Big news! LibraryThing is now free to all! Read the blog post and discuss the change on Talk.
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

Please vote: Average work rating

New features

Join LibraryThing to post.

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 1:21pm Top

UPDATE: I'm making an executive decision—we're going with the compromise. Thanks to all!

WE MAY HAVE A COMPROMISE: SEE http://www.librarything.com/topic/153458#4062683 AND LET US KNOW IF THAT'S OKAY

LibraryThing now allows you to see the average member rating of your book's work within your catalog.

Two formats have been proposed. Please pick between them.

Vote: I prefer A, the one with stars.

Current tally: Yes 198, No 49, Undecided 7
A (the "39 ratings" is a mouseover)


When this reaches 200 votes, it will be definitive.

Apr 25, 2013, 9:55am Top

Argh. You could at least abbreviate the column header so that the space savings on the second one are more significant.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:04am Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

Apr 25, 2013, 9:56am Top

And given that the original feature took you so little time to implement, why can't we have both options?

Apr 25, 2013, 9:58am Top

I'm also not impressed by the fact that you're polling twitter users more than people who care enough to follow the discussion on LT.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:00am Top

A. With stars please.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:01am Top


Apr 25, 2013, 10:02am Top

Click on the thingy in message 1 to vote, guys. Voting with words here won't count.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:04am Top

The voting is a little confusing, but I'm assuming a "No" vote means that you prefer B. Wouldn't it have been clearer to make the options "A", "B" and "Undecided"?

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:06am Top

>9 lsg: LT polls don't do options like that, but it's also deliberately presented in a way that favours A. Balanced presentation wasn't exactly the goal here.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:06am Top

lsg, that's not how the voting works. You can vote "yes", "no" or "undecided" only.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:12am Top

It may be worth noting how the voting pattern changes over time.

30-3 in the first 5-ish minutes
55-9 after 15 minutes

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:19am Top

>10 _Zoe_:

And that was my argument about your poll--a poll 46 messages down on a new-features thread has a certain character. The average LT user doesn't hit Talk in the first place. And the people who like a feature aren't sticking around for 46 messages to argue about it. So I cast the net as wide as I could—trying to drawn in all LT members.

Frankly, I see this problem again and again. It may be that LibraryThing should prefer members who'll stick around to message 46 on a new-features thread—commitment is very important. But I don't think we should regard such people as typical members. My gut feeling here is that "regular" members did not agree with you. I think that feeling was correct.

Incidentally, my—admin—display shows who votes for what. More than one user voted differently in the two polls. So, yeah, although not the whole explanation for the difference, I think the way you presented it wasn't entirely clear.

Sorry that I needed to push this. But if I didn't do this, I think I'd be told that most members favored the other way. This didn't seem likely to me.

Wouldn't it have been clearer to make the options "A", "B" and "Undecided"?

It would. The vote feature doesn't allow you to redo that part, unfortunately. It has to be yes and no.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:19am Top

I prefer the visual stars of A, but I also like to see the number of ratings from B. I don't think that showing the rating numerically to a tenth of a star is necessary, and probably not statistically useful. Five stars based on two ratings is noise; 4.5 stars on 100 ratings is Wow!

Nonetheless, I've voted for A over B because of the immediate visual impact of the stars.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:20am Top

>13 timspalding: It would be interesting to see more stats about the voting.

What's the average number of catalogue columns in the main display style* of people voting each way?

*preferred or else A if there is no preferred

For that matter, what percentage of the people voting each way have actually edited the default display styles?

I still don't know why you can't have both options, though, since you've shown that it's relatively quick to implement.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:20am Top

Oh, disregard the precision of the numbers. Either way it should be only one digit after the period.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:22am Top

I'm firmly in the "no opinion" column.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:22am Top

Right. One digit after the period is a tenth of a star. I'd rather see that space given to the number of ratings.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:26am Top

>15 _Zoe_:

We could have both versions, but this is how LibraryThing's code got so bloated and complicated. To offer two formats for the work-ratings column is to ask for another button on that Timex watch. We'd have to call the fields "Average rating (text)" and "Average rating (stars)" or something. New users will have to "think" which field they want. Or we'd need some binary setting on some account page.

