Cover flagging live

You can now flag and vote on covers as "not a cover" or "spam."

The link to do so is on the information pop-up thingy for each cover. Example:



You can see all cover flags here: http://www.librarything.com/helpers_covers.php

This isn't going to be instant. We need to decide on thresholds, decide if the flagging categories are right and so forth. Then the flags need have their effect.

Note, however, that flagging will not change any user's books. It won't change THEIR cover. It will only change how that cover perfuses to other users.

The book page for that horse one - http://www.librarything.com/work/8453701/book/61946085# - shows the image as a one pixel dot. Is that intended, or is that how the image is actually stored?

Probably part of this bug: http://www.librarything.com/topic/138281

>1 timspalding:

You need to change the title tag on that page to "Cover Flagging" rather than the current "Tag Translation."

It's fairly common to find images that are covers, but are not a correct cover for the work or book. Do they fall under "not a cover," need a separate category, or should they not be flagged?

And often in this case the problem is that the book is combined incorrectly. If given the option a lot of people will flag the cover without even realizing that what they should do is separate some edition out, so we should tread carefully here.

On the other hand, if there was a specific option for "cover for a different book" that didn't suppress them, it might be useful. Especially if it showed up in some log or list and could be cleared via the combination/ separation interface.

> 1
Flagged as not a cover by timspalding

Vote: Yes | No ....

Is the vote on whether this is a cover or on the proposition that it's not a cover?

Does a Yes mean:
Yes, I agree with the proposition that this is not a cover or
Yes, it's a cover, I disagree with the proposition?

Based on a Yes count of 1 when the cover is 1st flagged, I assume the vote is on the proposition and not on the nature of the cover image. As soon as there's a No vote though, that clue disappears.

You'll get better data if the wording is revised to remove the ambiguity e.g.:
"Vote: Yes - it's a cover | No - it's not ..." or
"Vote: Agree - it's not a cover | Disagree - it's a cover ..." or
"Agree: Yes | No ..."

What will this do with
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/massimoterrile&tag=scrittori&alias=1

9> Good point, especially for users who aren't native speakers.

>10 r.orrison:
The problem there is really the works not the covers. Hiding the images would only make it harder to tell what's going on.

Can the flagged covers we've voted on be moved onto an easily-findable "adjacent page" if/when we reload the page, the way that tag combination and spam work votes do?

Say that again a different way?

Okay, say you vote on a tag combination and then reload the page. The combination proposal won't show up on the page listing the proposal you haven't yet voted on, but it will show up on the page listing the combination proposals you have voted on.

Basically, I'm looking for that, but on the flagged covers page.

Okay, you want it to show up on the page, not just the pop-up?

Hang on, let me see if I can go throw together something to illustrate what I mean...

Edit: Except that I can't, since it won't let me upload pictures to my member gallery or junk drawer. (I think there was a bug report to that effect, but I didn't read it that thoroughly.) Unfortunately, I don't think I can get much clearer than post # 15 without visual aides, and I don't have enough time before I head out to knitting to find a work-around.

I have a couple questions, looking for general consensus. There's no easy way to point to a cover, so look from them on http://www.librarything.com/helpers_covers.php .

The Book of Mormon with the cat is not a cover, definitely. But why are people labeling it spam? Even by the broadest definitions I can think of, it's not spam; it's not selling anything, it's not repetitive. It's merely expressing an opinion in an inappropriate way.

The Origin of Species has an image labeled as not a cover. It is a picture of the entire 50-volume Harvard Classics (or Great Books; either way); is the fact that it's not a straight-on photo of one book mean that it's not a cover?

Good questions both. I don't know the answer to them.

The basic difference I had in mind was functional—whether to kill the cover's profusion throughout the system or whether to kill the cover outright and nobody could see it. Those correspond to flagging as not a cover and spam. The former might continue to be associated with the work in question, but never provided as a default either for the work or any ISBN. The latter should be removed and stamped upon.

That's my thinking. Yours?

Different question: how about a way to flag an image as low quality? I've seen uncropped high-res scans where the cover was a quarter of the image and the rest was the scanner lid.

#19 I put a cover on the list - Fluff which is a children's book published in 1942 by Whitman. The cover is an adult poster/cover/whatever that shouldn't be on this book. Is this an appropriate use of this feature? If so, there are more incorrect covers that do not match the title. (And I'm not talking about Amazon isbn mismatches but member loaded listakes.)

>21 fdholt:

Yeah, but if you look at the combinations, that's a real book. Should't it be a separation and combination issue?

> 22

Maybe we need a flag for "it's a cover but not for this edition".

Meh. That's much much harder to do. Most users are edition-blind.

#22 Been there and done that. Got that copy out. (http://www.librarything.com/work/12693638)
However the cover remains on the children's copy.

Now someone has separated out all the children's copies that do belong together. Sigh! (Got the info from member's libraries and the 3 should again be combined.)

#26: No, the edition "Fluff" should not be combined with any edition that has enough identifying information. Editions don't belong to members; the system will combine all works title "Fluff", Author null, ISBN null, together.

#26

Fluff

bill_reyn's copy is pub. by Whitman. Littlefu's copy is Whitman #1022. My copy is Whitman series #1022. All published 1949. Why would they not all be combined?

#23 by lilithcat> Maybe we need a flag for "it's a cover but not for this edition".

#24 by timspalding> Meh. That's much much harder to do. Most users are edition-blind.

How about my suggestion in #7?

ETA: Also, I don't think we're really concerned with "most users", are we? "Most users" don't combine and separate books, vote on tag proposals, etc.

Hmm, it occurs to me what you're worried about. You'll get a bunch of users clicking on the button to say that a certain cover isn't the cover for this book, but that's only because it's not the cover for THEIR edition of the book. My only proposed solution - bury the option so only power users (aka LT's janitors) know where it is. :D

The problem with "Fluff" is that both the adult and the children's book are no-ISBN and no-author. Except for the people explicitly marking theirs "Whitman" (which is just the publisher, so many people won't) there's no way to keep them separated.

#26 and 29

I am still not getting this. All three children's Fluff are marked so in the member's catalogs - in notes, etc. The date of publication matches. Why can't these be combined?

They can be combined. Just saying there no way of keeping the other Fluff from combining into it as well.

The work system doesn't keep track of comments in member catalogs.

