Project Ocelot social changes: Phase I is live

The first parts of "Project Ocelot," social improvements, is now live. We tend to make changes in tiny increments; this was a relatively big jump.

I hope you won't mind me repeating myself:

---

Our motives are clear. We are absolutely commited to KEEPING THE BOOK CONNECTIONS PRIMARY. We are NOT becoming "just another social network." Not at all. I founded this site on book data and the connections between books and book lovers. I am uninterested in social networking per se—social networking without content. I am only interested in social networking if it deepens connections ABOUT something. We are not, and will never be MySpace.

---

Anyway, the changes are live, and it's too late at night for me to do much more than list them. Here they are:

*"Connection news" lets you follow recent reviews from your connections, ratings and so forth. (It needs RSS feeds, of course.) Find this on your profile above "Members with your books." I am rather proud of this feature. Don't burst my bubble.
*Interesting libraries, friends, private watchlist. Friends are mutual; notices are sent; you can disable friending. (Note that we didn't make friend the top option and that the connections also includes people who share your books, not just the "chosen" connections of a "social network.")
*"Also On" connections feature, if you've used the "Also On" feature. Connects the dots between members who know each other outside of LibraryThing.
*Invitation feature.
*Search "also ons"
*We didn't go with the "silk" icons. You win!
*Other miscellaneous tweaks here and there

And "Members with your books" on other members' profiles is also back; and "Books you share" shows the titles as entered in the other person's library!

Thanks, Tim.

Henk

And affinity. To some extent, that's unrelated. We finally got a second server up and running, and it's doing pretty well. Keep your fingers crossed...

Just a question regarding the "Connection News" (which I really like, I might add).

Is the "Top 50 similar libraries" calculated the same way as the "Users with your books" on the profile page? Because I seem to be seeing a different set of people.

Just wondering.

Actually, no. It's using the same data as the Affinities feature—the numbers and so forth in Talk. In the near future, they're going to be all the same data.

(good question)

Roughly when would you expect the private books feature to be introduced?

I'd like to get it in over the next few days. That would be for the basic part--without keys for friends to see them. And I suspect we'll spend some time plugging holes.

Bug:

The "random book from (user)s library" shows up twice, before and after the "members with (user)'s books".

One small change request.
On "connection news", could the individual titles lead to the works page (and for the future, an add to wishlist thingy). As I read somewhere, good web design should help your user perform the next action. As the page stands, I am locked into simply looking at the work, but cannot interact with it.

I came online and looked at my profile before I checked this group (usually it's the other way around) and was like "woaaaaah! Awesome new feature!" I think Connection News is so neat!

I can't comment on all the new things, but I'm just completely giddy right now! (Not a good thing to be at 2am, but whatever) I am loving LT more and more all the time.

Thank you Tim!!! *contemplates scrounging for more money to send as a thank-you*

Heather

Little bug - it looks as though all comments are now labelled "private", even the public ones. As far as I can tell, the system is still distinguishing between public and private correctly, and not displaying private ones to anyone other than sender and recipient, so it's just the label that's wrong.

thorold, I think you're correct - true private profile comments show with a pinkish-red background, so it looks like just a labelling issue :)

On the "recently added" list (at least) can we have some indication if we have that work in our catalogue?

Could something similar be done for favourite authors? So we get new reviews, ratings and additions for those as well.

As someone who has helped out combining it might be helpful to watch authors for new additions which don't get combined rather than plough through my catalogue at irregular intervals. So a watched author would be very useful in addition to favourite author for this purpose.

wow -- i'm speechless.

I withdraw my sneering comments about the concentration on social aspects. It all looks good apart from the snagging comments already raised.

It looks fantastic, Tim - connection news is just what I was hoping it'd be. Thanks and congratulations!

Agree with jcbrunner in message 9. It would be good if the titles and author names on the connection news page would take us to the work and author pages, respectively. It would also be neat if there was some direct indication that we share the book, maybe a new icon you could spend five or six hours designing? It shouldn't be too cutesy, too bright, too faint, too small, too difficult to understand....

In general I really like the way all these features have been implemented and I'm excited about seeing the rest go live.

I think there is a bug or unclear thing. Someone added me to interesting libraries and I got a note below (which is fine though weird).

LibraryThing member ******** has added you to their "interesting libraries" list. "Interesting libraries" are a way for members to call out and to bookmark other members and their libraries.

If you want, you can check out *******'s profile. You can also edit your profile to disallow this feature, or block this member.

It says I can turn off being added to interesting libraries (which I'm not doing) but on the profile edit page it only let shows stopping friend request (which is what I would expect).

Now I don't think someone should be able to stop me from adding a library to 'interesting Libraries' but I definitely see a need to stop friend requests. Now what REALLY happens if I disable friend request? I would assume it to stop requests for friends only right?

I'm guessing this is a bug needing some clean-up.

Otherwise the new connections page is cool. Thanks Tim.

I removed the members name to protect the guilty.
I am also assuming I was added to the interesting libraries instead of a friend invite because that is what it says.

> 18

Ha! I was just about to post that same issue. What's the difference between the two, anyway? And beween "interesting libraries" and "watchlists"? This is getting way too confusing for my feeble brain! ;-))

I think interesting libraries is public and watchlist is private.

I am really impressed by this host of new features. Like the talk feature taking forums to a new level, this definitely takes the idea of "friends" to a more bookish place. I love it.

Will there be a way to see new talk posts by our friends and such?

19>
My understanding...
"Friends" - Public - Mutually decided.
"interesting libraries" - Public - "I think these libraries are worth looking at."
"watchlists" - Private - ones to keep an eye on.

My "Contacts" --- I had listed TPTB for easy reference --- have now become "Interesting Libraries."

So perhaps the notice I got about someone adding me to interesting libraries means that the person had previously listed me in Contacts?

Odd, though, as I see that my invisible library is interesting to a handful of other people, and I doubt that they just added it. But I got no other notices.

One minor thing--it would be nice to have a confirmation step for the friend invites. It seems too easy to misclick, and the results of a misclick could be pretty awkward.

>23 myshelves:
I have occasionally (in the past when that was all that was available) added libraries to my watchlist when all I wanted was a reminder/link to THEIR profile.

23 > I think the notice only comes from new additions...

So when I click on Edit/see other members' connections, I get to a page called Friends and Contacts. On this I see "you on other members lists" with three names listed. How did these names appear (I haven't received any notices)?

PS I second the request for making the book titles live links to the work page -- if I see an interesting title, that's where I want to go.

#26,

Hmmm. I'll send a comment and ask the person. :-)

#28 that's probably best. I added quite a few in the past (ie you won't get notices) for people that "I've crossed swords, words or hugs" in talk.

err. forgot to say. TIM it all looks really good. now I just need to stop working/reading and find the time to play with it.