One-by-one these sorts of things make sense, but the cumulative effect is clutter and cognitive overload. And it bloats the code. Such changes need far more consequential returns on time spent.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:24am Top

Tim, for what it's worth, I appreciate the fact that you're at least making an effort to include users in the decision making.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:26am Top

My gut feeling here is that "regular" members did not agree with you. I think that feeling was correct.

Well, but who are the regular members here? Isn't the feature mostly for people who are engaged enough to edit their display styles?

Oh, disregard the precision of the numbers. Either way it should be only one digit after the period.

Argh, why?

We'd have to call the fields "Average rating (text)" and "Average rating (stars)" or something.


I'm tempted to say that the real test would be to do this as a trial for a few months and see which one people actually choose, but at that point it would be too late to get rid of either one without making people angry.

New users will have to "think" which field they want.

That's just not true. You've said a million times that 99% of people don't change the defaults. New users don't have to think about anything.

Anyway, this is a field that I've wanted for ages, but I'm pretty much not going to use it because it takes up way too much space, and that makes me very sad.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:26am Top


Really? That's seriously not cool.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:27am Top

>19 timspalding:

Thanks. This is a rare case where I was so sure that, although EVERY SINGLE LibraryThing employee agreed with me—no shit!—I was willing to put it up and bind myself by a vote of the members, even if they went the other way.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:30am Top

I'm also not impressed by the fact that you're polling twitter users more than people who care enough to follow the discussion on LT.

No, @ LibraryThing posted the topic to Twitter. We generally post important topics to Twitter and Facebook. This is standard practice. _Zoe_ often retweets them. We have not been "polling" Twitter users. How would we know if people voted here AND there?

Apr 25, 2013, 10:28am Top

Argh, why?

You think it should be two? You need a LOT of ratings before a difference of .01 is significant. No?

Apr 25, 2013, 10:31am Top

#13 "More than one user voted differently in the two polls."

That's because they aren't comparing the same thing.

In the other thread, the poll is simply do you like that style. Which I do.
This poll is a preference of that style over a higher information style, And I have a preference here too.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:33am Top

>25 timspalding: It's not about a difference of 0.01; it can be a difference of 0.09. I don't know whether 3.8 means 3.75 or 3.84.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:34am Top

For me the second version is cleaner but then I'm not a fan of graphics ... I prefer text.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:36am Top

>27 _Zoe_:

We're both right. Or neither of us. It can register a difference of .05. It rounds, not truncates, so it's not 0.09.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:37am Top

>29 timspalding: So it will actually show two decimal places sometimes? That just seems weird. I can understand that it makes sense visually to round stars, but why round 3.76 to 3.75?

Apr 25, 2013, 10:39am Top

No, it should only show one.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:39am Top

I would have preferred screenshots that displayed the advantages and disadvantages better. As it is now it's a choice between "ooh shiny!" and "uh, ugly". Even I, who know what I prefer, think option A looks shinier with those small cropped screenshots.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:40am Top

Although I've said I don't think even a tenth of a star is significant enough to display, never mind a hundredth, it would make sense if sorting by the average rating used as much accuracy as available.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:40am Top

>31 timspalding: Then I don't understand what you're saying at all.

Will both 3.75 and 3.84 show up as 3.8?

Apr 25, 2013, 10:41am Top

Apr 25, 2013, 10:43am Top

B! B all the way!! I can't believe anyone who actually cares enough to see a rating would opt FOR stupid graphics, while such an ESSENTIAL fact as THE NUMBER OF RATINGS is swept under the rug (well, mouse)!! Not to mention losing vs. gaining a decimal point! WHAT IS THE POINT...!!!

Apr 25, 2013, 10:44am Top

Mouse-overing is deadly for people with arthritis in their hands, just ask my mom.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:45am Top

>36 LolaWalser:

Let's keep decimal points out of this. I intended no distinction there.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:48am Top

The impeccable logic of post 36 has convinced me to change my vote. That and the fact that nobody else is talking about the significance of number of ratings.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:50am Top

>36 LolaWalser: and 39: Same thing for me. I've changed my vote from "Yes" to "No".

