1Eucalafio
I discover with astonishment that someone has flagged as inapplicable to the novel The Three Muskeeters the covers of the two volumes edition that I uploaded to Librarything.
These covers do not only exist and are explicit enough, but also belong to an edition that can be found just after searching the Internet.
But what seems most surreal to me is that someone has voted in favor of their inapplicability.
The fact is that I uploaded these covers because they are precisely those of the edition in my possession. Another copy of it can be seen here: https://www.todocoleccion.net/libros-clasicos-segunda-mano/los-tres-mosqueteros-...
Are there any Librarything rules that paper book publishers can violate when they decide the covers on their books?
Greetings, and thanks in advance if someone reads this and can answer me.
These covers do not only exist and are explicit enough, but also belong to an edition that can be found just after searching the Internet.
But what seems most surreal to me is that someone has voted in favor of their inapplicability.
The fact is that I uploaded these covers because they are precisely those of the edition in my possession. Another copy of it can be seen here: https://www.todocoleccion.net/libros-clasicos-segunda-mano/los-tres-mosqueteros-...
Are there any Librarything rules that paper book publishers can violate when they decide the covers on their books?
Greetings, and thanks in advance if someone reads this and can answer me.
2Petroglyph
Your cover (this image) was flagged because it shows not a cover of the complete and unabridged book The three musketeers, but of two separate covers -- one of volume one, and one of volume two. Each of these, on their own, would be appropriate for this work, and for this work, respectively. The covers in your image are, explicitly, not the correct cover for an edition containing both halves, so to speak, in a single volume.
Best practice is to enter each volume separately in your catalogue, and to associate the correct cover with each volume.
That said, the fact that your cover was flagged does not mean it will disappear from your catalogue, or that you will be prevented from using it. A heavily-flagged cover will merely not be suggested to other members with that work (amongst others, on the "change cover" page).
Best practice is to enter each volume separately in your catalogue, and to associate the correct cover with each volume.
That said, the fact that your cover was flagged does not mean it will disappear from your catalogue, or that you will be prevented from using it. A heavily-flagged cover will merely not be suggested to other members with that work (amongst others, on the "change cover" page).
3AnnieMod
>2 Petroglyph: I strongly disagree. Showing a cover that shows both halves when a novel is split and which is assigned to a book which represents either a slipcased edition or simply the two volumes together is a valid cover for the whole book. That is the cover for the book when it is split.
It may be your best practice to catalog them separately but it is a valid practice to actually catalog them together - they are the complete book when they are together. Implying that cataloging each volume separately is the only correct way and best practice is not very nice.
It may be your best practice to catalog them separately but it is a valid practice to actually catalog them together - they are the complete book when they are together. Implying that cataloging each volume separately is the only correct way and best practice is not very nice.
4Petroglyph
>3 AnnieMod:
Cataloguing multiple volumes under one record is certainly a valid cataloguing practice (I myself have a few such items in my catalogue).
But the question was why that particular image was flagged. As cover flagging goes, collages of multiple volume covers are routinely marked "not applicable to this work" when applied to the single-volume edition, and OP's image is no different. OP sounded as though they wanted to avoid flags on their covers, and I told them the way to avoid having their covers flagged.
Cataloguing multiple volumes under one record is certainly a valid cataloguing practice (I myself have a few such items in my catalogue).
But the question was why that particular image was flagged. As cover flagging goes, collages of multiple volume covers are routinely marked "not applicable to this work" when applied to the single-volume edition, and OP's image is no different. OP sounded as though they wanted to avoid flags on their covers, and I told them the way to avoid having their covers flagged.
5SandraArdnas
I also catalogue 2-volume books as a single entry. That said, the important thing is the flag does not affect the user in any way. As Petroglyph pointed out, its purpose is to dismiss it from covers offered to others with this work. I'm not sure it does even that, but either way your use of it will be unaffected.
6AnnieMod
>4 Petroglyph: Except that this cover should not be flagged - it is the cover of the “book” as recorded. :) It should be flagged if it was just the cover for Volume 1 for example but as it is, it is the cover for the work. Just because it is not a cover for a physical book does not mean it is not the cover for the LT book - and someone who also has the 2-volume edition should be able to use it.
At the end of the day, it does not matter for this user’s usage. But it matters for someone else being able to reuse the cover. :)
At the end of the day, it does not matter for this user’s usage. But it matters for someone else being able to reuse the cover. :)
7MarthaJeanne
I'm with >3 AnnieMod: on this. Your cover is fine. People do have different opinions, though, which is why there is voting. In this case, the Nos are ahead. Also it is listed as the best guess for the listed ISBN, so it will be suggested if someone else enters a copy. It's high up on the cover page.