>23 myshelves:

Of course I tried this out and added you to my "Interesting Libraries". As far as I can see, it doesn't let me see any of your books. (It was only a test, so I removed you from the "Interesting libraries".)

How did these names appear (I haven't received any notices)?

You haven't received any notices because those people already had you on their contact list before Project Ocelot. Only new adds are generating a notification

#31, Thanks. Interesting to see who was watching me!

Very cool Tim. I can't decide if I like the Also On Connections feature or the Connection News more. Thank you!

The connection news is great, but I really think there should be sorts for date started and date finished as well. I know not everyone uses those fields, but some people do, and I can't imagine that it would take much time to code.

Thanks for all the comments. I fixed all the bugs. Here are some other questions, comments on messages above.

>8 Hanno: The "random book from (user)s library" shows up twice, before and after the "members with (user)'s books".

Fixed. Thanks.

>9 jcbrunner:. On "connection news", could the individual titles lead to the works page...

Yes. An author too. Done.

>Thank you Tim!!! *contemplates scrounging for more money to send as a thank-you*

Check the sofa. :)

>11 thorold:. "Little bug - it looks as though all comments are now labelled "private", even the public ones"

All fixed. Thanks.

>13 andyl: "On the "recently added" list (at least) can we have some indication if we have that work in our catalogue?"

Cool. How about the green check box that happens in Talk?

>14 SilentInAWay: SilentInAWay wow -- i'm speechless.

In a way.

>15 Noisy: "I withdraw my sneering comments about the concentration on social aspects."

Thanks. This is a nice thread to wake up to. Yes, 11am wake up. Abby, Altay, Henry (new FB guy) and I were up until 3.

>18 readafew: (Diable request and friends/interesting)

Shoot. Good catch. So, should it be possible to disable all of it, or should I revise that message?

>19 lilithcat: Will there be a way to see new talk posts by our friends and such?

Yes, I think this is a good idea, although a list of your friends' posts could be pretty confusing. Would it be better to get a list of the threads they've been posting to?

>22 readafew: Confusion on the three terms

I forgot one feature I wanted (and started), a little (?) icon—previously shown—that explains them a little. Will get to when I have a spare moment. (Not today.)

>My "Contacts" --- I had listed TPTB for easy reference --- have now become "Interesting Libraries."

Yes. That's what happened. It seemed the most neutral change. I need to write something that sends out a message to people about the change.

>26 readafew: "I think the notice only comes from new additions..."

Yes, true.

>27 rebeccanyc:. I get to a page called Friends and Contacts. On this I see "you on other members lists" with three names listed. How did these names appear (I haven't received any notices)?

Ah. It's because they WERE contacts. We need to sent out two automated comments.

1. Hey, you're on some people's lists!
2. Hey, your contacts have become interesting libraries.

Probably just an oversight, but the Explore also on connections page is lacking a real title...right now it's just "Title" :)

>36 collsers:

Excellent. Fixed.

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '{' in /var/www/html/profile.php on line 1087

...and now whenever I click on my profile or anyone else's, I get an error that says "Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '{' in /var/www/html/profile.php on line 1087" :( I can't play with the new toys anymore

as far as the disable (friends/interesting), I personally vote to make it friend requests only, if someone doesn't want people poking around then they should make their library private.

I'm torn about whether I want comments every time someone adds me to interesting libraries, especially since I can get a list of everyone any way.

> 38

Argh. Thanks. Fixed. I need to learn never to push without editing, even if it's absolutely trivial. In this case, I was using "elsif" (Perl) instead of "elseif" (PHP).

a way for members to call out and to bookmark

"Call out" sounds to me as if you want to challenge the person to a duel. :-)

>19 lilithcat: Will there be a way to see new talk posts by our friends and such?

Yes, I think this is a good idea, although a list of your friends' posts could be pretty confusing. Would it be better to get a list of the threads they've been posting to?

Yes, a list of the threads would be much better than a list of the actual posts. I'm pretty sure this is what I actually had in mind when I initially suggested it. "Your Friends" could be right under "Your Posts" in the talk page or something.

>19 lilithcat: Will there be a way to see new talk posts by our friends and such?

Yes, I think this is a good idea

I think this should definitely be friends-only. Letting someone see all your talk posts seems like something that should require permission (i.e., confirming the person as a friend). Otherwise it's just getting creepy.

Any thoughts about adding date started and date read to the connection news?

Big issue for me...

On Connection News, I'm seeing books recently added by a member I blocked.

Is this something that needs to be fixed? If I block a person, I definately don't want them listed as a connection. And I really, really hope they didn't get a message saying I added them as such. I was trying to block creepy messages, not encourage more.

my guess it's the same problem they had with the 'Ignore groups' I'm sure Tim & co will fix it as soon as they see the problem.

This is fantastic, Tim, I never expected to see UWYB on other profiles back so soon! And ahhh-Henkl's Lazarillo de Tormes is in DUTCH again, all's well with the world! THANK YOU! (all)

Tim,


>13 andyl: "On the "recently added" list (at least) can we have some indication if we have that work in our catalogue?"

Cool. How about the green check box that happens in Talk?


Works for me.

So, is it possible for other users to see that you have them on your private watch list as well as interesting libraries and friends?

> I think this should definitely be friends-only. Letting someone see all your talk posts seems like something that should require permission (i.e., confirming the person as a friend). Otherwise it's just getting creepy.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. You'll notice there is no "see all posts by X" feature. Well, okay, that was party fatigue, but even so, it touches a slight nerve. I think this is where the "it's public information" crosses over into scrounging through courthouse records for ugly accusations in divorce proceedings.

>Any thoughts about adding date started and date read to the connection news?

Good idea. Never though of it. I need to "think" about that whole issue ab initio.

>On Connection News, I'm seeing books recently added by a member I blocked.

Oh, thanks. I don't think it checks there. It should. Let me get back to you on it soon. Note, it's not quite the same thing insofar as blocking a user is primarily about preventing THEM from doing something. But it makes sense that a user you block should not be showing up on your connections under normal circumstances. (On the other hand, if you add that person to your private watch list, it will still allow it.)

Tim - Along the lines of 'friends' posts could you put in a link for 'Threads I started'?

>So, is it possible for other users to see that you have them on your private watch list as well as interesting libraries and friends?

Yes, you can have them on all three. I think most of the time it's pointless, but not always. For example, adding someone as a friend doesn't happen until they agree. You might want to follow their reviews until they do. Anyway, I just knew that if it was a totally binary thing, people would say "but Tim...." :)

nperrin,

I don't think that answered your question. I'll go add you to my private watchlist, and you can let us know if that shows on your pages.

