19of 19
Morits
POWER
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 4,226 messages
  • July 27, 2013 01:09
1K
added
10K
prices
25K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 01:09

There are still users who think they would do well by removing 'none' from the ISBN field.

PLEASE don't!

If there is no ISBN in the book, always enter 'none', otherwise it is not clear whether the field may have been forgotten.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,122 messages
  • July 27, 2013 01:36
100
added
250
prices
100
info pages
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 01:36

I was just reprimanded by Morits for being (consciously) guilty of it. Of course I don't blame him, but I would like to explain my motivation.

There is nowhere that in the book section "none" should be entered in the ISBN field if that information is missing in the book. The field has no input statements. I know it is in the Handboek Comics, but I don't think that provision makes sense there either.

I also quote from the answer I sent Morits:

Why should fill in information that may not apply to an item? After all, books published before 1970 cannot have an ISBN.

So, to be consistent, you should enter "none" everywhere? So with both ISBN10 and ISBN13, and also with ISBN13 of books between 1970 and 2006 and also with ISBN10 of books from 2007 .....

And should not also "none" be mentioned as a book, for example has no subtitle or illustrator? Same principle.

Personally, I would like to see (and I think I have already mentioned this on the forum) that the fields for ISBN 10 and 13 are merged into one field (after all, it is completely identical information ).

Only for books published after the introduction of the ISBN is that number - or lack thereof - useful information. In those cases, I agree that the field should not be left empty.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 27, 2013 02:48
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 27, 2013 02:48

The ISBN field is an identification field within Books and Comics, that is the difference with other fields that we consciously leave empty if there is no information that can be included yet. 'None' in books from before 1970 is indeed nonsense, but implicitly not wrong, because there is simply no ISBN in it, and as said: it was originally intended as an identification field. So it is not 'the same principle'.

Merging the two ISBN fields is a wish that has been around for some time. Years ago, Willem Naber already emailed a conversion sheet to Marco.

Another problem with these types of fields is the use of Dutch texts. Actually, that is no longer possible since Catawiki has gone international, but the makers have never thought about it, or at least never consulted with administrators about it.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 27, 2013 09:47
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 09:47

You can imagine as soon as a date is before 1970 no entries are entered by default.

or better do not show the field.

But the argument then we know that it has not been forgotten. ?

So many fields are forgotten or deliberately (time - lazily) not filled in. Do you approve?

Record section does not have an ISBN field and there will be more. But since you can't search for it, this field has a limited purpose.

But every section containing items from 1970 onwards must have this field, but then you must be able to search for it.

Problem s that it is often only on packaging.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 27, 2013 14:33
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 27, 2013 14:33

You can search on the ISBN, Dick.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,122 messages
  • July 27, 2013 16:34
100
added
250
prices
100
info pages
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 16:34

'None' for books from before 1970 is indeed nonsense, but implicitly not wrong, because it simply does not contain an ISBN, and as said: it was originally intended as an identification field.

So it's not implicitly wrong if I remove that entry, right? Especially since it is nowhere indicated that there is an agreement about this (even if the book managers would indeed agree on that).

As an identification field, it has only very limited usefulness within Catawiki, because the ISBN can contain different editions of the same book.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 27, 2013 17:20
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 27, 2013 17:20

Yet it has proven its worth several times with the same books with a different ISBN, believe me.

And removing 'None' is not wrong, but is just as much unnecessary effort as enter. (;-)

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 27, 2013 19:38
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 19:38

@arco I didn't know then I now suggest making these fields everywhere in all sections this is an added value I didn't know I assumed that just like with release number at LP you can't search for it

Why are those ISBN fields not standard input fields?

which you can leave blank and even better just enter it via your smartphone.

For Ted to pick this up right away, this seems to me to be just a field that transcends the heading and also comes across as professional and should therefore be included in every heading!

Personally, I think that it is better not to show an ISBN field for the year < 1970 or vice versa > than to show a field for 1970

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 27, 2013 20:37
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 27, 2013 20:37

Seems very exaggerated for the few items in other sections that happen to have an ISBN on them, Dick.