Nothing done in the voting can cause you to lose a cover you have uploaded and are using. Even if it were a picture of your kitten, and not a book.
Nothing done in the voting can cause you to lose a cover you have uploaded and are using. Even if it were a picture of your kitten, and not a book.
8r.orrison
I wouldn't flag the cover in question, but I wish there was a "poor quality" flag for images like
or 
.
The system already make a judgement about "high quality" covers - users should be able to feed into that decision. There are some really bad covers that the system considers "high quality".
I also wish LibraryThing had at least a rudimentary image editing facility - cropping and rotation - so users could fix these easily themselves without having to learn how to do it on their PC or phone.
or .The system already make a judgement about "high quality" covers - users should be able to feed into that decision. There are some really bad covers that the system considers "high quality".
I also wish LibraryThing had at least a rudimentary image editing facility - cropping and rotation - so users could fix these easily themselves without having to learn how to do it on their PC or phone.
9Stevil2001
Yes, I'd love a flag for "technically this is a cover but boy is it awful and it shouldn't be the default cover" (and for that flag to actually do something). Take a look at the default cover for The Island of Lost Girls, for example: 
10.mau.
>7 MarthaJeanne: I think "high quality picture" in LT is just based on the resolution, not the quality of the image.
11Nevov
For reference, there is the Flaggers! group: https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/2862/Flaggers%21
Including a "Cover flags: why I voted no" topic: https://www.librarything.com/topic/174357
Box sets and multi-volume works don't fit in too well with instinctive "cover" images, and even more so for non-traditional media that don't have any semblance of a cover (yet can still have "cover art"). But as others have said, there is no practical outcome that will affect your own book record, so there's nothing to worry about (aside from loss of faith in the flagging system if the ones voting are casting incorrect votes or seemingly not looking beyond an instinctive guess – welcome to democracy :-P ).
>9 Stevil2001:
>Take a look at the default cover for The Island of Lost Girls, for example
My own logic for agreeing with "not a cover" in that case (have encountered that image before), is the image is as much blank space as cover, and the part that is book is only a partial bit of its front cover, so put those two aspects together and "not a cover" felt a fair judgement. Not sure I'd do the same for when it's a vast uncropped image but a whole book in the middle, like the first in >8 r.orrison: but there is a point where it crosses from being a cover with a bit of uncropped background, to "most of this image is not the cover" where "not a cover" feels an accurate flag.
(A polite message to the uploader might be worthwhile, I know some users would be upset if they sold/lost/lent out/disposed of a book thinking "at least I can gaze at the cover lovingly on LT" only to find they had accidentally botched the photo.)
Including a "Cover flags: why I voted no" topic: https://www.librarything.com/topic/174357
Box sets and multi-volume works don't fit in too well with instinctive "cover" images, and even more so for non-traditional media that don't have any semblance of a cover (yet can still have "cover art"). But as others have said, there is no practical outcome that will affect your own book record, so there's nothing to worry about (aside from loss of faith in the flagging system if the ones voting are casting incorrect votes or seemingly not looking beyond an instinctive guess – welcome to democracy :-P ).
>9 Stevil2001:
>Take a look at the default cover for The Island of Lost Girls, for example
My own logic for agreeing with "not a cover" in that case (have encountered that image before), is the image is as much blank space as cover, and the part that is book is only a partial bit of its front cover, so put those two aspects together and "not a cover" felt a fair judgement. Not sure I'd do the same for when it's a vast uncropped image but a whole book in the middle, like the first in >8 r.orrison: but there is a point where it crosses from being a cover with a bit of uncropped background, to "most of this image is not the cover" where "not a cover" feels an accurate flag.
(A polite message to the uploader might be worthwhile, I know some users would be upset if they sold/lost/lent out/disposed of a book thinking "at least I can gaze at the cover lovingly on LT" only to find they had accidentally botched the photo.)
12paradoxosalpha
>11 Nevov: they sold/lost/lent out/disposed of a book thinking "at least I can gaze at the cover lovingly on LT" only to find they had accidentally botched the photo
A curiously detailed hypothetical scenario.
A curiously detailed hypothetical scenario.
13MrAndrew
>7 MarthaJeanne: now i want to replace all my covers with photos of kittens.
14MarthaJeanne
>13 MrAndrew: You would not be the first.
16SandraArdnas
>15 karenb: LOL. I'm tempted to smuggle my kitties in among covers too
17Eucalafio
Annie Mod is right. Many works published in several volumes even have several ISBN numbers: the first is that of the work as a whole, and then they also have that of each volume separately. There are two possibilities of classifying them: the first, as a single complete work, and the second can be done volume by volume. If I classify it as a single complete work, it is suitable to supply the covers of the volumes involved in it in the same picture.
