Collections: Defaults

Chris and I are working out the default collections. These will be the collections everyone gets "right out of the box."

Users will be able to add collections, but only these collections will have true "meaning" across the site. That is, the default collection "Wish List" isn't just an arbitrary set of words, but will be by their nature susceptible to sitewide analysis in a way that, if a user adds "at the beach house" it will not. (Note, however, that it might be possible for users to agree on collection names informally and for LT to produce stats for these.) These collections will also be translated across the LT languages, whereas user-created collections stay in whatever language their creator used.

Frankly, talking about defaults is very hard. Most users of LibraryThing do not change ANY defaults. But the users who respond here are, I suspect, the people who do.

That said, what simple list of default collections is most simple, non-prescriptive and obvious to all?

Here's my proposed list, and default order.

1. Your Library
2. Currently Reading
3. To Read
4. Wish List
5. Read but Unowned
6. Private (note: this one probably won't be available for use when we debut)

I'm not so sure about #5. There are so many such non-ownership possibilities. If you do #5, I'm afraid it's hard not to add "Read from library," etc.

What do you users think? It's a multi-part question insofar as I want to know what you know you'll use, what you think others will use and what you think will be interesting to aggregate across.

That list looks sensible to me. Will it be possible to do hierarchical collections? That is, will it be possible to have sub-collections such as Library, Sold/Donated, Incinerated, or Loaned under the collection Read but Unowned? If not, it makes #5 less useful to the user, I think. Of course, you could just use tags to make those distinctions within Read but Unowned, but it just seems less than optimal. I could see something similar coming up with the To Read collection. Some people might want to sub-divide the collection into Next Up, Read Someday, Look into More, etc. These sub-divisions could be user defined and only the main collection (mashing all sub-divisions together) would be used in recommendations, statistics, etc. Just some thoughts.

I would probably use 1, 3, 4, 5, and maybe 6, but not really 2. There would just be too much and too frequent turnover to bother listing Currently Reading, in my opinion. But I see plenty of users list that in their profile, so it should definitely stay. I think the ability to make collections private is vital to some users and should definitely be a high priority, if it doesn't roll out with the debut. For some, it seems the main reason they want collections.

For some, it seems the main reason they want collections

I think there's a general sense that collections will cure the common cold.

Well, yes, there will always be people who want more and crazier features. But I think there's a need for something between all private and all public libraries and it's not an unreasonable request. How often have people asked for it in Recommend Site Improvements? That should speak for itself.

I will certainly use 1, 5. Maybe some time later also 4 and 6. I generally know and remember what I want to read :)

I'll probably use 1, 4, and 6.

And maybe 97.

How will others use it? Good question. I don't know. Just from posts here requesting it and work-arounds mentioned I''ll say Wishlist gets the most use. Currently reading will be used by 35% of Lters. Read but not owned a little higher at 45%. Privacy by 25%. Your Library by 100%.

Aggregates- Most Wishlisted? That sounds Amazonian. Most Currently Read? Number one book declared private? Well, maybe not.

After it is in use for awhile you'll have to let us know which is being used the most.

The most privated book would be fun.

I would probably use all but #2 (I can't keep up with that) but I think #2 is a good thing for those who want it. I am not so much into stats and recommendations as I am locations and usage.
The #5 non-ownership collection I would manage using tags ...I have lots of reasons for non-owning books (library checkout, traded, hated etc)... but I can see why people would want to make different unowned collections if their stats are involved. Tough call for you on that one.

Private is a biggie for me...I can combine my accounts when that goes live, but I have waited this long so I can patiently wait longer for that one.

Speaking of combining accounts, will people be able to contact someone to get that done automatically or will they have to manually rebuild the other account into their primary (which would be a pain in the butt since the new configuration of Add Books doesn't allow them to directly transfer from one account to another)? I only have the one account, but I know several people have multiple, sizable accounts to keep their collections separate.

My opinion

I will be using 1 for sure, 2 almost certainly, 3 will replace the 'unread' tag in my collection.
If I bother to use it 4 would (within a day or two) be filled with the books I don't have yet to fill incomplete series.
5 might get used if I can bother to copy information from other sources or start borrowing books again.
I don't see any reason for me to use 6 but I understand the 'need' for it in other peoples minds.

Aggregating the 'Wish Lists' and 'Read but Unowned' would be the most interesting to me I think.

As a set of defaults, I think it's quite acceptable, especially if we can delete the ones we don't want.

I will use:
1. Your Library
4. Wish List

I might use:
3. To Read
5. Read but Unowned

I won't use:
2. Currently Reading
6. Private
(but I know there is a lot of demand for them)

I think I'd like my 'Your Library' to be able to include some or all of my 'Read but Unowned,' and I'd like to use 'To Read' for books I'm looking for to read, but don't want to buy (not unread books in my collection). I'd like my 'Wish List' to pretty much be a shopping list.

My preferred usage will depend mostly on whether whole collections can be included in other collections or not. The ability to have collections in collections will solve the 'Read but Unowned' problem, and is also something I really, really want.
If my 'Your Library' does end up including books I don't own, I'll also be creating a collection for my physical shelves.

I am one of those who has wanted a Wish List for a long time.

Will use:
1. Your Library
4. Wish List

Possibly use (but unlikely):
5. Read but Unowned
6. Private

Not Use:
2. Currently Reading
3. To Read

Also, I too am one of those who has more than one account. Will there be a one-step way to combine wishlists and maintain remarks in the comment fields?

Joe

There will have to be a way to combine accounts. It's going to require some work—presumably entering both username and passwords simultaneously.

In the UI thread, you had All Books | Your Library (yes, I know, it's only a draft...but still). If that distinction sticks it might be useful for some things - I'm translating it as All Books is everything you've entered (except maybe Private), Your Library is All Books - (collections with the Unowned attribute, like Wishlist and Read but Unowned and....?). OK, maybe I'm pushing it.

For me, Read but Unowned would be very useful. I'd use tags to distinguish between Read from Library, Borrowed (from friends/family), Read in Bookstore (I already do this, having them with a single attribute of Unowned would be useful). I might have a separate collection called Discards for books I'd gotten rid of - which are Read but Unowned but things I wouldn't want recommendations based on, for instance.

1. Your Library - of course
2. Currently Reading - um. Love the idea, but keeping up with it would be a pain unless there was some very interesting UI (maybe on the homepage? in Mobile?). Worth it only if the widget/homepage/etc start noticing it.
3. To Read - eh. Any time I plan what to read next I usually end up somewhere else...
4. Wish List - oh yeah. At least three groups in here, but again I can separate with tags and they all fit Wishlist (the three are books I'm waiting for (next book by favorite author, for instance), fill-out books (I have 1,2,5 of the series - list 3,4 here), and interesting books (someone said I might enjoy this))
5. Read but Unowned - definitely. As described above, this would include a lot of books that have passed through my hands. And at least to start with, could include Discards as well - though I'd rather have them separate in a non-default collection.
6. Private - maaaaybe. Not really - I just don't have a lot of books that I don't want others to see.

So, for me 'Collections' is a way to divide my physical library with a degree of permanence, tags are for transient states (like 'Currently Reading' and 'To Read'). I would use 'Your Library', 'Wishlist', and 'Read but Unowned'. 'Currently Reading' and 'To Read' are something that I think should be dealt with by tagging (after all, how many items, realistically, are there ever going to be in the 'Currently Reading' collection? It seems a bit pointless to have it as a standing one.) 'Private' has absolutely no use for me.

All that being said, I know that 'Private' is something a lot of individuals are interested in (for whatever reason) and there certainly seems to be a measure of feeling towards the the 'Currently Reading' and 'Read' collections. From my perspective, as long as (obviously! doh!) I can add my personal collections to the list AND remove the defaults that I don't use from my LT view so I don't have to deal with redundancy in place of my preferred choices, I could live with them well enough.

Oh, sorry, it's not entirely clear and a hate to ask .... but do you see 'Your Library' as the Collection name encompassing all books listed? If so, then I would prefer there to be a standing collection 'All Books' and 'Your Library' to include everything except 'Wishlist' and 'Read but Unowned'. I don't want to start the 'All Books' debate ..............

I would use the wish list the most next to Your library. Will the wish list and read but unowned count as books in your library??? I think they should not. Just a thought.

I'll use 1 and 5, maybe 4. Currently reading changes too often. I want to spend my reading time reading, not keeping track of it, and my LT time getting more books in, or in Talk. To read is a limited shelf area, in the hopes that I will keep reading faster than I buy books. (I have not succeeded in that this summer.)

I will certainly add ones for books that are basically my son's.

Whether or not it's what collections are for, I will make collections for my theology books (about 1500 books, they are not all in yet.) and my textile books (about 300 books). One reason to be in Library Thing is to make it easier for others to borrow from those collections. Some of the books that belong in those collections, I'm not really comfortable with 'theology' or 'textile' as a tag, and I treat those books as different from the rest of our books.

I think this is a fantastic default list. Although I probably won't be using them all, it includes most of what I've seen as being the most requested "Collections." The list makes for good common, and middle, ground between LT factions--flexible enough, but still with some overall understanding of meaning.

I'm most excited about 5: Read but Unowned, which I know will be a point of contention since it has been since Collections started being talked about years ago. I think including it as a default it may save quite a bit of strife, especially if defaults can be deleted if a user doesn't want them.

I agree with message 11 above: My Wishlist to me is something that I would literally like to own as opposed to just read--but I don't think that has to be the case for everyone.

I'll definately use
1. Your Library
4. Wish List (which I'd use for books I'd like to own or at least read, usually depending on whether I find them in the library or the bookstore first)

Maybe
3. To Read (replacing my unread tag)

Not
2. Currently Reading (it changes too often)
6. Private

This one is a problem:
5. Read but Unowned
There are two main reasons I'd use this collection: because I'd borrowed the book from someone and enjoyed it (library, friend, family), or because I bought the book and didn't like it so I got rid of it. In the first case, I would really like the book to be included in recommendations, but definitely not in the second case. Could this be split into:
5a: Borrowed
5b: Owned but disposed of

Will there be some definition of how these default collections are treated for things like inclusion in recommendations? Likewise for user defined collections.

I guess if the default Read but Unowned collection is included in recommendations and user defined collections aren't, I could create my own Disposed Of collection, and if it's the other way around I could create my own Borrowed collections. (If neither or both is included in recommendations, I'm out of luck.)

My use:
Definitely 1 and 4

Almost certainly 3 and 5 although I might want to subdivide 3 into those I definitely want to read and those I would just like to investigate further before deciding (e.g. ones noted from someone else's library that I haven't had time to find out much about yet). Similarly, like rorrison in message 20, I'd probably want to separate out books borrowed and read from those 'no longer owned' for 5. However, in both cases if necessary I could use other collections or tags for this.

Like quite a few other people I probably wouldn't get round to entering 'currently reading' though I think it should stay. Similarly for private - I probably wouldn't use it for now but think it should be one of the default collections.

So a good default list I think, and the only one I'd perhaps suggest adding would be 'no longer owned/ disposed of' to save Read but unowned containing two completely different types of books.

I would use 1 (Your Library) and maybe someday 4 (Wish List) or 6 (Private). I would also use a few user-defined collections, either for locations or uses. I'm not sure whether any of those would contain books not in my Your Library - possibly at some point I'd put in books that I regularly use at one or another work site but don't own.

I suspect there will be requests for Private to be a feature that can be added to user-defined collections rather than (or in addition to) a single default collection. I'm fine with the single default collection, but this is an issue that people will get opinionated about.

Read but Unowned - having spent time dwelling on this one, I don't like the heading although the spirit is very important. I would prefer something different that acknowledges that not all the books on this list would necessarily be read. After all, I may borrow a reference book that I have used extensively and want to record it in my library, but 'Read' for me constitutes completed from cover to cover, not dipped into. So I couldn't put it on this list and I would still have to have my 'No Longer in Library' Tag. This would mean that this collection would be essentially useless for me, even though it was one of the main reasons I'm looking forward to collections. I would still have to set up a second collection for 'Unowned'.

This also comes back to my point about 'read', 'unread', 'currently reading' being more suited as a Tag function. Within even the 'Unowned' collection, I would have tags for read, unread and currently reading.

> 2, 11
As I understand it, collections are to be non-exclusive. So to create a hierarchy, you just assign a book to two collections, with all the books in the "Next Up" collection also being assigned to the "To Read" collection. As long as the display gives a way to sort by collection, it gives you the effect of hierarchical collections while also allowing more flexibility (e.g., "Next Up" could include books from both owned and unowned collections).

This is a pretty good 'starter' set for the default list.

I would definitely use 1. (if it was the library I currently have which contains stuff actually in my house) and 4. because I have been wanting a wishlist for a long time.

I would probably use 5. Read but Unowned, especially if you forsee allowing recommendations based on just one of our collections.

2. and 3. probably not for me.

6. Needed, I think, but I'm not sure I would have a use for it in my personal account. However I would very likely find a reason to use it in the school account I manage.

Thanks for asking for our input, Tim and Chris.

Tricia

P.S. The ten most wishlisted books would be interesting information for me.

I'll be using

2. Currently Reading
3. To Read
4. Wish List

quite heavily. The others not at all. But, they look good as defaults for the majority of users.

I'll definitely be using 1 and 5.

2 and 3 I don't think I would use at all.

4 I will probably end up using.

6 I might put a couple books in, but I doubt it, but obviously this one is necessary.

#1 Definitely would use

#2 Possibly, would definitely use it if there were an easy way to then put it on my profile.

#3 Definitely would not use. I don't want to know!

#4 Unlikely to use. I have Wish Lists on Bookcrossing and Amazon, and doubt that I would keep up a third - but you never know!

#5 Would probably use only for Early Reviewer books that I give away, in order to ensure that my review stays on the site.

#6 I don't see any use for this (for me).

It is apparent, however, from the extensive discussions that have taken place on the site, that #s 4, 5 and 6 are in great demand, so it certainly makes sense for them to be defaults.

Definitely 1, probably 4 somewhat inconsistently. (My amazon wishlists show a pattern of add a ton of stuff at once, then don't touch it for the next 6 months...) (But if that SMS add-to-LT thing from the 10 new features contest happens, I'll use Wishlist heavily.)

Never 2, 3, 5. Just don't care about read-status markers, whether its in tags, checkboxes, or their own buckets.

I think 6 is really very important, although I'm not sure whether/how much I'd use it myself.

I'd probably add one or two custom, but this isn't the thread for that.

I'd use 1, 4, 5. I might use "Currently Reading," if there's not much more involved in it than checking a box and/or adding start and end dates, which I've tried to do since the debut of the "Status" boxes "Currently Reading" and "To Read." I don't think I'll have a "To Read" collection, as the "tbr" tag works fine for my purposes. Don't know if I'd use "Private" or not - maybe down the road I'll have a need for it.

I agree with most others: as a list of default collections to start with, I think it's great. :-)

klarusu wrote in # 16:
"Oh, sorry, it's not entirely clear and a hate to ask .... but do you see 'Your Library' as the Collection name encompassing all books listed? If so, then I would prefer there to be a standing collection 'All Books' and 'Your Library' to include everything except 'Wishlist' and 'Read but Unowned'. I don't want to start the 'All Books' debate .............."

I read much of the debate in the other thread, and I agree with klarusu that point needs to be made clear, if "Your Library" in post # 1 is the same as "All Books" (or "EveryThing" or "All Your Things") in the other thread, OR if it's just what the user considers Her/His Library.

I understood from another thread (assignment UI) that there'd be an All Books (or whatever the terminology is) for all books in the account (added automatically), and that Your Library would be the "real" books (however defined by each user) -- by default not the Wish List books (though any user could change the setting). Is this still the thinking?

I assume that Private is not a mutually exclusive collection, but could be applied to any book in any other collection, e.g. some people may want their Wish List private and others may want it public, some people may want a small subset of Your Library to be private, etc.

I wonder whether Read But Unowned should be split into two -- Have Read (part of the life cycle of a book, to go along with To Read and Currently Reading), and Unowned (or Owned), which could apply to any books that one wants to keep track of.

I would use Your Library and Private. Your Library might initially be equivalent to All Books, but I might separate out a few small clusters of books that I happen to have for nostalgic reasons. I don't currently have a Wish List, but I might consider making one if the feature is handed to me. I would not use the life cycle collections (I use nonfiction essentially as reference, and although I read fiction I don't keep or record it).

Well, I currently have all but #6 as tags, and I actually have some finer subdivisions (short term and long term "To Read"; actually plan to buy, just interested, and needs more investigation "Wishlist").

These seems to me to be fairly sensible category names, but I suspect not everyone will use them in quite the same ways, which makes data interpretation difficult. In terms of site-wide data, I would be interested in the permutations of owned/unowned and read/unread. These defaults only partially match that concept.

As to actually using the Collections myself, I really can't say until I understand what functionality collections will add. So I'll restrain myself (begrudgingly) from any more long off topic posts and await a thread describing/discussing functionality (what collections will 'do' other than being lists).

15: 'Currently Reading' and 'To Read' are something that I think should be dealt with by tagging (after all, how many items, realistically, are there ever going to be in the 'Currently Reading' collection? It seems a bit pointless to have it as a standing one.)

There may not be many books, but standing collections will allow people who are currently reading the same book to find each other, for example.

1. Your Library: Yes, but I'm still curious about the "all items listed in LT" vs. "all items I own and have in my library" distinction. I would like both.

2. Currently Reading: Unlikely to used unless it does something - feeds a widget, shows up on Connections, site-wide statistics, etc.

3. To Read: Perhaps

4. Wish List: Yes, most definitely

5. Read but Unowned: I don't know - this category is problematic for all the reasons already brought up. Should it be considered as part of Your Library? Should this be used for recommendations and/or statistics? I think there may be unending arguments on this one. I may or may not use it depending on what it "does" in the end.

And BTW - thanks for asking us for our input. LT is great that way.

6. Private: Probably not, but it's good to have the option

#33 qebo, I guess it depends how you envisage using 'Collections' - as I wouldn't use 'Collections' "socially" but rather personally, that hadn't occurred to me but I can see that if others are going to use it that way and if standing collections are going to be the only ones that are included in stats at the outset, then the 'Currently Reading' one would have a purpose beyond just being a short list of books.

I would use 1 and probably 4. Maybe on 5 and none of the others.

35: Oh, I don't intend to use Currently Reading and its ilk at all. But who knows, maybe I'll see waves of books passing through the Home page (surely there will be an associated Home page feature) and get interested...

I'd use all of the first five extensively, and "Private" probably not at all (though like many others who've commented already, I'd support its inclusion for the benefit of others).

I'd guess that "My Library" (if conceptualized as "The Books in My Possession") and "Wishlist" will be used heavily across the LT community, "Read but Unowned" moderately across the whole community but massively by "power users," and "Private" by a small subset of users who will be intensely grateful to have it. Use of "Reading" and "To Read" will depend on whether there's a painless option (check box?) for displaying the current contents of those collections on your profile page. If such an option exists, I suspect they'd see wide use; if not, they'd probably languish.

Aggregating across "Wish List" would be fascinating, IMO, as would "Read but Unowned." I'd love to see an aggregation across "Private," with the users' anonymity intact . . . but I can also see such a feature getting up the noses of the very users who *want* such a collection in the first place.

Two other thoughts on Tim @ >1 timspalding: (re. "Read But Unowned")

1) Yes, there are many "flavors" of that status, but isn't that true of *any* potential default collection? Example: My wish list includes books I want from the library, books I want to buy to read for fun, books I want to buy for my professional library, books I want to recommend to my university librarian, etc. The ability to aggregate them into a single category defined by the shared feature "I want access to this book" still has (immense!) value.

2) I'd envision default collections as those (necessarily quite broad) that "everybody" would create for themselves if they weren't preexisting (by analogy, what percentage of LT users who tag by content have created some version of a "fiction" tag? I'd guess > 90%). "Wish List" and "Read But Unowned" (and to a lesser extent, Private) have--my impression--been things that "everybody" who's wanted Collections have consistently asked for the feature to recognize. This suggests that both fall into that "if it didn't exist, I'd invent it" category.

One other note about "to read"—if this were simply "unread" I would probably use it, because it would be nice to split all my unread books out for a few reasons (though not a must-have for me like unowned). But "to read" is a problematic category for someone of little discipline; the only things I think of as "to read" are ARCs I have to review really.

1. Your Library. I too would like a clarification of whether this is everything I have listed on LT across all collections, or just what I list in, in my case, my physical library.
2. Currently Reading. Wouldn't use, but I know others would.
3. To Read. Ditto.
4. Wish List. This is my primary reason for wanting collections, although I want to use it for a slightly different purpose than just books I want to acquire and/or read. I want to use it to list books that I readr about on LT that sound interesting and that I want to investigate further when I have time. If Wish List, as a default, is going to be subject to sitewide analysis, I might create a personal collection for what I want to do (see further comment below).
5. Read but Unowned. I don't have any of these now, but if I did I would probably just tag them.
6. Private. I don't currently have a use for this, but I think others would like it and, as long as a book can be in multiple collections, it's fine with me.

Now to my further comment, slightly off topic here. Given that I (and others) will be setting up some personal collections, I would like the ability to decide if individual collections will be considered in my general statistics, e.g., members with my books, recommendations, connection news, etc. Specifically, I would like to be able to exclude my modified wish list/investigate further collection, but I would like this as a general capability for individual collections.

Edited to add: generally (with quibbles about private and privacy; see below) I think these defaults are good and cover the main uses people would have for collections, whether I'd use them all myself or not.

1. Your Library - would continue to use as public list of books owned (the main grouping, then)
2. Currently Reading - might use
3. To Read - for me this is overlaps with wishlist; i might use, but only if it has option to make it private
4. Wish List - will only use if has option to make private
5. Read but Unowned - might use: ambivalent about whether I'd prefer it to be public or private
6. Private (note: this one probably won't be available for use when we debut) - I don't understand the rationale for having a separate "private" collection, rather than having the option to switch any of the individual collections to public or private.

Personally, it's not that I see collections as curing the common cold, but it does seem that there were certain common "wants" for collections, privacy options being among them (if I'm remembering right from the couple of "what should collections be" threads). Without them, it seems to me that it reduces the usefulness of the feature. Most of my use for these features would be for making lists of books for my research (books I want to read, find, or buy), and I was hoping Collections would enable me to use LT as the general repository for my owned books and for all of those other lists (currently spread out across Amazon wishlists, and other online and offline cataloging apps).

> 33 There may not be many books, but standing collections will allow people who are currently reading the same book to find each other, for example.

qebo, you are brilliant. I love the social aspects of LT, and this is the first solid reason I've seen (for me ;-) to mark anything Currently Reading.

As for the rest:

1. Your Library (of course)
2. Currently Reading (Thanks to qebo, I just might, after all! Otherwise, I'm less likely to "collect" something I consider transient)
3. To Read (eh, I have a shelf marked tbr in the living room. Too transient for me.)
4. Wish List (I dunno. I'm torn between that'll be bigger than my library and that's what Amazon is for, especially now that Amazon has a widget that lets me add to my wishlist from anywhere.
5. Read but Unowned (a life list for books? I dunno. I really like the fact that LT manages our physical library. Adding unowned for bookheads like me and Spousal Unit makes my head hurt. But still ... a life list for books ... hmmm.)
6. Private (oh, pleeese, pretty pleeese. Then the pile over to the left of my desk can get entered.)

And almost immediately, I'll add Unpacked and Boxed up. Then I can get rid of those ugly tags (and long for the day when I need neither distinction).

I would use 1,2,4, and 5. And the controversial "All Books" which I don't see here.

#20

Regarding # 5, I would want to separate books I borrowed and read from books I used to own, but no longer. The latter includes books that I thought I might read, but never did and never will.

I also think of collections for books we keep together because of some similarity among them, and I guess we would invent our own categories for them.

Eventually, it would be nice to have comparative stats of ones collection. (i.e. How does my travel collection compare with someone else's library?)

45>

I also think of collections for books we keep together because of some similarity among them, and I guess we would invent our own categories for them.

That's certainly going to be one use, though not I think intended as the primary one; I think the primary use of collections is intended to be for non-content-based classification (Unread. Wishlist. First edition. Separating books in a couples' joint library) while tags are preferred for purely content-based distinctions (Science fiction. Travel. French history) in part because the latter multiply very fast.

That said I think Tim has said on another thread that connections from a collection will be possible at some point, though maybe not at launch, so you could do this.

</i>closing tag...

</i>
Now?

eta: yep

Some comments:

I *had* thought of "Your library" as a special sort of collection—including everything not in Wish List, for example. I have abandoned that idea, as it is fiddly, non-obvious and prescriptive. Rather, Your Library will be a collection like any other. If you put stuff in it, it will be in it. If you don't, it won't.

This leaves "All Books" as the only "special" collection, a way to get at everything. "All Books" will not be the first option, but will probably be on the right instead.

