Why I flagged this cover

Did you flag a cover that might look wrongly-flagged to the casual observer? Post your reasons -- and please include links!

My two starter flags are two covers for Northanger Abbey, both of which I gave the "inapplicable" flag as being for the DVD version. One was for the BBC miniseries from the 1980s or so, and the other was for the more recent adaptation for Masterpiece Classic.

And speaking of Masterpiece Classic adaptations, I just found another for Sense and Sensibility. (Note to self: do not begin using shiny new flags at bedtime. Grogginess is not pleasant.)

Thank you for starting this thread. I think not being able to link to particular covers is a serious problem. But let's see how it goes with me describing the covers. For the very popular works with many covers I think it makes most sense to scroll through http://www.librarything.com/helpers_covers.php. The works with fewer covers are linked.

First a mistake on my part. The Jane Eyre cover in white with the blue-green stripe is a Dodd and Mead Great Illustrated Classic cover. This is not an abridgement or adaption. I was confusing it with the more recent Great Illustrated Classics that are adaptions.

The Jane Eyre cover with the silhouette of a woman in front of a pink-purple window is an adaption. The fuzzy text says "From the Story by Charlotte Bronte."

The fuzzy Jane Eyre cover with the painting in the center and a orange-brown border is a Norton Critical Edition cover. The Norton Critical Edition is a separate work.

The fuzzy Jane Eyre cover with the green border just below is also a Norton Critical Edition cover.

The three covers from the Kite Runner have movie credits across the bottom so I take them to be covers for the movie version.

This on isn't mine, but the flagged cover on Galactic Astronomy by Binney and Merrifield is in fact a cover for Galactic Astronomy : Structure and Kinematics by Mihalas and Binney, a different work.

The cover that is flagged on both Animal Farm and 1984 is a cover for a dual edition that contains both Animal Farm and 1984.

I voted no on the flagged cover for The Book Before Printing because The Hand Produced Book is the original title of that work.

The Dracula cover with Christopher Lee across the top is an adaption.

The Dracula cover all in red and the one just above with the same lettering are different covers for the same graphic adaption.

The two similar covers for Dracula with the red lettering and glowering, bloody-lipped vampire are for an abridged edition.

The black Dracula cover with the red lettering and white bat is for an abridged audio-book.

The black and white cover just below is also for an abridged audio-book.

The Dracula cover with the purple cape and wolves is for a graphic adaption.

The red Dracula cover with the white sticker that says Hanbury Plays is for a theatrical adaption.

The Dracula cover just below with Dracula in a spooky forest and a mountaintop castle in the background is for a graphical adaption.

And my last flagged Dracula cover (or first, depending how you look at it), with Dracula in a blue-tinged caped outfit, holding a sword is also a graphical adaption.

The flagged over on Cranford is for the DVD of the TV series.

> 4

I think it would help if you linked to the work pages.

>5 lilithcat:
Note that I edited my post to include the cover helpers page. For works like Jane Eyre and Dracula with hundreds of user-entered covers I don't think the work pages would help much.

I flagged some covers from 13 Clues for Miss Marple. Please note that this is NOT the same book as The Thirteen Problems ( aka The Tuesday Club Murders).

There are several members using generic images such as


Though fine in their own catalogs, in my opinion this is not a cover for any work any more than say
or

Thoughts?

I agree. I've been flagging those when I come across them.

This one on Mark Twain's 1601 appears to be the result of the re-use of an ISBN.

> 4: "The cover that is flagged on both Animal Farm and 1984 is a cover for a dual edition that contains both Animal Farm and 1984."

I appreciate your point, but I'm reluctant to flag the dual edition cover as inapplicable to either separate Work. I'd welcome a larger discussion on this point, unless the question's asked and answered when I wasn't looking.

To start, I catalog each volume as its own record, noting where any Work is divided into volumes (e.g., http://www.librarything.com/work/12024971/87246141 and http://www.librarything.com/work/12025616/87400375 ) or appears anthologized (e.g., http://www.librarything.com/work/12218962/87532318 ). But I also see where other LT Members catalog multiple volumes or constituent parts distinctly as Works in their own right -- individual novellas, plays, poems and stories, not otherwise published as a stand-alone edition. I see logic in doing so, and I presume it lets them track distinct Works notwithstanding physical presentation, especially useful for identifying "to read" and "have read." It's also reasonable that a Member who holds either a multi-volume or anthologized Work, but catalogs it independently, should use a cover that best represents his or her actual holding.

Is it enough that each Member can freely use any image he or she chooses (perhaps a walrus, or a cat-in-the-litter-box), but only images depicting actual volumes with substantially the same content should profuse (neat word!) to a Work page? If so, we're right to flag every single-volume image on records for a multi-volume set, and every anthology cover on separate records for a constituent Work. On the other hand, if (as I think is the case) a fundamental purpose of cover profusion is sharing images among Members, shouldn't the Animal Farm / 1984 dual edition cover be accessible to any Member cataloging the same book, however they choose to interpret the "Work"?

My preference is to share potentially applicable cover images widely, although my voting record may not yet reflect that "evolution in thinking."

> 8, 9: I would agree, and would advocate for "default icons" of audio-, video- and e-books, similar to default covers we choose among for bound books. Does anybody know whether that possibility has been considered or discussed?

> 11

Dual editions, though, should not be combined with either of the constituent works. A book that includes both Animal Farm and 1984 should not appear on the work page for either of them, but should have a separate work page.

> 12: I understand your point, and agree completely -- if they're CATALOGED as dual editions, they certainly should be combined on a separate Work page with other dual editions, using an appropriate dual-edition cover image, and not with either constituent Work's page.

My concern, however, is for other LT Members, who may hold Animal Farm / 1984 in the dual edition but would still catalog Animal Farm and 1984 as separate Works. To the extent this is a way some Members actually use LibraryThing, I hope we can recognize and accommodate the differences in approaches. Even though they're wrong! :o)

Don't forget that flagging covers doesn't affect the user's own data. There's no harm in saying, at the work level, that the cover for a combined edition of Animal Farm and 1984 isn't appropriate for either work individually.

>13 jasbro:
Then again, some people just enter records with conflicting data. For instance, this user has an entry for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland with a cover for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass and no separate record for Through the Looking Glass.

To me, if the cover doesn't match the work that's sufficient for a flag. People can do what they like in their own catalogs but I'd rather not encourage or facilitate the kind of cataloging you outline. I'd also prefer to make it harder for people to enter incomplete data and then "fix" it by choosing a cover that matches their actual edition.

