Improved handling of works read or owned in Omnibus editions
DiscussionsRecommend Site Improvements
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
1ArlieS
Example: The Dragon Variation https://www.librarything.com/work/9607304/work/142268671 has "contains" relationships to Pilot's Choice https://www.librarything.com/work/24908 and three other works.
I have The Dragon Variation in my "read but unowned" collection.
Nonetheless, Pilot's Choice et al. don't show as something I've read in relevant series pages (e.g. https://www.librarything.com/nseries/3483/Liaden-Universe-Novels-%7BLee-Miller%7...
I can't find evidence easily right now, but I think the contained works also show up in various sources of recommendations. (There's no way to search the lists of books the two LibraryThing recommendation systems have recommended to me, except by stepping through each individual page.)
This makes it tedious to find out what members of the series I haven't read. When I spotted Pilot's Choice showing up as unread-by-me on the series page, I presumed the "contains" relationship hadn't been set up properly, and set out to fix them. But they turned out to be correct.
I'd like the series pages to show what I've read/own in any format, not just what I've read/own as free standing single work books.
Also, this is a simple example. Other cases are even more frustrating.
I also own the whole series of Harvard Classics, each volume of which contains multiple works also available in freestanding form. It would be very nice to be able to determine on LibraryThing "yes, I own a copy of The Prince by Machiavelli, it's in the volume of Harvard Classics titled Machiavelli, More, and Luther," along with the additional information about what collection my book is in. (My collections represent physical locations in my house.)
The obvious workaround would be a "phantom books" collection, in which I could put every work "contained in" every omnibus edition I own. Setting that up would be a lot of work, which would have to be repeated by every other user whose collection contains any omnibus editions.
The less obvious workaround would be to write a complex script that scrapes the data out of LibraryThing. But that script would need to be updated every time the LibraryThing user interface changes. And it could potentially be a problematic source of load on the site.
It would be much better for LibraryThing to handle this itself.
I have The Dragon Variation in my "read but unowned" collection.
Nonetheless, Pilot's Choice et al. don't show as something I've read in relevant series pages (e.g. https://www.librarything.com/nseries/3483/Liaden-Universe-Novels-%7BLee-Miller%7...
I can't find evidence easily right now, but I think the contained works also show up in various sources of recommendations. (There's no way to search the lists of books the two LibraryThing recommendation systems have recommended to me, except by stepping through each individual page.)
This makes it tedious to find out what members of the series I haven't read. When I spotted Pilot's Choice showing up as unread-by-me on the series page, I presumed the "contains" relationship hadn't been set up properly, and set out to fix them. But they turned out to be correct.
I'd like the series pages to show what I've read/own in any format, not just what I've read/own as free standing single work books.
Also, this is a simple example. Other cases are even more frustrating.
I also own the whole series of Harvard Classics, each volume of which contains multiple works also available in freestanding form. It would be very nice to be able to determine on LibraryThing "yes, I own a copy of The Prince by Machiavelli, it's in the volume of Harvard Classics titled Machiavelli, More, and Luther," along with the additional information about what collection my book is in. (My collections represent physical locations in my house.)
The obvious workaround would be a "phantom books" collection, in which I could put every work "contained in" every omnibus edition I own. Setting that up would be a lot of work, which would have to be repeated by every other user whose collection contains any omnibus editions.
The less obvious workaround would be to write a complex script that scrapes the data out of LibraryThing. But that script would need to be updated every time the LibraryThing user interface changes. And it could potentially be a problematic source of load on the site.
It would be much better for LibraryThing to handle this itself.
2gilroy
Don't mind me. Just gathering ALL the RSI threads regarding Omnibi together in one post.
https://www.librarything.com/topic/180727
https://www.librarything.com/topic/174510
https://www.librarything.com/topic/138274
https://www.librarything.com/topic/159536
https://www.librarything.com/topic/76456
https://www.librarything.com/topic/143031
https://www.librarything.com/topic/92532
https://www.librarything.com/topic/290364
https://www.librarything.com/topic/180727
https://www.librarything.com/topic/174510
https://www.librarything.com/topic/138274
https://www.librarything.com/topic/159536
https://www.librarything.com/topic/76456
https://www.librarything.com/topic/143031
https://www.librarything.com/topic/92532
https://www.librarything.com/topic/290364
3MarthaJeanne
>2 gilroy: Thanks. I knew it needed doing, but I'm too lazy tonight.
4ArlieS
*sigh* This appears to have been being requested since 2012.
Somehow I don't think it's likely to ever happen.
Somehow I don't think it's likely to ever happen.
5Nicole_VanK
>4 ArlieS: Not holding my breath, but yes - that would be great.
6SandraArdnas
>4 ArlieS: It's probably the single most requested feature, so hopefully it will get on the agenda after LT 2.0
7MarthaJeanne
It's not something to be thrown together in a few hours, and not having it is better that something that isn't reliable, so yes, not until the developers have some time on theirhands.
8paradoxosalpha
The Works Relationships data are there to make something like this, but I can imagine that it's tricky.
9ArlieS
>6 SandraArdnas: Can you point me to links about the plans for LT 2.0?
11SandraArdnas
>9 ArlieS: If you mean when it's due to be finished, there's never been any ETA. But not many things remain to be LT2-ified by now. Catalogue and work page I think, both underway already. Updating each segment of the site was announced and discussed separately in https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/2984/New-features
12ArlieS
>11 SandraArdnas: Thanks. I've reached an age where I'm always concerned about modernization plans. Will the new improved user interface be comprehensible by someone whose first computer use predated windowing operating systems, never mind smart phones? (It goes without saying that it won't be intuitive for such a user, i.e. myself.)
I'm glad to hear it's mostly done, since I haven't been driven mad (or away) by frustration about other changes that have been made, and I believe they've all been documented in the wiki (unlike most modernizations, which expect users to figure out the "improvements" by themselves, or perhaps with the aid of a video).
I'm glad to hear it's mostly done, since I haven't been driven mad (or away) by frustration about other changes that have been made, and I believe they've all been documented in the wiki (unlike most modernizations, which expect users to figure out the "improvements" by themselves, or perhaps with the aid of a video).
13SandraArdnas
>12 ArlieS: If you don't notice much change on the rest of the site, work pages will not be much different either. Besides, there's always discussion when first introduced and many complaints are addressed afterwards before settling on the final look.
We all fear new improved catalogue, haha, mostly that it will be less functional to cater to those accessing it by phone.
Either way, we should all remember to bump this and similar RSIs once LT 2.0 is done. No new features are likely before that, partly because that project takes most of the developer time and partly because it introduces not just new look, but new code under the hood, which should make future features easier to implement.
We all fear new improved catalogue, haha, mostly that it will be less functional to cater to those accessing it by phone.
Either way, we should all remember to bump this and similar RSIs once LT 2.0 is done. No new features are likely before that, partly because that project takes most of the developer time and partly because it introduces not just new look, but new code under the hood, which should make future features easier to implement.
