separate?

I'm trying to determine if there are 2 different works on his page.
https://www.librarything.com/work/257619/editions
One variation is The Simon & Schuster Pocket Guide to Beer.
Lists on the cover as "over 1000 beers"
Has as dedication "To my late father, Jack Jackson, born Isaac Jakowitz, Yorkshire, 1909-84"
Has first words as "Gutes Bier zeigt sich in Aroma, Geschmack und Abgang". Translation:Good beer is reflected in its aroma, taste and finish.
The other variation is Michael Jackson's Pocket Beer Book. This book I have and added to this work https://www.librarything.com/work/32780113/editions/270394019
has dedication "To Pat, for seeing me through the year."
First words, in introduction, This book has been designed . . ." And the first chapter "Just as wines may be categorized . . ."
Worldcat has 2 different OCLC #s
To me, they appear to be 2 different books.
Suggestions?

This appears to be a book first published in 1986 that has come out is many editions and various publishers. If you wanted to separate the various editions and make a series, I think you would find a lot of copies that could not be assigned to any specific edotion.

Who is the author of the Simon & Schuster one? Is it perhaps Michael Jackson?

I think the prime way to tell if they are different books is the changes on the interior. Do you know how much they change from edition to edition?
Some you can make easy references, as they change from 1000 beers to 1500 beers to 2000 beers. But where does that split begin? And which editions have how many beers?

From a quick scan, I can see four potential versions -- three where you know and one unknown -- you might split it to with a lot of research ahead.

Michael Jackson is the author of all the books. Number of beers vary. My Pocket guide to beer> lists 600 beers.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the difference in submissions. How much information needs to be different? At one point, I thought ISBNs were the key; not the case. I thought CK such as first/last words could be the difference. So I'll spend my time adding more of my books and maybe come back to this case after I've finished adding my books and magazines.
Am I correct in assuming that I can add the CK from my book even if it differs from that that is already listed?

>4 Darkstar51: "Am I correct in assuming that I can add the CK from my book even if it differs from that that is already listed?"

Sure. Use 'Add item" to separate them.

>4 Darkstar51: What defines a work here is known as the "cocktail party test." If you are talking with someone at a party and both mention reading a book, if a majority of the primary contents are the same, it's the same book. Preface, index, forwards are not considered in this.

So that's why I asked about beer differences. If you have two books that have the same title and author, both claim 1000 beers, they are probably the same book. If you have two books, same title and author, but one claims 1000 beers and another claims 2000 beers. I'd venture to say different.

ISBN doesn't really work because each format (ebook, hardcover, paperback, audio, library binding) SHOULD have a different ISBN. But all the interior could remain the same.

Also remember: CK covers information for the entire work, not just your copy.
Information for your copy alone is on the edit book page and is not the same as CK.

You can't use CK to differentiate between works because CK is at the work level not the book level so it will be the same for all books in a work.

>7 jjwilson61: Some of the CK could be different between editions within the same work: a dedication that changes, or gets missed off an ebook/audiobook. Or different revisions/translations can cause multiple first/last words. Eg. two translations into English of a foreign-language work.

In this beers example I'd be looking if the same beer in two editions had the same information/review. If it's geographical does one have "Alpine Oak Cask Draft" section or something that is new, or omitted, versus other versions. The numbers of beers in the book as others have commented – that definitely would be a strong case to separate. But it does require motivation to get into digging out that information. How far you go >4 Darkstar51:, whether you even can find specifics on other editions, or if you leave that for those owners to be concerned with themselves.

If you do end up separating, please add a helpful disambiguation note, saying what it is, eg. "Revised edition 19..(year), contains 650 beers" or whatever. And the works can be interlinked via work relationships, "is an expanded version of", "is an adaptation of", "is an abridged version of" to help others know what is going on. Prost!

See Joy of Cooking for ultimate example of this sort of separation.

>6 gilroy:
Re "cocktail test". Yes that was my logic. "I really love Hacker-Pschorr."
"Oh, that wasn't in me book"
Re CK: so if first words of 2 books in the same work differ, which first words get entered into CK?

>7not following your logic.
If CK doesnt match, where should CK of dissimilar book be placed if not in different edition?

>9 MarthaJeanne: sweet! I like this.
Thanks

>10 Darkstar51: That's why there is the option to "Add item".

