This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1SilentInAWay
As it exists today, LT’s “works” capability serves several purposes. Here are some of them (in descending order of consensus):
1) identifying when the same book edition has been entered into the system in different ways by different users
2) identifying when multiple books are different editions or publications of the same text
3) identifying when multiple books are different translations of the same text
4) identifying when multiple books represent the same text with different peripheral additions (prefaces, illustrations, critical essays, etc.)
5) identifying when multiple books represent a single node for establishing connectivity between different users
6) identifying when multiple books should be treated as a single recommendation by LT’s suggestion engines
From what I’ve read in this group, nearly everyone agrees that work combining is useful for cases 1 & 2. There also seems to be general agreement on 3 (different translations), at least in situations where it doesn’t interfere with 5 (e.g., The Odyssey in homeric greek represents a separate node for establishing connectivity between users). I would also say that 4 is accepted by a majority, although combinations of this type may rub some users the wrong way (such a combining a Norton Critical Edition with all its critical essays with a bare-bones publication of the same text).
For 5 & 6, however, there is a great deal of disagreement—largely, I think, because one’s choices here can easily affect the perceived integrity of LT’s statistics and/or recommendations.
Consider the case of the major 19th-century poet X. This poet’s writings having fallen into the public domain, we see numerous publications of different selections of poetry with names such as:
Poems of X
The Poems of X
Poetry of X
Poetical Works of X
Selected Poems of X
Selections from X’s Poetical Works
Great Poems by X
X’s poetry
(etc., etc., ...the possibilities are endless)
All of these works represent a single node (“some poetry by X”) for creating connections between users. If we were to leave these books uncombined, then LT would not recognize that user B (who owns, say, Poetry of X) has a specific interest (“some poetry by X”) in common with user A (who owns Selected Poems of X). More importantly, other books owned by user B may not be brought to the attention of user A by LT’s recommendation engine when these books are not combined*. For someone who specializes in dead poets, this might be a source of considerable concern, since the integrity of LT’s recommendation engine might seem to be called into question.
On the other hand, if these works were to be combined, then a user who had numerous books of selected poetry by the same author would notice that his collection contains numerous duplicate works. For this user, the integrity of LT’s descriptions and statistics of his own library would be suspect.
Under the current system, it comes down to what aspect of LT each user wants to trust—LT’s ability to identify and analyze connections between users**, or LT’s ability to correctly register and quantify the uniqueness of each user’s collection.
My personal bias leans toward bolstering LT’s social capabilities (identification of similar libraries, recommendations based on user holdings, etc.), even if this results in some inaccuracies in how LT describes my library. After all, if all I cared about was documenting and statistically evaluating my books, I could have done this myself using a spreadsheet.
Am I alone in thinking this way?
*I realize that some of LT’s suggestion methods may also use authors and/or tags when generating recommendations. This does not in any way change the fact that work combining affects recommendations.
**Even if all X’s published selections of poetry were to be combined into a single work, inaccuracies would result from multiple-genre packaging (such as “Selected Poems and Prose” or "Autobiogaphy and Selected Poems", neither of which should be combined with “Selected Poems”). If nothing else, this should call into question the long-term viability of LT's two level (book:work) system of categorization.
1) identifying when the same book edition has been entered into the system in different ways by different users
2) identifying when multiple books are different editions or publications of the same text
3) identifying when multiple books are different translations of the same text
4) identifying when multiple books represent the same text with different peripheral additions (prefaces, illustrations, critical essays, etc.)
5) identifying when multiple books represent a single node for establishing connectivity between different users
6) identifying when multiple books should be treated as a single recommendation by LT’s suggestion engines
From what I’ve read in this group, nearly everyone agrees that work combining is useful for cases 1 & 2. There also seems to be general agreement on 3 (different translations), at least in situations where it doesn’t interfere with 5 (e.g., The Odyssey in homeric greek represents a separate node for establishing connectivity between users). I would also say that 4 is accepted by a majority, although combinations of this type may rub some users the wrong way (such a combining a Norton Critical Edition with all its critical essays with a bare-bones publication of the same text).
For 5 & 6, however, there is a great deal of disagreement—largely, I think, because one’s choices here can easily affect the perceived integrity of LT’s statistics and/or recommendations.
