This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1DoctorRobert
I can't possibly be the only one out there who's gone back and changed the "date" field to the original publication date of the work (rather than the edition). As a result, I have quite a few books with BCE dates. I used negative numbers for these. But the "sort by date" feature in the catalog counts these as words rather than as numbers. Thus, the catalog displays BCE books from latest (Horace at --0013, or 13 BCE) to earliest (Epic of Gilgamesh at -2100, or 2100 BCE), then comes around again to positive numbers with Ovid (0008, or 8 CE). And let me tell you, Gilgamesh and Ovid are not happy neighbors.
This is not a small problem! Not only does it screw up the chronological display of books (which is what I was going for by changing all those dates), but it screws up the "fun statistics" by not counting BCE dates as numbers.
Tim is aware of the problem, but said it's low on the priority list to fix. I understand. But I suspect more people have come across this problem, and I'd like to start a lobbying campaign to bump it up the list. Make your voices heard! Write here! Write to Tim! Let's get Horace and Ovid back on speaking terms!
DoctorRobert
This is not a small problem! Not only does it screw up the chronological display of books (which is what I was going for by changing all those dates), but it screws up the "fun statistics" by not counting BCE dates as numbers.
Tim is aware of the problem, but said it's low on the priority list to fix. I understand. But I suspect more people have come across this problem, and I'd like to start a lobbying campaign to bump it up the list. Make your voices heard! Write here! Write to Tim! Let's get Horace and Ovid back on speaking terms!
DoctorRobert