"High Quality", obviously, refers to resolution.
In this specific case, the ISBN is the same for both volumes, and if I classify them separately the system will accuse me of having the same work repeated twice. But I do not have it repeated twice, rather what I have are two volumes of it. In this case, when editing, I also have to choose the "number of volumes" section and write there whatever number it is (in this case, 2). However, the "number of copies" is written 1, because I only have 1 copy of this edition. Don't confuse copies with editions either, as you may have several different editions of "The Three Musketeers", but the copies are supposed to be all from the same edition.
"High Quality", obviously, refers to resolution.
In this specific case, the ISBN is the same for both volumes, and if I classify them separately the system will accuse me of having the same work repeated twice. But I do not have it repeated twice, rather what I have are two volumes of it. In this case, when editing, I also have to choose the "number of volumes" section and write there whatever number it is (in this case, 2). However, the "number of copies" is written 1, because I only have 1 copy of this edition. Don't confuse copies with editions either, as you may have several different editions of "The Three Musketeers", but the copies are supposed to be all from the same edition.
18jjwilson61
>17 Eucalafio: LT doesn't have an edition layer so the number of copies has to be copies of the work. Don't be confused by what is labeled editions on the work page. Those are actually just unique combinations of title, ISBN, and author and are used for combining books into works.
19Eucalafio
I agree with Annie Mod. The same cover can be used by somebody else who classifyes the same edition the same way, but if flagged he will not be able to use it and will have to upload the same picture.
As far as I can see, unappropriate cover for this book would be to find the cover of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in the middle of The Three Muskeeters' covers.
As far as I can see, unappropriate cover for this book would be to find the cover of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in the middle of The Three Muskeeters' covers.
20proximity1
Yeah. Let's alsio "vote" on others' right to a trial-by-jury--not just here, though.
No, I mean In-REAL-Life's realm.
And let's do that not just once-and-for-all but in each and every particular case. No fundamental principles, just whatever the hell the momentary whims of conventional thinking may favor at that time. "YM (and your rights)M(Always) V" because, Hey, "internet" and "modernism" and "we gots to move with the times."
The "Bill of Rights"? God! That is so "yesterday".
"Badges? We no got no badges, señor. We no need no stinkin' badges!"
If there are no essentially vital ground principles which are vouchsafed inviolable--not even by some transitory 100% majority's vote-- then what you have is not rightly called "democracy". It's called "mob-rule". And, yes, welcome to mob-rule, the reigning ethos here.
Fortunately, until such time as things deteriorate even further, our OP may keep and use his personally preferred cover-image(s) despite their being found (LOL!) objectionable by some (all it takes is "one"!) here.
God help this lunacy!
(Now, then, flag away!, flag away! this post!
Because that'll show me!)
No, I mean In-REAL-Life's realm.
And let's do that not just once-and-for-all but in each and every particular case. No fundamental principles, just whatever the hell the momentary whims of conventional thinking may favor at that time. "YM (and your rights)M(Always) V" because, Hey, "internet" and "modernism" and "we gots to move with the times."
The "Bill of Rights"? God! That is so "yesterday".
"Badges? We no got no badges, señor. We no need no stinkin' badges!"
If there are no essentially vital ground principles which are vouchsafed inviolable--not even by some transitory 100% majority's vote-- then what you have is not rightly called "democracy". It's called "mob-rule". And, yes, welcome to mob-rule, the reigning ethos here.
Fortunately, until such time as things deteriorate even further, our OP may keep and use his personally preferred cover-image(s) despite their being found (LOL!) objectionable by some (all it takes is "one"!) here.
God help this lunacy!
(Now, then, flag away!, flag away! this post!
Because that'll show me!)
21proximity1
>19 Eucalafio:
Perhaps, Eucalafo, perhaps. I happen to entirely agree with you, with your reasoning and with that of AnnieMod (in this case). But, well, none of that matters because, you see, as Petroglyph has explained, "Your cover (this image) was flagged because it shows not a cover of the complete and unabridged book The three musketeers, but of two separate covers" and Petroglyph has spoken; thus, as they say, "that settles that."
Perhaps, Eucalafo, perhaps. I happen to entirely agree with you, with your reasoning and with that of AnnieMod (in this case). But, well, none of that matters because, you see, as Petroglyph has explained, "Your cover (this image) was flagged because it shows not a cover of the complete and unabridged book The three musketeers, but of two separate covers" and Petroglyph has spoken; thus, as they say, "that settles that."
