It is known that the ISBN-10 system grew out of the older SBN system. The latter had nine digits; and any valid SBN may be converted to a valid 10-digit ISBN simply by prepending with a zero. I have just found a book which has printed on the back "SBN 0 901115 32 0", so, other editors be warned: that is a typo, but whether for "SBN 901115 32 0" or for " ISBN 0 901115 32 0" cannot be known. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article now states that "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." but in practice, publishers often retain the same ISBN for variations such as: increased cover price; new cover art; new introductions or afterwords; and resetting of the text. This may be because there is a fee for each ISBN assigned, or for convenience in the publisher's internal records. I know this is true from work at the ISFDB in which publications with such variations often are verified as having identical ISBNs. I don't have a published citable source which says this. I am prety sure that the official "Rules" for use of an ISBN state tha a new ISBN should be used for "each edition and variation", but AIAIK no entity monitors or enforces those rules. In an extreme case the Jack Vance Integral Edition published 44 books under 2 ISBNs (because they books were only sold as sets, and not sold at retail so ISBNs were not really needed). DES (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the statement quoted above in the article should be qualified in some way -- as it stands it is inaccurate in practice. DES (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
These are all we have got
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 08:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow....this topic has limited info
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Today, I appeal again for another {{Google scholar]] equivalent-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Google scholar}}
or
Google Scholar? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit added the text "It costs $125.00 to buy a single ISBN.", with ref citing the web page https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1567&la_id=1 I have removed these, because it's an agency's sales page: the price of $125.00 is not just for one ISBN, but includes various other products from the agency concerned. Checking elsewhere on the same site, for example https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1569 or https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1479 shows that you can buy blocks of ISBNs - for example, 1000 for $1000.00 To give the price of one ISBN, therefore, is misleading unless the price for other quantities is also given, as well as the price from other agencies. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
the line
"957+986 for Republic of China and 962+988 for Hong Kong"
is inserted into a section of text enumerating single digit country codes. I am not sure of the author's intent in adding that information. Should it be deleted or relocated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.200.178 ( talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
clarify}}
tag; hopefully somebody with knowledge will reword it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)The article says "Occasionally, a book may appear without a printed ISBN if it is printed privately or the author does not follow the usual ISBN procedure; however, this is usually later rectified." I don't buy it. I suspect the number of editions of books published without ISBNs every year outnumbers the number of editions published with. All sorts of internal workplace guides, family albums, etc. are printed, all sans ISBN, and most of them never get reprinted. Also, I suspect that most of the material that gets printed without an ISBN, by any count, never sees a new reprint with an ISBN, if for no other reason than the fact that most books don't see a reprint.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is rectified, if the book comes to its notice, by the SBNA [Standard Book Numbering Agency], which subsequently allocates a number, which, in the case of British publications, appears in due course in Books in print. A few books with no ISBN are apparently never picked up by the SBNA and never recorded in Books in print.
Some interesting observations about ebooks + ISBN's from Eric Hellman: "What is an ebook anyway?" Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says that there is no public list of mappings from number to publisher. Why don't we start one as a wiki page? I think it would be easy to get the most important entries entered ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.64.64 ( talk) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is known that the ISBN-10 system grew out of the older SBN system. The latter had nine digits; and any valid SBN may be converted to a valid 10-digit ISBN simply by prepending with a zero. I have just found a book which has printed on the back "SBN 0 901115 32 0", so, other editors be warned: that is a typo, but whether for "SBN 901115 32 0" or for " ISBN 0 901115 32 0" cannot be known. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article now states that "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." but in practice, publishers often retain the same ISBN for variations such as: increased cover price; new cover art; new introductions or afterwords; and resetting of the text. This may be because there is a fee for each ISBN assigned, or for convenience in the publisher's internal records. I know this is true from work at the ISFDB in which publications with such variations often are verified as having identical ISBNs. I don't have a published citable source which says this. I am prety sure that the official "Rules" for use of an ISBN state tha a new ISBN should be used for "each edition and variation", but AIAIK no entity monitors or enforces those rules. In an extreme case the Jack Vance Integral Edition published 44 books under 2 ISBNs (because they books were only sold as sets, and not sold at retail so ISBNs were not really needed). DES (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the statement quoted above in the article should be qualified in some way -- as it stands it is inaccurate in practice. DES (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
These are all we have got
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 08:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow....this topic has limited info
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Today, I appeal again for another {{Google scholar]] equivalent-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Google scholar}}
or
Google Scholar? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit added the text "It costs $125.00 to buy a single ISBN.", with ref citing the web page https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1567&la_id=1 I have removed these, because it's an agency's sales page: the price of $125.00 is not just for one ISBN, but includes various other products from the agency concerned. Checking elsewhere on the same site, for example https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1569 or https://www.myidentifiers.com/index.php?ci_id=1479 shows that you can buy blocks of ISBNs - for example, 1000 for $1000.00 To give the price of one ISBN, therefore, is misleading unless the price for other quantities is also given, as well as the price from other agencies. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
the line
"957+986 for Republic of China and 962+988 for Hong Kong"
is inserted into a section of text enumerating single digit country codes. I am not sure of the author's intent in adding that information. Should it be deleted or relocated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.200.178 ( talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
clarify}}
tag; hopefully somebody with knowledge will reword it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)The article says "Occasionally, a book may appear without a printed ISBN if it is printed privately or the author does not follow the usual ISBN procedure; however, this is usually later rectified." I don't buy it. I suspect the number of editions of books published without ISBNs every year outnumbers the number of editions published with. All sorts of internal workplace guides, family albums, etc. are printed, all sans ISBN, and most of them never get reprinted. Also, I suspect that most of the material that gets printed without an ISBN, by any count, never sees a new reprint with an ISBN, if for no other reason than the fact that most books don't see a reprint.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This is rectified, if the book comes to its notice, by the SBNA [Standard Book Numbering Agency], which subsequently allocates a number, which, in the case of British publications, appears in due course in Books in print. A few books with no ISBN are apparently never picked up by the SBNA and never recorded in Books in print.
Some interesting observations about ebooks + ISBN's from Eric Hellman: "What is an ebook anyway?" Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The article says that there is no public list of mappings from number to publisher. Why don't we start one as a wiki page? I think it would be easy to get the most important entries entered ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.64.64 ( talk) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)