Any thoughts on these specially made inclusion covers*. Nifty, but not actual cover images from any book.

*edited to add: select the "Inclusions" collection when you get to the catalog.

> 16

I don't know what you mean by an "inclusion cover". Those all look like regular covers to me.

>17 lilithcat:
Sorry. The permanent link doesn't seem to be capturing the selected collection. Try again and choose the "Inclusions" collection.

> 18

Thanks. It's a little bit hard to tell, due to the size of the images, but I gather that these are actual covers, but covers of the books which include the short story, novella, or whatever, to which he's added the name of the short story, etc?

In this book, I flagged the cover that was for the DVD:
http://www.librarything.com/work/8136244/covers

There are 2 series, one for the hardcover books:
http://www.librarything.com/series/Greatest+Heroes+and+Legends+of+the+Bible
and one for the DVD series narrated by Charleton Heston:
http://www.librarything.com/series/Greatest+Heroes+and+Legends+of+the+Bible+%5BD...

The cover belongs on this work:
http://www.librarything.com/work/12248591

Cannot figure out what else needs separating as the book editions under Bradley seem correct.

And as far as this cover:
http://www.librarything.com/work/12778178/covers

the editions under this book seem to be the DVD but this is a book cover. Just haven't figured out which book.

>19 lilithcat:
Click through to a book details page and then on the cover information to see a bigger version. There is a generic picture of an open book with the omnibus cover on the right hand page and the included work's cover on the left hand page. Again, nifty, but as a whole not an image that appears on any one book.

>20 fdholt:
As there are only two copies it wasn't to hard to find the one with the DVD cover. It's a manual entry and looks like it is intended to be a book. So I think there's no separating to be done and the flag is appropriate.

#23 Thanks. I really thought the book was in the correct place - the fact that the series title is the same as well as the book/DVD title, makes for confusion. In fact there are several in these series sets that also could confuse.

#15: You don't want to facilitate people recording what novels they own? I think that's a perfectly acceptable use of LibraryThing.

Then again, some people just enter records with conflicting data. For instance, this user has an entry for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland with a cover for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass and no separate record for Through the Looking Glass.

Maybe Through the Looking Glass wasn't interesting enough to catalog. Maybe they haven't read it yet, and only catalog things they've read.

Maybe Through the Looking Glass wasn't interesting enough to catalog. Maybe they haven't read it yet, and only catalog things they've read.

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that a cover for "Wonderland + Looking Glass" isn't appropriate for the work "Wonderland".

#26: Why? It's the cover for a copy of Alice in Wonderland, even if there's another book under the same cover.

#27:

No, it's a cover for "Alice in Wonderland + Through the Looking Glass", which is completely different from "Alice in Wonderland". (You wouldn't combine the two works, would you?)

If someone has a book with both in, and catalogs it as two separate books, that's fine. If they use the cover of the dual edition book on each of the separate books, that's fine too.

The flag doesn't say that it's the wrong cover for the user's book, it doesn't say that user is a bad person. It says that at the global level it's not appropriate for the work "Alice in Wonderland".

Hm - not good: http://www.librarything.com/topic/139636

Created a bug report.

>25 prosfilaes:
You don't want to facilitate people recording what novels they own? I think that's a perfectly acceptable use of LibraryThing.

Other than commercial spam everything is an acceptable use of LibraryThing. It's just that some uses work better with having consistent global data. And what r.orrison said.

This image is fuzzy. But I believe it is a cover for Alice in Wonderland and Other Favorites It has the ISBN for that work (0671466887) but the edition is simply titled "Alice in Wonderland." So I'm a bit torn on separating and recombining. But the cover doesn't belong.

This Oberon Design journal cover image has been adopted by a member as a default ebook cover image. Should these be flagged "not a cover," "inapplicable," or not flagged? I lean towards "not a cover."

> 32

I'd call it "not a cover".

But it is a cover. It's not a cookie, or an apartment building, or a cup of coffee... It's a cover. Maybe, maybe even probably, a wrong cover. But some sort of cover nevertheless.

>32 eromsted:: I think for these purposes, any default image -- including this one, lovely as it is -- may be best flagged "inapplicable to this work," if not "not a cover." BarkingMatt's right, it is a cover, just not a cover for any Work. (Except for an Oberon Design leather journal, if that's a "Work.")

Isn't there a way to upload one's own preferred default cover, which (presumably, among other things) would keep a private image out of the cover profusion system?

>35 jasbro:
Isn't there a way to upload one's own preferred default cover?
Not that I know of. There is a menu of choices that you can access by clicking on any book you own, selecting "change cover", and then "change default cover;" or just click here. Some of the options were created by members in a contest in 2007 but there doesn't seem to be a way to add your own default cover now.

Right - at least, not that I'm aware of.

Is a generic book cover a valid book cover?


Say this is the cover of the book. Then sure it is valid. Even if no one call tell. But, say it is used for other books is it then not valid? I could upload the same blank cover for all my books. Or say I have rebound all my books in the same half binding with red and white are these valid covers?

I have noticed there are covers with the binding add so that it is clear that these belong to the particular work. These seem valid, to me.

For me if there is nothing on the cover it just isn't a valid cover. I can except other people having a uniquely different view. Isn't that what the voting is for???

> 38

say I have rebound all my books in the same half binding with red and white are these valid covers?

Yes. They are the covers to your edition of those books. I have numerous books that I have personally rebound. They are valid covers.

if there is nothing on the cover it just isn't a valid cover.

I have scads of books without a title or other text on the cover. It might have been the designer's choice, or it may simply be that the dust jacket is no longer extant. But it is certainly the cover of the book!

39> But how can anyone but you know?

So, if something doesn't clearly show any form of proof that it is the cover it should be except as the cover. So If people rebind their books with a picture of a cat or walrus that should be excepted as the cover? Who is to say all those cat pictures we have marked a invalid weren't the actual covers?

Should we have a flagged as "Questionable" ?

I am not saying you are wrong. I see your point of view. You just haven't convinced me...yet.

39> Why did you vote this wasn't a cover?

It is on The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe.

Have you reconsider it or do you know it isn't the cover?


Or is it the difference between "Not a Cover" and " inapplicable to this work"

Ahh the light dawns....