22JacobHolt
>20 proximity1: But there are indeed some "essentially vital ground principles which are vouchsafed inviolable"--most notably, the principle that user data is sacrosanct. Your personally-uploaded cover images won't be removed based on other users' flags. More generally, I can't edit your data no matter how incorrect I think it is.
23proximity1
>22 JacobHolt:
While, yes, I must and do grant you all that, I think the point goes to a key factor which is in a rather different context from your observation. Of course members here--many of whom, let us remember, actually paid in real money to join (as I did)-- are always free to withdraw into a hermit's existence here and, if they want to do this to the fullest extent possible, they can even put all their collection and data about themselves out of view of any other members. Briefly, from time to time, I have been exasperated enough to adopt that course. But, especially at a site which so vaunts and sets such store by the "social" function of the features, to do this disappearing act defeats all these interests--just as it cuts one off from what are potential acquaintances with others whose collections and interests have common points with one's own.
It becomes a case of cutting one's own nose off to spite one's face. And at length, I've always decided that as for my interests--which are more than a little, let us say, "evangelical", given that my most deeply-felt interests, the expression of which at this site has so often placed me in extremely unpopular minority positions--the only practical course is to keep my collections, views and arguments, scorned and despised though they are, on open view and just forego any sort of cameraderie with others, for there is none of that for me here. I've reconciled myself to this place as a haven for conventional narrow stupidity which means that, to the extent that one engages others in anything even, as things go on, slightly controversial, I and anyone else of like views finds himself treated to censorious hostiliity for anything the slightest bit controversial (which constitutes an ever-expanding set at this site).
I've pared down my use of this site and have taken up putting all new bibliographical database additions on another site where there is no social activity of any sort. And I no longer look for anything of that kind here. I'm a slow learner but, after more than ten years here, even I am not so stupid as to be unable to have learned where the limits are in reasonable expectations from this site's membership--which faithfully reflects absolutely every deplorable failing in the wider society. And that is entirely to be expected. There is no reason to think bookish interests reliably produce anything in a countervailing open-mindedness, here or anywhere else. I neither look for nor expect anything in social fellowship from this site.
This, perhaps more than any other revelation from experience here is what most struck me. These supposedly intellectual shared interests do absolutely nothing to make one less insular or provincially narrow-minded than the person who cares nothing for either books or for reading--more and more, these are distinctly different things, anyway.
It strikes me that I've written all of this before--perhaps more than once. This is depressing.
While, yes, I must and do grant you all that, I think the point goes to a key factor which is in a rather different context from your observation. Of course members here--many of whom, let us remember, actually paid in real money to join (as I did)-- are always free to withdraw into a hermit's existence here and, if they want to do this to the fullest extent possible, they can even put all their collection and data about themselves out of view of any other members. Briefly, from time to time, I have been exasperated enough to adopt that course. But, especially at a site which so vaunts and sets such store by the "social" function of the features, to do this disappearing act defeats all these interests--just as it cuts one off from what are potential acquaintances with others whose collections and interests have common points with one's own.
It becomes a case of cutting one's own nose off to spite one's face. And at length, I've always decided that as for my interests--which are more than a little, let us say, "evangelical", given that my most deeply-felt interests, the expression of which at this site has so often placed me in extremely unpopular minority positions--the only practical course is to keep my collections, views and arguments, scorned and despised though they are, on open view and just forego any sort of cameraderie with others, for there is none of that for me here. I've reconciled myself to this place as a haven for conventional narrow stupidity which means that, to the extent that one engages others in anything even, as things go on, slightly controversial, I and anyone else of like views finds himself treated to censorious hostiliity for anything the slightest bit controversial (which constitutes an ever-expanding set at this site).
I've pared down my use of this site and have taken up putting all new bibliographical database additions on another site where there is no social activity of any sort. And I no longer look for anything of that kind here. I'm a slow learner but, after more than ten years here, even I am not so stupid as to be unable to have learned where the limits are in reasonable expectations from this site's membership--which faithfully reflects absolutely every deplorable failing in the wider society. And that is entirely to be expected. There is no reason to think bookish interests reliably produce anything in a countervailing open-mindedness, here or anywhere else. I neither look for nor expect anything in social fellowship from this site.
This, perhaps more than any other revelation from experience here is what most struck me. These supposedly intellectual shared interests do absolutely nothing to make one less insular or provincially narrow-minded than the person who cares nothing for either books or for reading--more and more, these are distinctly different things, anyway.
It strikes me that I've written all of this before--perhaps more than once. This is depressing.