Ooooh. Sorry. Reading too quickly. No, the answer is no, you can't see it when people have you on a private watchlist.

No, it's solid.

One feature we DIDN'T add—against some opinion here—was a feature that made everyone automatically my friend, a la MySpace. I HATE the insincerity there. It's like the way they all say "So-and-so is in your extended network" before you sign up. No, they're not in your extended network. They're just not. It's LYING. End of rant.

Could connection news have some indication that my library also has the work? For instance, add a list of my tags after theirs.

Right now, a number of books recently added to interesting libraries are ones I already own. I don't want them filtered out, since I might want to learn what they made of the book, alter the TBR priority, etc.

No, we won't filter them out.

The is a great feature!

on the low-priority request list: Can the links to other pages be added at the bottom of the page? (also, maybe a "next page" link)

edited to add: on the "Connection News" pages

Myshelves, thanks. And thanks, Tim, for letting me know. I definitely prefer it this way.

>58 dchaikin: Good idea.

BTW: Anyone have any good icon ideas for "Connection News"? Ticker tape? Bullhorn? Newspaper? Octopus?

>47 LolaWalser:

And you have Aesop's Basne!

Great job, Tim! But now I feel like I need to go and make some "friends."

One thing, when I look at the list of top 50 libraries, it would nice to be able to pull up the profile of users on the list from that page. I don't know how though. It makes sense how when you click on the name it brings up the most recently added books (or whatever) of that user, but I found that what I was doing was copying the user name and opening a another tab to search for it.

Great job, Tim, Abby, Altay and everyone else that helped I mean!

I've received a couple of notices that people have added me to their "interesting libraries" list (god knows why), and see that this allows them to "call out . . ." other members.

What does that mean, and do I get a second and the choice of weapons?

> I think this should definitely be friends-only. Letting someone see all your talk posts seems like something that should require permission (i.e., confirming the person as a friend). Otherwise it's just getting creepy.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. You'll notice there is no "see all posts by X" feature. Well, okay, that was party fatigue, but even so, it touches a slight nerve. I think this is where the "it's public information" crosses over into scrounging through courthouse records for ugly accusations in divorce proceedings.

I definitely agree that this should be friends only and that a "See all posts by X" feature bing available to everyone would be creepy.

>>Katissima,

You can get to someone's profile by clicking on the username in the Recently Added/Reviews/Ratings list as opposed to the member list along the left.

Katissima,

I feel betrayed. I thought you were my BFF!

Or was that someone else?
*laughing* Have to go back and read that other topic to check. :-)

lilithcat,

Maybe because you have an interesting library? :-)

Glad someone else is worried about the dueling. (See #42)

> 68

If anyone wants to bone up on the rules before they are called out, I can recommend:
The Code Duello in America, The Duel, by Giacomo Casanova, and The Duel in European History, by V.G. Kiernan.

(Something very wierd just happened. When I tried to touchstone V.G. Kiernan in the previous paragraph, that touchstone and the touchstone for the book disappeared from the touchstone box! But when I did it in this paragraph, it worked. Someone please check for gremlins!)

#69
Testing:

The Duel in European History by V.G. Kiernan,
and Wouldn't a Gremlin Have Been More Sensible? by G. B. Trudeau.

Touchstones not disappearing.

Myshelves, OMG, you are SO my BFF!!! Phew, you can see that I take all this social stuff _very_ seriously. All this talk of dueling makes me think of something like Kittenwar. Two libraries face off! And we get to vote who wins :)

I want to echo the sentiment that it is quite disconcerting to find members I have blocked in my "Private watch list" on the Connections News page. One is a member who has been removed so unblocking results in an error that goes nowhere: - fatal error (3)

What do they win? More books? :)

I am having the same problem as fleela. These are members I most particularly don't want to watch.

Just the glory and fame!

amancine, fleela
Tim is aware of it and is working on it.

Thank you!

On Connection news - I want a date next to the books, so I can tell if my connections most recently added was *yesterday* recent or three months ago recent...

78 > I like how you think 8)

78 > I agree!

"LibraryThing member XXX wants to be your friend on LibraryThing."

Ick. Feels like being propositioned by Mr. Rogers or Barney the Dinosaur.

MyShelves: Won't you be my neighbor?

Suggest alternative wording? Seriously.

PS: Unblocking should work.

Myshelves, Barney I can understand, but please do not defame Mr. Rogers!

Alternate wording? (Other than BFF!!!) I assume:

contact

libraryesque word: consortium "Katissima would like to add you to her LT consortium"

associate

thingamabuddy *grin*

Regency Word: Acquaintance "Mr. Darcy, Katissima would like to add you to her acquaintance."

Okay, I already said my peace on the friend thing, but I can't think of anything better, so I'll be quiet.

We're not changing "friend." It's too common a term out there, and we've provided non-emotive alternatives for the squeamish. But we're happy to reword the message.

>84 timspalding:

Non-emotive alternatives?

Stupid web 2.0 :) I wonder who started it? I guess friend is better than Buddy, although AOL probably has that copyrighted since they were able to make GAIM change their name.

Bleh, nevermind re: 84--fast forum...

Tim,

If you insist on not using his/her (as in add you to his/ her list), the best I can do is:

"LibraryThing member XXX wants to list you as a friend on LibraryThing."

Edited to add: Wouldn't hurt to have a link to an explanation of how that works.

>Non-emotive alternatives?

Person of friendship status, maybe.

>"LibraryThing member XXX wants to list you as a friend on LibraryThing."

Yeah. I thought of that. But the process is inherently mutual. Interesting libraries is not mutual, but friends is.

I do prefer #88 to #81. Does it need LibraryThing mentioned twice? It is pretty obvious we're talking about LT after all.

Tim,

Nothing in the message I got indicates that it is mutual, or that agreeing will mean that I am listing XXX as a friend on my profile.

What is the practical difference between friends and interesting libraries, other than the one is two-way and the other is one-way.

>93 Katissima: isn't it precisely that? "friend" implies some kind of relationship there, whereas when i flag someone's library as interesting, i might very well have never so much as said hello - it simply means, "this is someone who has a library i find interesting"

#93

"Connection News" seems to analyse Interesting libraries only, not Friends. I like that. I like that a lot.

Tim, #82

Can I borrow your books if I'm your neighbor? :-)

> 95 "connections news" will analyze whichever you want it to - so if you wanted to see the news on your friends, you would just click on "friends' under the "choose" menu in the top left.

I think "add you as a friend" is better than "be your friend".