After some thought, I have another problem with "Read but Unowned"—that, in context, it implies that "Your Library" is for things you own. I know some users assume that, but not all. Certainly I don't. I at least don't want the concept of owned/unowned to intrude upon my library at all.

That said, I'm also sympathetic to the idea that, giving people a clear "unowned" bucket will encourage those (dunderheaded, imho) people who believe that LibraryThing requires you to own a book if you're going to list it. Having it there will assuage that fear.

One unresolved question: Does everything have to be in SOME collection? The loosey-goosey side of me says "no." But I'm worried that, if we don't do that, books will get "lost" and we'd need another pseudo-collection for "not in any collection."

Respond?

I *had* thought of "Your library" as a special sort of collection etc.
That works better for me, I prefer (outside of 'All Books' option) to decide what goes where.

those (dunderheaded, imho) people who believe that LibraryThing requires you to own a book if you're going to list it
Do some people really think that? Does that mean that you guys are like the book police and could materialise anytime and check my bookshelves? *glances shiftily over shoulder*. As someone who would use a 'Not in Physical Library' collection of some kind, it wouldn't worry me if it was a default or not. What's important to me is to have the ability to have that collection.

Does everything have to be in SOME collection?
I think that I would "forget" about books (in a cyber sense) if they weren't in some kind of collection - once 'Collections' comes into being, I have a feeling it's going to redefine how I sort and access my library and little missing books would get swept under the sofa.... I think that it could get messy. Especially with the privacy-camp, you'd end up maybe with "not in any collection" and then "private not in any collection" and possibly "forgot to assign a collection" etc. etc.

If "Your Library" would not be such a special collection, people would be almost forced to put things in collections...

So this is a plea for keeping "Your Library" special. At the same time then, there isn't anything that SHOULD be in a collection.

If "Your Library", however, is like any other collection, your unresolved question does not, IMO, have a good answer. Prescribing a need for all books to be in at least one collection is, well, prescriptive, but the alternative is, as you say, equally bad.

So please give the "Your Library" another thought. Perhaps if in a few months from now rule-based collections are implemented, "Your Library" may become a regular collection again...

As long as there is a way to see a list of "Books not in a collection" - it doesn't have to be its own collection per se, just a link to click somewhere that takes you to said list - then I don't think every book should have to be in a collection, no. Because I'm sure there will be people who don't want to use the feature at all (blasphemy, I know) and they shouldn't be forced to.

I would probably most use:

-Wishlist (Yay!) Provided I can get it to not show up in "My Library." Otherwise it will overtake all my real books.

-Currently Reading - I'll probably use this provided it's not too "out of my way" to switch books in and out of it.

-To Read - Most likely will use.

-Read but Unowned - I'm a compulsive book buyer and hoarder, so I probably won't be using this, but I suppose on the occasion I do actually borrow/give away books I would use it.

-Private: I'm a book exhibitionist. Zero usefulness for me, but I understand why others want it.

All in all, I think those defaults do cover most of the extremely common uses for collections. The only one I see missing is the "All Books."

Despite some opposition I really don't understand, I can see that there will be some point at which I will want to search ALL collections, especially to root out duplicates if there's no good way to prevent them in the first place.

I think having to select the Your Library collection for every book that belongs in it (which will be most of them) is unwieldy and will result in books getting lost. I prefer a method where you can choose for each Collection whether those books are to be included in the Your Library meta-collection.

may I suggest that #3 "To Read" be labeled instead "To be Read" or simply "TBR" since many are familiar with that acronym. An additional category I would use could be titled "On loan" or "Off site" as that is where a lot of my books end up. I agree with others that #5 could simply be titled "Unowned".

Will we be able to include sub categories. For instance, under "unowned" may I add my own category for "city library" and another one for "local library"? That would be so useful.

I would use #5 the most, and #1 if we can sub-categorize for family members.

"-Wishlist (Yay!) Provided I can get it to not show up in "My Library." Otherwise it will overtake all my real books." --

Yes Yes Yes...

If wishlist is going to show up in my numbers and as part of my "real" library, I won't use it. I can see why others may want to have books they don't actually own in their libraries, but I don't. I'm using LT as a catalog system for my books. That's the entire reason I decided to purchase a membership. Having books I don't actually own listed in the catalog would mess everything up for me.

Knotty thing, this. I can see two functions of Collections: A) being able to look at a subset of one's library in a way that can't be done in any other way, and B) being able to do things to various books, like making them private, excluding them from recommendations, etc. I don't know where to begin to respond to this because I can't seem to disentangle A from B.

My immediate response to this list of default collections was to ask of each one, "what does it do?" and list problems that could arise if they were made to do certain things. For instance, if I've read a book I borrowed from a friend, and I despise its philosophy and don't want to read anything else like it, but I find it useful for purposes of reference, refutation, or parody, and for that reason wish to acquire it, where does that book go, and will my putting it into Read But Unowned undo any possible advantages of its also being in Wish List? (I was assuming that both RBU and WL books would be excluded from the total number of books owned, and foresaw trouble if WL books would be excluded from recommendations regardless of whether they had been read and liked or were terra incognita. Am I thinking too far ahead?)

Then I realised that if my library were partially public, I'd be likely to create a collection "Lending Library", and that I wouldn't want this collection to "do" anything to the books in it, except to be a handy container for them.

OTOH, the default collection "Private" would be entirely about what a book's being in that collection would do to it (make it private), and wouldn't be likely to be a subset in the sense that you'd be interested in knowing how many books in it had this or that tag (unless it exactly coincided with a subset, so that "Private" really meant, for instance, "Books Used In Furtherance Of My Evil Scheme To Conquer The World").

So then I thought, if "Private" becomes a collection with its own button (or option in a drop-down menu, or whatever is decided upon), what stops us from having a button for "Excluded from Recommendations", "Not in the Sum Total of Owned Books", or whatever else the system is able to "do" with a book? I see clutter ahead...

Is anyone else bothered by this entanglement of categories and functions, or am I the only one? If I'm the only one, is it because I'm the only one who sees it? If I'm the only one who sees it, is it because I'm dead wrong?

(Don't take this as an expression of utter confused desperation, btw. I'm sure much of this will be sorted out, though not by me.)

1. Your Library

Yes, but see msg #55.

2. Currently Reading

This one doesn't fit into my conception of a Collection because it is too transient and in the vast majority of cases there will only be one, two, or three books in it. I think this functionality, which is much wanted I realize, would be better served by keeping the current checkbox for it and finishing its implementation (make a column in the catalog for it, have it display something on the profile, have some way to match people reading the same book).

3. To Read

No.

4. Wish List

Yes.

5. Read but Unowned

Yes. I think your comment about the number of non-ownership possibilities is a red herring, as those possibilities can be handled using tags. Although there is the issue of discarded books that people don't want included in their recommendations, but I think this would be handled better by factoring the ratings into the recommendations.

6. Private

There is one book that I haven't added but I might if it is can be made private. What happens if a book is added to both the Private collection and some other collection? Will it be visible to others when they are viewing the other collection that it is in in my library?

50:

I *had* thought of "Your library" as a special sort of collection—including everything not in Wish List, for example. I have abandoned that idea, as it is fiddly, non-obvious and prescriptive. Rather, Your Library will be a collection like any other. If you put stuff in it, it will be in it. If you don't, it won't.

This seems ultimately good, but... When collections appear, or when new users begin to use LT, what's going to happen with existing books or newly entered books? Will My Library be the default? How will My Library be used in LT as a whole? I'd imagined that My Library would be the bulk of the books -- the ones that aren't special, the ones that are used for connections and such, the ones in the default display. Is there a danger that people will inadvertently be left out of LT social features because they forget to click, rather than because they actively make a choice?

After some thought, I have another problem with "Read but Unowned"—that, in context, it implies that "Your Library" is for things you own. I know some users assume that, but not all. Certainly I don't. I at least don't want the concept of owned/unowned to intrude upon my library at all.

Although I am uninterested in Currently Reading etc., I would be interested in Owned / Unowned. It's a distinction that can matter. For example, some people want an insurance record. If I ever do enter books that I read before I had $, I'd want to record which books are (or are not) physically in my possession -- partly to keep track of what's immediately on hand (should ebe on a shelf, has to be packed if I move) and partly with an eye toward buying what's not. Yes, technically such books are Read But Unowned, but since I don't mark other books Read this adds an irritating irrelevancy. And I'd want the Wish List, if I use it, to be for books that are entirely new.

One unresolved question: Does everything have to be in SOME collection? The loosey-goosey side of me says "no." But I'm worried that, if we don't do that, books will get "lost" and we'd need another pseudo-collection for "not in any collection."

Well, all books will be in the All Books collection. I'm inclined to say that otherwise books shouldn't have to be in any collection (e.g. I might have clear purposes for My Library and Wish List, and also have other books that are sloshing around the house or in memory but not yet categorizable), but I'd still want a way to get at them so they don't fall through the cracks. A search option would be fine -- along with display options for All Books and My Library etc, another for No Collection (or whatever)?

I'm another user that would really like the owned/unowned distinction. This is an issue that has been discussed over and over again on LT. As long as I have an option of creating an Unowned Collection, I wouldn't demand that it be a default, since I know there are just as many people (Tim included) that don't want to track owned/unowned.

Of the ones listed:

1. Your Library
2. Currently Reading
3. To Read
4. Wish List
5. Read but Unowned
6. Private (note: this one probably won't be available for use when we debut)

#1 - Good times.
#2 - Nope.
#3 - theoretically
#4 - probably
#5 - I hate to say this, but I'll likely re-name this "Library Books" - mostly because I'm on one of those kicks and my library doesn't have a nice way unless I harass the front desk of giving me the titles I've already checked out. I'd like to not check out the same book 6 times in a year because I think it's soemthing I haven't seen before.
#6 - Meh. I still don't get it (even after the long thread), and I won't use it, but some folks felt very strongly about it, so it should probably stay.

That being said, I personally think 6 defaults is too many. My personal feeling is that getting it down to 4 is better. (In that case, my votes would be #1, #6, #4 and #3.) After that, it should all be "custom - fill in your own" type collections. I say this just because I feel like there should be some clues as to the fact that collections aren't glorified tags. One of my more popular tags is "made into a movie" in my collection. Sure, I could make that a "collection," but to what end? Lots of dissimilar books are made into movies. (My largest, "Cookbooks," I can see making into a collection to change the results of recommendations on my entire library since those are very different.)

I hope I'm making sense.

I like them, just the way they are.

>50 timspalding: One unresolved question: Does everything have to be in SOME collection? The loosey-goosey side of me says "no." But I'm worried that, if we don't do that, books will get "lost" and we'd need another pseudo-collection for "not in any collection.
Respond?"

I may be in the minority here and this may be heresy but I started out when I joined in 2006 thinking of Librarything as a big database where I could keep track of everything having to do with book type media whether I owned it or read it or had it and got rid of it or borrowed it... I know I have moved beyond that into tag heaven (which I didn't know existed before LT) but I still think of it all as one big database.

So when collections arrives I assumed that my big database would still be there and even if I didn't put an item in a collection it would still be in the database. I wonder how I would lose it if I could still search ALL (everything under my username whatever you decide to call it) and find it.
Especially from a new person's perspective I can't imagine entering an item and being confronted up front with the choice of having to choose a collection to put it in. I would hope I could enter it, not choose a collection and still be able to find it later just because it is in the database of my account and even if I did put it in a collection and forgot where I put it I could do an account wide search that would show me the item and tell me which collection I put it in.

I am beginning to think I may not understand collections after all and that maybe it is more complicated than my simple database mind has made it.

I still like it, am happily anticipating it and I know I shouldn't be confused but I am :-) So am I in the loosey-goosey camp?
I think I am.

1. Your Library - Yes! The books I own!
2. Currently Reading - Doubtful. I tend to enter books in _after_ I read them. I would consider using a type of "Recently read" meta-collection if there was some way to have them exit afterwards.
3. To Read - Yup
4. Wish List - Yes! The books I specifically want to buy/mooch.
5. Read but Unowned - Only for Early Reviewer books I dislike. I'm unlikely to bother adding the books I read and don't want to own, since there's far too many others, but I've seen a couple people requesting that.
6. Private - One is fine with me at the moment, but many are going to say that it needs to be an attribute instead, along with exclude from stats, exclude from recommendations/shared.

I'm also going to have a much larger "Bookmarks" or "Interesting-Sounding Books" like in 41, as long as that can be excluded from recommendations.

In #50 Tim wrote:
I *had* thought of "Your library" as a special sort of collection—including everything not in Wish List, for example. I have abandoned that idea, as it is fiddly, non-obvious and prescriptive. Rather, Your Library will be a collection like any other. If you put stuff in it, it will be in it. If you don't, it won't.

This leaves "All Books" as the only "special" collection, a way to get at everything. "All Books" will not be the first option, but will probably be on the right instead.

I'm a bit concerned about this as I think that my current thinking is more along the lines of Tim's old thinking. (See my long, off topic, post at message #83 in the Assignment User-Interface Thread).

My concern is that when we get the option to exclude collections from certain functions like statistics or recommendations, what set will we be excluding them from, "All Books" or "Your Library"? If its the former, I think I'm fine, if its the latter I think it will make getting what I want out of the system rather complex. But perhaps I'm still imagining things wrong.

I pretty much agree with #2 The_Kat_Cache's statement; Currently Reading is too much upkeep for me, though I really liked qebo's suggestion in #33 - that might get me doing it.

This sounds to me like a very good starter set. I think it covers the most-asked for points from past discussions pretty well, though I know there will be dissenters! :-)

As to the "books not in any collection" question, I would tend to feel that's not much of a problem as long as one can search All Books; perhaps there could be some control such as the "No Tags" tag on the Tag page. That would be very helpful. I am visualizing a Collections Management page as a subnav item on the Home page, where one could see stats on all one's collections, and a link to a pre-formulated search for "orphan books."

64: Especially from a new person's perspective I can't imagine entering an item and being confronted up front with the choice of having to choose a collection to put it in.

I agree with this. Choices are great and appreciated once the basics become routine, but too many choices too soon can be daunting. Initially, it's quite enough effort to get books entered, leaving decisions about organization for later. So either allow books to be uncollected (and accessible via a search), or maybe alternatively put everything in Your Library by default and keep it there unless it is explicitly taken out and put elsewhere.

My Library or Your Library, whatever it's called, should be a catch-all collection for new additions, when I don't specify a collection. :)

I think having to select the Your Library collection for every book that belongs in it (which will be most of them) is unwieldy...

Okay, but it will be the default. You have to explicitly *change* it to matter.

may I suggest that #3 "To Read" be labeled instead "To be Read" or simply "TBR" since many are familiar with that acronym

"To Read" sounds. Unless I get disagreement, I propose to follow your advice. TBR is good, but I think would lose some people.

If wishlist is going to show up in my numbers and as part of my "real" library, I won't use it.

Assuredly it's a separate collection. I'm not sure if LT will state on your profile how many book you have total or not. But it will certainly state them collection-by-collection. The great "difference" between wishlist and non-wishlist books are a primary impetus for collections.

That is not to say, however, that collections will debut with this issue worked out. It probably will only be "working" on the catalog and on add books.

Lending

No. This won't be a default collection. Users can make one, of course, but we plan to introduce a lending feature that does more than a collection would do.

What happens if a book is added to both the Private collection and some other collection?

It could go either way. Let's discuss that bridge when we come to it.

My library ... Is there a danger that people will inadvertently be left out of LT social features because they forget to click, rather than because they actively make a choice?

No, it's going to be the default. There's also a case that the system won't even LET you avoid putting a book in SOME collection.

I'm another user that would really like the owned/unowned distinction. This is an issue that has been discussed over and over again on LT. As long as I have an option of creating an Unowned Collection, I wouldn't demand that it be a default, since I know there are just as many people (Tim included) that don't want to track owned/unowned.

Right. I suspect that if we have an "Unowned but Read" then everyone who cares about the distinction will use "Your Library" for owned.

#5 - I hate to say this, but I'll likely re-name this "Library Books"

You'll be able to hide the "Read but Unowned" collection and make a new one for "Library Books," but you will NOT be able to rename the "standard set" of collections. If we allowed that, people would be renaming "Currently Reading" as "Wish List," and cats would lie down with dogs.

but I still think of it all as one big database

My opinion too.

My Library or Your Library, whatever it's called, should be a catch-all collection for new additions, when I don't specify a collection.

That's the plan, Stan.

70> "Lending - No. This won't be a default collection. Users can make one, of course, but we plan to introduce a lending feature that does more than a collection would do."

Oooh thanks for the heads up. I won't bother trying to make a lending collection which I may have been tempted to do.

Right. I suspect that if we have an "Unowned but Read" then everyone who cares about the distinction will use "Your Library" for owned.

Pretty please, can we lose the "...but Read" (see post #23 earlier...).

Another plus of this as a default is that it might prevent the situation where someone accidentally deletes a book because they don't own it and finds their review disappears, which was not what they intended (I've seen a few posts to that effect recently).

72: But the combo (unowned + read) is the key part of that.

#72, not necessarily. Like I said, for me 'Read' means finished from cover-to-cover and I'm a purist so part-read (but reviewed for example to explain the awfulness that led me to abandon it) or reference (which won't be read from cover to cover but will be reviewed) aren't 'Read' but they would be in my 'Unowned' collection. Again, as long as I can at least hide the default and make my own collection (as renaming is understandably not going to be an option for defaults), then if the consensus was '...but read', I'd live with it!

I'd really really prefer Read and Unowned to be separate collections. There are multiple ways for one and not the other to be true or relevant.

#5 - I hate to say this, but I'll likely re-name this "Library Books"

You'll be able to hide the "Read but Unowned" collection and make a new one for "Library Books," but you will NOT be able to rename the "standard set" of collections. If we allowed that, people would be renaming "Currently Reading" as "Wish List," and cats would lie down with dogs.

Lord knows I wouldn't want things to come to that - that's a step away from the Stay Puff marshallow man terrorizing all of the virtual LT city.

;-)

55>

I don't like that idea, because the vast majority of my books -- ALL the books I currently have on LT -- would be in my "Your Library" collection, and none other. Your scheme doesn't permit that use-case.

So when this goes live all my books will be in Your Library. And then for every book tagged @wishlist I'll have to add it to the Wishlist Collection and remove it from the Your Library collection, and similarly for my books tagged @unowned. Sounds tedious, or will power edit handle both the adding and removing from Collections?

And later, when I add a new book to the Wishlist collection if I forget to uncheck Your Library it may be a long time before I notice that a wishlist book accidentally made it into my main library.

78 > the did say they are planning on having power edit for collections.

1. Your Library
2. Currently Reading
3. To Read
4. Wish List
5. Read but Unowned
6. Private

I would use all of these, probably exactly as you envisioned. Well, I'd probably start 2 with good intentions and then trail off. I already have and use tags for 1,3,4,and 5.

The only additional collections I would want, actually, would be to differentiate my husband's stuff, the childrens books (so they don't affect recs), and the DVDs. Oh, and maybe a "professional" collection. But just those defaults by themselves are a great start.

Tim -
This -
those (dunderheaded, imho) people who believe that LibraryThing requires you to own a book if you're going to list it

is pretty damned rude, imho. So someone who {gasp} might have a differing POV from you is automatically an idiot. Nice. I feel so grand now. Thanks.

81: I'm one of those dunderheaded people, and I wasn't offended at all. Teasing. He's trying to be all things to all people, and it can't be easy.

Though I don't believe that LT requires me to own the books I list, I prefer to own the books I list, as things stand. I believe that the distinction matters and should be supported...

If you're interested in predictions of likely use...

Of those, I would likely use the Wishlist--if it's separate regarding stats. Read but unowned--if it's separate regarding stats (including not adding into my total book count--IMPORTANT).

Currently reading--if it "did" something--popped up on the profile or gave me connections to other people reading same. Otherwise no.

To read--no. I changed my mind about Date Read and started entering those (far from finished), so in the end anything sorting without one is TBR.

Private--well, one never knows, although no use for it now.

#83 Read but unowned--if it's separate regarding stats (including not adding into my total book count--IMPORTANT)
Not adding to book count for an 'Unowned' collection (be it default or my own if I have to set it up because the default is 'Unowned but Read') is really important too. That's what sets 'Collections' apart from just my current 'No Longer in Library' tag.

50: I *had* thought of "Your library" as a special sort of collection etc.

So had I! It seems more intuitive that way, so I hope you'll reconsider.

I plan to separate individual ownership of books in our house into different collections, and this is much less likely to go wrong if changing/adding/deleting books in a collection would automatically reproduce the same action in Your Library. If I have to edit Your Library and the collections it "contains" separately, It'll be much more easy to accidentally introduce inconsistencies.

>83 LolaWalser: Currently reading--if it "did" something--popped up on the profile or gave me connections to other people reading same. Otherwise no.

I actually wanted to point out that what Lola suggested is probably crucial to a "currently reading" collection being worth anything at all.

It doesn't have be on launch, but I don't think any of us need to be reminded of what we're currently reading. The only point would be for social purposes. A profile widget, a most read this month box on the homepage, or a box on the work page of who's reading a book right now. Otherwise what is the point?

>85 TheYellowHouse: agree with Your Library being "all your books at LT"

I would probably not use any of the proposed list, well of course #1 and maybe #4 at some point.
I would make two collections for my DH and me.

This is essentially the same list of collections I'd planned to start out with, so it looks good to me.

I definitely want "wishlist" and "read but not owned" - those are my two top wishes. *Especially* a "read but not owned" collection so I can get rid of books I've reviewed and keep the reviews. I don't think subdividing it is an issue - that's why we'll have custom collections.

Will it be possible to change the names of the default collections in your library and still have them work site-wide? I would *much* prefer, and be much more likely to use, an "unread" and "recently read" over "to read" and "currently reading".

>88 melannen: Will it be possible to change the names of the default collections in your library

In Message 70, Tim said "you will NOT be able to rename the "standard set" of collections."

First impressions: Of course, I personally won't use all of these default collections, but I think what you've got in msg 1 sounds pretty straight-forward and simple. Maybe 5 could be something more inclusive, like "all others read" or something else, that implies things like "read from library" and such.

*giggles* re msg 3! *can't help it* hehe

50: I certainly don't think all books should/would be in some collection, and I'm sure I'll have books that aren't in any collections. ..... But yes, then how would we view them and/or group them (without having to weed through "All Books" to get to them)?

..... Which brings me to a question I just now thought of. what if I have a tag that has books in two or more collections? If I go to that tag, will I see all of those books, regardless of collection, or what?

Most of my questions/concerns revolve around collections affection other features, ie stats and recommendations and total book count, and tho it's clear those aren't a big concern right now, I hope they will be addressed.

I don't know... Just for keeping the data neat and logical, I would vote for making it necessary for books to be in at least one collection, and having "My Library" be the base or default collection, if no others are selected (with the option, of course, of moving and/or copying the books to other collections at any point). I don't like the idea of things falling through the cracks.

1. Your Library – would definitely use. I would interpret this to mean books I have and books I have read, but not books in wishlist.
2. Currently Reading – would not use.
3. To Read – would not use.
4. Wish List – would definitely use, if I can exclude it from total count and from recommendations. Like rebeccanyc at #41, I use wishlist for books I want to acquire and books I want to evaluate.
5. Read but Unowned – I have only a few of these – mostly books abandoned under the 50 page rule that were so bad I wanted to post reviews. I would probably just continue to use tags for this.
6. Private – I would use this for a few books when it becomes available.

Tim at #70:
You'll be able to hide the "Read but Unowned" collection and make a new one for "Library Books," but you will NOT be able to rename the "standard set" of collections. If we allowed that, people would be renaming "Currently Reading" as "Wish List," and cats would lie down with dogs.
Too late!

Tim, are you telling us that when I add a new book and then go to my home page and click on Your Library, the new book will not show in the list un less I have put it in a collection?
If that is the case then I don't like it. I may not want to put my books in any collection for a while or maybe never.

Ah, what do I want for default Collections:

1. Your Library - Depends on its definition. If this is every book Ive entered, I'll avoid using it. If this is just the books I chose to put in because I phyically own them, this will get used frequently.
2. Currently Reading - Will get used, but would not be my # 2 choice.
3. To Read - Yes, this removes a tag for me, moving books out. Again, I might not have it this high on my heirarchy.
4. Wish List - Doubt I'll use this.
5. Read but not owned - While I understand some people's library is strictly what they've read or some other concept than physcially owned books, I don't think this should be offered as a default option. Perhaps it could be set as an also available option that each user can chose to activate within their catalog, but not as a permanent default.
6. Private - You know, I'm not real sure if this will get used or not.

Just my thoughts

>70 timspalding:: There's also a case that the system won't even LET you avoid putting a book in SOME collection.

Do you mean "All Books" or something else? If "All Books" exists as a catch-all automatic collection for every book entered in an account, why would books need to be in some other collection?

