How do I find out who has my specific book edition?
KeskusteluUnique Library Thing Book Group
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.
1vintage_books
I entered an edition of William Shakespeare today. Since the works of William Shakespeare are compiled, there are 8,933 members who have this book.
How do I find out who has my specific edition?
This is the book:
The works of William Shakespeare in reduced facsimile from the famous folio edition of 1623 by William Shakespeare. Chatto and Windus (1876), Unknown Binding
Thank you,
vintage_books
How do I find out who has my specific edition?
This is the book:
The works of William Shakespeare in reduced facsimile from the famous folio edition of 1623 by William Shakespeare. Chatto and Windus (1876), Unknown Binding
Thank you,
vintage_books
2eromsted
The short answer is, "You don't."
The slightly longer answer is that although LT collects some edition specific data like publication and publication date, this data is not used in or accessible though any of the social functions. The only way to see another user's edition specific data (sometimes called book data as opposed to work data) is to search or browse that user's library and click on the book information link (the little index card) for the book in question. I suppose you could do this with every owner of a work with few owners, but for the collected works of Shakespeare...
There have been many requests to do more with edition data but, although there has been vague support for the idea from the staff, it doesn't seem to be at the top of the priority list.
The slightly longer answer is that although LT collects some edition specific data like publication and publication date, this data is not used in or accessible though any of the social functions. The only way to see another user's edition specific data (sometimes called book data as opposed to work data) is to search or browse that user's library and click on the book information link (the little index card) for the book in question. I suppose you could do this with every owner of a work with few owners, but for the collected works of Shakespeare...
There have been many requests to do more with edition data but, although there has been vague support for the idea from the staff, it doesn't seem to be at the top of the priority list.
3vintage_books
Thank you eromsted! I like short answers. :)
What if I un-combined my work to see the answer to my question? I've never un-combined anything before...
And would happy to re-combine when complete.
Thoughts?
What if I un-combined my work to see the answer to my question? I've never un-combined anything before...
And would happy to re-combine when complete.
Thoughts?
4eromsted
hmm, on slightly closer examination you can find a little more information in this case because your book has a highly distinctive title. So if you go the editions page for the work in question and then use your browser to search the page for "reduced facsimile" you will find two copies (yours and one other I suppose). You could separate these, find them on the Shakespeare author page and then track down the other owner from the work page. As you said, you should recombine them when you are done (at least if you agree that they were properly combined to begin with.)
Of course there may be other copies of your edition in LT as well, but their owners may not have entered the full title in the manner that you and the other user did. My answer above was really for the more generic case where different editions can not be easily distinguished by title. But even here where an option exists, it seems so cumbersome that I would say my short answer still holds.
Of course there may be other copies of your edition in LT as well, but their owners may not have entered the full title in the manner that you and the other user did. My answer above was really for the more generic case where different editions can not be easily distinguished by title. But even here where an option exists, it seems so cumbersome that I would say my short answer still holds.
