Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

The (original) publication date is often 01-01 on GR. Are these data taken from for instance Worldcat or is it generally agreed upon to use this date when the exact date isn't known? As a former bookseller I can assure you books are rarely published on New Year's Day.

If the original pub. date has only "year" field populated, the " month" and "date" default to 01/01 when displaying it on all editions (also for sorting purposes maybe). It's how the code is written for GR

(I think)

Michael wrote: "It's how the code is written for GR."

Thank you for the quick reply. However, I've noticed super-librarians reverting changes, refilling the entry fields a librarian had left blank on purpose. It's not only code. Please inform me when there's a rule of thumb.

If the month and date are known, those details can be added. If they are not known, they can be left blank and they'd default to 01/01 while displaying "first published on.." on all editions.

(I think)

Martijn wrote: "However, I've noticed super-librarians reverting changes, refilling the entry fields a librarian had left blank on purpose."

Combining different editions also influences the original publication date. So if you experience such a change, it might not be a deliberate change, but will be credited to the librarian that performed the combine.

Michael wrote: "If the month and date are known, those details can be added. If they are not known, they can be left blank and they'd default to 01/01 while displaying "first published on.." on all editions.

(I t..."

I don't think they default to 01-01 (but I also might be wrong), as it is possible to leave them blank. I don't know why they sometimes change to January 1st and sometimes not (as Arenda says, combining does interfere in some way: I have to check every time if the orig. pub. date is still in order after combining)

(I also hate the "January 1st" date everywhere :-D )

Arenda wrote: "Combining different editions also influences the original publication date. So if you experience such a change, it might not be a deliberate change, but will be credited to the librarian that performed the combine. ."

Thank you for the explanation. With no rule of thumb, I'm inclined to keep on emptying those two entry fields of the Dutch books I'm sure of not having a publication date on New Year's Day. Please don't flag me ;)

@Moloch: Same here, quite an annoyance.

I reported this bug almost exactly a year ago.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Moloch wrote: "I don't think they default to 01-01 (but I also might be wrong), as it is possible to leave them blank. I don't know why they sometimes change to January 1st and sometimes not"

I have noticed that you have to do this twice, maybe. First when you add the book you will add the year and leave others blank. Then the system will add them. Then you have to go and remove them. This seems to stick.

I find it interesting that the first day of the month will show just the month when it's the "Read" date but this has another logic.

What up with this long long time bug - it still appears that a reader cannot start or finish reading a book on the very first day of a month. When entering the 1st it shows up as just that month with no day number. Most annoying!!!