It seems to me that these default collections are mixing up two basic attributes, ownership and read status, and they are independent of each other. If we define different qualities of ownership and read status:

Own 0) Undefined (default)
1) Own
2) Don’t own but want to
3) Don’t own
9) Any

Read 0) Undefined (default)
1) Read
2) Currently reading
3) Partially read but not reading now
4) Haven’t read but want to
5) Haven’t read
9) Any

Then these defaults might be represented by

Your library (00)
Currently Reading (92)
To Read (94)
Wishlist (29)
Read but unowned (31)
All Books (99)

What about allowing these Own and Read attributes to be settable for any user created collection? That way, a person could create several collections that are wishlists, to read lists, etc.

96: Makes general sense to me, but it's going to be too complicated for a lot of people. Read and unread can be handled as tags pretty easily... no one's going to agree on which divisions if they're divided more finely.

96: It seems to me that these default collections are mixing up two basic attributes, ownership and read status

Yay! Yes.

97: Makes general sense to me, but it's going to be too complicated for a lot of people. Read and unread can be handled as tags pretty easily... no one's going to agree on which divisions if they're divided more finely.

Yeah, it's too finely divided for general agreement, but I like the spirit of it. Especially if unwanted/unused collections can be hidden, why not have default collections that cover the bulk of the logical possibilities? An issue here would be what to do for new users who won't necessarily want to be immediately confronted with a dozen options.

I think these defaults are probably the best consensus ones at the start (with one possible exception being perhaps looking at #5 in a different way).

In my "book world", there are 3, maybe 4, distinct categories of books
I'd like to keep track of, with lots of possibilities for overlap and moving back and forth. This seems to correspond to how various others use LT as well, some of whom keep separate accounts (me!) and others who lump things altogether:

1) Books I own (inventory purposes, shelving purposes, to avoid buying duplicates, "public face" of my library for stats, etc)

2) Books I've read (A reading list or reading history, which would include both books I own, used to own, and library books)

3) Books I want to read (TBR)
4) Books I want to own (Wish List)

For me, personally, I could lump the last two together and use tags, but I understand how many would want them separate.

While I've wanted collections so that I could add books I've read but not owned, it's not particularly useful to me as its own collection, because rarely would I want to see just those books. Rather, I'd like to see ALL books read, including those in my physical library, particularly if functions like statistics, connections, recommendations, etc. are applied to specific collections.

In my mind, instead of #5 Read but not Owned, I would make the category just Read. This category would have all the books in my library that I've read, plus those that I have read but do not own, which would be in the Read collection but not in My Library.

I agree 5) should just be unowned - that covers borrowed from library and friend or sold and given away

I would like a Read collection, I have lots of books I haven't read and I keep track of the ones I have with the Read tag. Yet not all Unread are TBR, so I can't say 'all not in TBR are Read'. I can say 'all not in Read are Unread' ie TBR is a subset of Unread

#96 I think it's simpler than that, at it's absolute basic, black and white, you've either read it (1) or not (0) and you either own it (1) or not (0) so

00 = unread/unowned - wishlist
01 = unread/owned - unread, To be read, reference, abandoned, currently reading
10 = read/unowned - borrowed or given away/got rid of
11 = Owned/read

Yes, you will say part-read or reference is neither read or unread, and ownership-devolved to/shared with a sibling (or other person) but can still claim it is neither owned nor unowned but binary is just easier.

Having an unowned category is just nonsensical. Am I really expected to list every book in the world that I don't own?

Yes. Including, but not limited to, books that have not yet been written (ask Abby for a free CueCat if you feel it will speed things up!)

*Head meets table* As in respect to your books in your library ie in your library but Un-physically-owned by you. K, there has been a little discussion re posts #20, 23, 31, 45, 62, 70 and 72-5, some people appear to think "Read but Unowned" refers to only books borrowed or books discarded and renamed to fit, or both and maybe should be split into those two and some have argued that you might not have read the books you don't own but want to include.

Gah, what would you call a combination of borrowed, discarded/given away, read elsewhere, possibly read, possibly unread, maybe your brother/partner technically 'owns' it and you are going to read it, Unowned but you want to have them in your library anyway?

Got one! Got one! Ephemera = printed matter of shortlived interest, usually applied to magazines and newspapers lol but then who would know what it was for? How would newbies know?

How about Evanescent, Transient, Fugacious, Momentary are any of these obvious to you?

Edited to add that I was answering my own question in post 103 with a list of alternates for Read but Unowned with this post.

>101 jjwilson61: This strikes me as intentionally obtuse. The total set is all of the books listed by the user, not all of the books in the world. An unowned collection would be the set of those books listed by the user on LT that the user does not own, without otherwise prejudging the reason the user chose to list the book.

But I'm a little confused as to what Musereader (messasge #100) actually wants as the scheme listed in response to message #96 does not include an independent unread category.

I must confess that I am not one bit interested in ANY of the proposed defaults. I address these kinds of groupings and categories via tagging and it works well for me.

> 104

I have a fair amount of Ephemera in my library (I long for an ISSN field) but I'm not crazy about the synonyms from a newbie perspective.

Evanescent - a list of my favorite champagne-like beverages

Transient - currently reading (on the bus?)

Fugacious - this book is both righteous and fugacious, man!

Momentary - currently reading (until interrupted?)

I would probably create a magazines, pamphlets or other ephemera collection for myself.

#107 i think I wasn't clear, I meant my post #103 to be a response to #102 (my own post but hey) ie what would you call it if not Unowned?

I was having a fun time looking up synonyms of Ephemera for suggestions of what to call Unowned in response to the obtuse post #101

I assume

1. Your Library = "books that you own", analogue: 5
4. Wish List = "books that you want to own". analogue: 3

Right now I would use 5, because that's what my library consists of, and then 3. I would later use 1 once I start cataloguing the books I own. I would never use 2 because I couldn't keep up, but I can see some people might use it.

How about renaming the whole set using verbs to make the functions clear? That way people won't spend a lot of time wondering "what does 'read but unowned' mean?"

1. I Own This
2. I Am Reading This
3. I Want To Read This
4. I Want To Own This
5. I Have Read This
6. I Want To Keep This Private

Maybe it's not as elegant as before, but I think clarity will be more helpful. And these terms will certainly be easier for the translators:

J'ai
Je lis
Je veux lire
Je veux avoir
J'ai lu

Ia imeius'
Ia chitaiu
Ia khochu chitat'
Ia khochu imet'
Ia prochital

Maybe Owned should be an explicit collection and you can tell LT as an option in your profile whether you consider Your Library to be just your Owned books or your Owned and your Read books?

110: The translators could still use that form, but it would take up far too much space on the line otherwise

> 111 A breathtakingly elegant idea. I like it!

(Though the "switch" in your profile that controls the contents of "My Library" might need three options: "Only Books I Own" or "Only Books I've Read" or "Both")

Another point is that explicitly tracking owned vs. unowned books will allow breaking out a site statistic of how many books LT members own vs. read, which I would find interesting. Also it would make the comparison to real libraries more honest.

114: Although just providing the collections doesn't mean that people will use them. I might use Owned / Unowned (if Read is disentangled), but I don't care enough about Read / Unread to go through the tedium of marking my books (and besides I have too many that would be in the "Dip Into Sporadically" collection). But in general I agree. Especially if the collections begin to generate potentially meaningful global information, people might be more inclined to use them.

# 104

Are people cataloging ephemera into LT in any substantial way. I do catalog big fat railroad timetable books from Europe.

Does no-one else share my problem with collection 5 (Unowned but Read)? My concern with this is whether or not it is taken into account for recommendations. Some books that I would put into this category are borrowed and enjoyed, and would want taken into account when LibraryThing recommends other books to me, other books that would fit this description are books that I bought and disposed of because I didn't like them, and would not want considered for recommendations. For this reason alone I would really like to see this split in two.

I did suggest that this wouldn't be a problem if Tim would take ratings into account for the recommendations.

117: Yes, though for different reasons noted above. The reason you suggest would apply to other collections as well. I assume that the issue of recommendations will be set out for discussion at some point...
118: But then people would have to add ratings. Also, I have plenty of books that I would rate highly, but my reading on the subject was a phase years ago and I've moved on. I'd maybe want to create a Current or Core Interests collection for recommendations.

Well, if all it did was not to take into account my books that had a 1 rating that would be enough (or more flexibly let me set the threshold which has been suggested before).

117>Perhaps eventually we will be able to set the recommendations at the book level, a la Amazon, instead of at the collection level?

>121 PhoenixTerran:

My main concern is simply fiddliness. Like privacy, there will be times when some members find that collections are too broad and you want to descend to the book level—when you want a private wish list, for example. But a proposed feature needs to be not merely useful to a few people sometimes.

In the case of recommendations, LibraryThing recommendations are done book-by-book. With at 1,000 recommendations to start and a neverending flow of new ones, every book is going to "have its say." The books you don't want aren't preventing the other books from having their say, so it's just a question of some recommendations you may not like. If collections can get rid of 90% of those, is it really worth the development time, feature bloat, help text and maintenance to get rid of the last 10%. Wouldn't the time be better spent improving the quality of the recommendations overall, not making absolutely sure you get no recommendations from books X, Y, and Z?

122>Wouldn't the time be better spent improving the quality of the recommendations overall, not making absolutely sure you get no recommendations from books X, Y, and Z?

Oh, I totally agree. I was just throwing it out there as I've seen it mentioned by other users on other threads. :-)

Well, at this point its causing at least some people not to enter some of the books they have read that they didn't like. I would think it would be better for LT if those books were able to be entered without effecting recommendations.

#1
I don't understand a collection that contains all your books. From what is it being differentiated ? Isn't this collection just the current listing of what is in your Library?

#2
Yes I would use this, and would like to see it displayed on the profile page -public, and would like to see site wide stats on the home page.

#3
I would use this as a TBR list, not with any commitment or plan as to when I would read the book, just the notion that they are books that are still-to-be-read.

#4
I would use this, but only if it didn't end up in my book count. I don't believe you have to own it to catalog it, but that is how I have set up my library. If I have book X listed, I expect to be able to find a physical copy of X in my house, somewhere, somewhen.

#5
I think this is unwieldy. I think you should break it into two collections.
Have an unowned collection , and the numbers should not be added to the books counts (personal, LT). People would be free to use it or not. Within the unowned people could use tags to determine read/unread and other status.

I think you should have a read collection so that people could keep track of what they have read. It would also be interesting for site-wide statistics looking at owned vs read, how quickly books are being read, what type of books are being read, etc ...

#6
I am not sure about this one. I don't think I would use it, but others might.

If the idea that the books in here are totally private - does that mean that the book is just not associated with the user ? There is one copy of X on LT, but no way to tell who owns it ? OR does it mean that X doesn't exist on LT because its in a private collection ?

Secret books would seem to be a recipe for trouble in terms of keeping various counts straight because you wouldn't know the difference between a bug and a secret book (I mean users, I assume from the other side LT staff could tell).

What can I say, I like to keep everything adding up, and tidy. I suppose you could give people the option in their profile of determining if any/all books in each collection count towards their total books (LT's total). I just wouldn't want anything I didn't own to be counted as a book I did own.

What I would like to add:

#7 Quit/Garbage
I would like to see a site wide collection for books you hated, stopped reading or even got rid of. The idea would again be for site wide statistics, and maybe if a book ends up in this bin often enough it is removed from being used for recommendations. And who knows a most hated widget ?

#8 Reference
I think this could hold books from all across the spectrum (text books, dictionaries, cook books, gardening, sewing, crafting, how to books, manuals ) Any type of book that people dip into when needed or don't sit down and read straight through. Tags could be used for subjects. If it were site -wide you would have an invaluable list for people looking for what reference books were available on a specific subject. Because you could have user reviews and ratings it would help to point out the good ones from the bad ones.

Of course all of this is only if people use them, and if they use them as intended (ha ha).

>125 FicusFan: #8 Yes! Brilliant new idea. I would definitely use this as a collection with tags like Chinese, Religion etc.

>125 FicusFan: #7 What sort of sick puppy are you? … got rid of?

Jim

> 96

I find this to be the most elegant approach. Not necessarily intuitive out of the gate, and probably never will be for majority of users. But then, Tim's already said most users don't change ANY default, and that's the intent behind creating defaults, no?

To answer Tim's original question(s):
-- I like the original set of proposed defaults, as amended by Tim in #50 re: the All Books category (without going into nomenclature)
-- I prefer books not be set in any collection (excepting All Books) unless specifically assigned by the user; I will use the "slush fund" approach to catch books I've not yet assigned, and appreciate the ease of skipping that step when entering, without having to un-categorize the book later if it were assigned to some category (again, apart from All Books) by LT.
-- I personally would use each of the proposed categories
-- I expect each of the proposed would be used by others
-- I fully expect interesting patterns to emerge from ANY consistently maintained set of data, even / esp those I'm not interested in at first blush. So I won't weigh in re: which would be the most interesting source from which to aggregate data.
-- I would like the added flexibility of options implied by the schema proposed by mkjones in #96, but not included in the defaults. That is, I could add collections which would fit nicely into this schema, but other users could leave the defaults, without a problem.

Edited to append:

-- Very much support the idea of a Reference category as suggested by FicusFan in #125, precisely because of the shared / aggregate nature that would not be matched by using tags.

#125 #8 Reference I think this boils down to a fundamental change in what the 'Defaults' are addressing. At the moment, Tim's list is more of descriptives regarding physical status/transient status of your library (books you own, books you've read, books you'd like to read.. etc.) rather than specific content. Having a Reference collection is a great idea - when this goes live I will, for example, split my library into collections for 'Reference', 'Fiction', 'Non-Fiction','Plays' and 'Poetry'. I might be reading this wrong, but I don't think that the issue of subject matter is being addressed by these defaults, rather left to us to create our own. Both approaches are valid, but I think maybe the defaults suggested above are the best for a start because once you devolve to subject defaults the list could be endless depending on how someone chooses to organise their library.

Private Collection Having pooh-poohed this (very technical vocabulary, I know!), it just occurred to me that I would actually use this. For me, it would enable me to enter my BookMooch transactions with a tag referring to the person I sent it out to. I don't do that at the moment because I don't want to offend anyone by putting details in public on LT they might not want me to but I come across people all the time in the forums here and often check BM to see if we've had a Mooch transaction. This would enable me to keep everything here and not switch backwards and forwards. So, I guess, this is one way that 'Private' might be used that doesn't involve dubious and nefarious copies of books that you don't want others to see .... ;)

>125 FicusFan: The reference option would be great, something I would definitely use.

I like (and would use) all the original suggestions, too.

# 126: justjim

What sort of sick puppy are you? … got rid of?

Actually I prefer to think of myself as a deranged feline ;)
Got rid of is the next step after : throwing against a wall.

#128, I don't think reference is about subject, but about function. I would hope that the default, site wide collections would have some way to be searched, and browsed, as well as statistics generated. I think if you had that and you were looking for a reference book on a subject you would check there. It would help determine which ones might be helpful to you, which ones you might find worthwhile. There are so many choices when you go to the store, it is often hit or miss to pick one. If everyone did it individually you would not have the ability to look at all at once, but would have to search library by library, or for a specific title/author/tag

I was thinking about this last night, not about collections, but about their use:

I will go even further and say that I would think that the defaults, or site-wide collections could even be useful to LT for an intro page. I love the home page. but it is private, you don't see it unless you join. It would seem that LT needs an intro page (other than the log in page, faq page or blogs) to let outsiders know what the site offers (with a tangible example). If there was a public intro home page type page, using the site wide collections as the data, it would likely encourage people to sign up, because they would see the possibilities, and fall in love like the rest of us.

#131, I don't think reference is about subject, but about function

Possibly so, but personally I don't see it as a different case to other main subject-specific collection options such as 'Fiction' or 'Poetry' - I think it's possibly just a matter of perspective. That said, as I mentioned before, it's going to be one of my main collections so if it cropped up as a default, that wouldn't worry me.

Like the idea of the intro page!

I have to admit, I'm kind of confused by all the people mentioning they want to differentiate books they didn't like/got rid of/don 't own and don't want to own. If I read a book that I feel no connection to, or outright didn't like, I simply don't catalog it. I've read a few things just to kill time in the past few months that didn't make much of an impression, so I simply didn't add them. Even when I was cataloging from the lists I kept of the books I read, if I couldn't remember anything about a book, I didn't bother to add it.

For me, LT is for books that are important to me - whether I already read them or want to read them, ownership notwithstanding. Right now, the only thing in my library rated below a 3 is one I wrote a review of expressing my disappointment (since it was highly recommended), and I only keep it in my catalog so i don't lose the review. And so no one else recommends it, I guess.

I think keeping track of books you don't like would serve two main purposes:

1. To remember that you have indeed read that book and wouldn't want to read (or buy) it again.

2. To warn other people off it. If everyone only cataloged books they liked, it would make the ratings much less useful to others. You wouldn't be able to tell if a book has few ratings because people purged it from their catalog or it's just an infrequently read book. I find the ratings quite useful when I'm trying to pick between book X and book Y on the same topic.

I guess it's a matter of personal choice, #133 you might not do keep a note of them but many do. I like to have a record of everything I read, good or bad and I'm trying to review them all so I would have to keep a record of them somewhere just to stop the reviews from disappearing.

> 125 FicusFan - I don't know that I'd make Reference one of the default collections, but where you say, "If it were site -wide you would have an invaluable list for people looking for what reference books were available on a specific subject," that does sound like a great idea.

Of course, if we're allowed to delete any of the default collections, or just not use them, why not include it as a default? We don't want TOO many defaults, but maybe "Reference" is a different enough bird that it *could* be a default. I'm on the fence, just thinking aloud - but I do like the idea of aggregate stats for reference books across users' collections.

Reference is definitely a good addition.

The addition I'd make--and possibly the only standard one I'd use--is "Discarded", for books we've removed from our library. As one who thought the money going to LibraryThing was going to support a crack library-checking thing to find those malingerers who put books they don't own in their library, I tend to delete books when they leave my library. But that loses my reviews, my tags, my rating, etc.

I use LT to track what I've read, not what I own, so many of those categories would be meaningless to me. Especially as book prices have gone through the roof the last 15 years, I read more and more from the public library and rarely buy books any more (other than reference books). So my collections would look more like:

1- Read
2- Want to read

I might further separate fiction from non-fiction, and separate out plays. But I'm not interested in anything having to do with ownership. Not to say other's shouldn't be, I point it out as the way I use the site. YMMV.

I use "reference" as a tag -- it seems more like a tag thing than a collection thing to me.

But conceptually, and this goes for the idea of a "Read" collection (also suggested by FicusFan in #125) too, is that they really won't end up yielding interesting site-wide statistics because not everybody will use these collections. I might go back and put my reference books in a reference collection because I can find them easily since I've tagged them but, as I've stated elsewhere, I would never go back and "collect" all the books in my catalog that I've already read --even if I could remember for books I've owned 40 years or more.

This doesn't mean that I want to stop anyone else who wants to put their books in these kinds of collections -- just that if the rationale for creating them is that they'll yield interesting site-wide statistics, they won't. Now, it's possible that even partial statistics might be interesting, but they certainly won't be site-wide.

Edited to clarify, I hope.

I think "reference" is a good idea, maybe "quick reference" is what is really meant. I have hundreds of reference books, but I the books I need to have within easy reach are:

a dictionary,
an almanac,
a road atlas,
an Episcopal Church Annual,
a French-English dictionary,
a German-English dictionary,
a Bible,
an old Ayer's directory of newspapers and periodicals,
a hymnal
Enneagram Made Easy,

These are all kept where I can grab them easily, and not with all the other books in their categories.

I really don't like "reference" as a collection. Hymnals and the Bible in #141's message demonstrate why: reference is in the eye of the beholder.

Moreover, it doesn't strike me as having universal appeal. I imagine it will appeal primarily to folks who have quite large libraries, who already organize books in a variety of ways, and I don't see why those folks can't create their own "reference" collection.

I assume that "Quick Reference" will be quirky and small in everyone's library. I do agree that just the term "reference" for these books is quite misleading.

So, the question is what should be the defaults? For me, the critical one is whether I own it or not (and the latter I can breakdown into "withdrawn" and "library book").

My tbr list is really a "to be looked at" list and it is vast (600 books?), but I currently keep it all on paper. Once, I've looked at it, I determine whether I want to check it out of a library or maybe buy it. I think I would need a blackberry to this electronically, so I could update it as I go along.

The problem with my tastes and entering them in electronically is one of obscurity. I have over 800 singletons in my library, and trying to catalog a really obscure volume into LT that is hot off the press seems like a challenge. I expect to wait 18 months or more from the time I jot down a book to look for, to the time I actually make an effort to find it. This allows time for tertiary books to get cataloged by libraries.

I think the defaults are perfect. I would use, with much cheering:

1. Your Library-- This would be all the books I physically own, which is what my primary account is now. I assume this would be the default place for books to go, and that the stats for this would show up first.
5. Read but Unowned-- Everything from my second account. Things I am not planning on owning, or have given away. Unlike my physical library, these would mostly have mediocre to awful star ratings and reviews.

And I would add, for my own benefit:
7. Your Library, Childrens' Section-- There are a good number of these that I remember too fondly to toss out, or use for photo references, but including them in my main library completely messes up recommendations/members with similar books.

I may or not use:
2. Currently Reading-- This would be neat as a widget on my profile, but only if adding/removing books from it only required as much effort as checking a box next to the main listing. Otherwise I wouldn't bother; too high a turnover. I think this would be better not as a Collection.
3. To Read-- To keep track of interesting-sounding books I find out about in LT, but am not (yet) planning to buy. Or I might just use the private Amazon list I currently have, or a piece of paper.
4. Wish List-- Since this is a shopping/birthday present list and I have one on Amazon already, I probably wouldn't bother transferring it over. Though it might be cool to look at the wish lists and libraries of people who want similar things, and then find even more books to read/buy. Woo!
6. Private-- Only if I suddenly acquire some kind of embarrassing smut collection.

I think the "reference" suggestion is showing how the current collection list creates a "slide" toward highly defined, prescriptive use--triggering the back and forth between people who use LT for different things, and find their use marginalized in one way or another.

Once you conceptualize collections as this careful and complete intersection of read-status and ownership-status you end up needing all sorts of collections—like "reference"—that many members have zero use for, and which force members into thinking of their library in alien ways.

The point of having terms like "Your Library" rather than "Books currently in your possession" is that it allows members to avoid making that decision. Now if you WANT to divide up your library that way, fine. But I don't want to force it.

Anyway, I think this argues heavily for removing "5. Read but Unowned."

So, I'm retreating to:

1. Your Library
2. Wish List
3. Currently Reading
4. To Read
5. Private

is there still going to be an 'unowned' property one can set for a collection?

Tim--How soon do you expect user created Collections to be implemented (as opposed to just the Defaults)?

'Cause I know that am not the only one waiting to be able to distinguish my "Owned" from "Unowned." In fact, that will be my primary usage.

Now whose being prescriptionist?

145>

We'll still be able to create such a collection, though, right?

As readafew asks, will we still have a collection-level "unowned" property? Because otherwise while this will let me get rid of my wishlist account, I'll still need to make a "read-but-unowned" account (which I've been avoiding) if I can't distinguish them in my library. (Just having the separate collection would be nice, but if that's all I wanted I could have used tags; I don't want them counting toward my totals.)

Tim, you consider your library a reading list, and therefore are biased toward creating collections that distinguish "currently reading" and "to read," which imply that "your library"=read just as strongly as "unowned" would imply that "your library"=owned, especially if those make up the majority of default collections implemented.

I guess it's not that important what the defaults are, though I think this is fundamentally wrong-headed because unowned has been a widely requested feature for years now, but I will echo readafew's and lorax's calls for user collections with unowned properties. I don't think I'm the only one who's considered this the primary function of collections, and if it's never going to happen I will have to figure out a functional alternative.

Fixed wrong word.

There needs to be something for unowned, although I would prefer a read but unowned.

I'm guessing that Tim is intending to let individual users create the "unowned" collection, for those that want it; that way those that don't want it aren't cluttered with it, and the rest of us can have it. The downside here, is, of course, that there will be howls from the folks that do want it, since it will not be one of the default first available set and they want it badly. The kicker there is going to be how long we have to wait before user-created collections are implemented.

So I guess two of the main concerns are that some people will be alienated by "having" to go through and decide which book goes into which bucket, and others will go nuts and make as many collections as they have tags?

How about (and perhaps you're planning this already) having the ~5 predefined collections, and then letting each user create a limited number of their own collections? That would avoid over-bucketizing, let the numerous people who want Read But Unowned to implement it, and then have a couple of slots left over for Owned Childrens' Books or Reference or Theology Books Kept in Another Building or whatever is most useful to individual members.

So when people create collections of their own, such as "unowned" or "borrowed" or "disposed of" or whatever they want, will there be attiributes that can be set on those collections?