Tim,

Ironically I think the mutuality of your LT definition of "friend" makes it a better word here than on, say, LiveJournal, but using an already-entrenched term to mean something ever-so-slightly different than it's used in other locations (where "X is my friend" and "I am a friend of X" don't necessarily go together) may end up being very confusing.

That said, if you aren't interested in changing "friend" because of its ubiquity, you may as well go whole hog and verb it, as is done on LJ: "LibraryThing user X wants to friend you on LT". Again, it may not be the best terminology but it is the one currently used.

About the "LibraryThing member XXX wants to be your friend on LibraryThing" message, I was wondering why it really has to say 'LibraryThing member' at the beginning, since it seems pretty apparent to me, especially with the 'on LibraryThing' bit at the end. A simpler phrasing could be something along the lines of "XXX is requesting to be your friend on LibraryThing". Or you could even cut out the 'on Librarything' part too for maximum conciseness.

I think Kira has a winner with "requesting to be your friend," but I thought Friends and Interesting Libraries were going to be different somehow. I don't understand why there should be both if they don't confer different abilities. Interesting Library is much more book-centered.

Other than having to be mutual, what is the difference between the Friends feature and the Interesting Libraries feature?

"LibraryThing user X wants to list you as a friend (alternative: friend you) on LT. If you agree, and you want to list XXX as a friend on your profile page, click here."

Have I got that right? Does agreeing list the person on your page?

103>yes (try it and see what happens!! just kidding)

>Nothing in the message I got indicates that it is mutual, or that agreeing will mean that I am listing XXX as a friend on my profile.

Don't you think the word "invitation" suggests that?

>What is the practical difference between friends and interesting libraries, other than the one is two-way and the other is one-way.

None.

>"Connection News" seems to analyse Interesting libraries only, not Friends. I like that. I like that a lot.

No, it does both. See the links.

>Can I borrow your books if I'm your neighbor? :-)

Get behind me, Satan.

>I think "add you as a friend" is better than "be your friend".

Yes. Good.

>99 lorax: friend as a verb.

I think the grammar snobs would eat us. It even gets ME.

>I think Kira has a winner with "requesting to be your friend," but I thought Friends and Interesting Libraries were going to be different somehow. I don't understand why there should be both if they don't confer different abilities. Interesting Library is much more book-centered.

Well, they allow you to have two separate lists, and control them as you like. For example, I've decided not to add people as friends--or accept friend requests--unless I actually know the person. I'm using "interesting libraries" for just that. No technical difference, but I feel a social difference.

>103 myshelves: changing yours slightly.

"LibraryThing member X wants to list you as a friend on LT. If you agree, and you want to list XXX as a friend, click here."

Tim,

I have no idea what "invitation" might mean along with "X wants to be your friend." Perhaps "Have some Madeira, m'dear"?

I've decided not to add people as friends--or accept friend requests--unless I actually know the person.

Probably a wise course. "Well, sure he did the improvement XX wanted first! XX is right there on his friend list!"

What happens if you disallow the feature?
Does the other person think he/she is being ignored, or does he/she see that you have "disallowed"?

>What happens if you disallow the feature?

The button vanishes from your page. It doesn't do anything specific about invitations that have already been sent.

Questions. I was invited to be friends with someone, with several people actually and accepted. I was able to invite these same people in return, except for one. One person did not have a "Add to Friends" option. Why?

Also if an invitation to friendship is declined does the person get an message saying the invitation was declined?

Thanks
Belle

When you choose what group of people to look at in Connections News, it should remember that choice for the next time.

>108 gautherbelle:

I don't understand. Why would you need to invite someone when you've already accepted their invitation?

Friendship is two-way. Once you've agreed to be added to someone's friend list, that member is automatically added to yours as well.

Is it possible that the one member who did not have an "Add to Friends" options was your friend due to your having accepted their invitation?

Because these things have not been made clear. And I'm asking a technical question not for an opinion. And as to your last question. No. I think I mentioned that in my post. I was able to invite people who'd invited me with the exception of one.

Thank you.
Belle

When I list a friend on my profile, why does the other person have to *accept* being my friend? Why can't I simply list a person as a friend if I think they're interesting but don't particularly want to watch their library. Why does this have to be a two-way street?

Why would I want a list of "pending" friends? :-D

What happens when you de-list a friend? Do they get insulted for being de-listed? Is a message sent to them that they have been de-listed? How insulting! :-(

Hmm...lots of us don't like the term "friend," but Tim points out (rightly, I thought) that the word "friend" already had a very well-determined meaning in terms of social networking. Yet many people don't seem to understand what it means. I suggest adding some kind of "about" text on the edit/view connections page.

ETA: Since most (all?) of the functions associated with friends have to do with watching their libraries, why would you want to friend someone whose library you didn't want to watch? As far as the two-way street, that's why there are three separate options. There is the two-way street, the one-way street, and the back alley.

The only purpose I could see to listing "friends" (other than to play popularity contest games) would be the proposed ability to see to what groups/topics someone had posted.

I wouldn't ask Tim to "be my friend." We don't know each other. But I would like to know when and where he, and other members of the LT staff, post public messages.

If I don't happen to click on Talk at a point when one of their names is showing next to a topic, I might not read it, and might miss learning about changes to or problems with the site, or getting the answer to a question. (Note: The name of a topic does not always tell you what ends up being discussed. Not by a long shot.)

--> 113

why would you want to friend someone whose library you didn't want to watch?

Because it's the people themselves who are interesting. It's not just their collection of books! I'm a people person although I love to read.

I don't watch peoples' libraries. I am, however, aware of individual's thoughts and interests on the groups. People whose interests parallel mine, I find to be interesting. I like to discuss books we have in common on the fora, but I'm not going to be checking out people's libraries on a regular basis.

I try to follow these site recommendation threads but the language is so technical that I tend to get lost. That's fine except that once something is implemented it really should be translated in standard non-tech English and explained to those of us less technically inclined, which I would guess is a sizable number.

--> 114

The only purpose I could see to listing "friends" (other than to play popularity contest games) would be the proposed ability to see to what groups/topics someone had posted.

Oh, I see where you're headed. No, I don't do this as a popularity contest. I actually list friends to keep people in mind as there are so many members on LT (and other web sites to which I belong). A friend might be someone who received a book of mine, someone who sent me a kind message, someone who loves the same poet I do, someone who helped me type another language on my computer, etc. These are all real examples from LT. I use the friends list to help me remember who's who. Simply that and nothing more.

Perhaps Tim might consider bringing back the public "contacts"? That worked very well for me.

#117,

I understand that. I'm now using "Interesting Libraries" for the same purpose. Interesting people/libraries.
(A rolodex would work even better. I could note WHY I added someone. *smile*) No law says I have to keep track of all the libraries.

