I've been meaning to bring this up and it looks like someone at Comicogs has the same question.

For page count, I've only been entering the last number of the pages. I have not been counting endpapers or other non-numbered pages at the end where there is often marketing information, information about the author, and so on.

There are some edge cases though. For example, a book might end with page number 247 somewhere in the index but often, there is one more index page that would be 248 but is not numbered. Do we list it as 247 or 248?

What other examples arise?

For page count, I've only been entering the last number of the pages.

Same here, at least mostly... I'm not sure about all my subs, since I didn't think about it at first. But at some point I looked around online, and a lot of places seem to just list the last page number, so I figured that's probably common practice. But I cross-referenced only two books, so I might be wrong too.

I'm counting all pages except this page which is glued to back cover, usualy it is made of different paper.

I can see that with many users, people will enter data as they see fit, so it would be nice to have something we can all point to. So, I have an idea...

What if we change the filed name from "Page Count" to "Listed Page Count" or "Listed Page Number".

If that were the case, the user would simply turn to the last numbered page, whether it is actual last page or not, and just type in that number. No more guessing, no more counting endpapers, just entering what is actually printed.

With fanzines I count all pages, even front and back covers.
about books, I do not count Courtesy sheets. Sometimes I check first page printed with number so I can find the first page counted (without number printed) So I cand find out the criteria of the publisher and use it fo find the last page counted...

yes, but sometimes on epilogue pages, or on index pages numbers are not printed.
Here's exceprt from goodreads, maybe we can use the same http://www.goodreads.com/help/show/271-page-numbering

I think to keep things simple, we should not start counting every single page of a book. I mean often the page count doesn't start until the actual written piece starts, so would need to count the pages before that, then add the page count of the numbered pages and then possibly everything afterwards... too much work. :P

If it's decided otherwise though, I think we need to make clear guidelines what to include in the page count, and maybe we would need to two fields in that case ("listed page count"/"total page count").

listed page count is good, that is standard library practice

also do we need multiple page count fields or use the same field for when there are introductions etc. numbered differently, usually with roman numerals?

"also do we need multiple page count fields or use the same field for when there are introductions etc. numbered differently, usually with roman numerals?"

Yes, that would be nice. I've seen special sections at the end that also have their own counts.

If you guys are in agreement, I can rename Page Count to Listed Page Count. Adding another field is a more complicated discussion and would probably need to go on the feature request list.

Usualy pages are counted from the first page after the cover. Text starts on 7th 9th, or even 11th page it depends how many credit pages are made. Thats why I'm always counting to the last page before cover. But indeed, we need definition & guiedelines

seburns wrote "If you guys are in agreement, I can rename Page Count to Listed Page Count. Adding another field is a more complicated discussion and would probably need to go on the feature request list."

mirva, maldoror and I agree as seen above. I would really like this as it takes guesswork out.

Okay, I've made this change from Page Count to Listed Page Count.

In the absence of a Bibliogs Guidelines, I'd like to see the Wiki expanded upon. I took it upon myself to sum up this thread and add a page: http://www.biblio.gs/wiki/Listed-Page-Count
(For some reason it's not showing up on the Main Page: http://www.biblio.gs/wiki )

This raises the question: What about books / etc. that don't have numbered pages? List in notes? Add a separate field?

Ah, figured out that the Main Page is not dynamic — I added a link to Listed Page Count.

Also, it goes without saying but please improve upon the content or wording there if you feel comfortable doing so!

Is listed page count then the last officially numbered page of the book? Any pages that come afterwards without nubers are just disregarded, correct? Just want to get this right.

Right, it's the last one numbered printed

I think the convention among publishers when having different paginations in different parts of the book is to seperate each listed page count with '+'. This most frequently happens with Roman numerals in the front matter and Arabic numerals in the main part. Like:
xiv + 123
or:
XXII + 456

I employed this technique several times in my submissions. Today I submitted an interesting case where two books are reprinted with their original paginations in one volume with the prefaces of each original book published, too. The result is this: https://www.bookogs.com/book/240087-Grundgesetze-der-Arithmetik-I-II

I am very much in favor of this style and it should be quite easy to read out the (approximated) total page count with an algorithm that recognizes a number of common numeral styles (should that be relevant at some point).

I always use the last listed page number in the book as my source for Page Count data.

However, some books that I have recently submitted have been problematic. One was a collected volume of three books that uses the original page numbering for each book: https://www.bookogs.com/book/209982-Collected-Short-Stories-The-Burnt-Ones-The-Cookatoos-Three-Uneasy-Pieces

Using the last page number would have been misleading, so I tallied up the total number of pages and added this as the Page Count and referenced my reasons in Notes.