I am thinking, of course, of "use these books when making recommendations for me" vs. "don't use these books when making recommendations for me".

153> Why is it a problem to have some people make as many collections as they have tags? If they want to do so, despite the fact the interface doesn't look like it will support it well, what's wrong with that?

As some of the later messages here are indicating, I too thought that with collections we would be able to set some collection attributes per collection. The important ones were going to be:

Unowned
Unread
Private

And each collection could check these or just leave them off, in which case it would be assumed that the books in that collection were owned, read, and public.

Of course, this may have all just been in my head as what I would like things to be, not necessarily what I had seen on the Talk threads...

Though attributes like that open up a little bit too, maybe there should really be radio buttons for each one: owned/unowned/NA, read/unread/NA, public/private. That allows for some books that you have read partially, or had at one time, or whatever... or maybe the utility here is a bit less than just having 3 checkboxes as per above.

Anyway, defaults are all well and good, but as Tim mentioned the people responding here are the ones likely to be changing defaults. I would be one of those. I'll probably just create my own collections, especially if they can each have some of the attributes above and not others. This means maximal flexibility. I can have multiple collections for unowned but read, one for books I got from the library, one for books I used to own but don't anymore, one for books I borrowed from friends, etc. I can have multiple collections for owned but unread books, one for fiction books that I haven't gotten to yet but want to read, one for non-fiction I want to read but don't have the time, one for reference books I occasionally use but wouldn't say I've read, one for non-fiction books I am unlikely to ever read but still have sitting around, etc.

Quick addendum to note that another checkbox might be "Use for recommendations". That might also be tied to the Read checkbox though as well, with not too many wrong recommendations. I'm sure lots of people would like it as a seperate checkbox though.

When users ask for an "unowned" attribute to a collection, what are they asking for? Surely it's not to have the word "unowned" shown somewhere.

Rather, it's a desire to have the various site functions do something difference for owned vs. unowned books, right? For example, most members don't—I think—want recommendations on their wish list. That makes a lot of sense. But some will, I think, want recommendations based on both owned and unowned books. So what are we talking about here?

145: Those defaults seem pretty good. But is the ability to create your own collections going to come out at the same time? 'Cause yeah, unowned is definitely something I'm looking forward to...

edit: I'm prolly in the minority here, but for me, I want an actualy "unowned" collection, not an "attribute" that I can put to various books in various collections. And I don't care about it messing with any other site functions, I just want it to be another collection.

For me, unowned as a separate collection will do a few things:
1) It will keep books completely separate from my owned collection, allowing accurate counts of what I actually own
2) It will allow me to post reviews of books that I have read, but do not own or no longer own without counting toward books that I actually own (see 1)
3) It will be easily distinguished from the collection of owned books and can therefore be more easily manipulated as its own collection (power editing, and such)

Frankly, I'd say many people *would* want recommendations based on their wishlist, which is a clear expression of the kind of books they like/want. What they may not want, is recommendations based on, say their childhood books (has been mentioned), or their computer books (me) or the books they hated but only keep in the system so they can give them a review. There are endless other paths, as I'm sure you know.

It has been frequently mentioned that some people want to have titles they don't actually possess excluded from their book count; an expression of accuracy. But they do want to track that they've read them, sometimes as a preventive to buying a book they didn't like when they read it. I myself use LT quite a bit to prevent duplicate purchases.

What I will want from collections is the ability to exclude certain books from recommendations, and possibly some other functions I don't remember right now. One highly desirable feature, mentioned before both by LT staff and members, is the ability to shift a book from one collection to another (e.g., Wishlist to My Library, after I acquire a copy.)

157>

As I said in #149, my main desire in having an "unowned" attribute is that they don't count toward the totals, or that they count toward the totals in a separate bucket.

i.e. if I have five collections (Your Library, Unread, Currently Reading, Wishlist, Read but Unowned) I would want to be able to say "Wishlist and Read but not Owned don't count toward the totals. Note that for me in this case Unread and Currently Reading would be subsets of Your Library, but that's not important.

I want to be able to easily see at a glance that I own some number of books, and not have them confused by wishlist and library books. (I know that some people wouldn't care about this and will continue to claim thousands of books they don't own -- that doesn't matter to me, I'd rather be able to have the separation.)

Well I would not want both unowned and the wish list to count in my total books.

If I added imaginary books and they somehow increased my total, I would not use the collections.

I realize others might want them to count or not care, so perhaps a check box to allow each person to determine how they are counted or not.

Yes I would like the word 'unowned', or 'wish list' or whatever the 'collection title' to show in connection with the book when it was listed in my library (default all) or on a search.

Then of course it should show up as the title of the collection - are we going to be able to have them as tabs at the top, so we can look at each group separate from the other books ?

I don't really care about what you use for recommendations, the inputs are so broad that you mostly end up with uselessness anyway. But you may want to add check boxes for those who use it.

155: Because they have to come up with some interface that will display them well for editing the literal collections (names, etc) and to add books. A limit seems reasonable.

161: Exactly, for inventory. Counting towards recommendations is another matter entirely...

157: I own all of the books in my LT library. If I ever get around to entering books that I don't own, then I will want the books to be in distinct collections so that I know, for myself, how many books are physically in my possession. LT default Owned/Unowned collections would be nice for the sake of site wide consistency, but I wouldn't consider it a burden to create my own collection labels (and you've mentioned elsewhere that LTers might be able to make group decisions about collection labels for purposes of connections and statistics). Whether or not I'd also put my unowned books in the Your Library collection would depend on what LT does with that collection (some elaboration on this would be nice).

Re recommendations, I'd want to use a subset of my library, or different subsets at different times, and you're right that owned/unowned would not be relevant (but then neither would any of the other default collections). Many of the books I own (and most of the books I don't own) reflect past or peripheral interests, and I'd want recommendations for current core interests.

Unowned attributes I want are:

Not counting in total books in my library
Not appearing in "random books from my library"
Probably not counting as shared with other members

> 145 Tim - you wrote:

"The point of having terms like "Your Library" rather than "Books currently in your possession" is that it allows members to avoid making that decision. Now if you WANT to divide up your library that way, fine. But I don't want to force it."

So basically, you want to "force" those of us who DO want to have a separate "Unowned" collection to create it.

When you go to a library and search their catalog (or when you search their catalog from the comfort of your own computer), what you are searching is "Books Owned by XYZ Public Library." I realize a lot of members have used their LT catalogs to track the books they read rather than, or in addition to, the books they own. But many users have been WAITING for the Collections feature so they can have separate buckets for Wish List books, and Books Read but Not Owned or No Longer Owned for Some Reason. Many want these separate COLLECTIONS more than they want a "Currently Reading" collection. THEN, the "Your Library" collection, for MANY people, will really be, "Hey, these are the books that are in MY HOME LIBRARY!"

Those of us who don't put books we don't own into our LT catalogs aren't wrong-headed; we just have the idea that a library catalog INCLUDES STUFF THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE LIBRARY. Call me crazy, but I propose that you rethink your decision to NOT have an "Unowned" or "Unowned but Read" collection (I think "Unowned" works fine, myself) among the defaults. My understanding is that people who DON'T want to use a default collection can just delete it from their set of collections, isn't that right? So please consider creating it, and people can delete it or not use it - that's their decision, not something you're "forcing" upon them.

Thank you.

We need one of Owned or Unowned, whatever it may be. My library is Books-Read, but I would like to use my account for Books-Possessed too. I don't care if Owned becomes the default, as long as I can easily put my current books in the other category.

And yes, I would want my suggestions based on both Read and Owned. If I haven't read a book, I would like to be recommended to read it, even if I don't buy it. If I don't own a book, it would be still useful to be recommended to buy it even if I don't read it (e.g. a dictionary).

From what I've been reading in this thread, it's obvious that the old saying is true "you can't please everyone". If certain things aren't defaults, some people will complain. if they *are* defaults, some people will complain.

I'll make *my* post very very simple and just ask: When can we be expecting this feature to debut? (and yeah I know that's an old question, but I think this time it really applies)

Lorax "my main desire in having an "unowned" attribute is that they don't count toward the totals, or that they count toward the totals in a separate bucket."

Fair enough, but can you explain that more. Since you're paid-up, I know you're not trying to sneak in under the 200 limit :)

Is it about presentation to others--that you want others to see how many books you "really" have, not have that number be inflated by books on your wishlist. What do the "totals" mean to you?

162: FicusFan

Same question. What does your total mean to you? What are you trying to accomplish or prevent?

Nperrin

"Not counting in total books in my library
Not appearing in "random books from my library"
Probably not counting as shared with other members

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense to me. I'm sorry that I need this spelled out, but I think members are making very different assumptions about what unowned "means." Your list makes it very clear.

Question:
1. What it "count in my total" were a checkbox in each collection? By default "Wish List" would be unchecked, but you could change that, and you could add new collections that were unchecked. That would be good enough, right?

2. As far as "not appearing in "random books from my library" my intent is to allow customized widgets on the profile, so you can decide to show randoms from this collection, or most-recents from that, or etc. etc. (Again, this won't happen immediately, but it's the goal here.)

3. I think the shared business should be an option in each collection, as with #1 above. There *might* be some special sub-page where you could see your overlap by wish lists, for example, but LT needs one main overlap metric, and I think you'll get to choose which collections are in and which are out.

So basically, you want to "force" those of us who DO want to have a separate "Unowned" collection to create it.

Well, my worry is that by forcing everyone to have one, people will be pushed to using LibraryThing in one way. In most other circumtances, users want options. Why isn't that the case here?

So please consider creating it, and people can delete it or not use it - that's their decision, not something you're "forcing" upon them

I hear you. I really hear both sides. I'd really like if you (pl.) could hear my point too. Defaults are tough.

One compromise would be for everyone to get an expanded list of defaults--including an unowned, or an unowned but read--which was on the list of collections but not shown in the catalog by default. I am thinking that only the first four collections will have links, with the others requiring a (more) link to get to, unless you elect to remove a collection.

168

My guess is two weeks. I'm sorry it's not sooner. We're running at reduced capacity right now, and we're also dealing with some library stuff. We also need to take the site down for a period of hours to change some database schemas, and collections is such a "deep" feature that some testing is in order.

Chris has made significant progress on the collections-editing UI, however. I'll get him to post some screenshots soon.

*thinks to self* Two weeks. That means my surprise to Tim etc should arrive perfect timing. lol

This is really fun, for me at least, to try and think about what I'd put in each collection. I doubt I'd even use an "unowned" collection, because I differentiate between "no longer own" and "never owned", and would rather create those two myself. I'd want everything but my wishlist books to count in my book-total.

Is the book total thing just about the Zeitgest page. Because, I gotta break it to you, most of you will never see top 100... :)

I'm afraid it's worse than slipping toward forcing everyone to use the site the same way.

On the one hand, there are those who propose to control how their own organizing principle affects the site's social functions. Call it producer-oriented.

On the other hand, there are those who want the information to be organized in accordance with rigid universal principles so that the social functions work with others' libraries uniformly. Call that consumer-oriented.

Both sides want customization. Take books we share. Who should say whether I see your wish list included or not?

> 172 Is the book total thing just about the Zeitgest page.

It's silly, but it's easy to understand as a special case of my earlier analysis.

On the one hand, a bunch of people are sure that they'd be in the top tier if only the scoring were fair, by which they mean that it counts the same way they do, for instance, physically present in primary residence.

On the other hand, a bunch of people are sure they stay in the top tier, so long as the scoring remains fair, by which they mean they are allowed to take into account that they are just a poor student, that their apartment is small, that their house burned down, etc.

169>

I'd say it's in equal parts clarity for my own knowledge (My library, as it stands, is books currently in my possession, plus a few of my partner's. I could print my catalog out, check them off as I packed up for a move, and end up even. This is important to me -- I want to be able to keep track of the books that are actually in my possession.) and for others -- I feel almost like it's "cheating" to claim dozens, in my case, or hundreds or even thousands, in some people's cases, of books that I don't own.

FicusFan said it better than I could have, actually, and seems to have made the point better.

Having "count in my total" as a checkbox would satisfy me 100%. For me this would be exactly equivalent to "unowned", but concievably others would use it differently. (Unread, maybe?)

172>

Is the book total thing just about the Zeitgest page. Because, I gotta break it to you, most of you will never see top 100... :)

Hey, if that was all that mattered, I'd have entered all the short stories in all my anthologies, like bluetyson. :) And if that were the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to want to have everything count?

Seriously, it's about having my library reflect reality. And for wishlists, not getting people's hopes up by seeing that a bunch of people have some obscure tome.

169: I would be perfectly happy if my whole list worked just as a checkbox for each collection.

The business about counting in my totals, for me at least, has nothing to do with the zeitgeist. I'm way far away from that. It's more a matter of personal aesthetics. When I log in or view my profile, it says the equivalent of "Hi, Nicole, you have 764 books in your library," only I know I don't have 764 books in my actual library, and when I get to go through and add everything I read in middle school and high school and college that I don't have anymore I certainly won't have 1,500 books in my library. And for me it says something important about my relationship with a book if I own it or not.

Both sides want customization. Take books we share. Who should say whether I see your wish list included or not?

This is something I have thought about a lot and don't have a great answer to. I still can't decide how I want to treat my own potential wishlist for purposes of, say, recommendations. I haven't read them, I haven't bought them, but they represent areas of interest. And how should wishlists fit in when, e.g., the ER algorithm works its magic? Fairness is much more of an issue there than with the zeitgeist rankings.

163> No, they don't have to come up with an interface that will display 57 collections well. They have to come up with an interface that's optimized for normal condition but capable of displaying 57 collections. Then, if you want 57 collections, you have have them, even if it doesn't look great.

Totals is personal preference to me. I never even look at the zeitgeist. I'd just rather not have the 100+ books on my wishlist show up in my library total.... Just as some people don't enter books they don't own because they don't want them mixed, I don't want my wishlist books counted because they aren't a part of what *I* consider my library.

On totals.

My thought is that your profile says something like:

Your library (132), Wish List (12), Currently Reading (2), Unowned (43)

But then I suppose there does need to be a total number, for various purposes. I'd propose it be a checkbox within each collection, with "wish list" being by default off.

>169 timspalding:: One compromise would be for everyone to get an expanded list of defaults--including an unowned, or an unowned but read--which was on the list of collections but not shown in the catalog by default. I am thinking that only the first four collections will have links, with the others requiring a (more) link to get to, unless you elect to remove a collection.

It looks like a lot of the discussion is a matter of how people use their catalogs for different things. "Currently reading" and "To read" are good for tracking present reading, like for the date fields and maybe a Facebook app. Many people are more interested in keeping track of books owned. Others are more interested in recording past reading.

Maybe you could have the six defaults including "Unowned" but then present people with a choice of a few preset combinations, e.g. a "reading log" choice, a "book collection" choice, etc., with each containing the most relevant four default collections. This means they would have to set up their collection prefs overtly at some point, which is an extra UI step, and thus bad, but it seems less bad than giving everyone 5 or 6 default collections and only letting them see 4 without them having chosen which ones.

Of course, one could always go into the preferences and remove some and add others, to make one's own combination. This might give some guidance to newbies while still keeping things reasonably tidy and facilitating a wide range of uses of the site.

Tim,

I said it in # 125 -

"I don't believe you have to own it to catalog it, but that is how I have set up my library. If I have book X listed, I expect to be able to find a physical copy of X in my house, somewhere, somewhen."

I consider it dishonest to catalog books I don't own.

I don't expand that to anyone else. Others are free to pick their own scheme and set up their own rules. But for me, I need a one to one match in the real world.

On top of that life is complicated enough without trying to keep straight in my head, what books I have and what books I want, and what the real number is, and how many imaginary books I have. I grew up in a house with a library, a room filled with books, they are always a physical presence to me, not a theoretical abstract.

If you can't understand it for books, think of it as children: you want a definite idea where they are and what there doing, and how many of them there are. My books are no different to me. Its not some nebulous idea, it is a cold hard fact.

I expect my on-line total to match my Access data base, and to reflect the books I have in my house. I can't say it any plainer.

When I was younger, and my memory better, someone asked me something that I knew, but for the life of me I couldn't remember. Three years later in the middle of the night I woke up, sat up, and said "ah, the answer is". I had no idea that I was even still thinking about it, let alone apparently searching all my mental nooks and crannies.

I don't want to be searching for years to reconcile some internal question of what I own, versus what I want to own, and which number is correct, and did I lose a book.

I hope "Unowned" remains on the list of possibilities. LT is a good aid for building bibliographies on various topics and an Unowned collection could be used to record those, without changing recommendations and stats for my personal library.

180>

This raises another point, which I'm sure you thought of, which is how to communicate the 200 limit. Certainly someone checking the "don't count toward my totals" for each collection doesn't get around it, nor does someone with six disjoint collections of 199 books each -- but someone with 199 books, in overlapping collections (so that the profile listing you show will add up to more than 200) should still be able to have a free account.

>185 jlane:

But doesn't that argue for collections for each of your bibliographies—so long as you can mark those collections as not contributing to your total and other features, as desired?

Just to chip in (and admitting to not having read in detail all of the above...). 'Unowned' (or whatever collection takes on that sense of meaning) is one that I will certainly use but I'm not militant about it having to be a default. If I read it right, it will be possible to have it set up and excluded from the figures in 'My Library' so that 'My Library' in essence represents my physical library. That's the functionality that I would want from an 'Unowned' collection and it would be what differentiates it from how I tag within my own library now. The 26 'No Longer in Library' books at the moment count towards the 1,084 I have in my library - I'd rather that the 'My Library' figure represent my total physical library but not enough to lose the books that I've passed on from my hands (especially as most have reviews attached to them). That said, it wouldn't ruin 'Collections' for me if that proved too hard, I'm not being absolutist about it. It would just be nice!

186>

the 200 limit again touches on 'what does "my library"' mean. For many "my library" means "on my shelves", so I think we need a different word for "in my database" which presumably is the number that triggers the 200. "my database" does not seem quite right, but at least has fewer potentially invalid resonances... how about "my bookworld"?

169>One compromise would be for everyone to get an expanded list of defaults--including an unowned, or an unowned but read--which was on the list of collections but not shown in the catalog by default. I am thinking that only the first four collections will have links, with the others requiring a (more) link to get to, unless you elect to remove a collection.

I think this is a great compromise.

168>My guess is two weeks.

Will this include the possibility of user-created Collections, or will we be limited to the default options at first?

172>Is the book total thing just about the Zeitgest page

Absolutely not. It's about My Library being an accurate representation of my library (in my case, what I actually own). I'm not asking other people to change how they catalog--I just want the same functionality and support for the way I choose to catalog, too.

189>I think we need a different word for "in my database"

What about, "In my catalog"?

edited for clarity

Currently reading - I'd use this as a 'recently read' collection which has got a bigger bucket. Few people have more than a couple of books on the go at once, and some turnover books at the rate of one every day or two, updating this collection woul dbe a major pain - unless it's done automatically by entered dates?

Wishlist - the single most requested feature?!

Unowned nice, but not key. I feel you still have more of a relationship with a book you've read once than one you own somewhere but haven't started.

To read: isn't this better as unread?

Definitely, the 200 limit needs to include all the book 'records' created by a particular user.

For me My Library conjures up the collection that is physically in my possession minus the small stack of currently borrowed books that comes and goes in my house. Over the past week my thinking about collections has evolved so that the next most important collection for me will be the 'Read in the last year' group, once we have the functionality of being able to get recommendations for each collection separately. Next in importance will be 'Wishlist' and 'Read but Unowned' so that I can remember the title of that obscure book I read a few years ago and have reviews for books I don't want (or can't have) in my physical library. (Most of the books I've wanted to review since I joined have been books I wasn't cataloging because they were public library books.)

>187 timspalding: But doesn't that argue for collections for each of your bibliographies—so long as you can mark those collections as not contributing to your total and other features, as desired?

I don't see why, since within a given collection you can have tags. Yes?

I would very, very much like to have an "unowned" default, since like many on this discussion my library currently reflects real books on my bookshelves. I have plenty of reviews, reading history and notes of other books I no longer own that I would love to share with the LT universe, but I can't do so now without having them count as part of the total in my library, which I have already decided at its fundamental level, represents physical books in my physical house. So I don't share. I'd like to.

And it seems to me that unlike the distinctions between various subjects ('reference' 'children's') the distinction between physically present (owned) and not physically present ('unowned') is a fairly fundamental one that cuts across all other kinds of categories. As does, I would say, the distinctions between 'read' and 'unread' which my library does not reflect, but which does not seem to be in as much contention.

And like others, I realize and don't care if others for making their libraries mean something different, but I do think there is some justification even on LT for my basic assumption that a library represents books you have. Like someone said before, a library in the real world is a collection of real books. A catalog might not be, but a library is. Certainly the Legacy Libraries are treated as collections of the real books those historical figures had.

So an "unowned" distinction somewhere is important to me, and no, I wouldn't want to see its totals reflected in the totals for my own library (nor the wishlist totals). But I would like to see all the relationships suggested by such data, because if I have a certain author's books wishlisted, I'd like to know what other books people who liked that author also liked or had in common.

The checkbox for include in counts seems like a good idea, as it seems to me to be an "attribute" of each collection. The question then is what the "count" is: your library or all books - I'm most concerned about the "your library" count, which like others I use for books owned. There would be some collections, like wishlist, that I wouldn't include in My Library, and others that would always overlap with or might even sometimes all be in My Library as well, such as, Currently Reading.

(If there can be a checkbox for this, why not a checkbox for privacy on individual collections too? Like 156 - but differing from 156 on the other points - I always thought of privacy as an attribute.)

#169, Tim

I think a checkbox for "count in my total" would be great. I also would like a checkbox for "include in my recommendations," at least by collection (I wouldn't want books in my "wishlist"/list of books to explore further to count for recommendations, for example).

The reason I care about my total is so that books I don't own (which in my case would be books I'm considering buying or reading) aren't added in to the total of books I actually own. The reason I don't want this to be handled by an "unowned" collection is because "unowned" means different things to different people -- e.g., for some, it is books they've borrowed from the library or owned once but no longer do. I'm not opposed to an Unowned collection for others, but it wouldn't serve my purposes and I wouldn't use it. The checkbox would do exactly what I need it to do.

As long as we're adding checkboxes how about ones for Always include these books in Your Library and Never include these books in Your Library. True, you can add the book manually to Your Library (or not add it manually) but isn't it a principle of good design to add constraints for permanent conditions to avoid adding bad data to the database. For example, I will never want my wishlist books to also be in Your Library. If I try to check both boxes for Wishlist and Your Library LT should be able to give me an error.

IMO, only the attribute 'include in 'Your Library'' would be needed. Implicating, of course, that only books in 'Your Library' would be counted towards our totals.

I know I said I'd stay out of this discussion, but... if you're adding checkboxes for various collection attributes, couldn't you add one for "exclude from All Books"?

What is Your Library supposed to be? How do LT developers expect people to use it, or how will it be used in LT as a whole? How do LT users imagine using it?

I'd have:
All Books - all books in account, divided into Your Library and Unowned
Your Library - all books I own
Unowned (whether or not it's a default) - separate from Your Library
Private - subset of Your Library, or may intersect with both Your Library and Unowned
Wish List, To Read, Currently Reading - won't use

>184 FicusFan:, 194
But doesn't that argue for collections for each of your bibliographies—so long as you can mark those collections as not contributing to your total and other features, as desired?

One collection, with tags, as southernbooklady said, would work. These aren't scholarly. The bibs are short--twenty plus selected titles of possible interest on a topic. Currently they're recorded in an Access database using fields for bib title, title. LT and tags would be more convenient with potential for interaction.

I agree with nperrin's list of "unowned" attributes in #165.

I don't see that the bibliography purpose implies separate collections; it just means that books you don't own but do want to include in the bib are in the database, so you can include them based (fr'instance) on tags.

I also agree with the unowned attributes in 165. On the other hand, I *do* want any unowned books that I have included in my catalog to be included when computing Recommendations, so I would want to be able to specify that.

I would not want Wishlist or To Read books to count for Recommendations.

I would want Your Library to determine how many books are in my library at the top of my profile (wouldn't mind a second line with "books cataloged").

I would like to be able to choose which collections are included for "Members with your books" and "Random books from your library(catalog)".

Would collections affect the Statistics page? Would I get an entirely different set of numbers depending on which collection is currently selected? Same with recommendations?

145: So, I'm retreating to:

1. Your Library

Works well for me as I have more than one lifetime account. kathrynnd includes all the books currently special to me (including a few unowned but recently read books from a book club that I also list on another account). I would want all the books listed in Your library to be considered in recommendations. It would be nice to be able to exclude a certain tagged completist author name in calculating 50 Most Similar Libraries though.

3. Currently Reading

I read at most two books at a time so will likely include the two or three book most recently read in with Currently Reading. I do this now on my profile.