#31 Before uncombining, I added a qualifier to my title and made it the canonical title to prevent this from happening. That was also removed. If no one else weighs in on this and since I have already done the research on the title, later this afternoon I will recombine the 3 children's titles and make sure the disambiguation notice is there. Just no way of removing the incorrect cover photo.

> 32

I added a qualifier to my title and made it the canonical title to prevent this from happening.

Speaking for myself, I'd be really annoyed if one of my books showed up on the work page with a so-called canonical title to which someone had added extraneous material, no matter how well-intentioned. That field is not meant for explanatory material, so it's no wonder that the qualifier was removed.

#33 I see this done all the time - will not add it except to my own title in my catalog. Thanks, lilithcat.

>34 fdholt:

I think it's one thing to add {DVD} (there's pretty much a consensus that that should be done to differentiate among editions), and another entirely if my copy of Pride and Prejudice is suddenly titled Pride and Prejudice{not the one with the zombies}.

It sort of depends. I have two books by Thomas B. Hess on Barnett Newman, both simply called "Barnett Newman", both pre-ISBN. One is substantive, one is a booklet. So I added "booklet", between square brackets, to one. Only way I saw to disravel it from the other. Otherwise they simply autocombined - and not as something that could be separated, just another copy of the same. You can't blame a database for not understanding these things.

So I added "booklet", between square brackets, to one.

Right, but to the title in your catalog, not as the canonical title on the work. I don't see how adding it to the canonical title helps anyway since it needs to distinguished at the edition level before it can be autocombined to the same work.

Sure. I would never add that to a canonical title. Other works might get drawn in - the "Fluff" work is a perfect example of that.

#33 by lilithcat> Speaking for myself, I'd be really annoyed if one of my books showed up on the work page with a so-called canonical title to which someone had added extraneous material, no matter how well-intentioned.

Just a small question for clarification - why? I'm not saying you shouldn't be or anything. Just looking for more info. Is it because you often have the Canonical Title or Work Title fields as part of your catalog view? Or is it that you just don't like seeing it at the bottom of the "Your book information"? Or does it bug you if you look at the CK section on the work page? Or is it all of the above? :D

Just asking because I don't have much of an opinion on it one way or the other. I'm just curious to know more about how you view it.

> 39

The canonical title is supposed to be exactly that: the title of the work. Things like "Illustrated" or "three thrilling novels in one volume!" or "Penguin classics" aren't part of the title, and it offends my sense of order to have them included.

#40 by lilithcat> Ah, okay. It's just that you phrased it with "one of my books", as if it were any different than any other book having the weird CT on it. But I get what you're saying. The "sense of order" is why we get sucked into sorting out some huge series of books, all manged and needing combination/separation and CK fixes, all for books that we're likely to never own ourselves. X)

#30: The system's not static. If someone adds a book "Fluff" to the system, it will attach to the edition Fluff, and thus all books under the edition "Fluff" should be treated the same. The (#1022) edition should probably be combined back in, but it would be nice to have a note in the disambig notice why it's the children's book. If the info's hidden away in notes, it's not part of the edition.

#42 The three are back together with a disambiguation note not to combine with the adult book and the name of the publisher as listed in the three libraries. Doesn't solve the problem of the stray cover but that may resolve itself at some point.

Thanks, Tim. I've been wanting this feature for years.

Wishin' there were a filter for those I've opined on, and those I haven't; we're gettin' to a point it's hard to tell where I'm going, where I've been, and what I've missed betwixt 'n' between.

The pony might be to let us vote once and for all on the reiterative walri (plural of "walrus"?), or all the collection images, or all the Kindles, or all the CD icons, or all the PG logos, and have that vote count for each recurrance -- in some cases, maybe even sanctioning CD / Kindle / ebook images, akin to default cover images?

And the cherry on top: moving all those lovely author photos to (you guessed it!) Author Photos. I've wanted to do that 2 forevers!

the reiterative walri

Don't worry--I'm over two-thirds of the way through flagging walri.

I would like to once again say that I am opposed to using this tool to suppress massimoterrile's author photos. The problem in that case is the works not the images. If an author can be a work, a portrait can be a cover.

More practically, the images are the best way to tell when one of the author photo works has been combined with a real work. While going through the flagged covers I found eleven improperly combined author photos. Those would have been very difficult to spot if the images had been suppressed.

I agree with what eromsted said in #47. The images do match the works, unless they get combined with something else.

These are going to require as much research as the tag combos or the spam work votes.

Oye. More voting. *sigh*

If a cover on a work is flagged and then the edition containing that cover is separated, the "Helpers: Cover flags" page does not update to reflect the new work title/link where the cover is now located.

In defense of author photos as covers, I will say that some of my ebooks from feedbooks.com and mobileread.com have author photos as covers, so I have done that also. When the ebooks are from Amazon, I try to use the most appropriate cover available.

Clicking on the walri also.

k4k

But the walrus is wonderful - goo goo g'joob. Now if you showed an eggman ;-)

How about an octopus's garden in the shade? Would that work?

;-)

k4k

> #47, 48 & 51: Thanks for your comments. I had seen lots of such "Author" records, but thought they were somehow incorrect entries -- not appropriate as Works in themselves. If that's the case, however, I'd like to know more about them, particularly if I should be reversing all my "Yes" votes for those cover images.

> #52, 53: Cellophane flowers of yellow and green, towering over your head. Most definitely.

I've seen several proposals where I would like to vote : "this is a cover, but not for this work". How should we deal with these?

Sorry if this has been rased before and I've missed it. I see several 'cover images' which are of unlabelled VHS cassettes in a case - these have been flagged as 'not a cover'. When I manually add an e-book I use a scan of my sleeping Kindle with one of the selection of images available as the generic 'cover' picture.

Would those who flagged the VHS tape also flag my Kindle?

ETA an example - http://www.librarything.com/work/2085370/book/78743022

Probably, since it isn't a cover image for the book in question. Don't worry about your data though -- as Tim said in the first message "Note, however, that flagging will not change any user's books. It won't change THEIR cover. It will only change how that cover perfuses to other users."

56> heh. For my ebooks, I got a more-or-less generic ereader image, cut out the screen, and I paste in the appropriate book cover for each book - like this: http://www.librarything.com/work/41522/summary/23848496 . It's more trouble, but not much, and I have a cover that identifies the book as an ebook but still displays (little tiny, but displays) its cover.