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 10:58am Top

I like the illustrated stars. It's easier to "read" at a quick glance.

Wait - we have to vote "yes", "no" or "undecided". Someone asked, but I didn't see a straight answer:

Is "yes" voting for A, and "no" voting for B? Thanks.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:01am Top

Without being able to read 40 prior posts (just yet, anyway), what do we have against stars?

Apr 25, 2013, 11:02am Top

>42 jasbro: They take up precious space in the catalogue and don't convey enough information.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:06am Top

>42 jasbro:: It appears that the minority favors the non-graphical presentation for two reasons: it provides more data (number of reviews) without a mouse-over, and it does so in less screen space.

Furthermore, the argument is being made that, as this will be an optional column in the catalogue, only those small minority of users who customize their cataolgue views will actually use it; and thus, the views of those minority should prevail over a majority who will never use it.

While I personally find the stars to be more visually pleasing (especially because they are in continuity with the graphical presentation used on review pages)--thus explaining my initial yes vote--I have been swayed by the arguments of the minority (especially Lola in 36) into changing my vote to no.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:08am Top

I selected B because it includes the number of ratings. I prefer the visual stars of A. It's unfortunate that the two issues are conflated in the voting.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:09am Top

>44 nathanielcampbell:

I think the column is wanted enough that it should be a default option—for one of the later styles.

I think the stars are particularly useful when your own stars are there—you can see where you differ from the consensus opinion at a glance.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:09am Top

Eh, # of ratings isn't paramount when I sort using average ratings. If I need it, it's there. Stars are more useful for what I would use the tool for. Voted Yes/A.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:11am Top

>46 timspalding: - Yeah that's my feeling too; I was playing with this a bit yesterday and found it fascinating to put my ratings and the average side-by-side and look at the differences. Without the graphics, that comparison is much less easy to see quickly.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:14am Top

Personally I would find it very distracting to have the Green Stars anywhere on the catalogue page . That page is all text, unless you choose to have a cover image, and I don't think that the stars are necessary.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:14am Top


Easier to read? There's a reason we switched to Arabic numerals from sticks and stones. But the main problem is that the rating is meaningless without knowing how many people rated! The info may be available on mouseover, but that's inconvenient for several reasons--it means you have to keep your mouse on this specific spot, and once you move it's gone, meaning you can't ever see the rating in its "neighbourhood", compare it to other books on the same page, or just quickly glance at it while doing anything else. Not only are you forced to perform the mouseover, you are also forced to memorise the number in case you are comparing the books.

It's really wasteful.

And moreover, the stars are never going to be as precise as numbers, since they only express .0 and .5!

Apr 25, 2013, 11:18am Top


Why not change our ratings into numbers? The only reason for graphic representation is because it's pretty. But that's a silly consideration for something that's numerical in character.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:18am Top


I think the stars are particularly useful when your own stars are there—you can see where you differ from the consensus opinion at a glance.

That would be a cute meme, but for me they're most useful when mine aren't - my wishlist and my To Read collections, to see what I should read or buy next.


For me it's critical - something with an average rating of 4.5 stars based on 100 ratings is a lot more likely to catch my eye than something with an average rating of 5 stars based on one.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:24am Top

32> Exactly. The hover option doesn't even work for touchscreen devices, and it's non-obvious.

I would much prefer both if at all possible.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:24am Top

The only reason for graphic representation is because it's pretty.

This comes very close to the notion that graphical representations of numbers are a waste of time. Someone inform Edward Tufte!

Apr 25, 2013, 11:34am Top

>54 timspalding: Tufte would go with the data.

The stars are nice but useless as you will only have the following significant values of stars: 3.5, 4, 4.5. Their discrimination value is low. Thus, Tufte would prefer the data.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:38am Top

Does greater than 0.5 of a star actually have a significant impact? Rating isn't an exact science, some people will rate harder, others more generously, a 3 star rating doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who's rating a book. In which case, the precision of the result strikes me as being larger than the resolution you're wrangling over.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:40am Top


Context, please! I was taking about our specific situation, not generalising.

Looking at your mockups again, would it be possible to have the two numbers (rating/ number of ratings) on a horizontal line above or below the stars?