4. To Read
I'm not certain how this will work. Can books be listed To Read and still remain in Your Library? What about any books I plan to reread?

5. Private

I am happy to have this option for sensitive family history material, though I am unlikely to use it.

I think I'm with #200 qebo with the addition that I will be using "not owned" to get rid of some of my books while keeping track of them. Maybe keeping a review saying why they got "not owned". I'm happy as a lark with the current state of LT so collections is just another feature that I'll be glad to explore. I'll probably end up using it in a way that's a bit different from what I can imagine now. I've certainly changed the way I use tags along the way.

205: Particularly a poor Early Reviewer's book.

> 169 Tim

1. What if "count in my total" were a checkbox in each collection? By default "Wish List" would be unchecked, but you could change that, and you could add new collections that were unchecked. That would be good enough, right?

(HMF) I think that's an excellent idea.

2. As far as "not appearing in "random books from my library" my intent is to allow customized widgets on the profile, so you can decide to show randoms from this collection, or most-recents from that, or etc. etc. (Again, this won't happen immediately, but it's the goal here.)

(HMF) This sounds great, too. And, as far as what comes with the initial "launch" and what comes a bit later, I'm personally not too hung up on that - though hopefully the "later" would be WEEKS, and not months.

(HMF in # 166)
So please consider creating it, and people can delete it or not use it - that's their decision, not something you're "forcing" upon them.

I hear you. I really hear both sides. I'd really like if you (pl.) could hear my point too. Defaults are tough.

One compromise would be for everyone to get an expanded list of defaults--including an unowned, or an unowned but read--which was on the list of collections but not shown in the catalog by default. I am thinking that only the first four collections will have links, with the others requiring a (more) link to get to, unless you elect to remove a collection.

(HMF)
QUESTION FOR YOU, TIM (sorry for all caps): When you say, "Defaults are tough," do you mean they're tough to program? Would having an Unowned default (in addition to the others you've listed) be difficult, coding-wise? Or, do you just mean that deciding upon the "best" set of default collections is hard?

Your compromise makes it sound as though having a default "Unowned / but Read" collection ISN'T too difficult, but you just want to have the option "hidden" a little bit - so users won't see it in the displayed group of defaults unless they click "(more)" - am I understanding you? If it's not significantly harder to create it, and this compromise is acceptable to you, then I think it's wonderful.

Re: your comment in 172:
Is the book total thing just about the Zeitgest page

Not for me - I might look at that page once a month, maybe even less. As others have said, the book total is about the question, "How many books do I actually have here?"

Thank you for trying to respond to so many users' comments and concerns. I know you don't have an easy job. ;-)

(Edited to make format clearer, I hope, & fix typo.)

QUESTION FOR YOU, TIM (sorry for all caps): When you say, "Defaults are tough," do you mean they're tough to program

No, sorry, I mean they're tough to discuss and get consensus on. On the one hand, everyone wants what they want. On the other hand people who are willing to post in a forum like this are willing to customize something, so the question "What should people have by default?" is uninteresting to them, even though it will *determine* the experience for the majority of members who will not think or care to change the defaults.

I have no idea how feasible or practical this is, but for really big things like this where you want opinions of users who may not read Talk, what about a note/bulletin/sign/banner/whatever on their homepage? Something that says, in effect, big changes are being discussed and we'd like your input.

209: Seems like a job for Announcements. (Though I'll note that I rarely notice announcements any more. Maybe COLLECTIONS in big bold color would catch some eyes.)

> 208 Thanks for clarifying, Tim. I agree with Heather19 and qebo, couldn't hurt to put a note in the Announcements area of the users' home page. :-)

#181

I like this as a compromise for all to get what they seek with their library. Create defaults, but also solidify how one uses their "Library" within LT.

To this point, I've been a lot like Ficusfan, only having books I physically own in my collection and counting toward my total. I'm hoping to use the collectiosn feature to track other things (writing research, for one) that I don't own but that I got from the library. Then a tag could represent the return date to the library.

Early on when I joined LT (gosh, has three years passed already Tim? Since I made my account a month after LT went live.) I tracked the Zeigeist closely. Back then, I broke the top 25 libraries for a few weeks. I was high on Tag lists and a few other things... Yeah, not happening any more. So now my number tracking is so I know what the full count in my house is.

One reason I like Unowned as a default collection is to encourage people to enter unowned books. I realize that there are people here who prefer to only enter books they own, but I think a lot of the non-power-users probably are not aware that quite a few of us enter anything we feel a connection with, owned or no.

A default collection for unowned books would make it quite clear to anyone using the site that yes, you can enter anything you want, and in fact we encourage you to do so.

213: Not only that, but there are plenty of users who know other people do it but don't want to do it themselves. I'm one of that group and whether an unowned collection is a default is not a dealbreaker for me, but I'm sure there are others who are not power users and would never explore beyond the defaults but continue to assume there was no good method for including unowned books.

213>

There are plenty of people who know perfectly well that it is possible to enter books you don't own, and that people do so, but choose not to do so themselves under the current system.

Timepiece has a point, though.

I didn't even think of entering anything except my owned books until I had read some threads and realized that some people entered unowned books in separate accounts or mixed together. I opted for a separate account because I primarily wanted to use LT to catalog books I own, but I wouldn't have figured it out if I hadn't been the sort of person who reads the talk threads.

Having it be a default collection does make it clear that cataloging unowned books is a legitimate function of LT for those who might want it, but aren't the sort of user who spends a lot of time monitoring talk.

(edited for typos)

What Tim said was that by making Unowned a default collection that leaves the impression that unowned books don't belong in Your Library. I think what timepiece is saying is that many people already assume that unowned books don't belong on LT at all and that offering Unowned as a default it would encourage those folks to enter unowned books too.

216>

Oh, certainly.

I just wanted to point out that newbieness isn't the ONLY reason why people don't enter unowned books, contrary to what timepiece seemed to imply.

218>

Well, that certainly wasn't what I was trying to imply. Helcura summarized it pretty well in 216:

Having it be a default collection does make it clear that cataloging unowned books is a legitimate function of LT for those who might want it, but aren't the sort of user who spends a lot of time monitoring talk. - or other users libraries

219>Well, that certainly wasn't what I was trying to imply.

I didn't take it that way. In fact, I think it's a great point that you make. A frequently asked question, or frequently posted Talk thread, is "Where can I add books I don't own?" and its variations. At least, I seem to notice it quite a bit.

218: timepiece said "I realize that there are people here who prefer to only enter books they own", which I took to mean that s/he fully recognizes that some people make a deliberate decision not to enter books they don't own. (I have made this decision also, may or may not change my mind when collections arrive.) Seems that Owned/Unowned has troubles in both directions -- include it and some people think that they have to apply labels, don't include it and some people unnecessarily restrict themselves. There's no substitute for sticking around LT for awhile and seeing what other people are doing. Maybe collections could be accompanied by examples of how different people might use them.

Timepiece: One reason I like Unowned as a default collection is to encourage people to enter unowned books...

Yeah, I year you. It tells them it's possible. I agree.

Urgh. :)

222: Have we made your head spin enough lately?

My head still spins... slowly... whenever I read this thread. I'll say it again, this is confusing like heck because it mixes together two distinct aspects of collections: descriptions for groups of books, and things you can make the site do with groups of books.

For instance, I'd think of Wish List as part of Unowned. I'd expect books in those collections not to show up in things like "random books from my library". But I've also heard some people say they think of Currently Reading as part of My Library. And if My Library means Owned to the database, putting a book that is already in Unowned (because I borrowed it from a friend) in Currently Reading as well, that will cause it to be counted as... owned? unowned? one of each?

That sort of thing. And it makes me think this whole discussion is set up wrong for reaching an agreement on, well, I won't say on anything, but on a lot, anyhow. So how to disentangle the two aspects of collections without separating them?

I'm thinking along these lines:

Each collection gets a Settings page, with either/or checkboxes (the kind where you can check only one - ETA: the term, I'm just informed, is radio buttons) or dropdown menus, where the user can decide things like 'owned' vs. 'unowned', 'public' vs. 'private', 'include in recommendations' vs. 'exclude from recommendations', etc. For the default collections these settings are automated in a way that will make sense for the majority of users (e.g. Wish List books automatically count as unowned, unread, and excluded from recommendations). But they can be changed easily (go the the Collection Settings page of Wish List and change the setting to 'include in recommendations' if you really want to have a list of potentially interesting books that goes that far into the future).

Then we get to the exceptions. The same checkboxes or dropdowns appear on the Edit Book pages, where the user can fine-tune on a book by book basis. For instance, I'd get to decide to count the hypothetical book mentioned above as unowned and included in recommendations. This would not affect the settings of the collections it was in (Wish List, Unowned, and Currently Reading).

ETA: Of course it wouldn't be an either/or option with Read Status. Books should be able to be marked simultaneously as 'read' and 'reading', 'read' and 'to read', or 'unread' and 'to read'.

Make sense? Doable?

#224

That's the best suggestion I've read yet. It sounds fantastic. I vote for all of this... However, I have no idea how difficult it would be to do this.

224: I'm inclined to agree that there is a mixture of descriptions and behavior, but my understanding of the collections is different from yours. We don't have a detailed description of the expected use of Your Library (I'd guess that Tim et al are still thinking this through), or behaviors associated with it, but the gist seems to be that it consists of "real" books, with "real" being up to the user -- owned, or read, or important, or current (as opposed to childhood), etc. Wish List consists of not-yet-"real" books, again up to the user -- to buy, to borrow, to assess, etc. These would seem to be mutually exclusive categories, but I doubt that LT will enforce unless overlapping collections would cause problems (e.g. if one collection is to be included for recommendations and another is not). Absolutely nothing in LT assumes that Your Library is Owned -- many people are utterly uninterested in the distinction, or vehemently opposed to it. So far as I can tell from the discussion, Owned vs Unowned would not change the behavior of LT in any way, but would merely be labels for people who care about the distinction, and want it clear for themselves and possibly for others who view their libraries. Nobody should be forced to flag an entire collection (and tweaking book by book seems too complicated), Your Library or otherwise, as either Owned or Unowned, because to many people books that are now owned and books that were once owned and books that were temporarily borrowed are equally meaningful. To Read and Currently Reading could be subsets of Your Library (e.g. if you buy books before reading them), or could be outside Your Library (e.g. if you prefer not to include books until they have been read). Whether LT is going to do anything special with these collections hasn't been mentioned so far as I've noticed. The only clearly behavioral collection is Private. I kinda see Private and Recommendations as behavioral properties that could be applied to any collection (e.g. checkboxes), or could be collections that overlap others (as with Venn diagrams) -- seems offhand odd to me that one is a collection and one is not, but then I don't really know so much about the system.

226> That expresses my point of view pretty well. I'd just add that if anything were to affect the Random Books from My Library feature it wouldn't be Owned/Unowned but whether the book was in the My Library collection or not.

226 and 227 about the (lack of) definition of Your Library: All right, tying it up to ownedness has a lot less foundation than tying it up to recommendations, random books and related features. A third option, then, to set as the default 'ownedness' indicator: 'don't care'. The people who do can change it. (If an 'unowned' category is desirable, which I think it is, that automatically creates a 'not-unowned' category. But in libraries where 'unowned' doesn't exist, neither does 'owned'.)

226, last sentence: The oddness is where my confusion comes from (with the initially proposed Read But Unowned), and I want us all to know what we're talking about. Within the frame of reference of this thread, I don't know what I'm talking about, which is why I take the little step back and try to get a look at what's underneath. (This is... no, not a mixed metaphor if it means I have to step off the carpet in order to lift it.)

228: I want us all to know what we're talking about

Some of the trouble is that we're getting information piecemeal while a major feature is in progress and Tim & co consider details. They understandably want each thread confined to a specific question, but we keep saying either (a) this question makes assumptions that I don't like or (b) this question can't be answered until I see how everything fits together. And then we disagree with each other and speculate in different directions. Frustrating all around, but still vastly better than the sudden appearance of a feature called collections that doesn't do what lots of people had been anticipating.

In essence, I'm as confused as you are, but hoping that all will be revealed in time...

I don't want to read through all of this thread now (just got back from the beach) but want to let my thoughts be known. I'll read through the rest of the 200+ posts a little later.

I'd like Collections to be set up as follows:

Wish List (incoming books) - the books I'd like to read
My Library (current books) - the books I've accumulated in my real hands-on collection
Read but Unowned (outgoing books) - the books whose reviews I want to keep in LT but no longer keep as part of My Library

I'd like to see as subsets of My Library the following:
To Read - These books would need to be from My Library and not from my Wishlist.
Currently Reading - This would be a boon for stats related to Hot Reads!

The bottom line is that Collections needs to make sense and be as simple and straightforward as possible.

Being a Bookcrosser, I currently have most of my books flowing through my collections rather than just sitting and collecting dust on a shelf. I'd like some way for my books to flow through my collections in a logical manor. Tags are great for any other subsets I choose. I love, love, love the tags!

I'd probably never use Private although I'd encourage you to incorporate it as this feature is very often requested. Even though I argued against it in the beginning, I've been convinced that for some people it is a necessary option. Are the books in private collections used for stats?

I can't believe it! I leave LT for one week and you were working on Collections while I was gone!! :)

I think a "Reference" collection will be in order, as much so as "Wish List" or "Private". More so, in my opinion, as having "Currently Reading" as a collection.

>231 AnnaClaire: I confess I don't understand the requests for a 'Reference' collection. Could you explain why Reference books don't fit into the proposed defaults for you?

--> 50

After some thought, I have another problem with "Read but Unowned"—that, in context, it implies that "Your Library" is for things you own. I know some users assume that, but not all. Certainly I don't. I at least don't want the concept of owned/unowned to intrude upon my library at all.

I'm one of those "dunderheaded" people who likes having a list of all my "real books" in one place. That's why I joined LibraryThing in the first place.

--> 53

A way to keep books from not being in any collection is to keep the Collections options list small and have the Add Books page set up so that eny entry would be forced to go into one of a few selected default options. (disagreeing with bluesalamanders)

For the record, Squeaky, I was not calling people who "like having a list of all my "real books" in one place" dunderheaded. Not at all. I was calling people dunderheaded "people who believe that LibraryThing requires you to own a book if you're going to list it." (Emphasis in original)

--> 145

Anyway, I think this argues heavily for removing "5. Read but Unowned."

So, I'm retreating to:

1. Your Library
2. Wish List
3. Currently Reading
4. To Read
5. Private

Okay, so now how do I keep reviews on LT for books I no longer want as part of my "real books" (Your Library) collection?

I don't want the Unowned to default into being part of Your Library.

--> 157

When users ask for an "Unowned" attribute to a collection, what are they asking for? Surely it's not to have the word "unowned" shown somewhere.

I'm simply asking for a way to allow me to remove a book from my library and let my reviews remain on LT. This does not need to be called Unowned. Pick another name. It was just a suitable category - until it was removed. The bottom line is that my books with reviews become neither part of my Wishlist nor part of My Library as I remove them physically from my collection.

ETA: Perhaps you could have an Other category which could be named by users? Then a checkmark could indicate whether or not they want Other books "counted". I can see the absurdity of having a category called Unowned.

--> 234

Gotcha!

I confess I don't understand the requests for a 'Reference' collection. Could you explain why Reference books don't fit into the proposed defaults for you? (232)

Here goes:

1. Your Library I haven't even seen a good explanation of what this even is (though I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread through: there were 230 posts in it before I got here). This may be some sort of autodefined thing or something.

2. Currently Reading and 3. To Read I think I speak for most people when I say that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "reference book" is something like a dictionary or encyclopedia -- something that you'll *refer* to, but that you definitely will not be *reading*. Hence, reference books don't really fit in either of these categories.

4. Wish List Well perhaps if it's a reference book that's also on your wish list. But Wish List-ness is independant of Reference-ness.

5. Read but Unowned See for items 2. and 3.

6. Private Like Wish List, this one is independant of Reference. Just because a book fits in one collection does not mean it will fit into the other. In fact, I doubt there is even a significant statistical correlation between them.

Just out of curiosity (and to put your question another way), how would reference books fit into the proposed defaults for you? (Bonus points if you can explain why they should fit into the proposed defaults for all of us -- but only if you can make a convincing argument.)

238 >Well, personally I expect them to go into my 'Your Library', but if I want to separate them I would create my own collection 'Reference', I don't see enough demand needing to be a Default one though.

I look at the collections as Venn Diagrams, you have 'All books' which is EVERYTHING in your account. then you have these overlapping circles of influence of all the other collections. If you need to make a better distinction create another. Some collections will overlap and others will be mutually exclusive.

Here's my understanding of Your Library. Your Library is the books that you consider to be in your library. If you are like Tim then Your Library contains any book that you have some connection to. Other people will limit it to books that they actually own. But it is up to you to decide which books are in your Your Library.

Dear friends,

Please remember that we are talking about DEFAULTS here - the "starter set" for collections, if you will. If "Read but Unowned" is not one of the original default offerings, later on, when user-created collections come along, we will be able to create this collection if we want.

I know we all want it to be perfect from the get-go, but we have to be realistic - one step at a time!

236, 238>

Please remember that this thread is discussing the default collections. The collections that everyone on LT will have. People will be able to add additional collections (right, Tim? - though not right away). If you want a reference collection, I suspect that (a personal collection) is the best solution. If Tim decides not to have Unowned as a default collection, anyone who wishes will be able to add that, as well.

I personally plan to add a reference collection, a professional collection, a "husband's" collection, and a children's collection in addition to the defaults. Plus any of the original 6 that do not become defaults.

>241 staffordcastle:, 242
As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is determine the default collections that will best serve the most people without being excessive. This means that if a lot of people think a Reference collection is in order for the defaults, Tim may consider adding one. Unilaterally telling them to just add it later kinda defeats the purpose of discussing it, then, don't you think?

My remaining questions about the default collections -- beyond the presence or absence of "Reference" -- are as follows: First, will I be able to rename a default to something that actually makes sense to me if it doesn't? And second, will I be able to delete a default from my list of collections if I choose not to use it?

238: There hasn't been a full explanation, and the tentative explanations have morphed (IIRC it was going to be autodefined, now it is going to be user controlled).

240: My understanding of Your Library is the same. I'm wondering though whether LT will (immediately or in the future) treat this collection in some special way, e.g. make it the default view for others. I would put most of my books (which I own) in Your Library, but might put some of my books (which I also own, but which I care more about as possessions than as books -- associated with a person or time, not used for reading or reference) in separate collections, kind of off to the side.

239: Venn diagrams, yes, exactly -- with a question of what happens when the properties (counts, recommendations, etc) of intersecting sets conflict.

243: will I be able to delete a default from my list of collections if I choose not to use it?

Yes, per one of the three collections threads -- I don't recall which or when.

I think the thing to remember is that Tim is asking about default collections - from what I've read from Tim, we will have the ability to create custom collections either from the get-go or fairly soon after collections are introduced.

Personally, I will use some of the default collections, but I plan to use custom collections a bit more extensively. I like to think about my books by genre - which will be my custom collections - and then use tags to cut across genre.

ETA: All sorts of people beat me to this point!

>243 AnnaClaire:

First, will I be able to rename a default to something that actually makes sense to me if it doesn't? No

And second, will I be able to delete a default from my list of collections if I choose not to use it? You will be able to hide it.

(per Tim in message 70)

>243 AnnaClaire:, see message 70 in this thread. You will be able to hide default collections and create new ones with whatever name you want, but not rename the defaults.

243>will I be able to rename a default to something that actually makes sense to me if it doesn't

I'm pretty sure that Tim said no to this. Can't find the exact post at the moment...

ETA: Aha! sabreuse beat me to it.

>247 sqdancer:-9
I can't say I agree about the decision to not allow us to rename a default. I'm not saying we should be able to unillaterally rename it globally -- just that we should nickname it, if that makes any sense.

250>

It makes perfect sense to me. Hide the defaults and create custom collections instead if you want, but I don't want someone renaming their "Wishlist" as "My Library" and "Currently Reading" as "Wishlist", to pick deliberately perverse examples. If these are a shared-default set then I want to make sure that the label "Wishlist" in your catalog means the same as it does in mine.

> 170 Tim wrote:

My guess is two weeks. I'm sorry it's not sooner. We're running at reduced capacity right now, and we're also dealing with some library stuff. We also need to take the site down for a period of hours to change some database schemas, and collections is such a "deep" feature that some testing is in order.

Chris has made significant progress on the collections-editing UI, however. I'll get him to post some screenshots soon.

Have those screen shots been posted anywhere yet? It's been a few days, thought I'd ask. Thanks!

252 > I haven't seen them yet.

250: If you truly hate the name of a default, you can hide it and put your books in a non-default collection with the name of your choice. If the default collections don't have special properties, then you've lost nothing. If the default collections do have special properties, then there is merit to having consistent names throughout LT.

>238 AnnaClaire: Readafew beat me to the answer...but mine is basically the same. Any reference books I have (which are not many) would probably fit in 'Your Library.' As I understand how this is going to work 'Your Library' is the place for books you feel a connection to (owned, read, whatever) but may or may not want in another collection. Since you are correct in saying reference books don't fit in Read/Reading/To Read/Wishlist categories (usually) I would say they would go in the catch-all library collection.

I also want to note I'm not trying to be combative or discount your idea, just curious about your reasoning for making it a default as opposed to custom collection. Might give me a different way of thinking about my collections...

Edited to replace horrid typo

>254 qebo:-5
I'll be making up my mind about the properties of some of the defaults when I see said properties defined.

For example, if -- as Jthierer and others have suggested -- Your Library just means "books you feel a connection to", then I absolutely most certainly will not be using it. As far as I'm concerned, that's why we have/should have an "All" option. I firmly believe that Your Library means just that -- books that you have in your library, whether that library is a room, bookshelf/case, a hard drive, or some combination of places.

256: You get to use (or not) Your Library as you please. As do other people. I buy books because it's easier (don't have to worry about completing and returning by deadline, $ relatively insignificant). Until 10-15 years ago, I generally had a public library card and university borrowing privileges. I had more leisure time to read then, but alas I didn't keep track for posterity. If my financial situation and the internet had aligned differently, I too would be using LT to record books that I'd read but not kept physically, and I would consider them completely real and legitimate.

>257 qebo:
What I meant was that when I hear "Your Library" I think of the literal version rather than some fuzzy, semi-undefined version -- to each his/her/its own. But I think of the literal version because I'd say that's precisely what's suggested by the name: It's called "Your Library" and not, say, "Your Reading" or whatnot.

I would use the following Collections:

1) My Library--this will be a place for me to catalog all of the books I physically own. Within this category, I would probably create a tag for books which I have loaned out.

Within this category, I would like to indicate via drop down menu, those books TO READ, rather than have a seperate collection area. IMO, TO READ are books that I own, but just haven't gotten around to reading yet. These books are in queue to be read, as opposed to other books in my library that are already read, or just sitting nicely on my bookshelf to be read at a much later date. I'd be fine with just using a good ole tag for this as well.

2) Currently Reading--This would be helpful for me since I read different books for different reasons in different places. Some get lost in the cracks. This would be a great way to keep track of those books. I would like to see the stats on time it takes to start and finish books in this section based on category and perhaps number of pages. I have a 90 page philosophical book that its going on almost a year, still haven't finished. Yet I finished a 900 page adventure book in 90 days. I'd find it interesting to know statistically how much faster do I read books of one type compared to another.

--I think a drop down menu should be used on this category to indicate whether this is a book you own or not so that way when you finish the book it either goes to #1 Your Library or #5 Read But Unknowned (please don't delete this category...I know it's been controversial.)

3) TO READ--see explanation under 1).

4) Wish List--This would be a place for books I don't own, but would like to add to my personal collection one day. It would also encompass books I am just curious about, just want to investigate or whatever. I really would not want to take a lot of time subdividing my wish list--it's simply books I don't have but for whatever reason would like to obtain.

5) Read but Unowned are books that are not in my physical library...but that at some point in time I did read. Again, perhaps a drop down can be used to indicate whether they are borrowed (unowned) or disposed of (unowned). Borrowed books could be factored into recommendations...but the disposed of ones would not.

Private--I probably would not use, but as mentioned by many posters, I do see that many are in favor of this option.

As mentioned in #33, I do like the social aspect of the 'currently reading' collection. Sounds like it could lead to some interesting discussion, like an informal book club (sort of).

256> AnnaClaire, I don't understand why you can't use your Your Library collection to hold the books that you own. Does it matter that other people might use it differently?

I don't care how anyone else uses "your library". They can use it only for books they own, only for books they've read, or only for imaginary books that exist in their minds for all I care. However, I will use it only for books I actually own. So, I really would like a way to mark a collection as not actually included in my "your library" numbers in any way shape or form.