I actually read on my phone, and when I started I was reading on my Palm. But I wanted something that looked like an ereader to me.

> #58: And I, for one, Would vote in favor of jjmcgaffey's e-reader "cover" images, as opposed to against or undecided. But we really do need something appropriate for e-books and audio books, as long as we (some of us) are using and cataloging them.

>58 jjmcgaffey: Cute! I like it.

Hmm, it occurs to me what you're worried about. You'll get a bunch of users clicking on the button to say that a certain cover isn't the cover for this book, but that's only because it's not the cover for THEIR edition of the book. My only proposed solution - bury the option so only power users (aka LT's janitors) know where it is. :D

I think it's unworkable.

1. To work, you'd need to be on a specific user's book. And it would probably have to be not your own--because you can already change your own--yet one you have total knowledge about. That seems rare to me.

2. Even among power users there is an assumption that isbns and covers have a 1/1 relationship. So if their cover for ISBN X differs from another's cover for ISBN X, the other edition and user is wrong. But in fact ISBNs need only change when the interior matter changes. That is, for every ISBN there is an infinitude of valid, publisher-decreed covers.

I added a qualifier to my title and made it the canonical title to prevent this from happening.

What was the qualifier?

I've seen the media added in square brackets. I'm not against that. Are others?

It sort of depends. I have two books by Thomas B. Hess on Barnett Newman, both simply called "Barnett Newman", both pre-ISBN. One is substantive, one is a booklet. So I added "booklet", between square brackets, to one.

I think "booklet"'s okay, as a subset of media. But I'll concede if others disagree.

The canonical title is supposed to be exactly that: the title of the work. Things like "Illustrated" or "three thrilling novels in one volume!" or "Penguin classics" aren't part of the title, and it offends my sense of order to have them included.

Agreed. Does "DVD" distinguishing a movie and a book offend it?

Can't there be something for "cover for a different book" to handle situations where, e.g., the cover is manifestly a different book based on the visible title ....

Adding right now.

For one thing, the goal of "not a cover" is to allow me apply it across all the images with the same "checksum" (ie., it's the same file underneath).

Maybe this just seems like a good idea because it's past my bedtime, but why not a flag for a generic cover? It would probably be a better option for things like the LibriVox or Project Gutenberg logos and so on since they don't necessarily have proper covers to speak of. That way the "not a cover" flag could be reserved for things like walri.

#62 by timspalding> I've seen the media added in square brackets. I'm not against that. Are others?
I think "booklet"'s okay, as a subset of media. But I'll concede if others disagree.
Agreed. Does "DVD" distinguishing a movie and a book offend it?

None of these bother me. And from what I've seen, I'm going to venture that no one else gets too bent out of shape about that, either. I really see these main reasons to add stuff in curly/square brackets (I prefer curly because they don't screw up when pasted into Talk and can actually be used in touchstones):

1) When the work was never actually published standalone but a later work with the same name was: e.g. Ender's Game {novelette} vs Ender's Game (the novel). This helps a lot to avoid combination/separation problems.

2) When there's non-literary work: films, operas (performances), music, etc. To me, this is okay because LT is a place to catalog your books. Non-bookish stuff is allowed, but it should mind its manners and make sure not to muck things up for the books. I admit I have no idea what I think the etiquette should be if there was a

3) The situation BarkingMatt outlined to fix the ISBN. I think this applies to other situations I can't think of at the moment where it's maybe not ideal, but it helps avoid limitations in the website that would otherwise screw things up.

What I think is just my opinion and I have no idea if people share it: if there is a book-type work and a film, the film should get tagged {film} (or square brackets if you prefer), even if the novel is a novelization of the film. I just feel the book should get priority on a site about books, even if the novel came first.

Of course, then there's the question of "well, what if they published the script as a book?" I tried to find examples of that, but I find that they're always titled something different, like "Some Movie: The Shooting Script", so there's usually not as much opportunity for confusing, even if LT's algorithm ignores the stuff after the colon. Or they're altogether different, like The Original Hitchhiker Radio Scripts.

---

On a bit of a tangent, I ran across this which perplexed me:
http://www.librarything.com/work/722329/commonknowledge

CT is set to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ( [2005])"

And the work title then shows "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005 film) ". What bit of wizardry be this? And is the space after the first paren important? And should we be this notation more instead of "{film}"?

>65 AnnaClaire:

Hmm. But what difference would it make? Currently the functionality is intended to work as follows:

spam - kills cover everywhere, potential to have LT alerted to spammy behavior
not a cover - kills cover everywhere
inappropriate cover - kills it only on that work

even if LT's algorithm ignores the stuff after the colon

This is only true as the "guess" it gives to the edition's proper work, when the edition is not already associated with any work.

> 67:

not a cover - kills cover everywhere
inappropriate cover - kills it only on that work

Kills it? Even for the user who put it there? That wouldn't be good.

Sometimes actual physical books simply have a wrong cover, the picture of which is then correct for that copy.

See: http://www.librarything.com/topic/139150#3466675

Kills it? Even for the user who put it there?

Of course not, Tim has stated repeatedly that this won't affect a user's own covers but how they're applied in the common areas.

I have seen many generic covers uploaded by user (VHS tape, CD (for audiobook I think), a cover saying 'ebook', photo of ebook reader etc.) marked as 'Not a cover', I agreed with most of them, before changing my mind to undecided.

What is the stance on these? Should these be marked as 'Not a Cover' or just let them stay?

The effect of Not A Cover is that they don't show up as the cover on the work page or when a user hasn't explicitely set a cover, so Not A Cover seems the right choice for generic covers to me.

Is there any way to undo a flag?

I chose a wrong flag accidentally, (spam, instead of 'Not a cover') and the only thing I could do was vote as No, but no way to undo my flag.

It wasn't any issue in this case (except for maybe counting a spam towards the user who uploaded it), but if someone accidentally flags a cover (it is so easy to flag from cover's information view, it doesn't ask for confirmation, but just flags it), there should be a way to undo it.

This cover (number 6100405)


was flagged as "inapplicable to this work" on Sense and Sensibility. The cover is an ISBN best guess for 3828976875, originating from this book where it appears to be correct. There is also a copy of Die Günderode with that ISBN. (It was combined with Sense and Sensibility, but I've fixed that.)