> 39, 40: I'm on record in post #11 above advocating a "broad interpretation" of what's appropriate as a "cover." So, let me see if I can tailor that position to these concerns, hoping somebody (i.e., y'all) will refine, elaborate, and/or correct my attempts where they fall short.

First, at its most basic level, the purpose of any cover image for a given Work is identification, for the Work generally and for each Member's individual record of that Work in particular. At the individual level, we have great latitude to adopt any available image, limited only by what fits LT's technical upload or capture parameters. However, at the corporate / communal level (remember, we're interpreting thus stuff "broadly," even across the political spectrum), profusing covers to other Members is primarily for sharing, enabling access, and use of available images for -- what? Cataloging? Work identification? Bibliographic information? Champagne-pajama-party flyers? Whatever. We're not policing; we're not judging; we're simply trying to help. As one esteemed LT'er has noted, we're like the janitors on clean-up duty.

As to whether an image is, or is not, a "cover": Does it appear to be any cover or cover-like image (e.g., the box or case of a commercial VHS, DVD or CD; or a VHS, DVD, CD or e-reader icon that includes specific Title and Author detail), regardless of whether it's clear, complete, correct, etc.? If so, it's a "cover," possibly (but not necessarily) suitable for profusion. Without particulars on how any single image relates to a given Work, the reiterative walrus or cat, the Project Gutenberg logo, and Author pictures don't fall within this definition. Yes, when I rebind my entire library in walrusi (that's the plural, right?), those may become absolutely appropriate as covers, but those images are primarily for me, myself and mine alone, and not so much for sharing. Lilithcat (for example) may admire, vilify, or post my covers on Facebook, even adopt them for some or all of her own catalog records, but that doesn't make them suitable for someone interested to research, identify or catalog William-Henry Ireland and The Abbess: A Romance. At that point, my walrusi become mere clutter, and maybe confuse. (I don't want my walrusi doing that!) This is a first-pass, broad-brush test, useful for reducing a Sisyphian task to merely monumental; by weeding out clear "not covers," we better focus our "inapplicable" analyses.

As to whether an image is, or is not, "applicable": Does it accurately depict an edition -- any edition -- of, or including, the cataloged Work? If so, it may be an applicable cover, suitable for profusion. De Profundis covers clearly don't belong to Green Eggs and Ham; but (and this is close to where I started) the dual edition cover for Animal Farm / 1984 may be suitable, or at least helpful, for each novel individually, if held in the dual edition yet cataloged separately. The converse, however, clearly isn't true: a cover from Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions would only clutter and confuse cataloging or identification of Slaughterhouse-Five ; The Sirens of Titan ; Player Piano ; Cat's Cradle ; Breakfast of Champions ; Mother Night. This is a narrower question than "is it a cover," mostly addressing our collective estimation of each image's utility in reflecting a given Work.

And, in the interest of complete consideration, as to whether an image is, or is not, "spam": Assuming it's neither "applicable" nor a "cover," is it otherwise so inappropriate, unwarranted, or offensive as to cause conniptions? (That's about as fuzzy a bright-line as I've ever seen!) If so, however much we may respect a particular Member's right to say "it": we know spam when we see it; we don't like spam, Sam-I-am; and we're thrown deep into massive, eternal struggles between individual liberties, personal freedoms, and the inherent worth of every LT Member, on the one hand, and morality, decency, the public good, general welfare, bowdlerization, and censorship, on the other.

What am I missing here, other than basic common sense and brevity? If you've read this far, I appreciate and welcome your thoughts and reactions.

Don't over-complicate things people, please. Sure, if i wanted to do so I could paste a cover of some Harry Potter book on a bible. After that, that picture would be appropriate for my copy. That doesn't mean the cover is appropriate to the "work" as such.

Remember: Tim promised us that cover flagging wouldn't change anything for the users.

So, in that case, it's just about: Is this spam? / Is this a cover? / Is this cover appropriate for the work? No more, no less.

p.s.: I'm not sure I want to suppress other people's generic cover though. They could come in handy for other users too. That's why I vote undecided on those proposals.

Wait if flagging won't change anything how is voting suppressing a generic cover? I can understand saying "I am undecided if this is or isn't applicable to this work" but what do you mean by voting Yes will will be suppressing the cover? How will it be suppressed?

As far as I understand it* actual users will still see whatever they uploaded, but the picture - if sufficiently flagged - won't show for other users.

* But don't hold me to that. a.) I'm just another user, and b.) I might misunderstand.

What bothers me about misericordia's implicit suggestion that the cover has to somehow show explicitly that it is a cover. How? Let's not forget that having the title on the cover is a relatively recent innovation in book design. The standard had been to have the title on the spine (if at all). It was the norm to buy books in sheets and take them to the binder to have covers put on them. Modern design binders don't always put the title on the cover. But it's still a cover, and it's still applicable to the work.

> 42

Lilithcat (for example) may admire, vilify, or post my covers on Facebook

Don't worry, jasbro, I never post anything on Facebook!

This is a movie cover for Slaughterhouse-Five. It's fuzzy, but the top line reads, "Based on the Novel by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

On the topic above:
I don't think we should flag covers just because they lack a title or other obvious identifying information. Cover images of books without their dust jackets often lack such information. But they may still be recognizable to someone looking an actual copy of the book. So sharing those cover images is still useful.

Personally, I'm not going to flag anything, or vote on flags, as "not applicable to this work", until the unwanted reciprocal nature of the flag goes away.

48> What do you mean by "unwanted reciprocal nature of the flag".

What about the pictures which are a set of books of which the particular work is a member. Is that a clear case of "not a cover" or "not applicable to this work"?

Like these...




These are examples for "Pride and Prejudice"

> 49

What do you mean by "unwanted reciprocal nature of the flag".

See this thread.

50> Thanks hadn't seen that thread...

> 49: To my mind, pictures which are a set of books, of which the particular Work may (or may not) be a part, are neither a cover nor applicable to a Work, unless the "Work" is maybe the complete set, and not any individual volume or Work contained in it. Unlike the dual edition Animal Farm / 1984, I don't see that these examples give any meaningful research, identification or cataloging information about the Works in the set; but that may be a result of my own limitations or failing. I CAN see that an image of Suzanne Collins' complete Hunger Games Trilogy as a set, or of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (particularly with or without The Hobbit, or in a 7-volume edition), might be meaningful to someone researching or cataloging (or combining, or flagging!) one or another of those sets as a complete Work in itself. Is that enough to extrapolate another general rule -- that set pictures are OK, should go away, or "depend"?