I understand that. I'm now using "Interesting Libraries" for the same purpose. Interesting people/libraries.

This is because "interesting libraries" is exactly the same as public contacts, the name was just changed.
Watchlist-->Private Watchlist
Public Contacts-->Interesting Libraries
{0}-->Friends

As far as calling it "interesting libraries" rather than "interesting people" (or similar), I believe this was a conscious decision based on users' wanting to focus relationships on books and libraries rather than just people.

>119 nperrin:

Precisely :)

Conscious, but alcohol was probably involved.

I haven't been following these developments, so I can offer one of the most valuable things you can get: the fresh reaction of a dumb user to a new feature.

I see there's a link to "Connections News" on my profile page. I follow it and it takes me to a page headed "Connections News" with a long list of books. I have no idea what this page is or what this list of books is. It doesn't seem like "news" to me. News about what?

All that's needed is two sentences that explain what the page is. ("This list of books shows (whatever it shows; I have no idea)")

You are completely completely right.

I added a header there. Let me know what you think.

Tim

OK, good. Now I see "Recently added books from your private watch list" -- so I do understand what it is.

(I've still not read the hundred plus messages here, so my reactions are still fresh to this new thing that I don't know anything about.)

How recent is "recent"? It would be nice to have them say "one day ago", "ten days ago", etc. I don't know if I'm looking at today's changes or year-old data that hasn't been updated in months.

Since I haven't been following these changes, when I click "Interesting libraries" I get nothing. I don't know what an "Interesting Library" is nor how to add one. The perfect solution: a link right there that says "Add an interesting library?"

I also don't know what a friend is. (I'm a loser, I know.) It's obviously something new like the friends features on other sites, but somehow different from your watchlist. Perfect solution: an "Add Friends?" link right on that page. (Man, could I ever use that.)

(Signed)

A naive tester (rapidly fading in usefulness, as a dream dies and the shadows flee away)

I'm sitting in the front row waving my hand hoping to get a response.

Thank you.

Questions. I was invited to be friends with someone, with several people actually and accepted. I was able to invite these same people in return, except for one. One person did not have a "Add to Friends" option. Why?

Also if an invitation to friendship is declined does the person get an message saying the invitation was declined?

What is the practical benefit of the new "friends" option?

>rjohara

>How recent is "recent"? It would be nice to have them say "one day ago", "ten days ago", etc. I don't know if I'm looking at today's changes or year-old data that hasn't been updated in months.

Good point. I think it needs to say something no matter what—but not down to the second. Maybe the number of days ago?

>Since I haven't been following these changes, when I click "Interesting libraries" I get nothing. I don't know what an "Interesting Library" is nor how to add one. The perfect solution: a link right there that says "Add an interesting library?"

Right. All profiles now have buttons for friends and interesting libraries, but maybe a help would be helpful.

>A naive tester (rapidly fading in usefulness, as a dream dies and the shadows flee away)

You're great. Seriously. Thank you.

Right. All profiles now have buttons for friends and interesting libraries, but maybe a help would be helpful.

Yup, I just discovered that a minute ago. Anti-social fellow that I am, I had been only looking at my own pages and not anyone else's, and on my own page these things of course don't appear. (Maybe they should in some way; on LiveJournal you can add yourself as a friend, and the result is that your own entries appear on your friends lists, etc. That might be a good thing here also: my own catalog entries would then appear in my own "Connection News". It makes for more consistency in the interface, too.)

>gautherbelle

Don't you know the teacher always skips over the smart ones?

> One person did not have a "Add to Friends" option. Why?

You can disallow friend-ing in your profile. Indeed, friend requests say that at the bottom. Some people take us up on it, alas.

>Also if an invitation to friendship is declined does the person get an message saying the invitation was declined?

No.

>What is the practical benefit of the new "friends" option?

Well, it's another category for the Connection News—so you can keep your friends in a separate pile. But, mostly, there is no practical benefit from friends. When you're young and too poor to hire movers, sometimes they help you.

thanks Tim. I'll pass it on. I was asking for several people who like me are not particularly adept in technical language.

Belle

One last fragment of naive observation before it's all gone.

My profile page now says "Invite friends to LibraryThing"

So is that how I add friends to "Connection News"? (I can see it isn't -- you add friends from their own profile pages. But those friends aren't these friends, right?) (Wow, this is getting Aristotelian real fast.)

Proposed solution: on my profile page it should say something more explicit like "Email a friend about LT" or "Tell your friends about LT"

Yeah. I know. I'm not pleased with your solutions either. Doubt. Uncertaintly.

ETA: This may be an entirely local problem see additional comments below........

Regarding effects of new features and private users' data:

I hadn't seen this discussed so far in this long thread and I thought perhaps other private users might be wondering how these changes affect them.

I have more than one private account so I tried tonight to link them together with the new features to see if designating a private library in any of the new categories allowed one access to previously concealed data.

In all but the case of the new "friend" category nothing has changed except the private user gets a notice that someone has added their library as an "interesting library" (and how they would know this since they can't see it, is beyond me - a point already made by Myshelves)- but your library still stays private to other parties.

However, when you get an invitation to become someone's friend, and if you accept, then your library contents, tags clouds, recently added, etc., all become visible to that other user.

So for private library users it's important to understand that "friend"-ship is not just a social designation, but is also a carte blanche into your library contents for the friend.

Some may question why someone would ever accept an invitation to become a "friend" if they didn't want to share their library contents. But I can see how confusion over this might arise, and also see how someone might be perfectly happy to engage in what passes for social relations on the internet (exchanging emails, private comments, participating in discussions, groups, chat, etc.,) all while wanting to keep a private library.

I'm not sure what the term means on other sites, but accepting an invitation to be designated a "friend" on LT is to share all the data in your library.

Ironically, this new bit of social networking would seem to create a bit of social awkwardness since would-be friends have already extended an invitation but if one doesn't want to expose one's catalogue then one would need to ignore (rude) or decline (could be polite, but still is a rejection of sorts) the invitation in order to stay private.

Anway, that's how it now works. (ETA: or maybe not see below ....)

cobb

Regarding, um, no.

Hi. That's really not true.

At some point in the future we intend to add such a fuction—if you WANT to open your library to friends—but right now it's just not true. The code just isn't there. The friendship tables don't even touch the library tables.

If there's some hole somewhere in privacy, I'm game to hear about it. But there is no earthly way for friendship to touch privacy now, any more than possession of a book by Steven King would cause your comments to archive themselves. And I even went through the bother of testing it anyway.

I humbly propose you were *IN* the account you thought you were just looking at. If anyone else wants to try this, I welcome it.

