A 'Read' column belonging to the 'Personal' set of columns for display 'style's

KeskusteluRecommend Site Improvements

Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.

A 'Read' column belonging to the 'Personal' set of columns for display 'style's

tammikuu 24, 7:45 pm

What is says on the tin: a non-negative real number representing completion of the title, where 1, 1.00, or 100% would all mean 'read once'.
Of the ~1150 books in my library, I've read fully, say, 600--700; summing the read column in my local .tsv file I get 772. To have something similar here one would perhaps create a collection belonging to one's library named 'dropped' or 'DNF', and even that is discrete, binary choice, not necessarily reflecting reality: dropped at the foreword, reread 7.5 times, etc.
If one's ratings do not affect recommendations, then it'd result in initially unfortunate book-pickers rarely-to-never receiving one appropriate to them.

Furthermore, such a collection will obviate the need for 'to-read', 'read', and 'reading' collections, wishlist and to-borrow service different purposes though, so they'd persist.

tammikuu 25, 5:41 am

tags and comments can be used for that.

Muokkaaja: tammikuu 25, 5:29 pm

I proposed a simplification of the the mess that is display styles and collections. Sorting isn't possible either way, so it is ultimately moot, and neither is summing.
One can add the completion rate, say, as an 'Other author' called '2.4', as well. I'd wouldn't use either. How is a review different from a comment? And how is a rating, which itself is a set of 10 discrete values (visually represted as (half-)stars)?

edit: punctuation

tammikuu 25, 3:27 pm

Tags are sortable.
Reading dates can be added multiple times, so you can make it have more than one date entered, even if only the most recent displays.
Other Author should NOT be used for anything other than author names as that does affect the Work level data.
Other Call Number might be used. Bookcrossing ID might be used.

Star rating -- Click the star once for a full star, a second time for a half star.

Muokkaaja: tammikuu 25, 3:29 pm

>3 godcock: How is a review different from a comment?

Most notably, reviews from all users are aggregated in the Work page, whereas comments remain discretely within individual user catalogs at the Book level.

Muokkaaja: tammikuu 25, 3:35 pm

There is a page in our stats that lets us see the inverse of our "To read" collection, including the total:
(ensure All Books is selected in red, then it's down at the end of the page under the heading "Books Not in Collections")

That does, of course, assume everything not in "To read" has been read. I grant it's not the same functionality as what you could do with an integer, since that would also let you indicate how many times a book has been read, but it might be of interest to you.

(Edit x2: spelling)

Muokkaaja: tammikuu 25, 5:47 pm

>6 Nevov:

I agree that Collections functionality can be helpful for the sort of ambitions expressed by the OP, but everything depends on which collections you use, and how you understand them. In my catalog for instance, "To read" is used to identify a set of about a hundred "front shelf" titles that I have prioritized for relatively imminent reading. My books don't go into "To read" just because they are unread.

It would be relatively easy to create collections of "Unread," "Read 1x," "Read 2x," "Read 3x" etc. Since a book can be in multiple collections, it wouldn't interfere with any other use of collections functionality.

Edited to add: It also wouldn't be mysterious to browsers of the catalog (the word "read" as a field name is ambiguous and opaque) or require (*ahem* unlikely) developer engagement to satisfy a niche user appetite.

tammikuu 25, 4:17 pm

>4 gilroy: Other Author should NOT be used for anything other than author names as that does affect the Work level data.
Only if it's confirmed on the work page. You can put whatever you want in the Other Authors on your Edit Book page.

tammikuu 25, 5:14 pm

>8 r.orrison: Let's not encourage people to misuse fields that could bubble up to the work level, please?

tammikuu 25, 5:40 pm

>9 gilroy: But that will only happen if someone confirms bad data at the work level. And then anyone else can fix it.

That said, I wouldn't want to encourage it either, not because of any unlikely but repairable effect on works, but because it would (even if not confirmed at the work level) create an author page.