There is no way to also flag this cover as inapplicable to Die Günderode. Should there be? Or does it not matter with the way this new cover flag works?

>73 aqeeliz:

Yes.

If a cover has been flagged as "inapplicable to this work", and then it is discovered to be a combination issue and the edition is separated and properly combined with the right work, what happens to that flag now that the cover is, in fact, appropriate to the work?

> 66: OK; maybe I'm just not thinking LT-enough this morning. Why "curly/square brackets," and not (parens)?

> 74: The ISBN 3828976875 seems to have been used for all books in a series "Klassiker der Weltliteratur". The cover is therefore also showing on Moby-Dick, Sämtliche Märchen und Erzählungen, The Scarlet Letter, The Good Soldier Svejk, Lost Illusions and Bittere Stories.

#77 by jasbro> I think it has to do what LT ignores in the title.

I think it's just convention. Square brackets have been used for ages to indicate interpolations, or really just anything not actually on the page. It's simply how I was taught to deal with these things (way back in the 1970s).

Tim - could you comment on how LT handles parens, curly and square brackets for autocombining? I thought I knew how it worked, but now I'm wondering for sure. Would be nice to get an official response.

77-81> I went through this and did some checking, a little while ago (though I wouldn't mind official confirmation!).

In titles, LT ignores anything in parentheses, the same way it ignores anything after a colon; such an entry doesn't prevent auto-combining.

The contents of curly brackets and square brackets are both noticed and will (help) prevent auto-combining (which is a good thing, in the case of the distinctions we're trying to make here). However, square brackets mean something else, touchstones, in Talk, so a book with square brackets in its title is a _pain_ to touchstone or even to reference (without intentionally touchstoning) in Talk.

I was using square brackets (because, as BarkingMatt said, it's the standard), but I'm now in the process of switching them all to curly brackets. It seems the most useful choice.

#82 by jjmcgaffey> Well, I think I was part of that checking:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/133007#3251932

But I was fiddling with it and I'm not so sure anymore. Part of it might just be that I polluted my examples and they don't work the same anymore.

I just thought I'd ask Tim for clarification because it's easy to get mixed up.

I want to bump the question I posed in 74 above. What do we do when the same cover appears incorrectly on multiple works?

We can now flag them as inappropriate for the work.

Oops, you knew that.

does it not matter with the way this new cover flag works?

I certainly hope it does. Inappropriate for one work may be totally appropriate for another.

There is no way to also flag this cover as inapplicable to Die Günderode

Yes there is, and it's been done. Could be an upgrade of the feature that was implemented silently.

>85 Nicole_VanK:
Yes there is, and it's been done. Could be an upgrade of the feature that was implemented silently.

I'm fairly sure it hasn't. The vote score from the original flag appears in the cover information box regardless of the work you are looking at. Check some of the other works mentioned by henkl in 78. I would have noticed if this cover had showed up in the main voting list multiple times. And I certainly would have noticed voting on it multiple times :)

What? Sheesh, you're right. This is bad with capital B. Yes, that cover is totally wrong for "Sense and sensibility", but not for "Vanity Fair".

Ouch, so it is now also flagged on Vanity Fair.

>40 lilithcat: and >62 timspalding::

You say that "Illustrated" is not a part of the title. I always record the title exactly as it appears on the title page. As I result I can state that these are the titles as copied from the title page:

1244. Portrait of Hesse An Illustrated Biography by Bernhard Zeller Translated by Mark Hollebone (read 17 Sept 1973)
2230. The National League: An Illustrated History Revised and Updated, by Donald Honig (read 6 Sep 1989)
2582. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789-1993, Edited by Clare Cushman (read 19 Feb 1994)
2966. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, edited by P. J. Marshall (read 18 Mar 1997)
3029. The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern Europe, edited by T. C. W. Blanning (read 3 Nov 1997)
3672. The Illustrated Zuleika Dobson or An Oxford Love Story, by Max Beerbohm (read 29 Dec 2002)
4609. The First 125 Years An Illustrated History of The Georgetown University Law Center (read 20 Aug 2009)

Touchstones seems to agree that the titles are as I indicate.

I agree. In principle the title is how it's presented on the title page - maybe that's why it's called a title page.

On the other hand I really wished publishers wouldn't put that kind of stuff on title pages. I especially hate German publishers calling just about anything "Sonderausgabe" (special edition). Yeah, right... Sure, every edition is special somehow.

> 90: I've noticed that too, and have long wondered whether it has a particular significance within the German publishing industry, kinda like "Qualitätswein" or "Trockenbeerenauslese" each have a distinct meaning for German wines.

I can see that a first printing might be the "erstausgabe," and the original publisher's reprints may be "Nachdrucke." "Sonderausgabe" then might be a term-of-art for a second publisher's edition, perhaps under special license, or for a work reprinted from the public domain.

Before I flag all covers that boast "Illustriert!", "Drei spannenden Romane in einem Band!", or "Sonderausgabe!" as inappropriate, does anybody out there know for sure? (Oh, and see how neatly I circled back to the cover-flagging thread at hand?)

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how they use that either.

I would only flag covers as inappropriate that really, really are inappropriate: cover says "Hamlet", work says "Dracula" - that sort of thing. If publishers decide to put a thing like "illustrated" on a cover, that doesn't automatically mean the cover doesn't fit the work.

A 'Sonderausgabe' is usually a licensed edition. There are a couple of very active book clubs, as well as at least one major bookstore/publisher chain that has many cheaper editions of books that were first published by someone else. Somewhere their editions will say something like 'Sonderausgabe für die Fa. ...'. Those available on the open market will often have a big sticker on the front saying 'Sonderausgabe' and then comparing the present low price to the original much higher one.

comes from the cover of http://www.librarything.com/work/12767002/book/87423926, and says 'Onetime special edition' along with the price. The book is made up of three books that have been previously published. Seeing as the three books are all available at 6.50 each, this really is a very good deal.

I would still like to know what happens to flagged covers if an edition is separated from one work, and properly combined with another. I have seen a couple of covers flagged as "inapplicable to this work" that were really combination issues, so I'd like to know how to deal with them.

> 93: Thanks for the insight, MarthaJeanne! That's also a splendid example of "Drei spannenden Romane in einem Band!." (If the publisher had only thought to put that on its cover ... .)