Consider the case of the major 19th-century poet X. This poet’s writings having fallen into the public domain, we see numerous publications of different selections of poetry with names such as:
Poems of X
The Poems of X
Poetry of X
Poetical Works of X
Selected Poems of X
Selections from X’s Poetical Works
Great Poems by X
X’s poetry
(etc., etc., ...the possibilities are endless)
All of these works represent a single node (“some poetry by X”) for creating connections between users. If we were to leave these books uncombined, then LT would not recognize that user B (who owns, say, Poetry of X) has a specific interest (“some poetry by X”) in common with user A (who owns Selected Poems of X). More importantly, other books owned by user B may not be brought to the attention of user A by LT’s recommendation engine when these books are not combined*. For someone who specializes in dead poets, this might be a source of considerable concern, since the integrity of LT’s recommendation engine might seem to be called into question.
On the other hand, if these works were to be combined, then a user who had numerous books of selected poetry by the same author would notice that his collection contains numerous duplicate works. For this user, the integrity of LT’s descriptions and statistics of his own library would be suspect.
Under the current system, it comes down to what aspect of LT each user wants to trust—LT’s ability to identify and analyze connections between users**, or LT’s ability to correctly register and quantify the uniqueness of each user’s collection.
My personal bias leans toward bolstering LT’s social capabilities (identification of similar libraries, recommendations based on user holdings, etc.), even if this results in some inaccuracies in how LT describes my library. After all, if all I cared about was documenting and statistically evaluating my books, I could have done this myself using a spreadsheet.
Am I alone in thinking this way?
*I realize that some of LT’s suggestion methods may also use authors and/or tags when generating recommendations. This does not in any way change the fact that work combining affects recommendations.
**Even if all X’s published selections of poetry were to be combined into a single work, inaccuracies would result from multiple-genre packaging (such as “Selected Poems and Prose” or "Autobiogaphy and Selected Poems", neither of which should be combined with “Selected Poems”). If nothing else, this should call into question the long-term viability of LT's two level (book:work) system of categorization.
2GreyHead
You aren't alone, Tim has always emphasised the social connection as being the critical touchstone. If fine-tuned distinctions between volumes (avoiding 'books' or 'works') is of over-riding importance then LibraryThing probably isn't the 'best' tool for that purpose.
That said, I also think that the need for 'better' discrimination between volumes and authors is well recognised and is being implemented as development capacity, time and priorities allow.
The priorities have never been overtly stated but as I deduce them they are:
1) Keep the site running. (This takes more effort than might be apparent as witness the extra work generated by the NYT article this week.) A great deal has been done on this and we seem to be well past the stage last year when the system would crash around 4am EST most days.
2) Keep new subscribers coming to the site. This is a combination of new popular features (multi-language, book swapping come to mind) and publicity.
3) Keep working on flows of ancillary income (alongside membership revenues). For example the AbeBooks 'suggesters' - which I imagine generate either cash or kind for LibraryThing.
4) Keep the main-stream user happy(ish). This means fixing the worst of bugs, keeping the site clean and tidy and free from unwelcome visitors,and adding some new features. Who the main-stream user is is not always clear - there is a bit of squeaky wheel in there - but mostly I see it as a bookaholic of one variety or another with a yen to talk about books and book related things. So this is a 'social site' about books. Of course there are many users outside the main-stream and so it should be - but they are outside the main-stream.
As it stands LibraryThing does most of what I want form it. Sure there are features that I would love to see added. The ability to deal with uber- and unter-works would be high on the list; but it's still (just) on the 'nice to have' side of the line, and I imagine it's pretty tough to code.
That said, I also think that the need for 'better' discrimination between volumes and authors is well recognised and is being implemented as development capacity, time and priorities allow.
The priorities have never been overtly stated but as I deduce them they are:
1) Keep the site running. (This takes more effort than might be apparent as witness the extra work generated by the NYT article this week.) A great deal has been done on this and we seem to be well past the stage last year when the system would crash around 4am EST most days.
2) Keep new subscribers coming to the site. This is a combination of new popular features (multi-language, book swapping come to mind) and publicity.
3) Keep working on flows of ancillary income (alongside membership revenues). For example the AbeBooks 'suggesters' - which I imagine generate either cash or kind for LibraryThing.
4) Keep the main-stream user happy(ish). This means fixing the worst of bugs, keeping the site clean and tidy and free from unwelcome visitors,and adding some new features. Who the main-stream user is is not always clear - there is a bit of squeaky wheel in there - but mostly I see it as a bookaholic of one variety or another with a yen to talk about books and book related things. So this is a 'social site' about books. Of course there are many users outside the main-stream and so it should be - but they are outside the main-stream.
As it stands LibraryThing does most of what I want form it. Sure there are features that I would love to see added. The ability to deal with uber- and unter-works would be high on the list; but it's still (just) on the 'nice to have' side of the line, and I imagine it's pretty tough to code.