The one I flagged here is not a cover but the poster for the exhibition http://www.librarything.com/work/book/87695194

Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life, ISBN 0-88070-026-2. I have no book jacket, so I scanned the book with the spine so that I can identify my copy. Spine says "Seasons of Life". Despite the spine, it is Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life. Wasn't sure how to handle this. I flagged it and voted no.

My Friend Rose by Jane Duncan. My Beagle novel paperback copy of My Friend Rose, LC64-7789, has the cover for My Friend Muriel, LC 60-13879. I know because I also own the Beagle Novel paperback of My Friend Muriel. I also know because My Friend Muriel is one of my favorites, and My Friend Rose one of my least favorites in the series and when I picked it up off the shelf, I was quite disappointed although I bought it anyway.

#55. I am human and therefore illogical. Seriously, I have no idea how to handle this.

ETA message reference #.

> 56: Funny thing is: I don't even see that cover on that work. Maybe Tim has already implemented something and forgot to tell us about it.

In the Charleton Heston DVD of The nativity in the Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible series, there is a cover for the book in a series of the same name and a DVD cover for The nativity on the Greatest adventure stories from the Bible series

http://www.librarything.com/work/830855/covers

OK what about this?


It is an cover image. But it is just a snap shot off of Amazon. Shouldn't we get rid of these?

What to flag it is the next question? "spam", "not a cover" or "inapplicable"

Why should we get rid of snap shots off of Amazon, as opposed to those taken from other sites? It's not spam, it's applicable to the book, and it's a cover.

It's a bone ugly representation of the cover, but it's still a cover.

You could argue that the inclusion of the "Search Inside!" logo means that the image is no longer a cover as it does not fully match the graphic found on any book. I'm not sure if flagging these is a good idea or not.

63>

That's splitting hairs, I think, and given the howls of outrage at this feature I think it's best to use as light of a hand as possible with flagging lest it be removed. (Why do people get so bent out of shape over a simple value-neutral setting of a database field, anyway?)

howls of outrage at this feature
In what thread? I don't remember anything like that.

66>

http://www.librarything.com/topic/139636 for one. I saw other similar threads - the "if there is any conceivable reason someone might want to use it, it shouldn't be flagged, because maybe they re-bound their personal copy with that non-cover, so don't flag it" mentality.

With what we've been given so far by Tim it's not immediately clear how best to handle every case of a potentially problematic cover image. I think the above is a quite civil discussion trying to hash that out.

In my opinion misericordia's suggestion that, "For me if there is nothing on the cover it just isn't a valid cover" is too broad. At the same time, if someone's custom rebinding ends up flagged because it's not recognizable as a cover for a particular work that's not too big of a problem. However, I would only flag covers lacking identifying information if there is some evidence that they are a placeholder image being used for for multiple works (e.g. message 32.)

Well I have totally backed off the "if there is nothing on the cover it just isn't a valid cover" I don't like it, but it is a cover.

What I am more concern about with the snap shot of amazon's cover is, it's their image. I don't know but since they added the "Search Inside" part it could be a copy righted image. I am pretty sure we can't just cut and paste author images from amazon into LT. Why would we be able to add their images outside of the agreed interface.

> 69

I am pretty sure we can't just cut and paste author images from amazon into LT.

Actually, you can. LT will respond if they get a take-down notice ("Rather than using member moderation of image copyright, LibraryThing now relies on the instruments and protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)."), but I don't know of any instance where they have received one. In any case, Amazon generally doesn't hold the copyright on the author images on their site. The author/publisher/photographer is the likely copyright holder.

The recent large set of "not a cover" flags is all from one member, BFGlibrary. Bookel started flagging these and when I went to the catalog to look ... well, wow. There are so many non-cover images uploaded as covers that I decided not to give the benefit of the doubt to anything suspicious.

Hah, yes...

I flagged one cover on "High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" (http://www.librarything.com/work/351410) because it properly belongs to the companion volume "Modern art and popular culture: Readings in high & low " (http://www.librarything.com/work/4638367).

Yes, close, but no cigar.

>74 Nicole_VanK:: There were some copies of the essays combined with the exhibition catalog. I separated them and they took the cover with them (together with the flags).

Ah, good. Thank you.

The two covers I flagged for "River God" both say "Het Koningsgraf", which is the Dutch translation of "Seventh Scroll".

There's a flag listed on the helpers' page for the work Introducing Phonology by Peter Hawkins. The blurry cover shown is for Introducing Phonology by David Odden. So the flag is correct. But when I go to the Hawkins work page I can't find the cover. So it may be a moot point.

This is actually a "why I voted no":

Clueless myself, but according to the disambiguation notice on that work: "Shadows in the Moonlight" was originally published as "The Night of Four Hundred Rabbits". (http://www.librarything.com/work/40294/covers)

Louis Couperus De boeken der kleine zielen (in English The books of small souls) consists of four volumes:
1. De kleine zielen (Small souls)
2. Het late leven (The later life)
3. Zielenschemering (The twilight of the souls)
4. Het heilige weten (Dr. Adriaan)
Volume 1 has a cover of Het heilige weten assigned to it; volume 2 one of of Zielenschemering; volume 3 another one of Het heilige weten and volume 4 one of Het late leven.
The last three look superficially alike, but when you click on Information you can read the different spine-titles.

The two covers I flagged for "Early Netherlandish Painting" are for Panofsky's book, not the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue of the same title (which is where I found them).

I hope everybody realizes that by flagging a cover as "inapplicable to this work" they are also flagging it as inapplicable to the correct work.

>>82 lilithcat:
Can you give an example with links? I just learned about this group, but have flagged covers and wonder if I've done that?

>82 lilithcat: Yes, that's why I quit flagging and voting on inapplicable covers a while back. I tried to raise the issue a couple of times, but I think Tim had already abandoned the whole feature by then.

#82 by lilithcat> Of course, you are right. The covers mentioned in my message #80 are only on the wrong volumes, not on the right ones.

I see the reciprocity of flags as a bug - sure I do. But:

a.) Does that always happen, or just occasionally?
b.) I hope the system will ultimately still be aware of which work the cover was flagged for.

deleted by author - SEE >>91 Conkie: for replacement

deleted by author - SEE >>91 Conkie: for replacement

>82 lilithcat:
It is true that the flag displays wherever the cover appears. However, the flag on the helpers list is associated with the work it was originally applied to. I assume that work number is recorded.