Here's another variation on some of the issues above:

A cover for the Monarch's Notes for The Plays of Sophocles was flagged as inapplicable to King Lear. The cover was on an edition of the Monarch's Notes for King Lear. I've separated the Monarch's notes editions from the main work. The cover, though, is clearly inapplicable to this new work as well. Now what?

Oh, and a request. It would be useful if the covers on the helpers page had the cover information lightbox link.

95> No, not 'drei spannende Romane'. Three moderately interesting collections of short stories for first graders. (For 6 and 7 year old boys, MUCH more interresting than the current Austrian equivalent of 'Dick, Jane and Sally'. I'm still not sure why anyone would learn to read when that stuff is what they are offered.)

BTW, I still haven't figured out why every novel in German has to have ': ein Roman' added to the title. I usually take it out.

#96 I was the one who flagged the Monarch's Notes for the Plays of Sophocles as inapplicable to King Lear, because I've been going through my books with blank covers trying to find covers for them. And I only did this yesterday, so you are really on top of this, eromsted! Although in this case it doesn't belong to King Lear either, how is someone like me to know if a book with the wrong cover really is the right book? I am not systematically going through cover choices, but encounter them as I try to find user-uploaded covers for my books.

>99 rebeccanyc:
The cover information box can provide two useful clues as to whether a cover should be flagged as inapplicable or if it is a case of mis-combination, the ISBN and the uploading member.

If an ISBN is listed, copy it and go to the editions page. Search for the ISBN and see if the editions with that ISBN belong in the work. If there is no ISBN listed, you can scan through the editions without ISBNs and see if anything looks out of place. Both of these tasks are made much easier using brightcopy's Work Editions Grid Greasemonkey script

If an uploading member is listed, click to that member's profile and search for book. Sometimes searching for the author is better as there may be a translated or other alternate title. When you find the book with the offending cover, check the book information page for the publication information to see if the book really belongs in the work.

If the publication information tells you it should be separate but the title and author match the main work and there is no ISBN then there's nothing you can do. Flag away. That's the case for all of those Dracula covers I recently flagged. They are abridgements or adaptions based on the publication information but the listed title and author is Dracula by Bram Stoker and there is no ISBN. (I found them in the extraordinary collection of Dracula editions in wayneandmelinda's library.)

Thanks for the advice. Probably more than I want to do while I'm updating my own covers, so I'll probably shy away from flagging covers that are inappropriate for now. However, it is good to know in case I take this on as a project later.

Most of the books I don't have covers for are pre-ISBN (the King Lear, for example, dates to high school and the late 1960s) so, when I see ISBNs for a cover that looks like mine, I assume that either the publisher kept the cover for a later printing after ISBNs were introduced or that someone made a mistake.

And both are entirely possible.

>98 MarthaJeanne:

"BTW, I still haven't figured out why every novel in German has to have ': ein Roman' added to the title. I usually take it out."
Me too.

> 98, 103: "I still haven't figured out why every novel in German has to have ': ein Roman'."

As best I can tell, it distinguishes die Romane from die Dramen, die Gedichte, and die Geschichten. Which I take to mean that the German publishers' tradition is much the same as that of any other country or regional practice ... only maybe more consistently so.

In the interest of obsession, I try to reflect text actually appearing on the title page of our physical copy of a book when cataloging, but (try to) use such descriptors on Canonical Titles only for distinguishing, for example: William Faulkner's Requiem for a Nun from Ruth Ford's Requiem for a Nun: A Play. But don't quote me on that, please; I'm notoriously irregular when it comes to stuff in which I have no stake apart from personal interest.

Death without Company has an incorrect cover from The Omnivore's Dilemma proposed by Amazon, probably from some ISBN "sharing" (whether or not it's intentional). As best I can tell, we can't (yet) flag it as inapplicable to the book, so we just live with it. Yes? No? Either way, thanks for your help.

Ugh, this is where I we need that ratty data flag Tim keeps tempting us with. It's because someone has the ISBN for TOD but with the title for DWC:
Death Without Company / Johnson, Craig (ISBN 0143038583) (9 copies; 1.1.1 separate)

It's one of those errors that's kind of unfixable without a ratty data flag that includes the aspect of not using the ISBN for amazon covers.

Yes, could we please, please, pretty please get some way of flagging Amazon provided covers as inappropriate to work.

That's not really the case here, though. The work just contains bad data that can't be separated out. The edition needs to be flagged, not the cover. Otherwise, it's a bit of a band-aid.

But who knows, maybe we need the band-aid because it will be "two weeks" before we get the ratty-data flag.

Aw, I really really want a ratty-data flag! That would be great.

109> I keep wondering...what would a ratty data flag look like? k4k

It would look like a regular data flag, only a lot more ratty.

Oh. Yeah. Why didn't I think of that?

What's the best way to discuss or comment on cover flag proposals? I've noticed undecided or no votes on some of my flags and I'd be happy to explain, but I'm not sure where to put the explanation. Should we have a thread in Combiners like for tag vote discussions? One difficulty is that unlike tag pages there is no linkable page for the cover information. So how would we refer people to particular flagged covers? Perhaps there should be a comments section right on the flag voting page.

We also need to know what the voting thresholds are. And it would be very useful to have a filter for over and under threshold votes like on the tag and spam voting pages.

My vote for ratty data flag goes to Templeton, http://cartooncharacters.wikia.com/wiki/Templeton_the_rat

Or maybe Reepicheep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reepicheep

But there's also this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/5893236/Talented-musical-...

Regardless, licensing issues are likely for all of them. Surely there are rats in the public domain -- maybe a 19th Century Aesop, or The Pied Piper of Hamelin?

Sadly, it won't be named "ratty". Not officially. People felt like they were being judged.

...

And it probably won't be called a flag, for the same reason.

"Marker for data that may be possibly considered slightly imperfect for using at the work level by the most sticklerish of sticklers" will probably pass muster for indicating that Mark Twain didn't actually write Moby Dick, but anything less hedged about with qualifiers would probably draw screams of outrage.

>115 brightcopy:
Well, as long as its name reflects its purpose.

On the other hand, if ratty data is merely hidden once sufficiently flagged but remains visible to the perpetrator(s) of said rattiness, we can call it whatever we like with minimal risk of causing offense. I gather that is how the cover flags are supposed to work.