In the case of two children's picture books, page numbering was completely absent: https://www.bookogs.com/book/238233-The-Deep and https://www.bookogs.com/book/235120-Jesse

For these books, I did not list the number of pages in Page Count but instead tallied the total number of pages and listed this information in Notes.

It would be helpful to have guidance on these sorts of anomalies.

Here is another remarkable example: https://www.bookogs.com/book/241329-Formale-Logik

The main part of the book is 165 pages. After that a catalog of the publisher series starts and its 32 pages are paginated beginning with page 3. It even has another title page. So

165 + 32

should be intuitively understandable, shouldn't it?

197 by any other name, perhaps?

Using the last page number would have been misleading

Yeah, I remember using a similar method where the last number wasn't actually the last number of the book. I think this can be considered in a case-by-case basis, but in some cases it might be beneficial to list the page counts of different sections separately.

197 by any other name, perhaps?

The problem is that we're supposed to take the number directly from the last numbered page. If "197" was entered, a user might assume that they have a different edition, and submit a duplicate. On the other hand "32" doesn't reflect the reality either, so "165 + 32" is probably the best option.

I don't think the page count field will ever be linked, so it should be ok to enter other data (= other than one number) there too.

[quote]The problem is that we're supposed to take the number directly from the last numbered page. If "197" was entered, a user might assume that they have a different edition, and submit a duplicate. On the other hand "32" doesn't reflect the reality either, so "165 + 32" is probably the best option. [/quote]

I agree with Mirva here and think this is the clearest way to go.

Sorry, I was being flippant with my answer as 165 + 32 looks to me like an equation.

I am fine with this solution for dealing with collected works that use separate pagination.

This still leaves the matter of publications that dispense with pagination altogether. I see 7_Sea_Cods raised this matter about 1 year ago and as yet no one has responded.

Sorry, I was being flippant with my answer as 165 + 32 looks to me like an equation.

I was kinda suspecting that, but you can never be sure in the internet. When you don't really know someone, it's safer to assume they are serious than assume that they are joking...

Besides your question did raise a valid point - someone actually might wonder why don't we just add the page counts together and use that. ;-)

This still leaves the matter of publications that dispense with pagination altogether.

I've been just adding "Unpaginated" to the Notes. I've been thinking whether it would be allowed to enter it to Page Count field, but I'm not 100% sure if "Unpaginated pages" would be good English (as the system displays "pages" after the number, or whatever is entered in the field).

Since there isn't anything you can do about the fact page info displays "pages" after what you type, I don't think it would be wrong in that sense to add "no pagination" or however you wish to say that the book doesn't specify page #s.

Perhaps "unspecified*" before the inevitable "pages" wording; then elaborate upon the * in the notes if worried about continuity.

I think the word unpaginated describes this situation best. I think the word should be added to the Page Count field, so that it doesn't look as if the submitter forgot to add the data.

There is a lot of confusion about counting page numbers (even book industry people don't seem to agree on the correct method), so I'm not sure whether or not it is helpful to add a page tally to Notes. I suppose listing a number at least gives people a rough guide as to the number of pages. This could prevent a shock to someone expecting a thin volume when in fact the book is the size of Proust's 'Remembrance of Things Past'!

I think the word unpaginated describes this situation best. I think the word should be added to the Page Count field, so that it doesn't look as if the submitter forgot to add the data.

That sounds good to me. I already tried it on a few books the past weekend, and even though the phrase "unpaginated pages" sounded a bit weird at first, I looked it up and found out it's actually used. This is why I should ask about these things from native English speakers before doing anything... :P

Maybe it's just me but not being a native English speaker i really misunderstood wording even in the guidelines for Listed Page Count until i found this topic.
Listed page count is 'count of listed pages' but i thought it was 'that page count which is specifically listed' because indeed it is already counted and listed for us in publisher's information block.
And guidelines say 'Use the page number printed on the last page of the book' and indeed, the publisher's information block is sometimes on the last page of the book so i still thought that's what was meant.
Just showing how it currenly can be confusing. But maybe someone can reword it to finally make clear. I think 'look up the last of the pages that have number on them' but still, my English practice is very poor.

Also, in books i own they almost never have printed a number on the last page in a chapter. So if by these guidelines i list '381' pages still the page 382 of the book will contain the last lines of the author's work.

Yes, list the last page number you find, even if the book has more pages (without the page number printed on it).

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.