Apr 25, 2013, 11:46am Top


People rate on a scale of 1-5 with 0.5 increments, but the averages bring out other values. The problem is that stars can only represent .0 or 0.5 values, meaning that .1-.4, .6-0.9 differences get lost (rounded up or down). What's especially galling is when more precise information exists, but is left out in favour of pure visual pizzazz.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 12:03pm Top

Like that?

Vote: I find this an acceptable compromise.

Current tally: Yes 140, No 2, Undecided 4

Apr 25, 2013, 11:50am Top

that looks like a nice blending of the two.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:50am Top

>58 LolaWalser: I'd disagree that 0.1 of a star is meaningful. it's like trying to measure a table in m and report the average from 30 tables in mm. Seems inappropriately high resolution for the precision of the input.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:53am Top


I like that.

Apr 25, 2013, 11:59am Top

>59 timspalding:: Very much like that. I would vote for that layout over either A or B as presented in the OP.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 12:01pm Top

61> If I'm measuring tables to the half meter, having the average only to the meter is losing resolution. Your example is way off as 1 mm is 0.001m, not 0.1.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:02pm Top

Okay, anyone object to that as a compromise?

Apr 25, 2013, 12:07pm Top

>59 timspalding:: I like this latest version. You have my vote.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:12pm Top

>59 timspalding:: This seems to have the best of both worlds, content-wise. Helps give more context to the stars, but you still have that quick visual comparison element the stars provide.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:16pm Top

46> 48> I ran down and found one where I had only 1 star, but the average was 3. -- but there are only two ratings, mine and a 5 star. So people differ.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:23pm Top

>68 MarthaJeanne:

These ratings are cached.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:26pm Top


Looks good to me, thanks.


Helen, it's not a question of ONE person rating to .1 precision--individual ratings allow ONLY .0 or .5. The .1-.4, .6-.9 values are a result of averaging across individual ratings. Obviously, the significance of the difference depends on the number of total ratings. So yes, for more obscure books with few ratings it may not be important, but it is telling for popular books.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:33pm Top

I voted undecided because I think it should be both. A strong case can be made in that in this case this isn't just multiplying options for little reason because the graphics are very compelling, but in the catalog screen space is very tight and the option for a smaller version needs to be there. I don't think you want to decide whether to cater to the graphics-oriented user or the data-crazed user, you *can* and must do both.

I also think your poll was grossly unfair since the main selling point of option B was that it takes up less space, but without shortening the header it wasn't really much thinner.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:36pm Top

65> It's a good improvement to option A, but it is no way a compromise since it doesn't make the size any smaller.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:45pm Top

holy moley

I could not read all this

I hope you find a decision, and do it.

I'll be happy.

Apr 25, 2013, 12:55pm Top


It does make the horizontal space smaller, since the numerical portion (3.7) is moved to the second line.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:11pm Top

It's certainly much better.

I'd still like to resume the discussion about the number of decimal points, since I do think there's a significant difference between 3.75 and 3.84, and there's plenty of room in the box for that extra digit.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:13pm Top

I prefer A with the stars

Apr 25, 2013, 1:16pm Top

One suggestion -- I assume this is a separate column than your own rating of a particular work; make those stars appear in a DIFFERENT color. Blue, perhaps. To distinguish from your own rating. Other than that, I like the compromise.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:19pm Top

> 59 : I like this one.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:21pm Top

I like the stars and I'm happy with the mouse-over - but I'm not using a touch screen and I haven't got arthritis (you should see my knees but that is, I admit, irrelevant). I cannot get my head around this obsession with so-called accuracy of averaged ratings. I'm with Helenliz on that. It isn't even as if we are all measuring our tables in metres - some of us are using convenient bits of string or maybe our forearms as proxies for cubits. I could also throw in the absence of minus stars - if I want to rate a really awful book, all I can do is give it half a star when -5 fits my feelings better.

I may regret saying this, but it seems to me, on reading the whole of this thread, that disproportionate attention is given to the views of those who shout loudest and longest. I couldn't be anything like as equable and considerate as Tim.