> 113: Hear, hear! I've also missed having insights or comments on cover flags, as there have b een some votes I wasn't quite sure of (at least not until I made up my mind on a standard, to tried voting that way consistently).

> 115: That only makes our flag of choice a greater challenge -- how to depict in a single icon "Quite valuable as information, I'm sure; but is it really applicable to THIS Work?"

> 116: Can't we scream in outrage too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scream.jpg

>116 lorax:
Perhaps to start with, we can start with a mere "This is not correct" for such cases. Either way, rumors of such wrongness's demise will (probably) be greatly exaggerated, so at some point that flag can morph into a "ratty data" flag of the more common and/or garden variety.

> 120: Should we have a thread in Combiners like for tag vote discussions?

Good idea. Though maybe we should put it in the flaggers group. http://www.librarything.com/groups/flaggers

But I agree the helpers page (http://www.librarything.com/helpers_covers.php) is not ideal for linking purposes.

Is there some simple way to post a cover of a book one has read if such cover is not shown on LibraryThing? I tried to do such once but found it too complicated for me. Is it simpler now?

I think it's fairly simple - but you might disagree.

Only real obstacle: you can't upload covers for books not in your catalogue.

> 113

There is a thread for that here.

>120 Nicole_VanK:, 123
Thanks. I've now posted in that thread in flaggers. Lets see how people do interpreting my cover descriptions. If that doesn't work well we really need some way to link directly to particular flagged covers.

I think it's fairly simple - but you might disagree.
Only real obstacle: you can't upload covers for books not in your catalogue.

I would have no interest in having a cover for a book not in my listings. Is there some polace which tells me how to put a cover on my listing in place of the generic cover?

> 125

is there some place which tells me how to put a cover on my listing in place of the generic cover?

There are three ways. They all start by clicking on "change cover". You'll then be able to see all previously uploaded covers. You can:

1. Select one of the covers already uploaded, or
2. Upload your own from a file on your computer, or
3. Upload one from the web by entering the URL in the field provided.

One way is to click on the cover in the listing on the Your Books tab. You can also do it through the edit book page.

126> These three choices vary a bit in difficulty.

1. Very easy - the covers are there, look at them and decide if any of them are a) the right cover and b) of sufficient quality to satisfy you. If one (or more) are right and good enough, click to Choose this cover and you're done. Of course, this only works if someone else has uploaded a cover. Note - it's better not to use an Amazon cover; they can change after the fact, if Amazon assigns a different cover to the ISBN on your book. The Member-uploaded are better.
2. This one is complicated first, then easy. Uploading is easy, but first you need to get the cover as a file on your computer. You need to scan it or take a picture, clean it up (crop extra stuff that's showing around the cover, straighten the image, maybe correct scratches/color/whatever to make it look good), then save it as .jpg or .png (there are others, but those two are simplest/best, IMO), in a size/resolution that is less than 2Mb. I make mine 300dpi and 1000 pixels high and save at 100% quality as .jpgs, and they work well for me. There's a lot of variation - try stuff out and see what satisfies you. So once you have a good-looking, proper-sized image in a file, click the Browse button on the Change Covers page and go find that file; select it, click Open, then click Upload. LT will (after thinking for a bit) take the cover, apply it to your book, and put it for others to use in the Member-Uploaded section
3. Medium difficulty. You have to find a good cover - some books have lots, some have almost none. Search by title, author in Google Images (or elsewhere - see what you can find); choose a good-looking cover that's a decent size (if it's 100 pixels high, it will be very blurry on LT. Minimum considered "high quality" is 250px high); click on the picture until you have it all by itself on the page. Copy the URL from the location bar (at the top of the screen) into the box with the Grab button after it (make sure you delete or overwrite the http:// that's in the box). Click Grab. LT will apply the cover to your book and put it in Member-Uploaded.

Unless someone else has gone through the steps and created a good (and matching-your-cover) Member-Uploaded cover, it's not extremely simple. But all the difficulty is in making/finding a proper image. Once you've got a good one, putting it on LT is literally just a couple of clicks.

Is there anyway to see which of the books/works in my own catalog have covers that are flagged? Just found two that had the correct covers, yet got flagged . . . still don't know why. Am I really supposed to hunt through over a thousand flagged covers to find the ones that I know something about?

Can't there be something in our cover stats page that would make this easier?

You're making this too complicated. It should be obvious if a picture is a cover or not. And for whether it's a cover of the right book you should be able to tell in the vast majority of cases by reading the Title off the book cover, and in the cases where the Title isn't on the cover then don't worry about it, it's not that important in the great scheme of things.

jjmcgaffey - there is no quality difference between saving jpg at 100% or 90%, while there can be a significant filesize difference.

> 130: Should be - yes. But LucindaLibri is understandably upset of this bug : http://www.librarything.com/topic/139639

131> None? Some, by definition - do you mean no visible difference? And do you see that apply across the board? Yellow letters on red are a _pain_, and painfully common in covers (very visible) - I find that any reduction in quality gives me weird ripples around the letters. It got so annoying saving, checking, resaving that I just went to 100% quality for everything.

Re #126. Thanks much. No. 1 is obvious and I always use it.

I am going to try to follow No. 2 or 3 and will see if I am too dumb or not.

> 134: I vote "not." (Oh, wait; we weren't asked to vote on that ... .)

jjmcgaffey: I've not found any difference going from 100% to 95%. But, I know that even going from 100% to 98% will mean a reduction in size worth considering, given how many covers get uploaded.
That's why I mainly responded, given your advice on how to scan and upload covers.

If a cover becomes the best guess for an ISBN it can appear on any book that has that ISBN regardless of what work that book is in. Is this ever useful? What I see from this feature are wrong covers on books and works because of bad data and publisher reuse of ISBNs. Wouldn't it be better if the best guess covers only applied to books within the same work?

If that were true we wouldn't have to distinguish between "not a cover" and "not applicable to this work." And as I have yet to see something I would call a spam cover that wasn't on a spam work, I think we could probably do with only one cover flag.

137>

What about something like the "covers" here:

http://www.librarything.com/catalog/MsMixte&tag=Tama&alias=1

(If the parameters don't come through, search in MsMixte's catalog for books tagged "Tama". Those are where she's using a placeholder cover.)

The cat artwork isn't spam, but it's also not a cover, for any of those books. It's a placeholder for books where she doesn't have a cover - fine in her own catalog, but it has no business showing up as a "best guess" for any of them.