I use my LT account for purposes of actually cataloging my books that are on my shelves. It helps me keep a list for insurance purposes and more importantly for my own use. I regularly copy and paste my catalog into a template I have, print it off and make it into a book. I use this book when shopping. It helps to keep me from buying books I already own and it helps me to remember authors I love or like.

If I could have collections in my LT that are not counted in my actual catalog in any way shape or form, then I could use LT to track my bibliographies (I'm a bit of a compulsive collector and a completest) and books to consider for future purchase (ie wishlist).

This is why I think it would be great if LT collections had a way to customize each collection to keep it out of my actual catalog. The default could be to include a collection in the numbers. That would be fine with me... I would just really like to have a way to keep some of my collections separate from my numbers.

256>As far as I'm concerned, that's why we have/should have an "All" option.

I think you're making a very good point. I suspect it will rub Tim the wrong way, though. :-) Right now, I don't expect "Your Library" to mean anything unless the LTer has specified a meaning. However, once Collections is implemented, and we're looking for defaults that have somewhat consistent meaning...

# 257

I think somewhere in this thread, Tim mentioned we will have an "All Records" type of collection, which contains every book(, magazine, comic, audio, et al) you add to LT. The "Your Library" becomes a specialized collection, used as EACH user feels that it labels. Me, its the books I own. Others, its any book that they've read/reviewed/touched, whatever. HOW you use "Your Library" doesn't change from the way it is used now, unless you chose to adjust your present thought process.

How do you use "Your Library" now? And how does the change to Collections change your thought process of LT to define the coming defaults?

If not in this thread, an "All Books" collection was definitely mentioned in the UI thread, and pictured in a screenshot (somewhere, I don't see it in that thread).

264> It's over here, on the other other Collections thread.

262, 263

I was wondering about the same thing: what's going to be the continuation of Your Library as it is now, the new Your Library or All Books? To the people who catalog their wish list with their owned (read, loved, whatever) books, it seems like that it would be All Books. To the people who list only owned books, it's more likely to be the new Your Library, which they need no longer worry about 'contaminating' with unowned books because those can be put in a collection that is 'not in Your Library', or let them float around in All Books without bothering to classify them as unowned in any way. To the people who list only books they've read - um, alright, dizzy now.

260>
My question wasn't about how I should use that collection. My question was about whether it was a "programmed" collection (à la green text).

267 > that answer would be no. (as of the last I read about it.)

>266 235711:
This discussion has been making me dizzy most of the day. But I think we agree on what we think "Your Library" sounds like it 'should' be.

If it isn't what we think it sounds like, I'd like to know if hiding it hides it from other people who view our libraries. It is, after all, my library, so I should have some say in what people can and can't see about it -- including having some say in not having people see a (default) collection that I think is inadequately defined (and possibly meaningless).

If Tim has a specific notion of what he means by "Your Library" beyond the vague description that's been paraphrased as possibly his opinion, than I'd like to hear it. If not, I'll probably never get used to it (which may lead to me pestering everyone about it on Talk).

Edited for a little more clarity.

267: See #50 in this thread. That's the latest, so far as I know. Also #145 for terminology.

>270 qebo:

Perhaps there should be a Wiki page. I came in thirty forty posts ago, and even then the thread was way the <explative deleted> too long to expect anyone to read it through.

Edited to add: Especially in the absence of any more efficient way to the posts than scrolling.

271: Just search for timspalding. Everything else is opinion and speculation.

I'm also interested in how the various collections will interact with the site. For instance, in Talk: will clicking Your Books give me posts featuring books from my entire catalog? The last collection I viewed? "My Library"?

Will we have a separate statistics page for each collection? Series? Clouds? (I would love separate clouds for each collection!)

If I view my tags page, will I see all tags, or only those appearing in the currently selected collection?

>273 timepiece:
Ditto. (Threadjacking appreciated.)

I believe there was some discussion on one of the threads about the pros and cons of what you got while in a specific collection; my general recollection was that being in a collection dominated the other attributes. For instance, if you clicked on the tags button you would just get the tags for the collection (as opposed to clicking on the Tags tab at the top, which would get you ALL your tags. Other things would function similarly.

Disclaimer: this was a while ago, so their ideas may have changed!

First, you people are amazing. I love you. I hope you know that. It is a rare privilege to design software with users--rarer with users so articulate.

That said, man you guys write a lot! :)

224

I see the pull of your solution--and I admire your ingenuity. But I do think it's too clever by half. What you have is a sort of "total" solution--a hole for every pigeon and for every pigeon a hole. But I'm not at all convinced that regular users won't be confused by that level of definiton--of that they want it.

Certainly I don't--I'm one of the people who doesn't *want* to tell people what I own and what I don't; it's just not about that for me, so I want a system that allows me not to speak on those terms.

I do think your point about individual books is a good one--a "cascade" of preferences. It would certainly be best if you had a member-level privacy setting, a collections level and a book level. Ditto recommendations. The main question is whether that level of complexity can be achieved efficiently or not. I don't think members would trade even 5% slower catalogs for such features, and such a feature would have to be global, not user-by-user.

I think 226 expresses the over-definition argument well.

Whether LT is going to do anything special with these collections hasn't been mentioned so far as I've noticed. The only clearly behavioral collection is Private

No, we defitely are. We've left it somewhat vague exactly what features will be collection-based and which won't. We are doing this step-wise. But some colletion-based features are certain. However we do it, for example, I don't think you'll have to see your wish list books messing up your recommendations or collections.

Some of the trouble is that we're getting information piecemeal while a major feature is in progress and Tim & co consider details...

Absolutely. And I am sorry about it. It's hard to talk about features this way. It's also useful to us, but I know it's hard.

230: I'd like to see as subsets of My Library the following...

The problem here is that some users will want to list "currently reading" book that are unowned or even wish list. You're reading it, but you got it from the library, from a friend. Maybe you're reading it in the bookstore every morning on the sly. I have a close friend who, although not financially hurting, reads entire books this way. (There's a small circle of hell reserved for him, or so I tell him.)

Readafee expressed this chaotic Venn Diagram well in 239.

a "husband's" collection

As I husband, I resent that! :)

I can't say I agree about the decision to not allow us to rename a default. I'm not saying we should be able to unillaterally rename it globally -- just that we should nickname it, if that makes any sense.

I hear you. I'll consider it. The point is that I want a shared concept. If you can rename your wish list, then you may rename it as "Paranormal Romance" and aggregating across users will be messed up.

Incidentally, I was thinking it would be cool if you could "explain" collections in some way. I note that users do this on their profiles a lot--explain what their tags mean to them. I'm not sure where these explanations will appear, but perhaps your profile.

Have those screen shots been posted anywhere yet?

No, Chris is a big slouch. A big steak-eating slouch. (Good test if Chris is reading this...)

This discussion has been making me dizzy most of the day

The longer you wait to read it, the dizzier it gets...

Definition of "your library"

I'm leaving it vague. Those who want it to mean "books I physically own" will use it in that way. Those who want it to mean "books I've read" will use it in that way. *I* believe that this lack of clarity is a good thing--allowing members to use LibraryThing naturally without conforming to a single mental model of "your library." Both will, of course, be able to use, ignore, create or hide other collections to conform to their mental model.

276

Right.

Tim (and Co.),
I {heart} the fact that 277 messages into a thread, at 11:30 pm on a Friday, you're still posting thoughtful, personalized, and witty answers to our never-ending, dizzying questions and suggestions.
This is what makes LibraryThing worth coming back to again and again (well, and there's all the wonderful things the site does, too, but the amazing rapport with the staff is a big part of it.)
Thanks!

Well, my choices this Friday night aren't very good. The wife is out with friends and I have the baby monitor... :)

Certainly I don't--I'm one of the people who doesn't *want* to tell people what I own and what I don't; it's just not about that for me, so I want a system that allows me not to speak on those terms.

I feel like various discussions (most recently, ones about read/unread) keep getting bogged down in this issue for no reason. Just because a possible attribute exists doesn't mean it always has to be specified. In this case, a collection could be owned, unowned, or unspecified. Unspecified might not work for, say, Public/Private--that would have to be one or the other--but in the case of owned/unowned I don't see what the problem is.

It would certainly be best if you had a member-level privacy setting, a collections level and a book level.... The main question is whether that level of complexity can be achieved efficiently or not.

But won't you have to deal with this already? I'd think that books in private collections should be hidden wherever they occur; it wouldn't be much good to let people create a private collection but force them to display the secret books in All Books. And once you have collections that include some private and some public books, you're pretty close to book-by-book privacy settings....

277: Ohhhhh, being able to "explain" what our collections mean to us would be so cool!! *starts getting all sorts of ideas*
I, for one, agree that the vague definition of "your library" is a good thing. It's something that users will be able to decide for themselves, then. Me, I'll probably use it as a catch-all for everything but my wishlist.

278: Totally agree!!

I'm just totally giddy about Collections. ..... Tim, do you have any idea what day of the week you are planning on rolling out this feature? I don't want to be stuck at work while everyone else is trying it out! lol

281, "I, for one, agree that the vague definition of "your library" is a good thing. It's something that users will be able to decide for themselves, then. Me, I'll probably use it as a catch-all for everything but my wishlist."

I'm glad someone doesn't think I'm crazy.

Tim, do you have any idea what day of the week you are planning on rolling out this feature?

I do, but I'm not telling you. When I know, I'll send out a text message to all registred Obama supporters. (joke)

We just rethought parts of the database table structure for about the tenth time. But we have a good list of basic functions and memory structures. So... dunno.

277

Ha! If I've committed an ingenious overkill I must have understood something.

You have certainly guessed the secret behind private libraries. They're full of pigeons. And the reason people like me want a Private collection or setting is that we wish to hide from the general public those pigeons which are employed in passing secret messages between us. We are in cahoots with the fishing lure cataloguers conceptDawg mentioned in the other Collections thread.

I'm one of the people who doesn't *want* to tell people what I own and what I don't; it's just not about that for me, so I want a system that allows me not to speak on those terms.

Well, like I said in 228, if there's a third option (by 'don't care' I mean the same as _Zoe_'s 'unspecified' in 280), and it's set to that option by default, nobody has to bother with the owned/unowned distinction except the people who want it. They'd have to go through some extra steps, but they'd be motivated to do so. Mental library people happy, physical library people happy - and if book-by-book tweaks are possible, everyone in between as well.

>283 235711:

Yeah, I see the attraction of Zoe's idea, although I would set the default to "unspecified," which makes this a conversation about the 5% not the 95%.

284

I'm puzzled about your "although". _Zoe_ said nothing about which of the three should be the default, and I said the same as you.

I just shudder at the thought of a pigeon getting a hold of a fishing lure. What a horrible concept.

Keep up the good work guys, your attitude to design and development is so much the opposite of Microsoft and the other big guys as to be out the other side.

>285 235711:

Sorry, the "although" is in opposition to the argument for the idea. However attractive the idea might be, if you don't set a default on a feature, it's not a feature at all for 95% of users. If making such a 5% feature is hard or raises other problems--and I think both are true--then it's not so attractive.

Again, I'm not shooting it down completely. Let me sleep on it. Or don't, but I'm going to sleep right now either way! :)

287

Ah, okay, got it. I'm (rather manifestly) not opposed to all forms of overkill on principle, but if it means "kills things that shouldn't be killed besides the target" (instead of merely "kills the target more than strictly necessary"), that's the wrong kind.

Glad to know you're willing to sleep on it. Who knows, you might wake up with an idea for killing two birds with one stone... (Not the pigeons!! Hands off the LT pigeons!!)

286

It is. Which is why we keep the pigeons well away from the fishing lures.

Agreed on the fantasticity of the LT staff.

Tim, if you're saying that the physical library people are only 5% of your users I think you are very wrong.

# 289 JJwilson61

Agree completely, at least in terms of permanent users. I think the drive-by users may be the imaginary crowd, and probably can't deal with the free-form, complexity of LT.

This site seems geared to the detail oriented, computer geeky, literal minded , book lovers who want to play around with all the attributes and data of a book. Not just those who want to post it, and talk about it with others. Though of course many of the physical crowd do talk about it or can be coaxed into it.

Definition of "your library"

I'm leaving it vague. Those who want it to mean "books I physically own" will use it in that way. Those who want it to mean "books I've read" will use it in that way. *I* believe that this lack of clarity is a good thing--allowing members to use LibraryThing naturally without conforming to a single mental model of "your library." (#277)

I don't want people thinking I use "Your Library" the same way they do just because I can't tell them otherwise. To me, the name strongly suggests that it's books I own, so that's how I'll be using it.

So, two questions.

First, will I be able to disambiguate how I'm using a collection on the collection itself? Without that ability, someone who doesn't see the collection the way I do won't have any reason to think I use mine as I do unless they, say, check my profile -- and many people will be just too lazy, if the idea occurs to them at all.

Second, if we can't disambiguate our own collections, will hiding a default collection hide it from everyone? Or just me? Alternatively, will not using the "Your Library" collection be a matter of not using it, or will I actually have to move each of my 433 (and counting) books out of it?

I also think that #224 would be the best solution. It's kind of what I was working towards with my scheme in #96.

But if we can't have that, what about the idea of nesting collections? The ability to have collections with other collections "within" them?

It seems that the collections proposed by Tim (default and user-created) can be realized by "special tags": tags that don't show up in the tags list, but in a different collections list. But still they operate like tags: each book can be in (or have) 0 or many collections, just like tags.

But if we allow collections to "imply" other collections, then I think we can have fine control over what these collections "mean" to us. I know a lot of people have asked for hierarchical tags (including me), and this is essentially the same thing.

For example, look at the proposed default collections.

Your Library could be defined as implying no collections (default), or CHANGED to imply a "Read" collection (all books in YL are read), or a "Owned" collection (all books in YL are owned), or both "Read" and "Owned" (all books in YL are read AND owned).

Currently Reading (or "Reading") could be fundamental (implying nothing). Or you could add "Owned" if you thought you had to own the book to be reading it.

To Read could be fundamental, but also be changed to imply "Owned", "Unread", or both.

Wish List could be defaulted to imply "Unowned", but changed to imply "Unread", or both. Or a special "To Own" collection might be more expressive.

Read but Unowned could be created easily to imply "Read" and "Unowned".

So the fundamental collections are (except Privacy ones):

Your Library
Read, Unread, Reading, To Read
Owned, Unowned
For Recommendations, Not For Recommendations

The Recommendations collections could be added or subtracted as desired, with some specified by default.

The collections that mean something special to LT are

Read, Unread, Reading, To Read
Owned, Unowned, To Own
For Recommendations, Not For Recommendations

But the ones people see first (or easily) are

Your Library
Reading
To Read
Wishlist

Of course you have to have to check for circular definitions, or contradictions (can't have a collection imply both "Read" and "Unread", "Owned" and "Unowned", etc.)

*does a happy dance at the thought of how close the Collections feature is*

I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE it!!!!!!!

*waits anxiously*

However attractive the idea might be, if you don't set a default on a feature, it's not a feature at all for 95% of users. If making such a 5% feature is hard or raises other problems--and I think both are true--then it's not so attractive.

But by that argument, why are you developing this whole complicated Collections thing anyway? 95% of users would probably have been happy if you just added a wishlist feature and a catalogue display column for the status checkboxes. All the extra time and effort that's going into this is already just for the 5%.

Also, I'm not convinced that it would be any more valuable to set a default (like "owned") that 95% of users didn't look at. Does it count as using a feature if you use it only unconsciously?

My 2c on default collections:

* ALL BOOKS * YOUR LIBRARY * WISH LIST are requirements and should I believe be the the minimum default list for displayed-to-you collections. But I propose that a number of other default collections be predefined and available for users to add to their collection displays, or not.

(1) I strongly believe there should be an "All Books" option and in fact think of it as a default option, a la iTunes. Respects to those who would hate this, but a "hide this collection" or "ignore this collection" or "don't display this collection to me" option should perfectly suffice to keep them from having to suffer the daily awareness that the option exists for them.

(2) I too would probably use "My Library" (or equivalent) for everything but @wishlist and @interesting (my I-want-to-look-into-it-more-but- may-not-want-to-invest- time-reading-or-money-buying collection).

I don't really care about the nomenclature of "My Library" or "My books" or whatever, but I do have a small sentimental attachment to "My Library" which would probably lead me to use that phrase given the option.

(3) WISH LIST is apparently self-explanatory. I would set the default on this collection to be "don't include in ..." stats, recs, etc.", but make that default option prominently available. For instance, I'm going to use WISHLIST for my @wishlist but I'm also going to set up INTERESTING or something like that for books I wish to check into further, but ultimately may not want to invest in with time or money.

BTW: Tim elsewhere suggested that we all agree that wishlist is stuff that's *not* in Your Library". While that's how I will probably use it, for the most part, there is an alternate use-scenario: There are certainly books that I have read but don't own but WANT TO BUY -- those would be on my wishlist and in my "Your Library". That shouldn't screw up the conception of collection-setting-defaults (see below), though, but if it does, then perhaps item-level attribute-settings could fix it.

(4) "PRIVATE" is a necessary feature IMO but need not be a possible collection, so long as "make private" is a prominently placed checkbox option on each collection's "collection page". I take Tim's points about defaults being what most people will end up with but, since privacy is something that many people (even non-power-users) will want to put on different kinds of collections if they can, I think it would be unnecessarily redundant (as opposed to necessarily or usefully redundant) to have a collection named PRIVATE. One might want, for example, to have PRIVATE-SEX and PRIVATE-FRIVOLOUS and PRIVATE-RESEARCH for slightly different reasons, and I personally would probably want to make my wishlist private.

(5) "CURRENTLY READING" I was wholly uninterested in this proposed collection but confess myself intrigued by the possibility of social networking & stats with other currently-reading people. HOWEVER, I think that although this might seem appealing, I think there's a very good chance that it will be so underused that it won't really be helpful. On the whole, I imagine that this is not a necessary default collection.

However, that led me to thinking about the ways in which the default collections may also have preprogrammed calculations / features built into them. If so, then ...

(6) Maybe it is useful to have several high priority collections be default available and default displayed AND have a variety of other collections be default-available but not default-displayed. The default-display collections could be, for example, the three *I* picked out , but a variety of other default-available collections could have useful statistics / social networking ("definitions") preprogrammed. On the "manage collections" page one could checkbox/radio button "show on collections tab" "show on 'more collections' menu" or "don't show" (for _Zoe_'s "All books").

Just read (though a bit quickly) both mkjones's comments in # 292 & lquilter's in # 295. Both posts are excellent, and I hope Tim gives some feedback on these comments & suggestions. They make me feel like we might actually be *getting somewhere* with all of this. Thanks to both of you for clear thinking and good explanations.

On the "manage collections" page one could checkbox/radio button "show on collections tab" "show on 'more collections' menu" or "don't show" (for _Zoe_'s "All books").

I'd be happy with this, as long as collections of mine that I chose not to show wouldn't be visible to others viewing my catalogue either.

I think this will be an important issue for privacy settings, even if that's not what I'm concerned about. If someone has a private collection, they either have to hide the All Books collection from other people's view or have a way to exclude the private collection from All Books.

# 295

(1) I strongly believe there should be an "All Books" option and in fact think of it as a default option, a la iTunes. Respects to those who would hate this, but a "hide this collection" or "ignore this collection" or "don't display this collection to me" option should perfectly suffice to keep them from having to suffer the daily awareness that the option exists for them.

I have no problem with this option if not only can I hide it from me, but I can prevent others from seeing it too. For me it would cease to exist, it would not be used as a representation of me or my library to others. Those who want to use it and/or display it will be happy.

I never use the Music category on my Itunes. Its too large and useless, but it doesn't have music I didn't load, so its existence doesn't bother me.

I'd be happy with this, as long as collections of mine that I chose not to show wouldn't be visible to others viewing my catalogue either. (#297)

I agree, to the point of absolutely and specifically insisting that default collections that I choose to hide be hidden from others.

This is, I think, parallel to what someone or other (I forget who) was saying in the last month or two, about his/her/its recommendations being such that they could easily create a false sense of the catalog on which they were based. I think I should be able to control my catalog in such a way that defaults will be kept from leading people to reaching false conclusions about my library. If I have to disambiguate how I use the "Your Library" collection, I should be able to do so and have it appear on that page; failing that, if I don't use that collection at all, I should be able to keep other people from seeing it.

Tim, if you're saying that the physical library people are only 5% of your users I think you are very wrong.

No, I'm saying that users who go to the trouble of changing defaults are 5%.

Don't believe me? What percent of users have changed the default columns in your library? Take a wild guess. It's 0.9%. Yes it goes way up with high levels of engagement--number of books, etc. But LibraryThing isn't "for" the power users. It's for all users. That's why the issue of defaults is so critical--and so hard to talk about with users who are just the sort of change them. It's like talking about what recipe should go on the back of a soup can with a really great chef. The great chef isn't going to use the recipe on the back of the soup can. :)

It seems that the collections proposed by Tim (default and user-created) can be realized by "special tags": tags that don't show up in the tags list, but in a different collections list. But still they operate like tags: each book can be in (or have) 0 or many collections, just like tags.

On the level of the database, the system is different--more optimized to the smaller number of collections, with most being defaults. But, yes, any system that classifies can be conceptualized as tags--subjects, series, collections.

But if we allow collections to "imply" other collections...

I think this stuff takes flexible, optional complexity and turns it into inflexible necessary complexity. But in any case, collections that imply other collections is not trivial to code. Something like calculating who shares books with you is already insanely memory and processor intensive. Adding some "out" for books that are applicable in most contexts but not to be shared will add to that. Creating a system of collections that cascade attributes like sharedness to each other in user-specific ways and that deal with all the potential logical problems... well, my blood just chills. I am only a man.

It reminds me when I wrote a text adventure, like Zork. I had the objects worked out beautifuly. You could put the penny in the envelope in the box in the sack in the chest. One of my first testers then put the chest in the chest. Whoops, no chest anymore. :)

Incidentally, if "collections that imply collections" is hard, "calculated collections" are not as much. Having a collection that includes everything in collections X and Y, or tagged Z or added after X, like the iTunes "recently added" collection is rather easier.

but I do have a small sentimental attachment to "My Library"

Do you dislike "Your Library" or are they both okay with you?

There are certainly books that I have read but don't own but WANT TO BUY -- those would be on my wishlist and in my "Your Library". That shouldn't screw up the conception of collection-setting-defaults (see below), though, but if it does, then perhaps item-level attribute-settings could fix it.

I am glad to see you appreciate how complex these situations can get, and how global rules can fall apart in personal use. I feel like I'm not being heard of that. Attribute cascading and item-level settings could indeed solve that. The complexity there--for users and for programmers!--really dissaudes me.

I'd be happy with this, as long as collections of mine that I chose not to show wouldn't be visible to others viewing my catalogue either.

Yeah, I think that's a requirement. I am not at all convinced about "All Books" however. "All Books" isnt' a collection--it's a feature allowing you to make global changes. Removing it would be like removing Power Edit--some might want to do it, but might not understand what they did or remember how to get it back. I am not interested in answering support emails from people who cripple the software and then can't do something. If you could see my email flow, you'd understand my worry there!

Here's a question. If you're in your catalog and in a collection you're "in" it. Go away and come back and you're still in it, etc. But what about when you're in other people's collections. Should LT remember what collection you were in for each user in LT?

>298 FicusFan:/299 I admit, I'm a bit confused about this "hiding" of collections that you decide not to use. If you don't use them, then none of your books will be in them. If that is the case, then a user visiting your catalog would be confronted with a blank page and would therefore know you didn't use the collection. I just don't understand how people would reach "false conclusions" about your library if none of your books appear in one of the default collections when a visitor looks at your catalog.

I would love to hear the explanation because otherwise I feel like I'm missing some important idea about how collections might work.

ETA: I just read Tim's comment, and see that perhaps the issue is more specifically the "All Books" collection?

>301 Talbin:

We're building in an explicit "hide" option, so you don't need to confront a collection you aren't using--and your visitors won't either. You're right that we *could* make this work off emptiness. But visible, empty collections have a powerful UI justification—they tell you what's possible! And anyway sometimes people will want to "show" an empty collection--if they want to advertise that they've finished their 50-book-challenge, for example.

I'm a bit confused about this "hiding" of collections that you decide not to use. If you don't use them, then none of your books will be in them. If that is the case, then a user visiting your catalog would be confronted with a blank page and would therefore know you didn't use the collection.

All Books won't be blank if you don't use it.

Removing it would be like removing Power Edit--some might want to do it, but might not understand what they did or remember how to get it back.

I think you just need an "edit collections" page that's easy to use. It could have checkboxes for the collections that you want to display in the catalogue sub-nav. So if you wanted to hide a collection and later changed your mind, you could just go to the edit page and get it back again. But other users wouldn't be able to get to your edit page, so they'd only see the collections that you chose to show.

It's not the existence of the collection in itself that I have a problem with. If it's out of the way (i.e., I don't have to see a button for it every time I look at my catalogue) and no one else can see it, that's good enough for me.