Edited: May 3, 2013, 9:49pm Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:30pm Top

I would like to say that I am in complete agreement with abbottthomas in #79.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:36pm Top

Oh, so the header still has to be abbreviated because otherwise it takes up too much space when you sort on it and an arrow is added.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:36pm Top

#59 is what I've really been wanting since this feature debuted. A thousand times yes.

Apr 25, 2013, 1:39pm Top


"Precision" is a red herring. We are not chasing some phantom absolute "precise" rating for a single book but looking for the most meaningful ways to COMPARE different ratings (assuming comparably large rating pools).

The question is whether there's a significant difference between ratings of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 etc. There are many books on LT (typically "popular" ones) that have hundreds and thousands of ratings, and for such cases these differences are telling.

Apr 25, 2013, 2:24pm Top

84> I agree. The difference between 4.3 and 4.4 is small but given enough ratings it is significant. Especially when most people rate their books either 4 or 5.

Apr 25, 2013, 3:03pm Top

>84 LolaWalser: The question is whether there's a significant difference between ratings of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 etc

I couldn't agree more. I just don't know what I am meant to make of a comparison between, say, HP and the Goblet of Fire (4.35) and Pride and Prejudice (4.46). They are both very well-regarded works but does the edge that P&P has mean that it is "better" or "more entertaining"? If not, what?

Apr 25, 2013, 3:23pm Top

@ 86

The truth is that there is no way to know what the numbers mean, a fact that the more vocal proponents of ratings absolutely refuse to acknowledge.

Apr 25, 2013, 3:40pm Top

77> I like the idea of the starts being a different color.

Apr 25, 2013, 4:04pm Top

#59 is also a winner for me.

I'm not worried about the decimal point issues.

Edited: Apr 25, 2013, 4:51pm Top

I was voting for whatever took up the least space, so the compromise really isn't a compromise for me. It's even further in the clutter direction.

That said, I like the idea of having this information available. I don't always agree with the average rating, but it's still interesting to know. I have several books in my library I have yet to read, and if something gets a high average rating from multiple people, I might bump it up in the "to read" pile, and be glad I did.

Apr 25, 2013, 8:37pm Top

>87 JGKC: Could you elaborate on that statement? Would you concede even that higher ratings mean that people subjectively think one book is "better" in some sense, or do you maintain that the entire concept is completely meaningless?

Apr 25, 2013, 9:31pm Top

>91 _Zoe_: If I may jump in on this, I don't think the entire concept is meaningless, but I do find the subjective better-worse nature of my ratings, coherent though they may be at any moment in time, changes significantly over time. I rate stuff because it gives me emotional satisfaction when I click the button, but I've so often looked back at books I rated in the past and thought, eh, what was I thinking!, and changed the rating by a star or more. I think this makes my ratings somewhere between meaningless and flawed.

However, my instinct is that when there are a lot of ratings for a given work, the average (we really really should be using the median) could be quite robust.

Apr 25, 2013, 10:15pm Top

I'm already finding this feature useful :)

Apr 26, 2013, 1:04am Top

92> I put my stars and meanings on my profile, to remind myself what I meant. I check it frequently to keep myself from drifting too far (and still have to edit every now and then). I still like ratings, though - they're far from precise, but better than the Magic-8-ball accuracy of Will you like it?

There have also been books where I've looked at the average rating, with lots of raters, and decided they were all crazy (both (on different books, of course) way too high and way too low). My tastes differ from most. But still, average rating is interesting and at least occasionally useful.

And I love the compromise. I don't find the column uncomfortably wide, I'm delighted at getting all three aspects without mouseover, and I suspect I will use this reasonably often. Thanks, Tim!

Apr 26, 2013, 4:17am Top

Sorting by avg rating is pretty pointless when one's got a bunch of books with 1-2 ratings that happen to be fives. Would it be possible to set a cutoff so-that books with less than X ratings got excluded or banished to the end of he list?

Apr 26, 2013, 4:30am Top

#59 is a very good compromise. I've switched my vote in #1 to recognise this.

#86 - YOu can't compare totally different books solely by their rating. What you can say is that of the people of who like Harry potter, they like GoF more than the sort of people who like Austen like PnP.

YOu could however compare all the Harry Potter books and find that of the 4.5 star books book 5 is liked least. This is interesting. A 2nd decimal place would reveal difference about the other titles.