>138 lorax:
So perhaps I should have been more explicit. The one remaining flag in my thinking above would be, "not a cover for this work." All those cat covers would certainly fall under that flag. But we wouldn't have to worry about a stronger "not a cover" flag if covers couldn't profuse between works. And I haven't seen the need for a spam cover flag.

> 139: A useful perspective, and one I gravitated toward even as I composed my screed. (See http://www.librarything.com/topic/139236#3486549 -- or maybe don't).

If our only flagging choice were "not a cover for this work," and the only effect of cumulative "yes" votes would be to prevent the image from profusion with its related Work, wouldn't that serve our purpose?

Thanks for the thought, eromsted!

Any chance we can get "Not a cover for this work" flagging for Amazon covers?

E.g. http://www.librarything.com/work/578489/covers

(See also http://www.librarything.com/topic/93383)

>141 r.orrison:
I like the idea, but I'm not sure how it would work. I believe LT doesn't store amazon covers, it just sends the ISBNs associated with the work to amazon and they send back whatever covers they have for those ISBNs. So a flag on LT would have to say don't display the amazon cover for this ISBN on this work. But a wrong amazon cover could have two sources: a wrong ISBN work match at LT or a wrong cover ISBN match at amazon. Flagging the former makes sense, but the latter should be dealt with by submitting a report with amazon.

Since I'm not a fan of Amazon covers in general, I would be happy if it said "don't ever use the Amazon cover for this ISBN as the work cover for this work".

(Yes, even if it is bad data at Amazon's end that could theoretically be fixed some day maybe if someone reports it.)

Not so far. We live in anticipation, but it would be nice if a next stage got implemented.

You're right though - I'm pretty much ready to give up on this entirely.

There's not much point in flagging an Amazon cover, as it could be changed at any time from Amazon's end. You flag it, someone else sends Amazon a correction, and the next thing you know the flag is on a correct cover. It's just not a controlled situation.

So how do you propose LT deal with problems like http://www.librarything.com/work/578489? I guess the right answer is the ratty data flag, to apply to the incorrect ISBN on the work. But what's the likelihood of that happening? I think we've got a much better chance of getting a flag on the cover itself.

(It's not an Amazon issue: Amazon has the right cover for the ISBN.)

Also http://www.librarything.com/work/9093410 - I'm not sure why that cover is showing up in this case, but it sure would be nice to be able to just flag it.

(And yes, it would be nice if the flagging also worked. But hey, one thing at a time!)

I think it would be a great idea for librarything if either:

1. Member-uploaded book pictures could be flagged for deletion based on poor quality. Or

2. The system would automatically reject member-uploaded pictures under a certain size or resolution.

There are just so many very poor pictures that clutter up the options. If the standards were higher for uploads, I think it would be a good thing. I see a large amount of drastically sub-par pictures, and would love for a way to objectively have pictures removed.

> 151

I would be strenuously opposed to either of those options, for the simple reason that often it is the so-called "poor quality" image that is the only accurate image available of a cover.

I think it has been suggested before but I still like the notion of using the crowd sourcing at LT to group images that are the same or very similar. Then one could select the group image that is close and select the most appropriate one from a secondary image list.

Classics like Alice in Wonderland have so many cover images that it is hard to wade through them to find the best one. Instead it is easier to upload a fresh scan which merely compounds the quantity of images problem.

Related to this would be markings to show the most popular image for the ISBN supplied (or work if not), the image currently selected by you or best guess, and the ability to select several for closer comparison.

James

#153 by Keeline> I think it has been suggested before but I still like the notion of using the crowd sourcing at LT to group images that are the same or very similar.

Indeed it has. I even made a mockup once upon a time:

Before:


After:

And #154, as I said once upon a time, I love the idea.
Currently I scan each and every book I add, to avoid Amazon covers, to ensure reasonable quality , and to capture every "scratch and dint" on my books :-)

Interesting. In this case (http://www.librarything.com/work/599067/covers/27266318) Amazon seems to have taken over a non-cover from LT.

Loved the idea in #153. Maybe someone should post it in 'Recommended Site Improvements' (again!).

153. 154> So what are you suggesting happens to the image shown fourth in the second row. It may be 'similar' to the one in the middle of the top row, but is certainly NOT the same. I would never accept the cover with the title straight as my cover if my cover had the title on diagonally.

Yes, I would rather have a poor quality correct cover than a high quality incorrect cover.

#158 by MarthaJeanne> What I suggest is you click the "(similar covers)" link right below it an pick your appropriate one from the expanded list.

And, as always, such a feature should have a toggle that lets you view them as grouped/not-grouped. That way people who hate it can go about their business as if the site hasn't ever changed.

Ah, okay.

158: I would never accept the cover with the title straight as my cover if my cover had the title on diagonally.

I wouldn't expect anything to ever change the cover that a user selected*. The grouping would be wonderful for people just admiring the wide array of covers, but you'd still have to be able to select or upload your own cover and have it stick permanently.

* Unless they choose an Amazon cover, of course.

#162 by r.orrison> And not just for admiring. I've had difficulty finding my cover before in a sea of covers for popular works that have been around a while and published in multiple countries. Grouped covers would make it a lot easier for me to zero in on MY cover.

#153, 154: I like the idea of crowd sourcing to group images that are the same or very similar. It might dissuade me from guido47's practice of "scan{ning} each and every book I add, to avoid Amazon covers, {and} to ensure reasonable quality ... ." (OK, so maybe I don't "capture every 'scratch and dint' on my books" -- that's about the only time I look for a near-suitable substitute, and that's often still disappointing.)

Those scratches and "dints" must be pretty large to show up in the tiny LT thumbnail images. I think a piece missing would have to be the proverbial size of a small postage stamp to be more than noise on the image.

For my juvenile series books I scanned all of my covers rather than use anything in the system. The mobile site (/m) doesn't show my covers so it doesn't work well for upgrade opportunities on the road. Using the full site isn't great either because the pages are so heavy from a download and rendering standpoint. Hence, I can generally only see my covers at home or on a traveling laptop. Still, I can hope that eventually this data will be easier to access on the road.

When I scan covers I also keep the full-size one (72 dpi, 100%, PNG) for other uses.

For reference and academic books or very recent books where I don't have scratches and "dints", being able to find one of these covers that is right without having to swim through a sea of hundreds of cover images in row after row would be helpful.

