the voice of reason again, MJ.

And non-fiction or nonfiction
childrens or children's
etc.

Thank you Rochelle. That's a compliment.

Just read your profile. Do you belong to the Victorians group?

I have started a thread topic in Feedback. Please contribute!

Cheryl's point @15 is the main point. Listopias are not cataloging devices. They're lists of whatever people feel like making lists of, with whatever tags they feel like sticking on them. Librarians do go in and edit lists sometimes, and occasionally delete books from lists, but only when books absolutely, inarguably deviate from a list's definition. If a Listopia is the best books published in 1915, books published in 1935 will be deleted from it. But on matters of opinion, librarians don't alter Listopias or tags.

I did ask on another thread if identical or extremely similar Listopias could be combined, because there are so many of them floating around, and Otis thought it was a good idea. But I hope it could be limited in some way because it seems like it could be abused.

Lobstergirl wrote: "If a Listopia is the best books published in 1915, books published in 1935 will be deleted from it. But on matters of opinion, librarians don't alter Listopias or tags."

Bingo.

Jessie, it is interesting where you put your lines. I find it far more arrogant to change the tags someone has assigned a list they created than to correct a mis-quoted quote. The first is a matter of opinion. The second (in most cases) is not.

Rivka

Actually, my reference to arrogant quote "Corrections" has nothing to do with legitimate mis-quotes.

It refers to instances where someone deleted quotes on my page which were legitimate (Bob Dylan is the one that comes to mind, though there were others) because they were "lyrics". They were also referred to in books, and finally after I complained a lot were left alone and in one case quietly restored with no comment. At least for now. I still check regularly.

The fact is that nearly all "lyrics" are published in books of bound sheet music,fake books, etc. which are considered books according to the "NAB' page. I haven't used that citation, having found my "lyrics" in other books. But they are nearly always published in an acceptable book.

My arrogance reference was to those who arbitrarily decided that inclusion of lyrics was in conflict with the rules of quotes. And didn't bother to check any other source or even ask the person (me) who cited them.

Now, you may say that the proper reference should have been provided. You may be right. But I have scanned hundreds of quotes since then and many many have no citations at all. I think combining is a valid activity; deleting without real cause is not.

That was my problem.

Legitimate corrections of "close enough" quotes is very reasonable.

There was also fairly recently a complaint from someone whose quote had been "corrected" by combining with one which was one line shorter. This was not the quote the individual wanted to include; they wanted the entire thing.

It settled out, but where on earth did anyone get off "correcting" someone's quote by shortening it? Arrogant.

As far as tagging goes, certainly it's a matter of opinion. Science is not science fiction in any definition of the word, as my previous posts have shown. But if you want to call it that, go for it.

I still think a list of suggested (not required) tags for sci fi, and many of the other things that have several legitimate variations, would be helpful. But certainly not required. The variances are often caused because people when tagging don't know what other very very similar tags have been created and might use them if they were more commonly known.

But certainly anyone can tag anything with anything, if that's what they want to do.

MissJessie wrote: "a list of suggested (not required) tags"

I have no objection to this. It has been suggested in Feedback; I don't recall if you have posted in that thread, but you may wish to do so if you have not yet done so.

As far as your comments on quotes, I have no interest in digging through your old posts, but I am fairly certain you just reversed your stance on at least one instance. *shrug* Or I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps.

Perhaps you did. No way to know if you don't care to look. Old news anyway.

I have been looking at Feedback. I hope someone figures out where to keep such a list for easy reference.

Anyway, regards.

MissJessie wrote: "As far as tagging goes, certainly it's a matter of opinion. Science is not science fiction in any definition of the word, as my previous posts have shown."

Science may not be science fiction, but science fiction can be science. This book is a great example. It taught me a great deal about genetics, medicine, physics, and archeology.

MLady, that's funny, because reading this discussion made me think of that same series - and of his newer series, full of physics and computer science and information technology, (begins with WWW:Wake.)

I definitely agree that there can be a lot of science in science fiction, and I also feel that we shouldn't be editing user tags unless there are some really egregious examples (like Cheryl's post @15)

ETA - corrected link

I agree MLady, I have learned a great deal about science from SF, and have been moved to look up the hard science of many things. But I have also learned a lot of history from fiction, that could not in any way be called history books.

I just think a list of possible tags for the more common items would be helpful.

msg 31 link doesn't work for me, please check as it looks interesting :)

Carolyn wrote: "MLady, that's funny, because reading this discussion made me think of that same series - and of his newer series, full of physics and computer science and information technology, here."

Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't looked at any of his other books, beyond that trilogy.

MissJessie wrote: "I have also learned a lot of history from fiction, that could not in any way be called history books."

Actually, I can think of a counter example for that one, too. Mary Renault wrote three fictional accounts of the life of Alexander, the Great. I don't personally tag them "history", but I think that tag would be appropriate.

BunWat, perfectly said! Exactly!

BunWat - thanks for summing it up so well!