So although coming from a work page the display is confusing I figure it is safe to vote on the basis of the cover/work pair showing on the helpers page.

Of course it's all moot unless Tim decides to finish the feature.

Of course it's all moot unless Tim decides to finish the feature.

Yup.

I flagged CoverA because it is for an edition that contains two different books by two different authors (see BookA) rather than the singular edition (see BookB).

Background Info: I separated several copies of BookA that were combined with BookB, but the image (CoverA) did not follow.
I made sure “zero” copies of BookA were separated from BookB, since images are often attached to that particular string.

I flagged CoverC because it is not the correct one for the motion picture it is currently attached to (see MovieD). The following is the correct movie it should be attached to: MovieC.

Background: Two different movies were incorrectly combined, which I separated. CoverC did not move (completely) to MovieC.

I flagged CoverE because it relates to a children's book set titled "The Best of Roald Dahl" (see BookE) versus the book of the same title that houses numerous ADULT short stories (see BookF).

I flagged CoverG because it is a MESS! Looked like someone had a scan-gone-bad. Following this link to the work (BookG) there is a viewable cover already there.

NOTE: You'll get a better sense of what the image looks like in context with the better one by following the BookG link above. I included CoverG because I believe that is what the LT'er thought they uploaded, not the mammoth one.

I think CoverG is a low-quality scan of the spine.

I flagged CoverH because it is not the correct cover for the book it is attached to. It should be attached to BookH, not BookI.
Follow the previous links for BookH and BookI, noting the different authors.

I look to the CK:Editions page for the explanation. Sometimes the error is Amazon's, sometimes it is the LT'ers. If it is the LT'ers, I go to their library for the book details, which usually provides clues as to which book they are listing.

>>95 henkl:
I agree. However, for some reason it becomes distorted & enlarged when seen from the book's webpage.

NOTE to Flaggers Group:

I wonder if we could get a "link" inside the Cover's Lite Box (where the original vote occurs), taking subsequent voters to where the "cover in question" is located on the Helpers: Cover Flags page. And while I'm at it, how about a way to link directly to where the flagged cover is located on the Helpers: Cover Flags page. In a sense, this is being done elsewhere in LT for other stuff. For example, if I'm working on a large CK:Publisher Series work page (such as: Mack Bolan: The Executioner) and need to refresh the page, usually I'm brought back to the general area I was at, after the refresh completes.

The other thing that would be helpful, is the ability to post the original detailed explanation for placing a flag (currently being done here) on the Helpers: Cover Flags page. Then if there is additional explanation/discussion needed, it can be done here. This might circumvent some work keeping up with comments/questions.

Any of that would be good, absolutely. But it really isn't up to us in flaggers. None of us has that power. Contact Tim or post it in "Recommended Site Improvements".

>>99 Nicole_VanK:
Thanks for the input. I've just spent some time in the RSI-LT Group to see if my comment (#98) would be redundant. Best as I can tell, I don't think its been addressed.
Will post in RSI-LT group in near future. RSI = Recommended Site Improvements

To All Flaggers:
See Comment #3 in Topic String titled "Cover SNAFUs" in the Flaggers! Group for some investigation into ISBN recycling and bookcovers. Open for debate/discussion anyone?

I didn't flag this cover (Lamintations-Deluxe Edition) but in an effort to support other flaggers, I am picking a few covers at a time and investigating beyond the obvious (work title vs. bookcover title), hoping my vote is informed (?). Since this cover already has 3 no's & 1 undecided - I selected it to check out.

I googled "Grindhouse vs. Deluxe Edition", and amazingly found this site (Blog on Differences) discussing the differences between the two (and there are) on the very same RPG book as is flagged here.

Thus, I voted 'yes' in agreement with LT'er insektmute. Any agreements/arguments with this?

Hm, from that review I get that there are differences, but not that they're major enough to separate the books (even if we could - several of the editions are unspecific).

Mind you, I understand very little about RPG books and how important the differences between editions are to the people using them.

Personally, I tend to treat notable differences in system mechanics and/or content, ISBNs, and being considered a new revision/edition (rather than a new printing, even w/ some changes) as a separate work. I'd like to see a bit more clarity on distinguishing different editions of RPG books, since the current way of things means spending a lot of time trying to clarify which version of something I own or want, but it's admittedly tough to say where that line is drawn sometimes.

Note to Flaggers!

Re: Comment #98:

I just noticed in the current bookcover lightbox configuration, when one clicks on >> Flag This Cover and the 3 flag types pop-up; below, there IS a link to the "Flagged Covers Log".
Part of the the phrase is bolded, indicating a link (>> See cover flags log.) in tiny print. I TOTALLY missed this. Now, instead of providing a link, I'm going to recommend the link font size is increased, and/or the link brightened.

Re: Newly flagged bookcover (Bookcover).
When I followed the link to the work it was flagged on (WorkPage), there was only 1 cover present, and it looked appropriate for the work.

Does anyone know what happened?

Re: Another newly flagged bookcover (NuclearManualbookcover) - that exists, but:
When following the link to the work (NuclearManualworkpage), I noted that this is a "zero" copy entry. Thinking maybe the page needed refreshening, I clicked on "Recalculate cover" and then "Recalculate title/author." Nothing changed, so I went to the author's page (RadiationProtectionauthorspage).
The book is not listed (because it's a zero copy), but no other edition of the same book existed either.
So I did a site-wide search of "Nuclear Emergency Operating Manual". The result showed that this title had 2 editions (one was titled "ZZZZzzzz"). So I separated the "ZZZZzzzz" from the "Nuclear..." and recalculated the cover and title/author, and .... nothing. No change.

I did vote "No" on this, because the cover is appropriate for the work, but it seems to be a moot point.
Is anyone else experiencing such bugs?

Re: Newly flagged bookcover Brighty by Collectorator, as it was attached to Fabric Santa Fe 12-Copy CD.
Clicking on the Editions link, then the combine/separate potentials, I noted that the 10-ISBN: 0528876899 used on the Fabric Santa Fe work also shows up under the Brighty work, four times. Using the ISBN on Worldcat / Amazon (USA), resulted in the Brighty title. Using the ISBN on Google search, resulted in only one out of ten items pointing to the Fabric Santa Fe work; the other 9 occurrences were for Brighty.

Next, I went to the "Add Books" tab on LT and tried the ISBN with 3 Amazons: Amazon(USA); Amazon(UK), and Amazon(CA). The USA/UK sites came back with Brighty; the CA site came back with Fabric Santa Fe .
Then, I went to the one site from the Google search that came up Fabric Santa Fe . It was AbeBooks and the book was being sold by Newsboy Books (see AbeBooks entry).