It is amusing, especially in other feature suggestion threads, that a vocal minority of LT users express their objection to any change in the way that they do. I suppose that they also stopped using MS Word once some feature they were used to changed or was removed. Sometimes a change can improve things and sometimes it makes things worse. However, making it seem like they'd start to picket the LT headquarters (virtually speaking, of course) because of a change is not the best way to suss out improvements to the system.

Performance of the system is still a major issue. Many actions take many seconds to complete and are untenable on a mobile device like an iPhone browser. Making every little thing optional is also a problem for the programming and performance. When a database call has to be made to learn if a specific user's profile allows a certain feature, that comes at a price. A Drupal page has about 100 DB queries and these can severely slow the load of a page. I expect that a custom site like LT has similar problems. Each feature (and option) is a trade-off against performance.

James

Any suggestions for those of us with lots of ebooks? Right now, I am mooching off other people's covers with no way to contribute.

What do you use to look at your ebooks? If I look at them in calibre, I can right-click and copy the cover (apparently the Kindle app lets you look but not copy).

Personally, I want to be able to see when a book is an ebook, so I make my own covers by taking a semi-generic ereader image with the screen blanked out and pasting a copy of the cover (either the cover I've extracted from calibre, or a nice-looking cover from a paper copy if the ebook one is boring) into the screen area (using GIMP). Take a look at my ebooks collection to see some of them. I apply some cover, though, as soon as I can, so I don't have Amazon covers on my ebooks (or no covers).

So far I have just been using a tag for my ebooks. If I am lucky, the cover is the same as one of the other editions, so I use that. Otherwise, I sometimes use a generic or I copy an image from Amazon (if it is theirs). If it is a book from mobileread or one of the other sites for out of copyright books, I try to find it on the web. I never thought about using Calibre to get covers. I will try that.

Thanks.

Most of my ebooks are older, out of copyright works and I do try to use the same cover for all of them. It is one of the standard offerings shown under the "Chose a blank cover" but you do have to click on the "show all 51 covers" link.

For the one and only ebook I purchased I use the member uploaded version of the Amazon cover.

We now have about 60 pages of flagged covers. Is this ever actually going to do anything?

And may we please have the ones we've voted on drop off, as we do with tag combinations?

Pretty please?

I noticed the flag for a certain cover of Illness as Metaphor (by Sontag) as inapplicable to the work. I discovered that some copies of ISBN 0140124276 (Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors) were being listed only by the first title, so I separated those and recombined them into the two-title work (trying to add a disambiguation notice to the 10 incorrectly titled copies, but I think the notice just got squished into the entire work, and my work will probably get undone later, alas). Anyway, the flagging page now still has it listed as an inappropriate cover for Illness as Metaphor, instead of the two-title work, which is technically true, even though the cover no longer appears on the Illness as Metaphor work page. Should I even worry about this? If voting meets threshold, will the cover be "killed" by getting zapped entirely from the system, or just from association with the one-title work (and survive its new association with the two-title work)? Me be confused.

> 172: I'm reluctant to separate and recombine records for any single title (first or otherwise) on the basis of ISBN alone, since it appears that some Members will enter each constituent Work in their catalogs rather than entering a two-title volume as a single Work. I suppose the real test may be whether the same Members also enter the other constituent Work(s) as single-title records with the two-title volume's ISBN.

In this case, if a Member enters both Susan Sontag's Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors with ISBN 0140124276, the first and second titles should combine respectively with their separate Works, and not with the two-volume edition.

Does that make sense?

If title and ISBN are conflicting I will trust title way sooner than ISBN (on LT that is). Users may easily correct a title without bothering to change ISBN.

Sorry, yeah, I was clearly proceeding incorrectly on this one. I see that you guys have been kind enough to already clean up both my bad separation/recombination work and my bad disambiguation messages. Thank you.

> 174: I must confess that I'm coming to appreciate less detailed cataloging (including correct ISBNs), at least initially, as thus far (a little over four years now) I've only managed about 25% of what I've meant to do. The CueCat helps immensely, of course, but coordinating with an original catalog (30 years and counting), cover scans, editing (including ISBN confirmation), reconciling editions, and tagging -- it's all the good stuff that's slowing me down!

Anybody have thoughts or suggestions on tackling such a job, maybe reference to another thread? 'Cause I'd rather be reading than cataloging. {Well, almost ... :o)} I've even thought to just copy/paste everybody else's tags for any given record, and let God sort 'em, out!

I'm afraid I'm no help. I added every single one of mine, and loved the process.

So my advice would be: Enjoy the journey. (but then, I'm retired, so I have the time.)

I got the majority of my books in, with (for those that had them) correct ISBNs and titles, in about 6 months to a year. I'm now - 6 years later - still working on covers - 2/3 done, about (and it was a real rush of joy when the number done exceeded the number still to do!). Tags mostly got put on at the time, though I keep finding other things I want to tag and have to go back (Power Edit is your friend...).

And of course I get more books all the time...purchased or from the library or borrowed elsewhere. And I'm adding ebooks as I read them, and then there's the inclusions (books in omnibuses, that I want to review separately). It's a neverending task, but like MerryMary I enjoy the work. Now when I add a few books, I get it all right (except for the covers - that takes a bit longer, because of scanning), so I won't need to go back and work on those books. Unless I decide I need to record something else in tags, of course. When I eventually get all the covers in - all the backlog - I'll think about what else I want to do. I don't _think_ I plan to do the physical descriptions, but by then I may have changed my mind.

>73 aqeeliz: Did we ever devise a way to unflag a cover that we inadvertently flag as incorrect or inapplicable, or do we just have to keep voting "No"?

Some of my covers of the Russische Bibliotheek have been flagged, although they ARE the covers of those books. I understand that a cover "Verzamelde werken 5", for the Dutch translation of Crime and Punsishment is odd to some.
Is there any way to undo that?

You can try to get it voted down. I suggest posting in http://www.librarything.com/groups/flaggers with links to the specific cases.

>181 MarthaJeanne: Thanks, I will look which book covers and then try there.

Tim, can these votes eventually count for something? Remember when the tag combination votes just hung out in purgatory until we whined about it, and now tag combination is super useful? It seems that the cover flag votes are now occupying purgatory. It makes the voting and flagging rather pointless.