Why I flagged this cover #2

Did you flag a cover that might look wrongly-flagged to the casual observer? Post your reasons -- and please include links!

https://www.librarything.com/topic/139236#8484373

@kleh, can you offer guidance on which of the 87 Member/Amazon covers we should focus? Thanks!

>2 jasbro: They've now been correctly voted on as for different works, thanks.

https://www.librarything.com/work/25985045/covers Cover with white background is from Issue 9 published summer 2014. See: https://pompommag.com/collections/magazines/products/issue-9-summer-2014

>3 kleh: Thanks. I should ask though (because I don't know), at what point does flagging and voting remove an inapplicable cover from the work page?

>5 jasbro: Never

That particular one is gone, but probably from separating, not from flagging.

Though a fine book, Is your mama a llama? is not the actual work:
https://www.librarything.com/work/737763/covers

ETA: Yay, gone now. Thanks.

https://www.librarything.com/work/32383226/covers

Because it's an anthology, not the single work.

https://www.librarything.com/work/11068634/covers/

Because three of the first ten covers belong to the original work, in paperback -- not the graphic novel.

>10 karenb: How do you distinguish between applicable and inapplicable covers?

My guess is that many of the editions in there are of the original work, and not the graphic novel, no matter what the canonical title says.

>11 jasbro: Excellent question, caused by my not remembering how to link to specific covers.

On the plus side, people apparently were able to figure out which covers were already flagged, and they're gone.

>12 MarthaJeanne: That historical issue would explain the problem. I checked the editions list and saw only appropriate ISBNs, so someone had already cleaned those up.

As far as I can tell, La Rivincita is the Italian title specifically for Gathering Blue. Therefore the cover which says: The Giver: La Rivincita, while confusing, seems to me to be attached to the correct book (it's identifying The Giver as the series). (The art on the cover also pertains to Gathering Blue exclusively, so I don't think it's a collection of the two books, either.)

There is also a cover under The Marvelous Land of Oz which seems to have caused some confusion. It's the cover of the Marvel comics adaptation by Erik Shanower, which is a different work (The Marvelous Land of Oz Shanower).

>14 AranelST: Under Gathering Blue You have at least four different books titled The Giver or The Giver Trilogy in the editions section. Probably should have separated them before flagging the cover.

>15 gilroy: I didn't flag that particular cover, someone else did, I just happened to know about it because I was working on this yesterday. I don't think that cover is attached to one of those editions, though, because there is an edition which is titled "The giver. La rivincita", which matches that cover.

(Argh, I just found another edition of books 1-4 in there...and I have been through them already. It was much worse when I started! People use the titles in all sorts of odd combinations, so it's all very confused. There were at least 30-40 copies of Son in there, too, most of which I separated out. Like half the covers were from Son at one point, and they weren't at all ambiguous.)

I cannot read (or type) the language that the text is in, so I figured it may be confusing to people who have not read the books. But the illustration with the little girl in a blue dress carrying a frying pan is obviously from The Wee Free Men, not from Equal Rites.

>17 AranelST: Assuming the publisher used reasonable covers.

>17 AranelST: I would not flag based on the image alone...

PS: There was a Russian Wee Free Men edition mixed inside of Equal Rites. I pulled it out and recombined where it belongs. The cover may (or may not...) follow in a bit.

>19 AnnieMod: Thanks! I went looking for it, I swear! Alas, my (nonexistent) Russian was not good enough to find it. I am now seeing it under The Wee Free Men, where it belongs, but there is still one (the same one???) by the same user under Equal Rites, so maybe the system needs a little more time.

>18 MarthaJeanne: Right, and that is one of the reasons I posted about it here, in the hopes that someone would have a clue about the words.

And also, weird covers are a whole thing (there is a whole series of French editions with covers that just have random artwork as far as I can tell), but artwork that has no apparent relationship to the book is different from artwork with a clear and specific relationship to a different book. Even if they actually did print copies with the flat-out wrong cover on them, how would we ever know?

>20 AranelST: It was a strange record (weird capitalization) and it had its matching ones in the correct book as well so I suspect that it was added and then pulled out but one entry remained behind.

PS: it may help to add a link to the cover itself (right click to get to the image URL) especially on books with a lot of covers -- that way one can see what language this is about and not need to look through 150 covers to find out which it may be :)

>21 AnnieMod: Thanks! I have been trying to figure out how to get a link I can share. Would it be better to just copy and paste the URL, or to include it as an image in the thread?

>22 AranelST: Just a link is probably better - just because some of these images are large and will get the whole thread really heavy.

For what it's worth, my philosophy is that that if the image says it's not a cover, then it's not a cover.

But if it says "a public domain book", or if it's just a badly-formatted title on a blank background, then it's just a bad cover. There is no flag for "this is a really bad cover", which is probably just as well, because nobody has time for that.

The red cover of Book Trails is the binding for the 1946 editions. The contents of the 1946 books are half what is in the 1928 set and the volume numbering differs. That is spelled out on the Series page.

https://www.librarything.com/work/10307182/covers/63825026

The Lord of the Rings is generally a hot mess, but FWIW, I flagged at least a couple of covers today that belong to the BBC dramatization. Both have such tiny print that you either have to blow up the image or else just recognize it.

There are also a couple that say "fotonovel" at the top, one of which is clear enough that with a magnifying glass you might be able to tell that it's heavily abridged.

...really this whole exercise seems futile when half the images on the voting page show up as the default cover, so the only way tell what you are voting on is to try to find it on the cover page, which in the case of LR has a mere 1,278 covers, and good luck guessing which ones someone might have flagged.

Following on >26 AranelST:, can someone remind me whether there's a way to see which covers have been flagged without parsing all 1,278?

Both of the CDs (square) pictured here are correct for this work. I don't know why one of them was flagged:
https://www.librarything.com/work/20963406/covers

The horizontal cover, despite including the words "cd guidebook", is the pamphlet which used to go with the CD. It is a separate work.

(If I haven't voted, it's because I accidentally flagged it while logged into an organizational account. I'm not voting twice on anything.)

@gilroy To clarify, the one that says "cd guidebook" is attached to the wrong work. That one should be flagged. You should vote "yes" on that one.

The "cd guidebook" is a booklet. It does not belong with the work for the CD, which has completely different content. (The reason it says "cd guidebook" is because that particular edition has the track numbers for the CD in it. This is confusing.)

I realize this is incredibly niche, but it's all very clear if you have a whole case of each of the CDs in a storage cabinet somewhere. (...they're not mine, they belong to the Audubon Society.)

Could a few people please help me correct my stupid mistake? I grabbed a book from the stack next to my chair and uploaded a cover for it under the mistaken impression that it was the same book as the one I was editing in Your Books. (The German Shepherd and the 2 cats were a contributing factor to my error.)

The obviously wrong cover can be seen here: https://www.librarything.com/work/7815497/covers/303056998
I've put up the first flag.

Thanks in advance!

Just don't use it. Unused covers eventually disappear.

>31 MarthaJeanne: Ahhhh, thanks.

I’ve separated and recombined various editions of Mrs. S.R. Dull’s Southern Cooking, flagging covers that are inapplicable to the original 1928 edition, the expanded 1941 edition, or the 1968 abridged or revised editions. To my knowledge, all covers images apply to one or another edition, they just need some sorting accordingly.