What do you do if a book has the wrong author?

If you search for "wisdom of crowds" you'll get 5 copies of the book for which the author is listed, incorrectly, as Edmund A. Mennis. (Given the title and the book cover shown, there are no indications that it is a different book, the author should be James Surowiecki.) I can't figure out a way to fix this, it doesn't make sense to me to combine this with the main work that has the correct author, and I don't see any way to edit the author of a work.

# The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (1374 copies)
# Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything/The Wisdom of Crowds : An article from: The Regio by Terry J Fitzgerald (10 copies)
# The Wisdom of the Crowds by James Surowiecki (1 copy)
# The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societ by Edmund A. Mennis (4 copies)
# The wisdom of crowds: why th many are smarter than th few n how collctve wisdm shapes busn, econs, society by James Surowiecki (1 copy)

Combine them. It's the same work -- the fact that some people have something wrong in their catalogs doesn't change that fact.

But do NOT combine the authors! (You might consider dropping private comments to the people who have the name wrong; they probably used a source that had bad data.)

Amazon.com shows an audio book review by Edmund A. Mennis which is about Wisdom of crowds by James Surowiecki. It does not have an ISBN, nor is there an ISBN in the one user catalog entry with the Mennis author I looked at. I suggest not combining these two works, nor contacting the people who have the name wrong. They might have it right for the item in their catalog, though I doubt it. Anyone who looks up a book by the title in Amazon without checking the author deserved what they get.

by Tim's "request", we are not to contact individual LTers about what we may perceive as "bad" data. It is their library & they may list whomever they wish as the author... and may list their title the way they wish, too. (some people put a series name in the title... I don't agree with that, but they have their own copy of a book & can list it any way that they want to list it)

If Tim wishes to modify his mandate (and that's probably a closer term than request) he may do so... but we need to follow his guidelines.

5: FWIW regarding the policy, I'd actually prefer to be contacted if my data is creating problems. Just getting my books entered has been a time consuming process, I was initially oblivious to the effects of individual data on group data, and I tune in and out of LT depending on other life demands. If I have an incorrect author or misspelling, more likely than not it is due to momentary inattentiveness, not conscious decision. I won't be able to pick through my entire library to scrutinize every bit of data any time soon, but if someone else notices a specific item that is bollixing up the works and could be fixed in a matter of minutes, I'd be happy to do it (or to explain why I made a particular decision).

>5 skittles: I hear you. I wouldn't mind either if someone pointed out to me that I had incorrect info in my catalogue.
However some members were offended by getting messages, and there were complaints.
From what I read at the time, the tone of some messages, although well-meaning, appeared to be telling them that they must change their data to make everyone else on LT happy.
And people are entitled to have data however they want it in their catalogue...
Hence the disgruntlement.

(edited to fix a tag)

You could always leave a note on your profile indicating you want to be contacted. That would at least allow people to notify you of errors if they checked.

I found one instance today of a person with over 2,000 books. One of them is entitled 'The' . Somehow I doubt that that was deliberate.

I also found out about someone who was still contacting people about database mistakes DESPITE Tim's request... I'm not going to "report" that person... they already have a rude reputation... they can bury themselves.

and I know that I have days where I'm a little terse with questions & comments that I consider obvious or easy... or when someone doesn't like the way protocol does/doesn't organizes LT... or the way the sun "rises" in the eastern sky...

But the way I organize my library is the way that I like it & want it to be. If someone told me that the way I listed my psychology books wasn't APA protocol, I would probably tell them to shelve their books in a very warm dark place.... quickly.

So, I agree with Tim. I don't like seeing misspellings, "bad" author listing, "idiotic" title formatting, etc. BUT if I want my library listed the way I want it, then I need to respect that others may want to list their libraries differently... possibly even what I consider to be wrong.

Besides, some people can't spell very well... and some people are very defensive about their inability to type/key data into a computer... and some people expect the data on LT to automatically know exactly what & how to format their books to look exactly as they are on the shelf... magically.

(except for that last example) If someone wants help with their data, there are plenty of LTers who would be willing to help. I do think that if a person wants help with their library data, then they can post it in their profile, or go to a forum & post that they would really like it if someone could "proofread" their library for errors, that they know it is bad, but they don't know how to fix it.... or that they are dyslexic & cannot tell what is misspelled, but want their library to look better. If someone asks nicely, usually there will be someone willing to help.

Sorry for the long rant, but I think I need to go & feed my caffeine addiction. ... quickly.

y gads, I found a guy who had The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy listed as by John Carnell. But it's a comic book/illustrated version according to amazon. John carnell is one of the names who worked on it.