After that, I went to each of the 4 LT'ers and looked up their copy of the book. I wanted to see if it was possible to discern which title they meant to convey on LT: Brighty or Fabric Santa Fe. Best as I can tell, I believe they meant to have the Brighty title. All four used the ISBN number on an Amazon site to add the book to their library. In my mind, this could have happened if the LT'er mass imported using the ISBN, and might be unaware of the anomaly. Another possibility, is that the Amazon(USA) site corrected their entry, leaving Amazon(CA) with the incorrect listing. Plus, the cover was downloaded by one of these four.

Finally, some web research told me that Rand McNally has published non-travel books (children's & adult), with Brighty being one of those. The number of pages was 224; there was no mention of CDs.

CONCLUSION:? I can't vote this cover as being inapplicable for the work. It's the work title that is incorrect; and an Amazon problem, to boot.
Personally, I won't vote on a flag issue, unless I can make a definitive conclusion either way. I also hope someone is reading these explanations. It seems like I'm talking to a stone wall (?)(!).

I think since the issue mentioned in 82/84 became known, the enthusiasm for cover flagging has died.

>>108 r.orrison:. Thanks for your quick reply!
I guess I'll just keep on "keeping on." I enjoy the research behind the separation/combination of works, etc. Just thought I'd participate in Flaggers!, since I've found a few oddball covers, too.

It's still a case of stated copies of "Fabric Santa Fe" being provided with a cover for "Brightly". If the title is incorrect users should correct it. (Yes, I do realize there is some possibility they're unaware of a mistaken title in their lists).

I still have vague hopes it will eventually do something.

Thanks for the explanation. I changed my vote.

Thanks for explaining. Changed my vote. (I really couldn't make out what it said on that cover).

Ha, we both did at the same time.

I flagged a couple of images as "Not a cover" this morning because they looked like illustrations... then discovered on a third book that actually they were covers, but the title and the author's name only appeared on the spine, which wasn't visible on either of the (very low resolution) ones I'd previously flagged. Oops.

So I've counterflagged as "No" on both of them. They're Murder Must Advertise and Have His Carcase by Dorothy L. Sayers if anybody else wants to go and do so as well. 11202 and 11203 on the list.

117> I flagged a couple of images as "Not a cover" this morning because they looked like illustrations... then discovered on a third book that actually they were covers, but the title and the author's name only appeared on the spine, which wasn't visible on either of the (very low resolution) ones I'd previously flagged. Oops.

I think I may have done something similar, after a bunch of people voted 'no' on my flags - sorry!

I flagged the Magician's Nephew because it says abridged.

... and then I flagged the wrong one. I haven't had my coffee yet.

I flagged a cover on this work http://www.librarything.com/work/77597/covers, because it actually belongs with this work http://www.librarything.com/work/9160431.
The Publishers series in the second work link above, always contains a 2nd story with it. Please see "Disambiguation notice." Thanks.

Heh. I was so excited by the fix that I got trigger happy on dismissals and dismissed the cover I'd been saving for test purposes (I got back to it unexpectedly fast). I then had to dismiss a whole batch more before I found another one that needed doing. :-)

#125 by Collectorator> I already did (understood what had happened).

Ohhhhhhhhhh

Thanks very much for the message. If only I knew more stuff, right?

XXOO

Thanks :-D

{Edit}

Okay, >128 Collectorator:, I even managed to clear out the editions from the work. I just wish I could add *that* work, but I'm going to return later to figure out why it's not working (and post about it in a more appropriate thread). If there is a way to remove the flag from that cover (now that it's separated out), please do so, or else tell me how, and I'll be happy to do it.

Thanks again.

There are a couple No votes on the Jack Vance cover on this page:
http://www.librarything.com/work/827173/covers
There is a work by Jack Vance entitled Vandals of the Void, but it is a different work and the cover is not applicable to the J. M. Walsh work.

Sorry if this has been discussed already but I haven't read the whole thread through. Near the top of the helpers page there was a 'cover' for The Great Gatsby showing Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role, flagged as not applicable to this work. The cover is clearly from a DVD of the film. In a perfect world the DVD would be a separate work from the book and this cover should not appear among the variations for the book. I am all for perfect worlds so I flagged it and for good measure flagged the several other DVD covers in the list. It is, I think, now virtually impossible to separate all the DVDs of The Great Gatsby from the printed editions - certainly beyond me - so is this flagging just pissing in the wind?

>133 abbottthomas:
At the moment cover flagging doesn't do anything so it's all arguably "pissing in the wind," as you put it. But assuming that at some date the cover flagging feature is finished, the situation will be the reverse of what you say.

If it is possible to locate the copies with DVD covers in a book work, and those copies are in neatly distinct editions, then those editions should be separated and combined with the movie work. In that case flagging the covers is not needed.

But, as you say, it is often impossible to locate the copies with the non-book covers, or those copies are stuck in editions that should be the book. In these cases cover flagging is needed to suppress covers that do not belong on the work.

Is there a way to correct a flag on a cover? My cursor slipped when flagging the final member uploaded cover for this work http://www.librarything.com/work/38974/covers/108130305 and I flagged it for not being a cover - whereas what I should have flagged it for inapplicable for this work (it's a different one in the series). I've flagged it correctly and put a no vote in my initial flag, but is there a way to correct the first flag as it was unintentional?

https://www.librarything.com/work/17342300/covers

I flagged the yellow cover as it is an Agatha Christie book. All editions of this book list Charles King as author.

>137 2wonderY: The Agatha Christie book is presumably Dumb Witness. I can't see that anyone has that story on its own in LT although there are DVDs as well as several versions combined with other works.

Right, but the person who added the AC cover has it in their catalog as authored by Charles King.

Probably never noticed that both title and author are wrong. Testigo mudo is not the same as El testigo mudo. But it's a private library.

http://www.librarything.com/work/11373820/covers

An egregious promotional shot uploaded by the author.

https://www.librarything.com/work/4534797/covers

The cover image is for Jan Brett's work. This work is the Maggie Downer book.

I know, I know, the text is the same, but picture book collectors do like to differentiate the classics by illustrator. I've double checked all the 13 copies here and they all refer to Downer.