What percent of users have changed the default columns in your library? Take a wild guess. It's 0.9%.

Next time you claim that no one is interested in Date Read, you might want to remember this. The vast majority of users probably don't even know it exists, and even if they've seen it on the book editing page, it's not very useful there. If it were in Catalogue View A the situation would be completely different.

>302 timspalding: Makes sense to me. :) I personally didn't really care about the "hide" function - I just wanted to understand the argument for it. But, I'm glad it's there as an option for those who want it.

> 300 but I do have a small sentimental attachment to "My Library"
Do you dislike "Your Library" or are they both okay with you?

ulp, I confess that I meant to write "Your Library". Semantically they're interchangeable for me so I was sloppy writing about them -- sorry for the confusion. BTW like Tim I don't like "My ...x..."; I find it cutesy & patronizing. So, I meant "Your Library" instead of "Your Books" or whatever else, but I also mean "Your Library" instead of "My Library" (since I brought it up by my confusing writing).

I'm glad you agree about the cutesy and latronizing tone of "My X." It's "how are we feeling today?"

What percent of users have changed the default columns in your library? Take a wild guess. It's 0.9%.

That number is skewed by the number of users who added 20 books then got bored and left, and I bet that describes a large percentage of user accounts .

Among users with more than 200 books, what percent have changed the default columns? What about among users with more than 1000 books?

Who will see 'All Books'? Maybe if the only person who can view this collection is the member who created it some of the "I don't want it!" would be lessened?

309

Or make it optionally viewable by others.

Of course that'll prevent us from making such interesting discoveries as the fact that a member has had an interest in detective fiction throughout their reading life, from seeing all the books tagged "mystery" in their Your Library, From My Childhood, Read In High School, and Wish List collections together on one page. (This is not a proposal for more default collections, I'm assuming we'll be able to make more later.)

Of course that'll prevent us from making such interesting discoveries as....

Yes, but structuring collections in such a way that some people just won't enter their wishlist at all isn't any better.

I'd actually be happier if we could just remove certain collections (private, wishlist) from All Books and display the rest publicly, but that seems more complicated and sort of destroys the meaning of "All Books".

What EVER is going to prevent people from entering their wishlists?! That there is some option somewhere for them to see both wishlist and non-wishlist books together if they need to?

Ugh, I thought the discussion had progressed a bit beyond this. You seemed willing to consider letting us hide All Books.

But I can say it one more time if you haven't understood yet: I am not going to enter my wishlist unless I can prevent other people from seeing it together with my other books. This is because of the loose sense in which I interpret "wishlist"; it's not for books that I've committed to buying (if I'm sure I want a book, I usually just buy it), but for books that I come across on the site that seem interesting and deserving of further investigation.

For example, just now I was looking through some of my tag-based recommendations lists. I came across about 10 books that I want to bookmark in some way. Adding them to a list on LT would be nice. But I have no real connection to these books, and I don't want people to think I do.

The stupid part of all this is that I believed everything you used to say about the power of tags. I have unowned books in my Library; I'm convinced that tags are fine for distinguishing subjects and reading status, etc. And it's exactly for this reason that I have very little need of an All Books collection; the books that I want together are already together in my Library. The books that I don't want together aren't in my Library, and I'm not going to put them together even if you change the name of the largest grouping to "All Books".

Look, I'm sorry I came back to this discussion. I thought that the fact that several other users (e.g., 298, 299) had just expressed the same view as me meant that people might be willing to take the concern seriously instead of dismissing it as ridiculous. Plus, the conversation is interesting, so I find it difficult to read without posting. I'm sorry that I can't seem to participate without causing people to reduce the discourse to the level of capitalized exclamations of shock and multiple punctuation marks.

On the issue of what other people would see - hypothetically - if they clicked on someone else's All Books: wouldn't this effectively be All MemberX's Public Books? -- i.e. all books in any collections that were public (or not not explicitly marked private), and not showing any books in private collections except to that member her/himself? (Whereas for one's own catalog, All Books would include all books, public and private.) It seems it ought to be understood, when looking at someone else's library, that "all books" might include books of different kinds - real and imaginary (to use someone else's nomenclature) and also things like hated books one has reviewed but doesn't want contaminating the rest of one's library and recommendations. At any rate, people can specify on their profiles what each collection includes or doesn't include, as some people do now with their libraries.
Alternatively, what would be lost in making the "All Books" view available only in one's own catalog, and making people go through one or other collection (My Library, Wishlist, etc.) when looking at someone else's?

(Incidentally, this makes me think that it would be helpful to conceptualize All Books as a view or viewing style (to be contrasted with a collection-specific view), and not as a collection itself.)

312: What EVER is going to prevent people from entering their wishlists?!

Well (hesitant to chime in here, but) I won't be entering them until I can make my wishlist private. My other two options are to make my entire library private so I can use wishlists and other collections (probably what I'll do), or enter my wishlist in the private collection when that comes along. Both of those are sub-optimal, for different reasons: 1) I'd like to keep parts of my library public rather than having to go entirely private; 2) I might want more than one private collection, for different types of books (in my case, for example, Wishlist and Childhood Books).

Wow, these Collections conversations are way overheated. I think the best thing that could happen would be for Tim to take what he thinks our collective ideas on collections might be, combined with his team's implementation knowledge, come up with something, implement it and release it. Then we can try it out, see what happens in various scenarios, and come back and complain if something isn't how we might like it. The current conversation is going around in circles and I, for one, am just getting more and more confused in several very important points:

1) What does Tim want Collections to do?

2) What does Zoe, et al, want Collections to do?

3) What do "the masses" want Collections to do?

4) What do _I_ want Collections to do? (Yes, I'm even confused about this one, right now)

5) In what ways are all of these desires _actually_ incompatible. I'm not so sure they really are incompatible at all, and most of the problem seems to be purely communication issues, semantic distinctions, sarcasm, rhetoric, and general misunderstanding.

So please, Tim and the rest of the team, unless something really really important comes up, I would rather you spend time working on Collections than participating in any more of these back and forth discussions here that appear to get nowhere.

As a final note, the amazing thing about all this is that all this discord stems from the unique way in which LibraryThing is being developed here, with user input to such high degree. I think that as a method of communicating user needs, we have a long way to go. But at least this is probably a step in the right direction over other industry methods (here is our product. complaints will be ignored. we may look at fixing bugs. Maybe.)

(Edited because I am unable to count.)

>315 rsterling:, 312 Whereas I'd be happy to have my "wishlist" public, but would make it private if that would prevent it from appearing in All Books.

311, 313

Is this

A) you don't mind people seeing books in you Wish/Watch List collection but you don't want them to be able to see these books mixed up with your other books

or

B) you don't want anyone else to see these books you have no real connection to, in any collection or grouping whatsoever?

If B), then wouldn't making them Private solve the problem?

If A), I'm not sure I understand.

ETA Okay, answered above, it's A.

rsterling makes excellent points in 314 --- if we have the option to make a book or a whole collection private, then other users won't actually see our "All Books" catalog (or viewing style - another good idea).

Thoughts: make everyone's "All Books" viewable only by that member - as rsterling suggests - or perhaps make "All Books" viewable by others only if the member has not marked anything as private. Or just have a setting or checkbox (as mentioned for Read, Owned, Count for Recommendations, etc.) for "All Books" to "Allow others to see" or "Hide from others."

ETA: Wow, four other messages while I typed this - jeez!

>313 _Zoe_:

In all honesty, I find the argument baffling. Leaving aside private books--which, obviously, will be private--it just makes no sense to me that you would feel so strongly that users be utterly and absolutely prohibited from seeing and searching all your LibraryThing-entered books together, when they choose a feature labelled as exactly that and know what they're getting involves different collections.

People visiting your library will be able to see your wish list. They will be able to see your other collections too, fit they want. They will be able to flip between views quickly, even print them out and tape them together and read them off as one long list. What is so offensive about making it possible for them to see both at the same time? As other users have noted, there are very good reasons for doing so on occasion.

For example, if I'm one of your LT friends, I am able see when you add books to your wishlist and when you add books to one of your 50 other collections. What if ten days later I want to talk to you about a book, but can't remember which list it was on? Do I have to go list by list doing a search? Doesn't that argue for the ability to search across collections if necessary?

>315 rsterling:

I very much understand the private point. There can be no question that other users will see private books. (We'll have to figure out what happens when a book is on a private AND a public list.)

#300:

I hear what you're saying about most users not changing the defaults, but I'd be really interested in active users, not total users. I don't mean power users here -- I mean people with more than ten books, who have added books on more than one day, so you weed out the "visited once, added a few books, and never returned" population.

Actually, it's a little hard. The defaults have changed over time. I tried to do it by an empty field--99% have empty fields. But the number does go up as you get more books. I can't tell, however, if they saved the existing collections (which fills the field) or made different ones.

1) What does Tim want Collections to do?

I think Tim wants collections to group books by location, ownership status, and reading status--for the people who care about those things, not because he personally thinks that all those distinctions are important.

2) What does Zoe, et al, want Collections to do?

I want to be able to separate some collections (e.g., wishlist) completely from the others. I don't want other people to be able to view a combination of my wishlist and my "real books", and I don't want to see a link to an "All Books" collection every time I view my catalogue.

Perhaps more importantly, there are certain views that seem to be attributed to me that I don't actually hold. In particular, I don't have a problem with All Books existing as a default collection for everyone--I just want to be able to hide it. I don't have a problem with All Books existing in the database, as long as I don't have to look at it or at a prominent link to it. I don't even care if All Books shows up as one of my collections on an advanced collection-editing screen, as long as I don't have to go to that screen frequently.

"Al" have lots of diverse views that I won't even try to explain.

3) What do "the masses" want Collections to do?

I think the masses just want a wishlist, and maybe an automatic way to show their currently-reading books on their profile. Also, it was mentioned long ago that Collections were a prerequisite for a facebook app, which would certainly be something with mass appeal.

4) What do _I_ want Collections to do? (Yes, I'm even confused about this one, right now)

I can't help you there :)

5) In what ways are all of these desires _actually_ incompatible.

Mostly, they aren't. The only real problem that I've seen is that some users want to be able to see everyone else's All Books, even if the user would rather hide that collection. Also, I think some users want to have a larger number of collections than the feature will be optimized for, but I can't remember whether there's actually going to be a hard limit on the number of collections, so that may not be a real problem.

#300: Tim, thanks for looking! I certainly wouldn't want to code hierarchical (but not recursive!) collections myself. But I don't think it would lead to "inflexible necessary complexity", since you would only need to reduce collections to the intersection of their owned and read (and for recommendations, and privacy, and...) super-collections in order to compare them across different libraries. On the contrary, it seems quite flexible, albeit a nightmare to code. And I do think that people seem to have the strongest consensus on the meanings of "ownership" and "read status". The rest of hierarchical collections would be great for those of us wanting a "science" collection that is included in "nonfiction", etc., but it wouldn't be necessary for you to compare two different "science" collections. At least not right away...

I'm sure you will decide on and implement a system that balances efficiency, flexibility and expressiveness.

Extending my #292: Oops, I of course forgot the "All Books" default collection. This would be a collection that is implicitly implied by every collection, and could not be removed.

316
I agree with you.

Tim, I think you should just set it up how you want and let people try using it...I think people who are complaining may realize that their arguments are moot.

I can't imagine why people are having such problems agreeing on this. If you're embarrassed by a book, then don't add it.

*EDIT*
Okay, maybe my last statement was a little harsh. I suppose if someone doesn't want anyone to see their All Books, that's fine. I don't care if I can see your books or not. LOL! I can understand not wanting wishlist books mixed with what you actually own, but I'd plan on making a collection of the books that I own (among tons of others.) ;)

In all honesty, I find the argument baffling.

I think there comes a point when you have to give up on understanding every different view that every different user has and just see if you can make them all happy, or at least not unhappy. If you were arguing that letting us hide the collection would be difficult, that would be one thing (though even if it is difficult, you'll have to deal with it anyway for privacy settings). But when your only concern is that you can't understand why I want to hide the collection... well, does it really matter?

I don't see the problem with including Read-but-unowned books in my Library right now; does that mean there shouldn't be a Read-but-unowned collection for people who do care about the distinction? No, it just means that people have different perspectives. They can all be accomodated.

I think what it really comes down to is, would it be better if I put my "wishlist" in the Private collection--which sort of distorts the meaning of the pre-set collections, but which would be pretty much the same as far as my actual usage goes--or would it be better if I kept my wishlist public and in the proper pre-set collection, but could hide the All Books collection?

What I actually think would be best would be if we could exclude certain collections from All Books, but that seems too complicated and would make the name misleading.

For example, if I'm one of your LT friends, I am able see when you add books to your wishlist and when you add books to one of your 50 other collections. What if ten days later I want to talk to you about a book, but can't remember which list it was on?

So, your counter-argument is mainly based on what you earlier termed a "misuse" of Collections? There aren't supposed to be 50. I intend to have 3, possibly 4 if I decide to use Currently Reading, but that would be a subset of My Library anyway. It wouldn't be hard to search all of them, though it might be sort of useless--My Library is the only collection where you'd find any meaningful information.

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about a book, the obvious thing to do would be to send me a message.

If 'All Books' is some sacred cow that has value, what does it mean that it isn't really All Books ?

People who use the Private collection won't have their books in it ? Will books from Private Accounts be in it ?

Now it becomes a Monty-Python farce of Mostly-All Books ?

#327

That is just semantics about the name - it might be called 'All Publicly Visible Books' but that is a bit long.

No it isn't about the name, its about the concept.

Wouldn't "All Books" be "all books" to the owner, but "all publicly visible (not marked private) books" to the public?

>330 lquilter:

Just as now "Members with your books" means "Members with your books that don't have private libraries," etc.

But will the owner see the private books? I thought Members with Your Books was the same no matter who looked at it. Or could someone with a private library see themselves in someone else's Members with Your Books list?

If you were a private member, I could not see you on my members-with-your-books list no matter how many books we shared.

But could I see myself on your members-with-your-books list, even if you couldn't see me?

My point is that Members with Your Books doesn't change, as far as I know. But it seems like All Books has to be different depending on who's looking at it.

>334 _Zoe_:

No, actually, I don't think you can. I think your OWN mwyb works, but you can't see yourself in others—the privacy happens before the list is generated. So, it doesn't change, but its the opposite.

Okay, that's what I thought. I was just trying to figure out your comparison with MWYB. I still don't understand what the answer to lquilter's question is, though--are you saying books in a private collection won't be visible in all books even to the owner?

No, books in a private collection will be visible to the owner.

ETA: Okay, I didn't refresh and missed a lot of conversation before posting this. So it's kind of irrelevant. I think I get it now, but I'm leaving this anyway, in case someone doesn't see it this way.

I confess to not understanding the problem with "All Books." At all.

Now, certainly, I'd be upset if "Your Library" was all the books I'd ever entered. Since I thought the whole point of collections was that some of us consider wishlist, books read but not owned, etc. not a part of our libraries.

And certainly private collections should never be viewable by another user, but let's suppose that you are the only can only see your "all books"? Or at least that you can set it that way...then what's the problem?

Let's look at it from this way. Maybe you keep textbooks in your office at home and fiction in the living room. But if you were going to re-organize your entire library by a different scheme purely alphabetical or dewey etc., wouldn't there be a good chance that you might want to look at those together? Even if no one else ever saw them all mixed up?

let's suppose that you are the only can only see your "all books"? Or at least that you can set it that way...then what's the problem?

No one has ever said that we'll be able to set it that way, that's the problem. In fact, Tim has explicitly said that he doesn't want us to be able to set it that way.

I only half understand* why anyone else needs to see "All Books" so I'm inclined to agree with you, Zoe.

I can see the advantage for searching, but would it really be that hard to just have a "search all public collections" without actually having a collection of all public collections?

Edit
*Half understand because I think being able to hide or delete all books could be potentially troublesome as Tim has mentioned. But if it's not public, would it really bother you that much just to see a link to it with your other collections?

Re: All Books

Would it be possible, when viewing All Books, to be able to tell which book was in which collection/s? And if so, _Zoe_, would this at all fix the problem you have with others seeing all of the books in your catalog in one list? i.e. If it was blatantly obvious that this book is in Wishlist, and this book is in Your Library, and this book is Read but Unowned, etc.?

That would make it better, but I'm not sure how it could be incorporated. Stephmo suggested colour-coding the rows, which seems promising. Except that the colours used on the site are usually so faint that they barely show up on the computer I use most.

342>That would make it better, but I'm not sure how it could be incorporated..

It's definitely a featured I would like to see. But can see how it would be difficult to implement. Initially, I was thinking colors, too. But then, what to do when a book is in more than one collection? Perhaps little icons, or simply a column with a list...hmmm...

Sorry for getting a bit sidetracked, but this could be a useful compromise/solution. In my opinion, anyway. :-)

Personally, I don't care very much about whether or not others can see my "All Books" (except - and I see this as a different issue - about the ability to make certain collections private). But, as I asked earlier, what would be lost (or how complicated would it be, or what negative consequences might there be that I haven't thought of) if All Books was a view only available to the member her/himself? What are the reasons NOT to do that, if any?

341 also seems like a good alternative to me (ETA but I also don't know how it could be programmed), but I'm curious about what others think.

The thing with icons or a column is, where would they go? No one would put that column in any of their display styles if it was only useful for viewing the one collection. And automatically showing it as an additional column whenever someone viewed that collection might cause problems for people using lower resolutions.

what negative consequences might there be that I haven't thought of) if All Books was a view only available to the member her/himself? What are the reasons NOT to do that, if any?

Maybe the reason I can't get anywhere with this is because I'm willing to explain the other POV too....

I think the main reason is that some people see it as a useful search tool and want to be able to search across all of a user's collections. It generally seems best to keep things public by default and make them private only if the user specifically chooses to do so.

Which leads to the question of what would be the problem with allowing people who cared to make their own All Books collection private, while leaving it public by default. The official answer to that is that the inconsistency would be confusing to users, who would expect to see it in everyone's catalogue. This would result in Tim receiving lots of emails saying something was broken.

<off-topic>
I go away for half a day and come back to 47 new posts in this thread?!
</off-topic>

Just thinking out loud ... a couple months ago, each member got a great new home page, visible only to that member when she/he is logged in.

Why not make All Books the same way, visible only to that member when she/he is logged in?

That way, everyone can see other members' public collections (as we see each others' libraries/catalogs now, IF they're public), but would see each collection rather than a single catalog. It's not much different (to other users browsing it) than looking at a catalog now that's public and contains owned/unowned, read/unread, wish list, whatever, and indicates those things by tags. Instead of clicking on User X's "wish list" tag, you'd view User X's "wish list" collection.

Am I making any sense? I hope a little, I don't know anymore. Basically, just make "All Books," or "All Your Things," available only to the owning member. If someone has a private library now, then their "Your Library" could be private too, when Collections is launched, but if it's public, then "Your Library" is public - but "All Books" is always private (ETA: even if it's exactly the same as a public "Your Library" collection - no matter, when the "viewing style" is set to "All Books," the logged in member can see only their own).

Zoe could always add all of her Wishlist books to her Private collection as well. The problem is Tim hasn't specified what would happen if someone did that.

I think it's obvious that the books in the Private collection should remain private no matter how many other Collections it is also in. However, how this affects other attributes of Collections, like Recommendations could be messy, so I think Tim should start another thread to discuss it.

So, 346, you're saying that...people will be confused if some users choose not to share their All Books? Why not just have a note saying the user has chosen it to be private. It could be shaded or something for those that are keeping it private.

>349 jjwilson61:, on what happens to books in multiple private and public collections: I'm not sure. I was thinking of this as analogous to Amazon's wishlists. There, you can have multiple wishlists, and you can mark each individually as public or private. If you have a book in a private wishlist, that instance of the book is private (and others can't even see that you HAVE that wishlist at all), but if you also put the book in your public wishlist, then that instance of the book can be seen by others - on THAT public list. The list itself is what is public or private. If there's a book you don't want others to see, then it seems like you should only put it in a private collection - then it won't show up for any users except you. Anyway, that seems to make sense to me, but perhaps this isn't what other members or Tim & co have in mind.

>348 HeathMochaFrost: I obviously wouldn't have a problem with everyone's All Books being private all the time, but I don't want to take features away from everyone just because I don't want them for myself. In general, though, that solution would work for me.

>349 jjwilson61: Yeah, it seems like that may be what I end up doing. It just seems silly that the one of the main points of collections is that some will have specific pre-set meanings, but even before they launch I'm planning how to subvert those meanings. If there were stats about books most commonly listed as private, for example, they'd be distorted when I added books to that list for an entirely different reason. Plus, I think the site benefits from having as much public information as users are comfortable with. So since I'm entirely comfortable with keeping my Watchlist public, it seems less than optimal for me to make it private when a minor change would let me keep it public.

>350 Joles: I completely agree with you; I don't think it would be a problem at all. It's Tim's position you're arguing against now :)

>351 rsterling: I think the plan here was for books on private lists to be private everywhere they occur. At the very least, books on the private list aren't going to show up in the All Books list, while books in public collections will. I think I'd prefer your method of doing privacy by collection, but All Books makes it much more complicated, since you can't choose what goes in there and may not be able to make it private.

351,352: except that I'd assume that for All Books, other people would only see the books in public collections, and private collections would always be invisible for other people. For everyone else, it's All Books in public collections, I think.

>353 rsterling: I think that would work. Except now I'm wondering whether people with a private collection would want to be able to see those books themselves in Your Library.

Honestly....I really just want Collections already!!!!!

It will make my life SO much easier.

> 352 _Zoe_ (responding to my comment):
>348 HeathMochaFrost: I obviously wouldn't have a problem with everyone's All Books being private all the time, but I don't want to take features away from everyone just because I don't want them for myself. In general, though, that solution would work for me.

I'm thinking of the home page again -- there's a spot to display the ten or so books I've most recently added, and I have that as cover display, so everytime I open LT, I see those covers. It's only for my own benefit, NO ONE ELSE can see them that way, as no one else can see my home page. The information is public, as people can check my catalog, sort by date entered, there are my most recent additions.

In the same way, if all one's collections are public, the same information that's in one's "All Books" view is public, just not all together. Yes, it's a social site, but having the "All Books" view only available to its owner doesn't really take away anything critical from other users (in my opinion), because all that other users will see ANYWAY are collections/books that are not marked as Private. Make "All Books" user-only, as the new home pages are.

(Side note - I really do like that new home page!)

>356 HeathMochaFrost: Oh, I completely agree. I don't think seeing other people's All Books is critical at all. But I've gone down this path before, and I know there are people who disagree, like Tim in 320:

For example, if I'm one of your LT friends, I am able see when you add books to your wishlist and when you add books to one of your 50 other collections. What if ten days later I want to talk to you about a book, but can't remember which list it was on? Do I have to go list by list doing a search? Doesn't that argue for the ability to search across collections if necessary?

So I've entirely retreated from any opinions about what should happen in other people's catalogues; all I want now is the ability to make my own catalogue the way I want it.

Oh, another thought about the situation where you know someone has a particular book and want to see which of their collections it's in: won't it be possible to do this via the members section of the work page? I thought it would list all the members who had it in their library, all the members who were currently reading it, and so on. I don't know whether anything's been said about showing custom collections there, but I think it would be interesting if there were also an "other" category that showed the user names and what non-default collections they had the book in.

Hmmmmm ... thanks for that quote from Tim ... I see what you mean.

BUT - if a book is added and is not placed in any collection but only in "All Books," and "All Books" is private (as I'm recommending), the member's friends wouldn't see that it had been added - thus they won't be asking you about it ten days later.

AND - does having "All Books" private mean that one user CAN'T search across another user's (public) collections? How different will search mechanisms be with collections, than what they are now?

And _Zoe_, you gave the best answer in # 326:
Anyway, if you want to talk to me about a book, the obvious thing to do would be to send me a message.
Especially if the number of collections is unwieldy, a note on the profile page IS the easiest and most obvious way to handle that situation. ;-)

(ETA: Once again I'm typing too slow - I was responding to # 357, and _Zoe_ added 358 while I was still typing away!)

If the collections will be:

1. Your Library
2. Wish List
3. Currently Reading
4. To Read
5. Private

Then essentially we're adding a private books and wishlist feature (much requested and much needed for many, although I won't use them.) We're converting two existing checkboxes (3 and 4) to a more visible location in the site, even though they're currently not doing anything. Since both 3 and 4 are defaults and the original 5 was removed, it strongly indicates to anyone looking at the defaults that the site is intended to track reading lists, not physical volumes. Your library will mean whatever a user wants it to, which means ultimately it is meaningless to aggregate any information across the site; in reality, it's the "display" collection. Individually defined collections will have no meaning across the site, so essentially they'll be glorified tags, but without the connectivity features currently offered by tags.