24nytbestsellers
>10 .mau.: Though perhaps it is time to recalibate the threshold there? An image which has a maximum pixel dimension of 400px should not qualify as "high-quality", surely. 500px, minimum, would be my preference.
25Eucalafio
>18 jjwilson61: I do not understand what you say. I have said that if I classify two volumes of the same work that have the same ISBN separately, LT will tell me that I have the same work twice. Not two volumes. And that, for this reason, I cannot classify separately two volumes that are of the same work and that have the same ISBN. I do not understand why, from something I have said, it must be inferred that I am allowing myself to be confused by what editions are. I fully understand the difference between work and edition.
LT does not notify you if you have the same edition of the work repeated, but it does notify you that you have the work repeated (it can be in the same edition or not); and can notify you based on the ISBN or any other characteristic (title and author association, for example), regardless of whether or not they are copies of the same edition. Some publishers have botched using the same ISBN on different works, and I have no way of alerting LT that, despite having the same ISBN, they are two (or more) books that have nothing to do with each other. .
For example, this book:
https://www.librarything.es/work/896661/details/191849984
has the ISBN 8473480457, which is the same as all of these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=8473480457&rlz=1C1SAVU_enES539ES539&oq=8...
Apart from Ellery Ling's book, "Captain Grant's Sons" is the only work that is classified with that ISBN in LT, and I have the problem that, as much as I try to separate my book from Verne's novel, LT doesn't help me. gives option, since it does not conceive different works with the same ISBN.
Some clever man will come along and mark the cover of "The Tarot" as inappropriate, when in reality it is not, because just the fact that in LT there are more people who have "The Children of Captain Grant" than "The Tarot" does not gives a greater right over the ISBN to one work than to another.
LT does not notify you if you have the same edition of the work repeated, but it does notify you that you have the work repeated (it can be in the same edition or not); and can notify you based on the ISBN or any other characteristic (title and author association, for example), regardless of whether or not they are copies of the same edition. Some publishers have botched using the same ISBN on different works, and I have no way of alerting LT that, despite having the same ISBN, they are two (or more) books that have nothing to do with each other. .
For example, this book:
https://www.librarything.es/work/896661/details/191849984
has the ISBN 8473480457, which is the same as all of these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=8473480457&rlz=1C1SAVU_enES539ES539&oq=8...
Apart from Ellery Ling's book, "Captain Grant's Sons" is the only work that is classified with that ISBN in LT, and I have the problem that, as much as I try to separate my book from Verne's novel, LT doesn't help me. gives option, since it does not conceive different works with the same ISBN.
Some clever man will come along and mark the cover of "The Tarot" as inappropriate, when in reality it is not, because just the fact that in LT there are more people who have "The Children of Captain Grant" than "The Tarot" does not gives a greater right over the ISBN to one work than to another.
26MarthaJeanne
https://www.librarything.com/work/896661/details/191849984
I have separated this for you, and it is now at https://www.librarything.com/work/30861057 The old URL will give false results. ( https://www.librarything.es/work/30861057 )
Yes, LT does allow separate works with the same ISBN, but they often have to be manually separated. This is even more the case with vol 1 and vol 2 because the autocombiner only considers 20 characters, and the volume numbers often get ignored.
I have separated this for you, and it is now at https://www.librarything.com/work/30861057 The old URL will give false results. ( https://www.librarything.es/work/30861057 )
Yes, LT does allow separate works with the same ISBN, but they often have to be manually separated. This is even more the case with vol 1 and vol 2 because the autocombiner only considers 20 characters, and the volume numbers often get ignored.
27Eucalafio
>26 MarthaJeanne: Thanks for separating them. I did it manually from the work area, but in the case of the same ISBN for different works it has never worked for me, I don't know why. I'm doing something wrong, or I'm not doing it because I don't know.
I wonder if the "false result" is "true result" for everyone who has the other works there, and if they will have to solve it by separating their works also from the one they don't have (from mine).
And I also wonder if others who have the same work that I have will have the same problem and if they will then be able to find those who have it to separate their book from those that are not and unite it with those that are. I mean: if someone else adds the Ellery Ling book with the same ISBN, will this book be joined by default to the correct group, or the wrong one, or none?
All the best.
I wonder if the "false result" is "true result" for everyone who has the other works there, and if they will have to solve it by separating their works also from the one they don't have (from mine).
And I also wonder if others who have the same work that I have will have the same problem and if they will then be able to find those who have it to separate their book from those that are not and unite it with those that are. I mean: if someone else adds the Ellery Ling book with the same ISBN, will this book be joined by default to the correct group, or the wrong one, or none?
All the best.