Note - for width objectors. The layout in #59 at 0.1dp exceeds the title width with 10000 ratings. It woudl be even wider with 0.01dp. Admittedly this will apply to few books, but even one in your page results will extend the width.

Apr 26, 2013, 1:05pm Top

"My tastes differ from most." Isn't that the best part of LibraryThing? ALL our tastes differ from most!

Apr 26, 2013, 1:38pm Top

I have a very similar taste.

Apr 26, 2013, 2:12pm Top

Reminded of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Brian - "You're all individuals!"

Member of crowd - "I'm not."

Apr 26, 2013, 3:06pm Top

98> What, meaty?

Apr 26, 2013, 4:24pm Top

So where and when do we see this in our libraries?

Edited: Apr 26, 2013, 4:25pm Top

It's there now. Just edit your styles to add it.

Apr 26, 2013, 5:49pm Top

#100 by jjmcgaffey> Sort of, chicken. All exotic meat tastes like chicken.

Apr 26, 2013, 5:54pm Top

There's a very common localisation bug with this one, where half the tag shines through. Just visit a language site and you'll see, Tim. (That bug is present on so many different pages that I have given up on it...)

Apr 27, 2013, 3:40pm Top

Tim, there is a bug report here :www.librarything.com/topic/153548# ; the look of the column is not the same on .com and on the language sites.

Apr 27, 2013, 7:06pm Top

Fixed. Thanks.

Apr 27, 2013, 9:15pm Top

So, what about changing the name to Avg. Rating so that it won't take up so much space? (This is especially an issue when sorting on the column, because of the addition of the arrow.)

Apr 27, 2013, 9:18pm Top

Okay, I'm convinced. Done.

Apr 27, 2013, 9:18pm Top


Apr 27, 2013, 9:20pm Top

I don't suppose there's any chance of "CK: OPD" while you're at it? ;)

(Or maybe "CK: Orig. Pub.")

Apr 27, 2013, 9:25pm Top

110 > If I didn't already know what OPD meant, I wouldn't have a clue what that meant.

Apr 27, 2013, 9:27pm Top

>111 PhaedraB: Yeah. But in your own catalogue, you'll have chosen it from a list where the name can be longer. So the confusion would arise only when encountering it in someone else's recommended display style.

Tim, do you have statistics about how many people have that column in their recommended style? I suspect it's really not that high.

Apr 27, 2013, 9:30pm Top


Apr 28, 2013, 5:44am Top

#106 by timspalding> Thanks. No chance of hiding all the individual "ratings" from the translation interface, so I can go back to translating? Right now they drown out everything else.

Apr 28, 2013, 6:40am Top

Thanks :)

Apr 28, 2013, 7:26am Top

Also, will you switch OPD to the new date system now that it can handle text?

Apr 28, 2013, 7:46am Top

#116 by _Zoe_> I didn't think that was really going to be possible with any of the wiki stuff. It seems to be handled very differently in the code.

Apr 28, 2013, 10:10am Top

>117 brightcopy: Well, I think they have to figure out some better way to handle OPD eventually.

Apr 28, 2013, 10:21am Top

>118 _Zoe_: Agreed. Edition publish date is "important" so far as having all the correct data for the book in one's hands is important, but it's the OPD that is actually meaningful. I really couldn't give a crap if my copy of Les Mis happens to have been run off in 1995 or 2005 or whatever, what matters is that it's from 1862. Putting any weight on when a particular copy was published makes no sense to me.

Apr 28, 2013, 8:47pm Top

> 119: Hear, here!

Apr 28, 2013, 9:13pm Top

Thanks. No chance of hiding all the individual "ratings" from the translation interface, so I can go back to translating? Right now they drown out everything else.

Should be gone.

I didn't think that was really going to be possible with any of the wiki stuff. It seems to be handled very differently in the code.

Yeah. We can talk about it later, but not now.

Apr 29, 2013, 3:43am Top

Aah. Thank you. Always the same bliss when the noise dies down.

Group: New features

45,361 messages

This group does not accept members.


This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.


About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 146,529,934 books! | Top bar: Always visible