I'm not looking for a cure to the common cold, but before I can know what the defaults should be, what exactly will collections other than private and wishlist do that you can't do with the existing checkboxes or with code since removed from the site (e.g. recommendations by tag?) It seems like an awful lot of structure to add without a purpose already in mind.

I've started to use the Date Started and Date Finished boxes to track my reading habits, but I'm not sure if I'll use the two Reading collections until I know what they'll do. The dates contribute to currently existing widgets and seem more meaningful than a toggle status which can be somewhat ephemeral. I'll admit: the only collection I was waiting for was either owned or unowned. I'll probably create it on my own, because I'm one of those cursed purists who wants to tell the difference between my library and the city one, and if all the features of the site and the data from the users are going to be based on reading lists, I will need to add all my reading history (in randomly-guessed editions) to make recommendations et al. meaningful.

Once again I'm typing too slow

Well, either that or I just write too many messages ;)

does having "All Books" private mean that one user CAN'T search across another user's (public) collections? How different will search mechanisms be with collections, than what they are now?

It sounds like we'll only be able to search one collection at a time, not a combination of collections.

>360 SchanleyMedia: I'm really hoping that we'll eventually be able to auto-populate Currently Reading from the date fields--say, books started in the past two months that don't have a finished date. There has been some mention of smart collections, so it doesn't seem impossible (beyond the fact that Tim objects in principle to anything involving the date fields).

Also, I think it's worth quoting in its entirely a post by lquilter in another thread. This is basically everything I want collections to be:

I've been thinking of both "default" and "predefined" collections.

There could be many predefined collections, which would facilitate particular social networking, calculations, recommendations, and whatnot among them. For instance we could look at the aggregate "your childhood" collections, and see how your childhood measured up. The people who want to do "Reference" collections could do that. We could look at the aggregate "currently reading". Smart collections could feed in here, so that "read in 2008" and "read in 2007" and so forth could also be predefined.

But among all those predefined collections, only a small number of them would be "default visible" -- say, "Your library", "All books", "Wishlist".

But users should be able to choose levels of visibility for any of the collections, whether predefined or user-defined:
{x} don't use (not visible to anyone even user)
{x} private (visible only to user)
{x} public (visible to anyone)
{x} primary (one of the short default collections)
(x) default (the default collection presented on first logging in, and presented to browsers of the catalog; only one "default" can be checked)

Oh, another thought about the situation where you know someone has a particular book and want to see which of their collections it's in: won't it be possible to do this via the members section of the work page?

I'm thinking that showing up there is like showing up on someone's "users with your books" list. I think we can agree that most users will not want to show up as sharing 10 books with someone when either user has them entirely on wish list. (I can see a special "who shares your wishes?" feature, but LT keeps track of one primary shared books list, and wishlists should not, I think, be on that.)

So, I'm thinking each collection has a checkbox like "use for connections" that controls whether it shows up in member-to-member connections and also on work-to-member connections.

On the other hand, it might be good to see that although only ten members "have" book X, another five have it on their wishlist.

The struggle here is between too fine--and therefore too complex--collections options, and not giving users a control they will find useful. With all due respect, it's easy to draw that line wrong. The classic case is the iPod. It is "missing" so many basic features that were de rigeur in other MP3 plays, but the forced simplication actually made it better.

As Zoe says, it might be interesting to organize the "members" page by collection, eg.

Your Library: joeshmoe, robertschmoe, kimschmoe
Currently Reading: philipsmith
Wish List: janedoe, hermionedoe
In the storage space with the severed head: hanniballecter

I think "sharing" and showing up on the work page can be different things, though. I'm not talking about connections, just a list that shows who has a particular book on their wishlist, who's currently reading a book, etc.

edit: Now I'm confused. I wrote this message in response to your 362, but your 363 seems to contradict what you said there and agree with me after all.

Hi, Tim, good to see you!
*waving*
Is your head still spinning? Have you made any decisions about the default collections?

If we give you our cell numbers, will you text the info to us, or will you just leak it to the BETA group? ;-)

They can. But there are probably 100 work-related features that could have such customization. That way lies madness, so how can we "slice" the possible features into clusters of functionality which might not be perfect for every user but, through simplicity, is better on average and even for all.

In the storage space with the severed head

How. Did. You. Know?

Seriously, another +1 for the members page idea -- it seems like a great place to display this kind of information, and a good fit with the way those pages are already laid out (who has it, who in your connections has it, who's recently added it...)

Sorry, I think I'm being dense today. What customization are you talking about?

I'd like a vote for keeping these as simple as possible - the fewer checkboxes one has to fill out, the better.

Isn't the iPod one of your go-to examples, Tim? Frankly, every once in a while there's something I wish I could do with my iPod, (why not a Favorites menu - why always playlists?) but then I realize that I use it as much as I do because the thing is so dang intuitive.

I don't want to see collections become this overly-complex thing that becomes the equivalent of using a Titan II to take care of the opossum issue in my back yard.

One thing I can say I don't want to find is that I can no longer search through another user's books with ease. I don't want to find out that I have to go through 87 collections to discover that a book I was thinking about recommending was in the "Inherited from Crazy Aunt Helen" collection when I could easily see that by using a different view that includes "Collection" on the column header. (87 is an exaggeration, but I doubt I'd even go through 3 collections.)

I think things should be as simple as possible on the surface, with advanced functionality underneath (e.g., an Advanced Options page) for people who want to do more.

I don't want to find out that I have to go through 87 collections to discover that a book I was thinking about recommending was in the "Inherited from Crazy Aunt Helen" collection when I could easily see that by using a different view that includes "Collection" on the column header.

Do you really want to go back to this? What about work page, members, ctrl-f? That would show you that it's in the severed head collection.

>368 _Zoe_:

Actually, I don't think we should try to work through the options now—when collections is abstract, the OPTIONS for how collections affect other featuresare doubly-so.

That said, I was trying to show that your logic "I think 'sharing' and showing up on the work page can be different things" doesn't end with those two features. Books show up all over LibraryThing. Some of these will be affected by collections. How they are affected may be customizeable, but if I make every one separately customizeable, LT will resemble a remote control.

Do you really want to go back to this?

No, we don't. Stephmo wants the functionality. You want the functionality to deny yourself and others that functionality with respect to your library. You know my feelings on the issue, but I don't think we're going to generate any more light here by talking about it, at least until we have something concrete up.

>371 timspalding: Okay... I still don't know where the idea of customizability came in in the first place. I don't think I said anything about customizability of the work page in 358, which is what you seemed to be responding to. When I mentioned that it should show custom collections too, I meant like the final item in your list:

Your Library: joeshmoe, robertschmoe, kimschmoe
Currently Reading: philipsmith
Wish List: janedoe, hermionedoe
In the storage space with the severed head: hanniballecter

Everyone would still see the same work page, though.

Tim, to guide the discussion, could you go over what you think collections are for (as per caffron's request in 360)?

>373 _Zoe_:

Ah, fair enough. But the functionality could be different--in one social context (who shares books with you) a book might be excluded, but in another social context (who has a book, either as a total number or in a list of users and collections) the book might be there.

If anyone has made it to comment 375 without a rough idea of some of the uses of collections, I don't think message 375 is going to help them.

>375 timspalding: Yes, but I think after 375 messages we should be able to get beyond a rough idea.

Do you have any thoughts on creating both default and pre-defined collections?

Tim, are you still here? I have a question.

It seems to me the whole point of having a public "all books" collection is for searching ease. If this is the case, why can't we just have a "search this member's public collections" feature? Would this be totally going above and beyond the call of duty programming wise?

I do see "All Books" as useful to me - the virtual version of being able to dump all my books in one room to re-catalog, etc. But like real life, I too have a certain unease about having others peek into the virtual room and see the books all jumbled up.

Admittedly, it's not a huge deal to me. But I kind of see collections as this great opportunity to organize and separate things and it seems slightly diminished to have a public collection that does just the opposite.

I'm going to shut up about it after this post, I just wondered if there was a reason why a plain search couldn't be an option to appease both sides.

300: Having a collection that includes everything in collections X and Y, or tagged Z or added after X, like the iTunes "recently added" collection is rather easier.

How does one "have" such a collection? I see the logic and convenience of it, I am just not clear on the UI.

>377 twomoredays: exactly.

I think I need to clarify my position.

Tim said, Stephmo wants the functionality. You want the functionality to deny yourself and others that functionality with respect to your library.

The functionality Stephmo wants is searching, which just happens to have become part of All Books. I have nothing against searching all collections. What I do have a problem with is displaying the search results in a way that eliminates (or severely lessens) the distinctions that I consider the whole point of collections.

If we could search and get a list of collections with numbers to show how many books matching the search criteria there were in each collection, that would be fine. If it returned a list of collections and showed the titles of the relevant books for each collection, that would be fine. After seeing where the books were, the searcher could go to the relevant collection, since the collections reflect how the user wants their books to be presented. The main thing is to keep the books in their assigned collections and not mix them together.

I didn't suggest a different kind of search earlier because I thought it would be easier just to let users disable All Books and related functions if they wanted to, but apparently disabling a function would be a huge deal, completely baffling to the average user, an unacceptable hindrance, and so on. So I guess it would be better to entirely rethink the function and design it in a way that's satisfactory to everyone.

>375 timspalding:

But here's the thing...collections keeps changing. I've been listening carefully over the years.

For instance: November 2005-- "I'm working on adding a "collections" feature (name in flux and up for suggestions). At present LibraryThing presumes you own your books, although users have added tags for books they've read but don't own and for books they want...I want to have a small number of fixed, non-overlapping categories... Predefined terms are also better for library-wide statistics—whose wishes are like mine, what users are wishing for generally, etc. This won't work if some people call it "wish list," others "want" or "christmas," etc. I don't want to get into users picking their own name and then giving the collection a "type." The system must be transparently simple. I propose three collections: (1) books you own, (2) books you've read but don't own, (3) books you want." See the 2005 blog post.

But then there's "Should LibraryThing have a "collections" feature? My opinion is "no." I think tags are the answer—that no preset list of collections would make everyone happy, and that user-defined collections would become a "second tag system," but with less flexibility. I feel that adding a "wish list" is important—that there is a real existential distinction between things you've had contact with in some significant way, and things you want. For the rest, I think "collections" entail a "leap backward" into the metaphors of "file folders" and "shelves" of the physical world. A "collections" feature would spawn collections like "history," "erotic fiction" and so forth--classifications for which tags are a better, more flexible solution. Whether forced or not, collections *feel* like non-overlapping buckets." See a post from July 2007.

I know what the idea of collections once was, what it was once going to be used for. Now I just don't know. I'm not trying to be snarky...this is a Beta site and things change and that's OK. In 2005, collections were about statistics, and ownership mattered. In 2007, they were an organizational aid unique to each user, similar to tags, and ownership status was suddenly passe if not elitist. There seem to be more recent comments that collections are about excluding items from view and from recommendations. Different purposes call for different defaults.

The thing is, collections really should be an easy way to say, "in all of my books, this group of books is inherently different in this way" as a way of showing folks a bit more about books that meant something to you either as a passing thought, something you might like to buy, something you once read or the things you consider your actual library.

That's what I mean by wanting the functionality - it's not just about searching.

As Tim has said, this is a 95% solution. We will never make 100% of the people happy - and making the search function in other people's books behave differently on the defaults will be confusing. This doesn't make users stupid, it doesn't make anyone right or wrong and it doesn't say anything about anyone. It's just about having a consistent experience. Consistent experiences aren't so much a major positive thing or a big, "wow!" because folks tend not to notice when things are working (compare number of posts on "hey, my covers are showing today!" to the multiple threads on today's issue).

I guess, it's back to the iPod. When you think about it, it's pricey and it basically plays music and/or videos like any number of other players out there with more complex features and no wheel - but why do we buy it? It's easy and it works for 95% of my day-to-day needs. While I say I want a "Favorite" list of albums I can consistently go to and play from, the truth is that the wheel will get me there every single time - after all, they're my favorites, right? Since I can remember the title and/or name of my favorite, the wheel will get me there just as fast as menu-menu-fictional favorites list-wheel...

>380 SchanleyMedia: caffron, thank you so much for finding that thread. That's almost exactly the view that I still hold, which Tim suddenly finds incomprehensible. Tags are the answer to most things, but there's a "real existential distinction" when it comes to wishlist. This is precisely why combining my wishlist with the rest of my books just doesn't work for me, and why I don't need so many collections that searching is an issue.

making the search function in other people's books behave differently on the defaults will be confusing

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean that search should perform differently on the default collections. Search in each individual collection should be the same as it is now. But rather than forcing an All Books collection on us just to enable searching across collections, enable searching across collections in a different way.

The thing is, collections really should be an easy way to say, "in all of my books, this group of books is inherently different in this way"

This is why I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss what exactly collections are for. My view on this is entirely different. I don't want to say that one group of books is inherently different as a subset of my books. I want to say "Here are my books (my library), and here are some other groups of books that are not my books but that I want to keep track of for whatever reason."

Oh, and about the frequent iTunes comparison: the only music that shows up among my music is music that I actually have. If a song is there, I can click on it and play it. The names of songs that I might want to purchase in the future are not included.

Sorry the Ipod example doesn't work for me. I hate the stupid wheel. Its twitchy, and imprecise . I have one because I started my music collection on Itunes (burning to disc) and I am stuck.

I have another question about functionality of viewing collections - will we be able to view everything NOT in a particular collection? If I use the "Unowned" collection (whether it's a default or not), will there be a way for me to view everything that's NOT in the unowned collection? Or will I also have to create an Owned collection (I'd prefer not to - seems like an unnecessary redundancy).

That is probably not the best example, since there will be the "Your Library" collection. Here's one: I'm planning to create a "DVD" collection. Do I have to create a "Books" collection to view everything but the DVDs, or will I be able to do something similar to the "* -DVDs" tag search I currently use for that purpose?

I would love an easy way to do an exclusion (or NOT) search, both for collections and for tags, authors, dates, etc. I find the current ways for tags (with minus sign, etc.) a little cumbersome, especially if you have a lot of terms.

>385 timepiece:

I don't think so. The core functionality is a set of "buckets." It's possible we'll add such a search option later, or allow smart collections to work that way. But it's not core to the metaphor.

>387 timspalding:

So if I have a "DVD" collection, I will also need a "Book" collection?

Or, more relevant for the rest of the group, if I have an "Unread" collection, I will also need a parallel "Read" collection?

Tim, what happens with the current libraries if we don't pick any collections? They'll just automatically become "All books"?

For instance, I'd prefer to have everything assigned automatically to "Your library", until I get a grasp on the feature (however it looks when you release it).

>389 LolaWalser:

By default, all books are going to be dumped into "Your Library." But I'll set a small number of tags that change this. Books tagged "Wish List" should go into the "Wish List" instead. It won't be perfect, of course, but it will help somewhat, and make "sense" of lots of older libraries.

390: and books tagged "wishlist" too? *crosses fingers*

Hmm, I'm off to go change my wishlist tag from 'want' to 'wish list'

No no. Don't worry. "Want" will be on it too. Indeed, at some point I'll run my list by people. I'll want to make sure it has the Dutch "want" and etc. etc.

By default, all books are going to be dumped into "Your Library." (#390)

Will there be a bulk-removal option? If I can't disambiguate what I'm using "Your Library" for, I'd much rather not use it -- it's just too damn amorphous for my taste. While it will be simlplest to dump everyone's library identically and "Your Library" is probably as good a place as any, not giving us a simple opt-out is little different then cornering us into using a particular collection.

Edited for better clarity.

You can use it however you want. You may not be able to disambiguate how others will use it, but you ought to be able to figure out what *you* want.

I don't want to disambiguate how others use it. I want to disamiguate how I use it. And if we can't do that, I think we should be able to do a bulk un-dump.

Edited to add missing word.

I don't understand the issue here. How is having a default Collection called "Your Library" any different than the tab labelled "My Library" at the top of your screen right now?

>397 saltmanz:

Well, if I understand correctly, what is currently "your library" is going to become "all books". The new "your library" will then become a subset of "all books", its content to be determined by each user, but probably meaning "all books I own" or "all books not on my wishlist" to the majority of LT users.

>397 saltmanz:

It gets to me because of the "All books" option we would (most likely) have. Currently, purists like me who only list books they own can use multiple accounts to keep books we have borrowed. (In theory tags are also an option but I find tags a woefully inadequate option, and have said so many times.) And currently, a User's Library Disambiguation would not be unwelcome. I only bring it up now because collections provide an opportunity to implement disambiguations.

And one more thing. I'm not trying to exclude disambiguation capability from other collections, either: perhaps, for example, it could be used on wish lists (in conjunction with something else, like tags or comments) as a way to explain how much you want items.

398>

if I understand correctly, what is currently "your library" is going to become "all books".

Fortunately you're wrong. :)

Tim says: (from #390):

By default, all books are going to be dumped into "Your Library." But I'll set a small number of tags that change this. Books tagged "Wish List" should go into the "Wish List" instead. It won't be perfect, of course, but it will help somewhat, and make "sense" of lots of older libraries.

>394 AnnaClaire:
I agree, it would be nice to be able to 'disambiguate' or explain each collection. Many people are already using the about my library space on their profiles to explain tags or multiple accounts, but that creates the difficulty of flipping back and forth between Library and Profile. And, of course, there's no guarantee that someone looking at your Library page will think to check your Profile for an explanation, anyway.

Perhaps the Collections editing UI could include space for a one-line descriptor of each collection. To be displayed something like this:

401>Oooooo...I like that. (The addition of Description, that is.)

Oooh, the description line is a very cool idea. That would be really nice for browsing other people's collections, as well as making a nice reminder for one's own brain (mine is increasingly sieve-like).

The description is a nice idea, but man, that's a lot of header! 3" on my monitor before the first book comes across. (!!)

I like the idea of it, but I feel like there's already too much stuff before you get to the actual books.

>400 lorax:

But that's not what I said ;-)

I said:
what is currently "your library" is going to become "all books"

You're talking about the old "your library" becoming the new "your library". Not the same thing at all. I also said that the new "your library" would probably not include wishlist books (for most people).

I like the description line idea--noting, of course, that it won't be showing up for users on their own catalog. It could also be appended to each collection name, with an "(about)" link or one of those (info) buttons. But we have also spoken of putting the number of books after the collections. We'll see. There's a lot to be said for no complicating information elements.

Much depends on whether "collections" will have their own page, like tags or not--something Chris and I have been going back and forth on, and which, absent lots of screenshots and discussion, I don't want to get into yet.

406>

My brain hurts.

As I understand it, you said:

"The old 'Your Library' will become the new 'All Books'".

My response to that was:

"No, you're wrong. According to Tim, the old 'Your Library' will become the new 'Your Library', with a few exceptions (books tagged wishlist, etc.)"

I realize these aren't the same thing. That was my entire point. Now I don't understand what you're getting at in #406 -- help?

Maybe a more precise wording would be, All Books will consist of everything that's currently in Your Library?

>407 timspalding: What's the "edit collections" button going to do, if not go to a collections page?

Your Library means all the books that you consider to be in Your Library, no more, no less. It is basically the essence of what LibraryThing means to you and if you want to hide it then I feel that you must be missing something very basic. Isn't there some set of books in LT that you consider to be your library?

>408 lorax:

What I was trying to say was, right now, when I click "Your library" I see everything I have cataloged. In Collections, I will click "All Books" to see everything I have cataloged. Clicking "Your library" in Collections will get me a subset of everything, leaving out my Wishlist and perhaps some other things.

413>

Thanks, that's much clearer -- you were talking about functionality, I was talking about data migration.

410>

Yes, with the addition of my wishlist and read-but-not-owned books (which I do not have in my LT account, having been waiting for collections.)

>415 lorax: I think I was trying to put it in your terms of data migration. But now I've become confused.

As long as everyone's clear on what's happening, though, I guess the explanation doesn't really matter :)

I’m sorry Tim, this looks like such a nightmare! People are getting so snippy about a set of distinctions that can all be easily made right now using tags. I share the confusion about the purpose of the default collections; I guess ideally they would separate books that you would like the site to treat differently (include or exclude in making recommendations, etc). As people all have different ideas about what types of books they would assign to each category (for example, it seems silly to me to have wishlist books count towards recommendations, since you haven’t read them yet, but I understand why people might think it a good idea), I would scrap the whole default collections idea and make three new click boxes in the “edit book” page (and maybe include them in the power edit box):

- one box to click to exclude the book from LibraryThing algorithms like the suggestion maker and random books from your library, etc
- one box to click if you own the book
- one box to click if the book should be private

Then you can make book-by-book, personal decisions about the way the site treats your books. For display purposes, if people want to make categories like Wish Lists and such, you could then institute that without worrying about defining each category dogmatically.

But managing those check-boxes on a book-by-book basis would be a nightmare compared to making sets of your books and managing the check-boxes on those sets. Although I guess if you could power-edit the check-boxes based on tags that wouldn't be so bad.

No, jjwilson61 you are right. Now that I think of it, it might be smart to have a "check all" for each option for all the books in a particular collection. That way some people can count their wish lists, and some can not. And so on.

#417:

I think the "set of a few checkboxes" was the model they were working with two or three iterations ago.

Really? Why did they drop that idea?

421>

No idea, but see here for the background.

Yeah I've got a "set of checkboxes" idea pretty similar to that one in an email I sent to Tim in like November 2005 or something, so it's been thought of, many times. The longer we went without wishlists and the ability to mark unowned, the more things people wanted collections to do, basically.

I have no idea how Tim can stay sane/focused/etc through this. My head went kablooie a few hundred posts ago. Now I'm simply waiting. When Collections actually comes out, I'll figure out what I need to. Right now it's too complicated to follow.

Your Library means all the books that you consider to be in Your Library, no more, no less. It is basically the essence of what LibraryThing means to you and if you want to hide it then I feel that you must be missing something very basic. Isn't there some set of books in LT that you consider to be your library? (#412)

Currently, yes, but collections will allow 1) a more nuanced level of consideration, and 2) flexibly nuanced consideration of library-ness. As for hiding, I think having the descriptions/disambiguations illustrated in post #401 by monarchi, who seems to have gotten what I was asking for and why.

People are getting so snippy about a set of distinctions that can all be easily made right now using tags. (#417)

I'm sorry people are getting snippy, but I have to disagree that the distinctions can be made so simply. If they can, why the heck am I having so much trouble tagging these distinctions without swamping my tag structure?

I liked the example of where a description line could go and having intent clearly stated in plain sight. To me one line of plain text isn't that big a deal; I don't mind scrolling down. But if real estate is that important maybe have description show up like alt text when mousing over the collection name. Personally I'd like to see my descriptions just as a reminder to myself of whatever system I decide on. Ex. I see myself wondering, "Was I planning to include Read But Not Owned in My Library or not?" This would be especially helpful in the beginning when I'm shuffling books around between collections and unsure if some are there because I mean them to be or because I haven't moved them out yet.

#424 Heather19,

Ah, ... this is all part of Tim's master plan. We will be so exhausted and confused when collections comes out that there will be peace and quiet through out the LT land. We're having the homepage type hoo-hah before the event.

Of course that just leaves the other 95%, but if they are as Tim expects, happy with the default, he may come out ahead. If not there will be two rounds of hoo-hah. Maybe we should start taking bets ?

Hmm AnnaClaire, aside from selecting the influence of books on LibraryThing algorithms, I think you can separate your library based on tags pretty effectively. At least I do to my own satisfaction, but my library isn't extremely large like some people's are. It is easy for me to tell which books I have right now in the house, which I borrowed, which I used to own but have lost track of, etc. But then I am a compulsive tagger :o)

Ah, ... this is all part of Tim's master plan. We will be so exhausted and confused when collections comes out that there will be peace and quiet through out the LT land. We're having the homepage type hoo-hah before the event.

It seems like whenever a nice, flexible new feature comes out, there has to be one corresponding, "unalterable" executive decision that goes along with it and that annoys at least a few people. In the past, Tim has eventually given in and realized that without the single sticking point, everyone is much happier with the new feature than it had seemed.

With the new tag page, there was the loss of the tags tab.
With the new home page, there was the loss of the profile tab.
With collections, there's one auto-populated and non-concealable default collection, while all the other defaults can be hidden.

>426 lilypadma: I like the idea of showing the description on mouse-over.

>428 jlelliott:
Your library isn't that much bigger than mine (you've got about 70 more books listed than I do), so there is probably some other reason we came to have such different opinions on tagging. Perhaps it's that you're "a compulsive tagger" and I'm not -- I'm all for tag efficiency, if that makes sense.

Also, I like my tag structure to be a tag structure. But unfortunately, with no ability to bundle tags that means getting creative, with leading punctuation to group like tags (a period at the beginning of status tags, for starters, or an "@" at the beginning of LC-number tags). But there's a limit to how much I can use punctuation: I won't use a hyphen since searching by tag would allow "-{tag}" (a single tag) to be confused with "-{tag}" (not "{tag}").