Cover Flagging of Ace Double Books

DiskuteraFlaggers!

Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

Cover Flagging of Ace Double Books

Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.

1scott_beeler
feb 18, 2016, 11:48 pm

In the last couple days the user RicketyCat (who appears to be a big fan of the Ace Double science fiction books) has been flagging many covers for such books. These are flip-books with two short novels back-to-back, where each cover is a "front cover" for one of the novels giving that author and title. Most of the flags are cases where the cover photo is of one or the other of the two covers.

Example book:
https://www.librarything.com/work/2335985/covers

I've been voting them "undecided" because I'm not sure. Generally I think they're legitimate cover pictures because they *are* of the cover of the book. My guess is that RicketyCat's objection is that they're visually deceptive because each of these single covers only gives the author/title of one of the two novels in the book. Which I get, and if I were picking a cover image I would prefer one of the both-covers-pasted-together images that most of these books have as an option. But I still think the individual cover pictures are legitimate.

I left a question on his comment wall but I also wanted to ask here if there is any sort of rule or precedent for this type of book cover? Or just what other people's thoughts might be?

There are also some flags for the inverse case, where the both-covers-pasted-together image has been used for an entry for one of the two novels contained in the book, and my opinion is that those should indeed be flagged.

2r.orrison
Redigerat: feb 19, 2016, 3:14 am

Flagging doesn't affect the user that entered the cover, they'll still have that cover on their book. I'm inclined to vote for the flag, but I'm interested to hear others' views.

3MarthaJeanne
feb 19, 2016, 1:23 am

I would vote against the flag.

4klarusu
feb 19, 2016, 6:54 am

I would vote against the flag - if it's a picture of the actual cover, albeit flippers, as far as I can see it's a legitimate cover picture.

5henkl
feb 19, 2016, 7:01 am

6hailelib
feb 19, 2016, 8:25 am

It's a proper cover.

7SylviaC
feb 19, 2016, 8:45 am

I think that either cover on a double book is a legitimate cover for the whole book.

8RicketyCat
Redigerat: feb 19, 2016, 11:47 am

I don't mind the collective voting down the proposal. It's why it is proposed rather than automatic.

Reasons for my flagging:
Ace Doubles constitute some form of collected work whether Anthology, Omnibus, or both.
a) Showing only one cover constitutes showing only half the work in question especially for tête-bêche books.
b) Showing only one cover may erroneously encourage future LTers to conclude that singular portions of the work are the work itself. (People are generally visual and notice pictures before they notice text. Even big readers.)

Since there has been a need to separate singular examples from the full work itself and vice-versa, I believe the second is the greater consideration of these two. I've also been flagging the double-cover on the singular works.

I've been going through and correcting my own collection because, when I first entered them in 2007, the mechanisms were not in place for multiple author considerations. By the time I left off in 2012 I hadn't gotten back to them for fixing. As I go through now, I want to be mindful of not just how it is currently used, but how future users will see the entered data.

9scott_beeler
feb 19, 2016, 12:17 pm

Hey, thanks for the reply. I'm still not really convinced, but I do see where you're coming from on this.

I mostly wanted to maybe save you some time in the future in the event that there was an accepted hard-and-fast rule that the single covers for these types of books were OK. That doesn't seem to be the case, though most of the replies (so far) think they are valid covers. So, I just wanted to bring it up, you can decide if you want to continue on with it or not -- as you say, this just flags them and doesn't automatically remove them.