>142 2wonderY: Perhaps you should register your vote as well?

https://www.librarything.com/work/11579/covers/30627900

I flagged some covers on Willow: A Novel by Wayland Drew last night because they belong to different works with titles which are damn near the same. For clarification:

•the cover with the title in a white box and Willow in the lower left holding a baby belongs to Willow: The Novel by Joan D. Vinge, a shorter adaptation of the screenplay designed for younger readers
•the one with the gold band on top, the title in gold in the middle, and Willow standing bottom center belong to the movie
•the one that says Marvel Comics above the title belongs to Willow: Graphic Novel by Jo Duffy

There are bunches of inapplicable covers crossed up between the original edition of James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (1995; audiobook in 2002), http://www.librarything.com/work/8445, and its revised & updated edition (2007), http://www.librarything.com/work/11996938. Regrettably, there's at least one revised & updated cover on the original Work that I inadvertently "double-flagged" as inapplicable, and one correct cover on the R&E Work that I incorrectly flagged as inapplicable, then voted down. Did we ever devise a way to unflag a cover, or to undo an inadvertent (i.e., erroneous) flag? Reference http://www.librarything.com/topic/138519#3469660. Thanks ...

https://www.librarything.com/work/1083737/covers

I flagged the first cover incorrectly (slip of the thumb!) as 'not a cover.' That one needs No votes.
It is actually the wrong cover for the Carol Heyer version. Please vote Yes. I've looked at the editions page, and there are no corrections needed there.

https://www.librarything.com/work/21652708/covers

The pretty blue cover from Amazon is actually for the 2018 novel, which expanded on this 2008 novelette. I just finished separating out the novel and the novelette; this cover seems to be left over. (The other cover is for the collection in which the novelette was first published.)

I flagged a blue cover that presumably shows Mary holding the baby Jesus, which appears both for Volume 1 of the "Animated Stories from the New Testament" Series (http://www.librarything.com/work/2762824/covers) and for its related video-only record (http://www.librarything.com/work/21660929/covers). It appears that those images belong to a similarly-titled video in "Bible Animated Classics," which is a different Series (http://www.librarything.com/work/9197396/covers).

There's a whole bunch of author images flagged for removal that only need one more vote.

Reminder: http://www.librarything.com/helpers_covers.php

>151 2wonderY:

Did you mean to post that here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/276797

>153 lilithcat: Yep, I sure did.

I flagged two covers on The Collected Short Fiction of Robert Sheckley, which are a consequence of title / ISBN dissonance. They properly belong instead to the NYRB Classics edition of Store of the Worlds: The Stories of Robert Sheckley.

Someone must have separated books out, because those covers don't appear any more.

Try now.

http://www.librarything.com/work/76894/covers/159972667

The top choice is the image on which the original cover was based. The cover should have the text, as in the one I recently uploaded.

The Ballantine Adult Fantasy cover for this graphic novelization is incorrect for the work:

https://www.librarything.com/work/16053713/covers/

The same goes for the photo of the book lying on the grass, and I assume for the third custom upload, although I cannot tell for sure.

If you want this to be visible to most people you could add a canonical title.

>160 anglemark: >161 MarthaJeanne: I added "{graphic novel}," and did some further clean-up (including recalculating covers), separations and combining. There's lots more yet to do, but I'm only generally familiar with one anthology edition at most.

I flagged this one: https://www.librarything.com/work/1136337/covers

The blue cover should actually be applied to a (similarly titled) separate work, here: https://www.librarything.com/work/502585/editions.

I flagged the "Prince Captif" cover image (brown, with French title and a lion-head door knocker) for Prince's Gambit before realizing that it's likely correct for Volume Two of the Series (in French, subtitled Le Guerrier). If you have a different understanding, please let us know; otherwise, please vote down my errant flagging!

>164 jasbro:, the Captive Prince covers are a headache. The other flags need to be voted down, too. Please. I'm sorry about not looking closer before flagging those.

>165 aspirit: No need for apology! Presuming you concur with my assessment in item 164 above, I'd ask loremistress, JMK2020, waltzmn, and Nicole_VanK to reconsider their "Yes" votes, or let us know if I've misunderstood.

You're right. The covers are a headache because they look wrong for the second volume, but what's up are valid coves for Prince's Gambit.

I flagged the cover currently shown for Gay Community News (Volume 1, Number 1) because, on closer inspection, it appears instead to be an image of Gay Community News (Volume 1, Number 2). That said, it also appears there are two variants of Volume 1, Number 2, the first being dated June 28, 1973, and the second (which I flagged for V1,N1) dated December 1979. Your help and clarifications are appreciated ...

>168 jasbro: I have an inkling that the 1979 cover is for an Australian periodical, while the 1973 cover is for the series from a Boston, USA, press.

>169 aspirit: I wouldn't be surprised. There are a few of "conflicting" entries in the Series, at least a couple of which seem to come from similarly-title Boston and Australian sources. I only tried to organize them as far as I could go, not being familiar with either periodical except what I found from LibraryThing site searches. Still, a Volume 1, Number 2 cover isn't for Volume 1, Number 1 ... :)

I flagged the cover on this one https://www.librarything.com/work/8238059/covers/173865808

It is the cover for the 1985 novel for Ender's Game. The work in question is actually the short story/novelette version, which appeared in the August 1977 issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact and thus does not technically have a cover.

The short story was modified significantly to become the novel; therefore, I don't think the same cover should be used for both - it just confuses those who are not familiar with the series IMO.

>171 rretzler: Agreed. What would you do with "Enders Game" by "Ordon Scott Card"?

Several cover images attributed to Michel Butor's A Change of Heart are in fact for the "double edition," A Change of Heart, followed by Mythological Realism, http://www.librarything.com/work/24012285

The Audible Original Twain's Feast with Nick Offerman (2018) is an adaptation, not an audiobook, of Andrew Beahrs' Twain's Feast: Searching for America's Lost Foods in the Footsteps of Samuel Clemens (2010).

>174 jasbro: did you separate the works and wait 24 hours before flagging the offending cover to make sure it was on the correct work?

>175 gilroy: Thanks for your question. As I recall, few (if any) separations and recombinations were called for. I would have recalculated editions, titles/authors, and covers before checking those inapplicable to the respective Works. In my experience, that cleans up most of the mis-aligned cover mages, which migrate with the specific associated ISBN’s and Work records. Is it still recommended to then wait 24 hours? If so, I’m unlikely to ever get back and check. I have wondered where the remaining flagged covers go once there are no further associations with a given Work. Most of the flagged covers I’m seeing these days are only inapplicable, rather than “not-covers” or spam.