10: Sorry for the long rant, but I think I need to go & feed my caffeine addiction. ... quickly.
Yeah... :-) This isn't a matter of asking for help (yikes, I don't want someone else picking through my library), but if someone else happens to notice a problem, I'd be fine with receiving note along the lines of "I'm working on ___. I see that ___. This has the effect of ___. Could you check the spelling / add a middle initial / etc?" I also organize my library the way I want it, and I might be stubborn about changing my deliberate decisions, but I might not be (sometimes I create a standard for myself because I'm unaware of alternatives or effects), and I make mistakes too.

8: You could always leave a note on your profile indicating you want to be contacted. That would at least allow people to notify you of errors if they checked.
Good idea! I just done this.

So far as I know, Tim moderated his mandate here.

For this topic, I still feel strongly that I'd like to consider it bad form. Many others agree with me. But a few thing I'm dictating and are angry about that. So, fine. Let's just write some guidelines up. I propose that the guidelines be something along the lines of:

*Remember that LibraryThing is used for many different reasons. The way you use and enjoy the site is not necessarily the way others do.
*Be sensitive to how the member is using LibraryThing. Approach members who show no interest in the social side more cautiously.
*Try to provide helpful information and ask questions rather than dictating.
*If the user indicates displeasure at the request, let it drop.
*When in doubt, raise the issue in the Combiners! group before sending a message.

Am I out of date?

I think that the "suggestion/rule/mandate/guideline" is better than the wholesale slaughter of those LTers who have blatantly bad "data"...

I'm not going to post links to actual works, but give two very close approximations to what some LTers have done....

ZY080808 Best Mystery Stories of the Year by Spy Glass (editor)

Safe House Mystery - All 10 Books by Mil Waukee

The first title gives the approximation of a set of titles entered on LT... The most I can guess is that the alphanumeric beginning to the title is the location or box & this way he/she/it can line up the "titles" so that they can be easily located..... I guess this person doesn't realize that it would be easier to do with tags... bring up all the contents of a box by clicking the tag. or go to the book & see the tag for the location.

The second "suggested" title is what has been seen in the account(s) of LTers who want to catalog their books, but still keep under the 200 book limit.... again, I'm guessing. Personally, I would also like to know the individual titles... but that isn't my library/catalog/listing.

I can understand part of the "Why" in Tim's "suggestion/rule/mandate/guideline" (& yes, JimRoberts did post the original posting by Tim on this point)

But the result of the "mandate" has been a quiet workaround... now, when "mistakes" are found disambiguation notices are placed... CK has been helpful by allowing descriptions & corrections.

If you look at some of the older postings in the Combiners' Forum, you will find some nasty stuff said.... well, kinda not nice stuff. Some LTers were TELLING people to change their book information!! There were some strong discussions about how listings should be written, as if there had to be a "Universal LT Listing Protocol"

Yes, I see many listings of books that I don't agree with (without getting into the LT is for books only debate) but if someone wants to show their "intelligence" & book knowledge by how well they've listed their library, that is their choice.

The "mandate" has worked by forcing those who want "GOOD DATA" to be creative about showing what good data looks like... or should look like. When combiners combine & separate that lets LTers know what other listings look like.... and perhaps someone might see that their listing is spelled differently than the others... or that they've accidentally put Mark Twain as the author of Tale of Two Cities.

I don't think that LTers should be contacted about bad data, but it is being done... and it is being done in a quietly polite manner. That is good... not correct, but good. I've always preferred other work-arounds such as disambiguations, complete book descriptions & CK entries for books & authors.

Let's be creative about helping LT keep the data "sweet"

I have a question... Does that "mandate" include users who post tons of "reviews" that aren't reviews? Yeah, I could just flag all 100+ of their reviews, but it seems better to send them a polite personal note just telling them about what the review box is for, and explaining about the comment box... I've done it a lot, and I've gotten many good responses from it.
.... Am I going against the rules by doing that?

17, 18 - would it help at all to have some well-placed and/or different text on the edit work page and on the create a new group page: for new groups, instead of "you might want to see what's already out there," something like "please check to see if there is already a group on your topic"; on the edit book page, just some short text describing what reviews and comments are (under those boxes)?
Or would people just ignore it all the same?

When I can be bothered, I'll post a message (usually the only one) in the new group, suggesting that there are other similar groups, and that if there's is unique maybe stressing how it is unique would garner more members. I don't know how effective it is because I don't go back to look.

17>

In that case, since the alternative is "flag 'em, not that blue flags actually mean anything anyway", I generally will comment, especially since it's a known issue that the new universal import will sometimes put things in the wrong column (particularly tags into a review column.) I always phrase it in terms of "how to avoid getting your reviews flagged", and haven't had a problem.