Tim

Tim,

Gosh, don't you ever sleep?

I have tested it (cleaning cache, etc. between times) a couple of times tonight, but I will immediately test again.

cobb

Good point about the cache, btw. That's a possible source. Also the back button. Going back to a page does not usually re-fetch the page. However, it's easy to tell if you're looking at a cached page. Check the user name in the top right.

OK, quick trip to fridge for a gingerale.

Before I left, I cleaned cache, again, and cookies and made sure to sign off of bcobb. Dumped out of ISP (AOL) and restarted computer. Signed on as bcobb, invited private acct #3 to be my friend; signed off as bcobb, X'd out of LT page, cleaned cache, cookies, wrote out LT URL de novo, signed on as private acct #3, accepted invite, signed off as private acct #3, cleaned cache, etc, again, re-wrote LT again, signed on as bcobb, and eureka, I see now you are correct: no info about private acct #3's library can be seen! Thank goodness.

But what, then, was happening before? I am certain I was signed on as bcobb, but reading data in private acct #2's (my first test friend) catalogue. The reason I am certain about this is that I was looking at my bcobb connections page which has private acct #2 as a friend (and for a while interesting library). Along with the correct (for bcobb) private watch libraries. (I don't think private acct #2 even has any private watch libraries.)

I am completely at a loss, because I did the above steps before, including signing off my ISP (but not shutting down completely) a couple of times to verify before my first post. The only other discrepancy tonight was that I had a great deal of trouble signing oin (frequently getting the name taken or password wrong screen). And that's even after I finally worked through that I had been using the wrong password.

The only thing comes to the top of my mind is that I must somehow have not a been getting a totally clean cache despite clicking on it. Perhaps the clean cache thing doesn't really kick in until you shut down (or restart).

Sorry to raise an apparently needless alarm, and invalid concern.

cobb

ETA: On further testing I find I can replicate my initial report when I test using private acct #2, even though I can't do it with private acct #3. I think that must mean I have some stray copy of that private acct #2 's data stuck somewhere on my computer which allows this to happen. (Whew, I thought I was going mad when I couldn't make it happen again.) I made a copy of the page.

Tomorrow I'll test from an entirely different computer to see what that tells me and I think it would be interesting to add a couple of books to private acct #2 and see how that plays out in recent books from bcobb's connection page.

ETA #2: Just ran though the test again; I can see the contents of one of my private accounts linked as a friend to this screen name, and oddly, not the other. And the exposed account maintains its exposure even after I've added more books as a test of the cache issue. So, somehow the linking of those two accounts is happening and the link (though apparently unintended) is stable even enough to be replicable - at least on this computer, despite everything I can do to clean its cache, not using back browser and making sure to sign completely out when switching between accounts. One sign of the reality of this unintended link is that on my connections page on the left hand column where it lists friends by name, the name that's showing the data (private acct #2) is an active link, while the other account (private acct #3) is in smaller black type and notes "(private)" next to it. Both libraries are in fact private according to their own profile pages.

Only 2 explanations I can think of are: a) my computer has a some kind of memory/cache cleaning problem that only applies to certain sets of LT info or b) -and I think this is more likely- the exposed account is somehow being processed on LT as a public account since the display is different from the other private account friend on bcobb's connections page.

According to this article, ocelots are "solitary and territorial".

They are also "high strung, unpredictable, comedic little cats".

Make of that what you will.

bcobb: Can you message me your private accounts?

By the way, when you report seeing something, WHERE are you seeing it? In Connection News? A catalog?

--> 119 and 121 (with a little less alcohol)

So how can I retract an invitation to a "friend" if it was neither accepted nor refused (and permanently remains pending)?

I see no option for deleting it and changing it to "interesting libraries".

#5 The difference between the most similar libraries and the users with most shared books is perniciously fascinating. I'm guessing (wildly) that the difference is that the shared books list is weighted by size of library, but the similar library list is also weighted by obscurity of book (and perhaps even also by size of library)...
(Maybe this is explained in the FAQ about Affinities: but I haven't found an FAQ about Affinities...)

Ah, see the "edit" link below your connections. This will let you do all sorts of mass changes. All your friends into the trash, if you want.

I'm thinking that this is enough. An explicit "retract" feature strikes me as potentially icky. The message goes out the moment you request. It would be terrible to go to the site and find it had been retracted. Or to get a second email right after.

This happens from time to time with comments. Some users don't get that, if the user has elected, comments on your profile go to your emails. So they comment, then they decide to delete it. The user arrives to discover the comment has vanished. It happened particularly with a user who sent a bunch of nasty comments, and then, thinking better of it, deleted them. The recipient was confused how to react...

--> 143

Thanks, Tim.

I don't want to put people into the awkward situation of deciding whether or not to be my "friend". :-D

Is the Connection News icon a broadcasting tower?

The Connection News uses the data created by Affinities. I think it's a little less interested in obscurity, but that's as far as I remember.

At some point, I plan to make them one system. There are some deep database issues here.

*The profile "Users with your books" is figured out, and then stored as a string.
*Affinities / Connection News is stored as in a table member->member with affinity percentage and overlap. This is why you get affinities for most members, not just your top X.

The trick is that you don't want to calculate this stuff every time you need it, but that storing member->member requires MASSIVE amounts of space. The math is crushing: 250,000 users times 250,000 users, storing twelve bytes of data (user ids, percentages, overlap) amount to 698 GIGABYTES of data. And it gets worse and worse. (Squares are that way.) We handle it by only doing members with over ?5 books, and by keeping the data around for only an hour or two. Even so, the connections table is often pushing 300MB.

If you find the above discussion cool, why aren't you working for LibraryThing?

>Is the Connection News icon a broadcasting tower?

Yes, and it's one of those icky Silk icons. But Abby and I agree we like it. My original idea—a ticker-tape—was hard to do, and nobody knows what they are anymore.

Okay...just checking.

I like the idea of a broadcasting tower, but that icon strikes me more as a compass, or something. The tower part needs to be bigger.

But, no big deal. I know you all at LT headquarters have a bunch to do. Thanks for all the great work!

(And I know that I, for one, would love to work for LibraryThing. I just don't have the needed mad skillz yet.)

edited for typo

>Is the Connection News icon a broadcasting tower?

Ah! Not sunset on another planet, or a large arrow aiming at an oddly colored bullseye target? I did wonder.

It's a dwarf tower.

That's a broadcasting tower? Wow. I bet Freud would have had something to say about what I see.

And thanks for fixing the blocked members on connections issue.

When you have some free time (Ha!), Tim, I'd love for you to redesign that tower icon. I like your icons better than the "silkies".