For example, if I see a DVD with an ISBN, I put that ISBN in the Order number field.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 27, 2013 22:01
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 27, 2013 22:01

@ Arco, I estimate with records and especially CD there are at least 1/3 with a bar code seems a reasonable number everything for 80 years I don't think much but even the 180 gr vinyl just has a barcode hence my opinion put that just everywhere maybe pins and cigar bands not? I wonder if books and comics are going above The 50% when they rendered that much earlier

But every search solution is a point of improvement

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 28, 2013 02:39
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 28, 2013 02:39

Ah, but then there is a misunderstanding, Dick. A barcode is very different from an ISBN. For example, with DVD we do have an EAN field in which the barcode belongs. And I agree that in various sections that EAN field should be allowed to be added.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 28, 2013 08:10
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 28, 2013 08:10

Arco, but I just read that from 2007

(I assume for the purpose of the start of Catawiki)

Since 2007 the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) of a book has been identical to the EAN of that book, previously they were slightly different numbers.

From the start to use catawiki please let us use that.

I would even advocate to display the code as a small image and to be able to insert what I indicated earlier via barcode reader also often present on smartphone.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 402 messages
  • July 28, 2013 08:16
2.5K
added
10K
prices
10
info pages
25K
reviews
500
posts
July 28, 2013 08:16

@Dick: ISBN stands for International Standard Book Number. You must be a book publisher to be eligible. It is easy to recognize whether it is an ISBN, the barcode always starts with 978. In case of transcripts, the barcode starts with 977. It is therefore very unlikely that a DVD has an ISBN.

An ISBN is never alone on the var packaging. In principle, the publisher is obliged to include it in / on the publication.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 28, 2013 11:40
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 28, 2013 11:40

That is correct, but since 2007 these would have been included in the EAN code

See my previous post

Now it is nonsense to use 2, the same codes

but is about if the ean code which serves for much more purpose not to use it. But then of course you have to be able to search for it

you have the ISBN field, which you can also use for the EAN code, which is therefore much broader than the ISBN

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 402 messages
  • July 28, 2013 19:22
2.5K
added
10K
prices
10
info pages
25K
reviews
500
posts
July 28, 2013 19:22

It is true that the ISBN is integrated in the EAN coding. However, using the same field for both codes is very unwise. Before 2007, there were also publishers who used the ISBN as a barcode, but that was more the exception than the rule. For books (and comics), a separate field for the ISBN remains necessary. In addition to the ISBN, there are also (at least comics) that also have an EAN. This is mainly because the distribution often ended up at magazine sales points.

So with only an ISBN you are not there, there are publications with both codes.

It is an internationally accepted and used data. Why deviate from that? Creates more ambiguity does not solve anything.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 28, 2013 19:43
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 28, 2013 19:43

Yes, they are really two very different entities, Dick.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 28, 2013 20:02
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 28, 2013 20:02

@Arco I want to believe that but from 2007 not anymore and that is what I mean it should be that there are fields EAN code for all sections including comics and books

Isbn from that date are equal to Ean?

then you will unfortunately but that is no different until that date and from 70 onwards one or two fields have ISBN fields

but an Ean code field will just have to be added catawiki wide

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue manager
  • 8,580 messages
  • July 28, 2013 20:18
10K
added
1K
prices
50
info pages
250K
reviews
5K
posts
July 28, 2013 20:18

No, an EAN is often the same as the ISBN for books from 2007 onwards, but often not.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
  • Catalogue administrator
  • 2,914 messages
  • July 28, 2013 20:27
2.5K
added
500
prices
50K
reviews
2.5K
posts
July 28, 2013 20:27

@Arco so actually from 2007 but not or in other words the system rattles.

But then again a step further still place a field everywhere with books you then have 3 fields (also a mess ) But then we do have a field! And uniform input!

Where you can use no so that we know you have not forgotten it.

Message has been translated from Dutch
Show original message
19of 19