Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.
Just adding some additional interesting tidbits (for some LT'ers) about the Medieval Russia/Winnie-the-Pooh SNAFU.
When Googling 10-ISBN: 0525471170 (see result here), AbeBooks came up first. Following that link (AbeBooks Listing) shows a nice array of choices as to what a purchaser may get when using just the ISBN number.
First note the total confusion at the top of this page - I'm not sure which item AbeBooks is trying to sell here. Looking further for clarification, I see that...
From #1 BetterWorldBooks, I will get a Winnie-the-Pooh calendar, that LOOKS like a Winnie-the-Pooh calendar.
Ditto #1 seller, by sellers #5, #6, #7.
From #2 Outside of a Dog, Books..., I will get a Medieval Russia Tales Anthology, that suspiciously LOOKS like a Winnie-the-Pooh calendar.
Ditto #2 seller, by sellers #3, #4.
Considering the publication year of the Winnie-the-Pooh calendar (2003) as compared to the publication year of the Medieval Russia's Epic... (1963), and that both were by Dutton or an imprint of Dutton; I'm speculating it's another case of ISBN recycling.
Reading the notes on the AbeBooks webpage (see "result here" link above), all indicate the cover source as a "stock photo, " which I believe booksellers can purchase in bulk from stock photo suppliers. The stock photo suppliers ("SPS") of book covers would reference by ISBN for easy interfacing with the booksellers computer program. That doesn't necessarily mean the SPS only supplied one of the two book covers associated with that ISBN; it might be dependent on the sophistication of the bookseller's selection/match-up/review processes.
In regards to Worldcat listings. I believe any size library can apply for membership, and individuals have the ability to add details, etc. Also, with the "Buy It' section, maybe that interface can corrupt the integrity of a listing? I imagine they are susceptible to programming SNAFUs, too.
This comment is supplied here tongue-in-cheek and not in order to be hypercritical of any one person or website. Just an FYI.