1. Can the order of the books, ratings, reviews be sorted into date order (so that the most recent update is first.)

I had assumed they were like this. But today I noticed the reviews, which have dates, are out of date order. (Perhaps these are reviews that have been edited recently, but the date on the review did not change.)

2. Is there a way that entries we have previously viewed could be flagged - so we know what is new?

(2b: The same would be nice of the "in user's library and reviewed by others" feature)

Dates are now all in.

New ones... good idea I think.

154>>Dates are now all in.

oooo...Thanks!

My brain is much happier now.

#154: Nice improvement, thanks! That was quick!

You're welcome.

I'm going back to my cave, to code the Facebook LT thing.

> Tim,

Regarding private library of "friend" appearing where it wasn't supposed to be seen...

As I noted above, I can create what I reported in my first post with any combo of two my three accounts which include "private library #2 as one.
(1 invites 2) or (3 invites 2) but not (1 inviting 3) or v.v.

It is not a cache problem, as I can do it on any computer and indeed did so on my husband's machine this morning as soon as I dared wake him to get the psswrd.

I made a screen save (from my DH's computer which had never been to LT before) of the pages that show me clearly signed in as bcobb and clearly looking at private acct#2's data. (Though in the meanwhile I have stripped all but 2 books out of it so it's not such a breach as we figure out what's going on.)

I will email you the screen save from his computer. I doubt "private acct #2 " has ever been public (it was one I set up to use as testing site back in the Google dust-up) and it absolutely was never public last night -as you probably can tell by looking at it from your end.

If this is an anomaly, all is well, as we could kill the account and ignore it, but if it's a canary it would probably be good to pay attention to the chirps.

Email on its way ASAP

bcobb

Thanks send it along. I hope you understand I'll have to go into your private accounts to test it. Sometimes users don't understand that, yes, the people who run the system are able to see the data in it.

AHA!

Basically, the data was inconsistent. It had nothing to do with friends per se, but it did have to do with the public/private model and the specific way this was being reached. About 70 users (of 7,000k private) had an inconsistent privacy status.

I've made the fix. I'll be eliminating the second way the data is stored soon, and I've got something "watching" to see if anything goes wrong again.

Thanks for the tip.

>146 timspalding::
Oh I do love this kind of talk, technical explanations and stuff (why else would I check this group so much?). And becoming an LT worker would actually be a dream job for me.... Unfortunately I have neither the experience nor the money to get the experience and move out there. *curses* Ah well.

LibraryThing could never be myspace anyway. LT actually functions. No error, this has been sent to the -----technical group here.
I love the new features. If wasnt so poor (Grad student) I would send more money for having one of the best sites on the internet!

Ooh, Purple, I like your reading progress bar. A good idea for LT generally.

>163 timspalding:

Several of us use the progress bar in the 50 Book Challenge threads, including yours truly.

--> 165 and 166

Oooh! I'd love for LT to have its own unique progress bar.

>165 SqueakyChu: Yes! That would be VERY cool.

Tim,
Thank you. I actually stole the idea from one of the reading communities on LJ. That would be cool if LT had its very own!

Here and here are the two progress bars that people do/did use in 50 Book Challenge.

I agree, it would be very cool to have our own LT progress bar. Particularly since (ahem :P ) thanks to some of the recent changes to what code works or doesn't work in Talk, neither of these actually look exactly how they're supposed to anymore (one does with tweaking; one doesn't work at all).

When someone invites me as a friend, I can only block him completely. I would expect a difference between declining friendship and blocking a user to post comments on my profile. Perhaps blocking befriending if I block him/her from commenting but not the other way around.

Can't you just not click to agree to be "friended"?

I could, but I don't want. Not because of this particular request but in general. In the meantime I disabled the feature and discovered the workaround seems to be to block and unblock.

But how many more would discover this feature (and the option to disable it) too late and might not realise the two blocking levels go hand in hand, let alone think of the workaround?

>When someone invites me as a friend, I can only block him completely. I would expect a difference between declining friendship and blocking a user to post comments on my profile. Perhaps blocking befriending if I block him/her from commenting but not the other way around.

No, you can ignore the request or delete it. I don't know about all systems, but most systems don't send "your request was ditched!" messages when someone doesn't become your friend. So, if someone invites you to be their friend, you can decline, you can block them entirely or you can block everyone entirely. What option is missing?

Using a sockpuppet I see the issuer can delete a friend request on de edit connections page. In the comment for the recipient I only see links to accept the request, block the issuer or disable feature. The comment says "To decline, do nothing or delete this message" but then the request keeps showing up on my edit connections page, no options there to accept or decline.

Also...

After I have a friend.... What happens to the friend if I decide to delete that friend later? Does the friend get a "now a former friend but no longer a current friend" or rejection notice? (FYI...when I deleted my friend *request*, I got an acceptance!)

And...

Why does someone have to be told theirs is an "interesting library"? If it's books we're looking at and not people, why the notice? We're not practicing voyeurs! Is it stalking to look at books? :-)

To me, none of these features have to be two-way streets. I personally liked the previous "contacts" (even if they were really "friends") in lieu of the current "friends" plus "interesting libraries" features. This is way too complicated and detailed for just indicating an interest in someone else as a person or that person's library.

My opinion only, folks! ...and I do appreciate Tim's hard work in trying to understand and please everyone. Thanks, Tim!

I really like marking "interesting libraries", and having my library marked "interesting" by other folks. I may have no interest at all in contacting their owners, let alone being friendly! On the other hand, I may be friends wth someone who has a really boring library!

--> 175

Okay. I see your point.

What I don't particularly like, I guess, is that once you choose to watch someone or a library, it has to go through a tedious (to me, anyway) reciprocity process.

To stop cyber-stalking, the block process should be sufficient.

Plus, why can't we have a one-way friend? Why does it have to be a only a one-way library? I like A, but A doesn't particularly like me. That doesn't stop me from thinking A is interesting enough to track. We're talking about someone's interests and hobbies here. Not their human form! They may not have books about their hobbies. They may write something in their profile which strikes a chord. I see that we have shared interests. Perhaps I don't want to (and probably will no longer) request to be someone's friend?

Am I making too much of this or does anyone else see my point? I may be belaboring something of no consequence.

Is person B notified when his library is no longer interesting to person A?

Personally, I like the way BookCrossing does it. You pick a friend or are picked as a friend. No one is notified of anything by email, but this information is available readily at the click of a button. No fuss. No threat. No emails. Nothing complicated.

If you just want to mark a library/person for to keep track of them, then put them on the watch list. It tells no one else anything and keeps the list available for your self.