There is another example here that might be relevant, and that is the famous (at least among scientists) CRC Handbook, i.e. the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. There are regular new editions. They don't tend to change much from year to year, but the cumulative differences are huge (e.g. I have the 47th edition from about 1966 with many pages of log tables. I have an edition from thirty years later which has eliminated most such tables because people have pocket calculators). The solution was to break it up into "Early Editions" and "Late Editions," with a somewhat arbitrary cutoff edition. It makes a fair amount of sense to me. I wouldn't buy an 89th edition; it's too close to my 87th edition. Similarly, I wouldn't buy one too close to my 47th edition. But I might well buy an edition in the 60's were one to show up cheaply enough, and I'd certainly be interested to see what was in the really early editions (pre-#10).

Admittedly one would want to consult with others about where to split, were one to split.

>14 waltzmn: Yes, science textbooks are a huge problem with the rule of thumb to combine editions. I wouldn't combine a first edition medical text from the 1970s with a 20th edition from the last 5 years. Although basically the same book, the content would be so varied and contradictory, it's best not to combine them.

I feel it's best to keep the editions separate and combine them as a series. Quite often the author(s) changes between editions anyway. I have a copy of the Textbook of Endocrinology (unlogged - it's buried in my textbooks) which I purchased in 1982 for my Masters. IIRC, it's the 2nd edition. Scanning the editions, it seems to be up to the 12th edition with a couple of author changes on the way; goodness knows what content changes there have been, quite apart from 30 years of new research.

>15 Maddz:

The CRC handbook tops them all, since it's had on the order of a hundred editions. Hence that interesting split/lump.

I think your solution makes more sense. But it's something that someone should probably be written up in more detail, because it didn't work on the text that I have the most copies of. :-) That is my college physics textbook, University Physics -- listed here as having main author Hugh D. Young. Now it happens that I have three editions of that book (the one I learned physics from in 1979 and two others, one earlier, one later). On none of them is Young the lead author. :-) On the first one (1950s, I think), it was Sears and Zemansky. In 1979, it was by Sears, Zemansky, and Young (and still referred to as "Sears and Zemansky," even though Sears at least was already dead!), and by the time the newest edition came out, Sears and Zemansky were not even listed, Young was being demoted, and it appears Roger A. Freedman was the lead author of the book. And when I follow the University Physics link, it says I have two copies, not one (which it would be by your series method) or three (which it would be if this continuously updated text were all considered one book), and it's not evident to me at first glance whether they are #1 and #2 or #2 and #3.

All of which might be grist for the original poster's mill. I rather like what was done with the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; it's just that it needs someone to be in charge of the split and writing all the disambiguation notices....

>8 Nevov: The CK can be different between editions of a work but LT doesn't have an edition layer and so the CK is at the work layer. Since the CK is on the work it cannot be used to distinguish between two editions of the work. And if there are two works wrongly combined then the CKs will be commingled at the work level with no way to use it to assign a book to one work or another. And the same is true of reviews.

>11 Darkstar51: What do you mean by edition? LT doesn't have an edition layer and all editions of a work should be combined into the work

>15 Maddz: The problem with keeping the editions separate is that you mostly lose the connections between users when they own different editions of the same work. These connections are important to site features like recommendations and similar libraries.

>18 jjwilson61: sorry . Meant works

>14 waltzmn: interesting.
I have several old physics, math and electronic text books to add. I'll have to check if their is a series for them.

>16 waltzmn: I'd use the work-to-work relationship 'is an expanded version of' rather than the routinely ignored disambiguation notices, but yes, ideally a small group of people needs to manage this.

>19 jjwilson61: Yes, but are these continuously updated works the same work all the way through? I don't mean things like forewords and illustrations, but the same content?

There's a similar issue in RPGs - quite often there are significant rule changes between editions so that scenarios and characters created using a specific edition aren't playable under a later edition. My rule of thumb is to separate editions where that is the case and combine where it isn't the case.

It's also worth remembering that any separation will need to be looked at now and again, as newly added books will not necessarily end up in the correct work. I moved a couple of obvious ones in Joy a day or two ago.

>22 Maddz: I'd use the work-to-work relationship 'is an expanded version of' rather than the routinely ignored disambiguation notices, but yes, ideally a small group of people needs to manage this.

Agreed. That was what I meant, even though I didn't say it.

This raises an interesting question about having a book "manager," who could manage all this mess. It would obviously mean a major change in how LT handles things. And most books don't need such management. But a significant number do.

Whether it's worth the changes in the way LT does things is another question....