The white, Member-uploaded Berkeley Medallion cover No. 2565636 / 314566, currently used 13 times for ISBN 0006483011, is correct for The Once and Future King but incorrect for of The Once and Future King, Including The Book of Merlyn. That cover predates the first publication of The Book of Merlyn (1977).

The three-volume Folio Society "Classics of Science Fiction" boxed set pictured at http://www.librarything.com/work/208757 also includes "The Island of Dr. Moreau" in the volume titled The Invisible Man. The image instead belongs to http://www.librarything.com/work/5288.

The brown cover image ID No. 6134670 at http://www.librarything.com/work/3830181/covers doesn't belong to the movie, but instead to the book at http://www.librarything.com/work/34576/covers.

The Amazon image for Ray J. Sherer's Twelve Short Novels belongs instead to Thomas B. Costain's XII Twelve Short Novels.

Please note that http://www.librarything.com/work/22010017/summary is a "black hole" work. We have no idea what's caught in it, and therefore we also can't decide if covers are applicable or not.

Yeah, it's nasty.

>181 Nicole_VanK: That's very ... ummm ... interesting. Yeah, "interesting."

The blurrier cover (ID #10753129) to this book is actually Volume III of the dictionary. (Each volume gives a different pairing of languages.)

The map image is actually a genuine slipcase of a limited edition of General in His Labyrinth so shouldn't be flagged (ID number: 12425674)

All of the brown covers on the theatrical edition of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers need to be flagged as inapplicable as they belong to the extended edition of the film.

>185 amanda4242: I voted on those previously flagged, and flagged (and voted) a bunch more. I'm wondering now about the "Limited Edition," the cover for which reproduces the brown with a Tower image. Thoughts?

I've stopped bothering with the flagging covers unless it is obvious spam. Most times the bad cover is due to bad combinations that need to be separated or are assigned to a bad ISBN. And flagging anything other than Spam does nothing.

I'm not familiar enough with the movies to have an opinion on whether or not the extended version is sufficiently different to warrant separation. So I'll pass on this one.

I have the extended edition box set and am happy to have it combined with the theatrical version. If people want them separate, then someone should separate the theatrical box set from the extended edition box set.

As it is with separate works for the three movies, but a lumped work for the box sets, it doesn't make much sense.

>186 jasbro: I'm not sure where the limited edition belongs.

>188 Nicole_VanK: The extended versions are significantly longer than the theatrical versions.

>189 r.orrison: As it is with separate works for the three movies, but a lumped work for the box sets, it doesn't make much sense.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I separated and combined everything that was clearly an extended version from the theatrical because there are significant differences between the two, not because they were box sets. Do you see more which need to be separated?

In the series https://www.librarything.com/nseries/983/Peter-Jacksons-Lord-of-the-Rings there are separate entries for the theatrical movies and extended editions, but only one for the box set. If the theatrical and extended editions should be separate, there should be two separate works for the box sets.

>191 r.orrison: Ah, I see what you mean now. I was only thinking about the individual films, but I can separate the box sets too.

ETA: Well, someone had already separated them but the theatrical collection hadn't been added to the series page. And I've discovered that the limited editions contain both the theatrical and extended versions.

This is the opposite situation actually. Someone had combined the dead language version of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey (combined) with the modern language versions. I flagged a few covers before I noticed that. I've separated out as many of the ancient Greek versions as I could find.

ETA: And voted "no" on my proposals

I uploaded it to the wrong book. D'oh!
https://www.librarything.com/work/27123206/covers/220275137

>194 karenb:

Looks fine to me. Is that the correct link?

It went away when I uploaded the correct cover.

Three Amazon covers at https://www.librarything.com/work/120680/covers depict Wood's Revised Manual.

There must surely be a more current cover flagging thread, but this is the one I found.

I have flagged a number of covers on the 1946 Lauren Bacall / Humphrey Bogart film of The Big Sleep and the 1978 Robert Mitchum / Diana Quick film of The Big Sleep where the wrong covers have crossed over.

Please vote "Yes".

I've just flagged the marbled paper cover at https://www.librarything.com/work/19927155/covers, supposedly a cover of Gilbert White, The antiquities of Selborne.

Gilbert White wrote The natural history of Selborne and The antiquities of Selborne, which are sometimes published seperately and sometimes combined. This cover belongs to one of the Folio Society editions of The natural history and antiquaries of Selborne, one of the combined editions. Please vote yes to the flag.

>199 Cynfelyn: I suspect there's been some separating and recombining since your post yesterday evening, because your link to cover images for The Antiquities of Selbourne shows only one cover, and it's not marbled. Based on your advice, however, I found and flagged two marbled covers for The Natural History of Selborne, and it appears (a) some flagging may also be called for on Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne, and (b) there's a good bit of separating and recombining still needed on a variety of the same/similar titles. I'm leaving those to you, at least for now, since you're clearly familiar with these works and their combined editions, whereas I could only base my clean-up efforts on what I glean by way of titles, ISBNs, and (maybe) residual cover images.

>200 jasbro: Yes, I think the cover I flagged has been voted to death.

N.B. Re the out-of-focus marbled paper cover you (rightly in my opinion) flagged at https://www.librarything.com/work/130691/covers/222106678, after you've flagged it you have to go back in again to vote "Yes". It's a bit of a nuisance, but flagging doesn't count as a vote.

P.S. The remaining The Antiquities of Selborne cover at https://www.librarything.com/work/19927155/covers as also been flagged. It's not a good picture, but it shows the right title, so I've voted "No".

>201 Cynfelyn: Thanks for noting. Not sure why I stopped half-way, 'cept maybe I got distracted and lost track of what I was doing. Agreed & agreed!

>201 Cynfelyn: Yes, I was led astray and sleepwalking a little. But is there no way to retract a cover flag?

>203 anglemark: I don't know that we can retract a cover flag, but we can vote it down.

>Everybody: We're now past 200 posts in this thread. Is it time to continue in "Why I flagged this cover #2"?

I have flagged several covers at https://www.librarything.com/work/36078/covers.
These are student editions, containing extensive notes and commentaries in addition to the basic text.

(I hope I have posted in the right place, I couldn't find any "Why I flagged this cover #2")

>205 kleh: Ah. Thank you for explaining.

See our continuation, "Why I flagged this cover #2," at https://www.librarything.com/topic/359605