This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1rsterling
I hope it's not presumptuous, but I thought it might be useful to have a thread to post questions about separations, and to seek some collective wisdom on why certain separations should or shouldn't be (have been) made.
Here are several from today that aren't clear to me, but might be to others more familiar with the books. Are these different works? Should they remain separate? None have disambiguation notices explaining the separation.
Here are several from today that aren't clear to me, but might be to others more familiar with the books. Are these different works? Should they remain separate? None have disambiguation notices explaining the separation.
Separated Under the sea-wind; a naturalist's picture of ocean life from Under the Sea-Wind
Separated Emily Dickinson: Poems from Poems
Separated International Economics: Theory and Policy (3rd Edition) from International Economics: Theory and Policy
Separated CANNERY ROW - 1st Edition from Cannery Row
Separated A Wrinkle in Time from A Wrinkle in Time
Separated Paramagnetism: Rediscovering Nature's Secret Force of Growth from Paramagnetism: Rediscovering Nature's Secret Force of Growth
Separated Decay Inevitable from Decay Inevitable
Bizarrely, at least 3 of these separations were done by people who joined either today or yesterday and who have no books in their libraries. It doesn't make sense to me: why would one of the first things someone does after joining be to separate books? (And maybe there should be some minimal level of participation on the site required before one's allowed to mess around with the work system.)
2EveleenM
I'm a bit uneasy about posting about identifiable people without letting them know. I know it's done fairly regularly here, but I for one would be mortified to find my motivations under discussion somewhere on the site that I didn't know about.
Bizarrely, at least 3 of these separations were done by people who joined either today or yesterday and who have no books in their libraries. It doesn't make sense to me: why would one of the first things someone does after joining be to separate books?
I don't expect anything that people do in their first couple of days here to make sense. New members often miss the whole concept of works and editions at first; mix that with a natural inclination to play around with the site features and anything can happen.
So I'd be inclined to give a pass to any strange separations done by complete newbies. If it's a long-standing member carrying out this kind of separation, I think it would be better to ask them rather than to speculate.
edited to add:
I notice that the Wrinkle in Time separation will be over the 100 copy limit to recombine. I wonder if that kind of separation should be restricted as well as the combination?
Bizarrely, at least 3 of these separations were done by people who joined either today or yesterday and who have no books in their libraries. It doesn't make sense to me: why would one of the first things someone does after joining be to separate books?
I don't expect anything that people do in their first couple of days here to make sense. New members often miss the whole concept of works and editions at first; mix that with a natural inclination to play around with the site features and anything can happen.
So I'd be inclined to give a pass to any strange separations done by complete newbies. If it's a long-standing member carrying out this kind of separation, I think it would be better to ask them rather than to speculate.
edited to add:
I notice that the Wrinkle in Time separation will be over the 100 copy limit to recombine. I wonder if that kind of separation should be restricted as well as the combination?
3jjwilson61
I don't expect anything that people do in their first couple of days here to make sense. New members often miss the whole concept of works and editions at first; mix that with a natural inclination to play around with the site features and anything can happen.
That's a good argument that brand new members shouldn't be allowed to combine or separate works.
That's a good argument that brand new members shouldn't be allowed to combine or separate works.
4rsterling
I'm a bit uneasy about posting about identifiable people without letting them know. I know it's done fairly regularly here, but I for one would be mortified to find my motivations under discussion somewhere on the site that I didn't know about.
I can see your point. I did deliberately leave off people's names so that the discussion wouldn't be personal but rather about the case for separation/combination.
Do others also think this is better done privately via profile comments than via a thread?
My thinking in starting a thread was to have a place where questions about separations could be consolidated for easier discussion and further work if needed. I thought of it as somewhat analogous to the discussions of things we vote on - tag combination proposals and works proposed as spam - where if someone comes across a proposal that doesn't seem right, or that needs more discussion, it can prompt people to look into it. Also, it could be a more efficient way of figuring out things that need to be fixed than stumbling upon them by chance who knows when. But what do others think?
I can see your point. I did deliberately leave off people's names so that the discussion wouldn't be personal but rather about the case for separation/combination.
Do others also think this is better done privately via profile comments than via a thread?
My thinking in starting a thread was to have a place where questions about separations could be consolidated for easier discussion and further work if needed. I thought of it as somewhat analogous to the discussions of things we vote on - tag combination proposals and works proposed as spam - where if someone comes across a proposal that doesn't seem right, or that needs more discussion, it can prompt people to look into it. Also, it could be a more efficient way of figuring out things that need to be fixed than stumbling upon them by chance who knows when. But what do others think?
6eromsted
>1 rsterling:
They all look like errors and I would recombine them. A few have already been done. The only work I have doubts about is Emily Dickinson's Poems because it seems possible that several different collections could have been published under that title.
They all look like errors and I would recombine them. A few have already been done. The only work I have doubts about is Emily Dickinson's Poems because it seems possible that several different collections could have been published under that title.
7fdholt
#1
I think some of the Dickinson poems can be recombined based on the isbns. There are a lot of different editions in the Poems anyway. The covers are the same for both listed.
If I saw any of the other editions listed above, I would have combined them.
On a different note: I use the helper's log to find my own separations/combinations to make sure that everything separated is recombined properly. So I ignore everything else there.
Should the logs be monitored more closely and systematically?
I think some of the Dickinson poems can be recombined based on the isbns. There are a lot of different editions in the Poems anyway. The covers are the same for both listed.
If I saw any of the other editions listed above, I would have combined them.
On a different note: I use the helper's log to find my own separations/combinations to make sure that everything separated is recombined properly. So I ignore everything else there.
Should the logs be monitored more closely and systematically?
8rsterling
5 - There was an edition combined into Cannery Row that had the ISBN (and cover) for Cannery Row, but the title and author for Don Quixote. I separated it, and am considering leaving it separated, with a note to fix either the ISBN or the title & author before combining with either.
I'm guessing the others are either remnants of previous bad combinations or of incorrect ISBNs on some copies of Cannery Row.
I'm guessing the others are either remnants of previous bad combinations or of incorrect ISBNs on some copies of Cannery Row.
9prosfilaes
The ISBN for Emily Dickinson: Poems matches the ISBN of some editions in Poems, so it should probably be combined back you in. Poetry books are always troublesome, because there's so many different variations on the contents, and they're usually undocumented anywhere.