If you want others to know your who/which users/libraries you find interesting add them to interesting libraries.

Friends is reserved for people who you have a mutual 'relationship' with. I like Sandra Bullock but to claim her as a friend would be rather presumptuous since I've never met her or interacted with her in any way.

They all have different levels of use and people seem to be way to hung up on the names they are being called.

I don't know Ms. Bullock either, but MAN she has an interesting library!

Absolutely! 8)

I hope that when privacy features are put in place there will also be a system for granting permissions to Friends to see:

- the entire library
- specific books and/or their private comments and/or their private tags
- specific private collections (when we get collections)
- specific private tags
- all private comments for books they can "see"
- all private tags for books they can "see"

This sounds like my library would be less social, but actually the reverse is true. Currently I don't dare show my library to anyone I know in real life. I live in a small, very conservative community where the lesbian fiction and pagan books would not be tolerantly received and where the parenting books (I'm currently childless) would be guaranteed to start rumors far more interesting than my fairly boring life.

Wouldn't a lot of these privacy issues be best dealt with by remaining anonymous rather than by using your real name and having obvious dark areas of your library?

>181 xkyzero:

I see that not entering "dark areas" would prevent others from discovering those books, but it also would prevent recommendations based on those. How many people have separated their libraries out into 2: public vs. "private/naughty?" I haven't, but then again I don't have much to hide.

Anonymous naming helps but isn't sufficient to protect identity. For example, I was contacted by someone who figured out via our "shared books" that we attended the same university (and had an unusual grouping of books from the core curriculum of an honors program, which hadn't changed much between when I graduated a decade ago and now.) Given my other interests it would have been very easy for her to ID me had she tried. I know someone else who is involved in an area of academic research being done by very few people across the US. Owning a subset of unusual books could identify him to others, but deleting these books would remove a very interesting pointer to related libraries and recommendations.

I knowingly take the risk of self-disclosure here, but I also use the tool of a non-real-name to add a degree of difficulty to finding me. I can see where others might value different tools (e.g., private books) to enable their own optimal balance of functionality versus risk.

I am way behind on this subject, having only just discovered Connection News, but having found it finally, and having skimmed through most of this lengthy thread, I didn't see an answer to what immediately came to my mind and was mentioned above (#9, #17, #35), which is, under Connection News, the lists of recently added books and ratings provides a list of book covers, usernames and tags, but does not provide title, or a way to click through to the works page, which is problematic, since the covers are small, and unless you are familiar with the book, it is hard to tell what the title is. Am I missing something? Under reviews, there is a link to the title and author, but on the two other lists, it appears you can only click to the person's profile or to a particular tag. If I'm watching someone's library, I'd like to see what new items they have gotten, and be able to click right to the works page.

Edited to add - this is particularly problematic if there is no cover art- so for example, I have a list of the top 50 similar libraries, and on several lines, all there is is a link to the user's profile, because they don't tag, and there isn't a book cover.

#183 that is a bug. Titles were there yesterday.

Indeed, see this topic.

Fixed. Sorry people. Ugh.

Thanks!

I love all the new additions.

Regarding the "Connections News" page, I want to re-suggest what dchaikin proposed back in message >58 dchaikin:, though:

on the low-priority request list: Can the links to other pages be added at the bottom of the page? (also, maybe a "next page" link)

Or maybe at least add a "back to top" link like on the Talk pages.

>182 SchanleyMedia: "For example, I was contacted by someone who figured out via our "shared books" that we attended the same university "

Good point caffron. I too had that happen.

Another question then. Folks pulling for hiding individual books - do you keep these books hidden or not displayed at home?

I would assume like many of you one of the first things I like to do when going to someones home I have not been to before is check out their library (if they have one). I try not to make unfair assumptions about them based on their books but probably end up doing so anyway.

My point (if it can actually like be called such) is that I do keep certain books in more difficult to notice places at home but am less likely to do so online.

I hear you about privacy, but it gets very fiddly very quicky. The message above with private accounts, special access to private accounts, private books, private comments, private tags, etc. etc.—well, you'll just have to believe me that it would be a big deal. And, fundamentally, some of the "software" needs to live in the person, not the computer. LibraryThing is HARDLY a feature-poor application. We love to spin stuff out. But we can't do everything that anyone would ever want to use.

> 182

I was contacted by someone who figured out via our "shared books" that we attended the same university

I believe it. I noticed someone who I know, from internal evidence, must be acquainted with a very good friend of mine. In fact, it's quite possible we met at his & his partner's annual "invite everyone we know" party (don't we all have parties like that?). I was tempted to leave a "did we meet?" comment, but, somehow, it seemed a bit intrusive, so I didn't.

--> 191

I believe it. I noticed someone who I know, from internal evidence, must be acquainted with a very good friend of mine.

All the more reason to consider local LT meet-ups in the future.

>190 timspalding:

Just to clarify, I believe, as Tim does, that not every useful feature CAN be implemented. Resources are finite, and there are bigger issues than privacy that need some work here. I just wanted to point out that those who are concerned about privacy aren't necessarily being paranoid alarmists.

I did some research on the kinds of books people might want to keep private. It seems that books on bdsm, miscarriage, mental illness, etc., are overwhelmingly in public libraries. Either most people desiring privacy are not entering these (the software in the person approach), or there are separate accounts for these topics which help protect identity. Because a great many people ARE open about these books, the other LT features make personal recommendations not as critical. People can seek out recommendations book-by-book rather than based on their whole library. Public libraries which have considerable collections in sensitive topics can be discretely added to one's own watch list. Plus, recommendations can be found in Talk. Private books *would* be nice to have, but the work-arounds are not unbearable with increasing social features and connections between fields.

Can someone explain why LT's pointer to my Flickr account (with the correct userid at Flickr) goes to a "page not found" at Flickr? What should be entered into the "Also On" box for Flickr in order to ensure that it links to the profile at Flickr?

Is your real name '56759872@N00'? That appears to be your account, rather than Linkmeister, which is your screen name.

Noisy, of course! I'm from Alpha Centauri; translating our names into this pesky Arabic numbering system just doesn't work well!

Well, what the heck can I do about it? When I look at "My photos" I'm clearly Linkmeister to Flickr, so...

Linkmeister, I'm having the exact same problem.

monohex, that's reassuring. I posted a new topic asking about this over in the FAQ group.

Flickr wants your FlickrID which is '56759872@N00' not your screen name. Try it and see.

In my case the ID is bodjanes (happens to be my Yahoo ID) but the screen name is bobjanes.

GreyHead, thanks. Putting that in the box corrects the problem.

That's right - believe him and not me!

*Sniffs and walks away.*

Grins. Nope. I just believe in second opinions.