3reading_fox
Just to say I agree with all the comments on this - you are not alone!
I'd certainly combine in cases 1,2 3 if I knew the languages involved, and as you rightyl say, 4,5,6 depend on the specifics of the work in question and are harder to form general rules for.
I'd certainly combine in cases 1,2 3 if I knew the languages involved, and as you rightyl say, 4,5,6 depend on the specifics of the work in question and are harder to form general rules for.
4alibrarian
Like GreyHead, I would very much like to see the ability to "combine" works in a multi-level structure (FRBRization to the librarians out there). It would solve much of the disagreement between combiners and still provide the connections LT needs to satisfy the social connectivity (and the book recommendations)
Combination is both the foundation for the social aspect of LT and for its ability to make recommendations. I agree SilentInAWay that I could use stand alone software if I was only interested in my cataloging purity. I've used other programs that do a better job of detailed description than LT at this point in time. It's the fun of the social aspect that makes LT appealing. So when forced to choose between evils, I would lean to the evil of social connections over the evil of personal statistical integrity.
Keeping LT afloat and viable has to be a high concern and I think GreyHead is right in deducing the unspoken priorities. But it also keeps improving. And while bells and whistles are attractive extras to the cataloging core, I like the bells and whistles for the most part.
Combination is both the foundation for the social aspect of LT and for its ability to make recommendations. I agree SilentInAWay that I could use stand alone software if I was only interested in my cataloging purity. I've used other programs that do a better job of detailed description than LT at this point in time. It's the fun of the social aspect that makes LT appealing. So when forced to choose between evils, I would lean to the evil of social connections over the evil of personal statistical integrity.
Keeping LT afloat and viable has to be a high concern and I think GreyHead is right in deducing the unspoken priorities. But it also keeps improving. And while bells and whistles are attractive extras to the cataloging core, I like the bells and whistles for the most part.
5StanShebs
The "social connection" formulation is a useful abstraction, but doesn't completely capture the intuition of a "work". To me, "Poems A, B, and C" is clearly not the same "work" as "Poems C, D, and E", even though they have some common material. Are they the same "socially", or not? That doesn't seem like it has a clear answer. If I'm talking to someone specifically about the glories of poem A, and they have only the CDE volume, then maybe they want to buy the ABC volume, but if we're talking about poem C, then either volume suffices.
Addition of a part/whole concept to LT will help clarify all this, I think. Conrad's or Walter Scott's catalogs are hugely complicated by the many portmanteau works that have been published.
Addition of a part/whole concept to LT will help clarify all this, I think. Conrad's or Walter Scott's catalogs are hugely complicated by the many portmanteau works that have been published.
6LolaWalser
Goodness, a THIRD thread touching on the "selected" question.
To me, the critical apparatus included with a selection (or any entire work) would make the book significantly different from a bare-bones edition, but who can tell if the owners belong "socially", based on books they may hold for entirely different reasons than the ones imputed.
To me, the critical apparatus included with a selection (or any entire work) would make the book significantly different from a bare-bones edition, but who can tell if the owners belong "socially", based on books they may hold for entirely different reasons than the ones imputed.
7mujahid7ia
Having both an "uber-work" "unter-work" concept as well as a "part" "whole" concept will make for a very convoluted system, depending on the work. However, I agree that there does need to be a solution, and SilentInAWay has done a good job of analyzing the problem.
8languagehat
"Poems A, B, and C" is clearly not the same "work" as "Poems C, D, and E", even though they have some common material.
I entirely agree. It doesn't make sense to call different selections from a poet the same "work." The social aspects can perfectly well operate on having the same author; I don't see the point of artificially creating meaningless "works."
I entirely agree. It doesn't make sense to call different selections from a poet the same "work." The social aspects can perfectly well operate on having the same author; I don't see the point of artificially creating meaningless "works."
9MikeBriggs
I agree entirely with languagehat, and will therefore hold off on my more normal lengthy multi-paragraph responses.
10reading_fox
I agree that ABC is a seperate work from CDE but, that is not generally how it goes.
Poems A,B,C,D,E,F is very similar to a work A,B,C,E,F,G which is more often the case in selected works.
If an author has 100+ works as many do, knowing I am "linked" to someone who has a work by this author isn't particularly useful, especially if the author writes multi-genre. Knowing that we have a very similar copy of selected poems is much more likely to lead to good discussion and interest. It will also reduce the number of works from several hundred to a more managable number.
Poems A,B,C,D,E,F is very similar to a work A,B,C,E,F,G which is more often the case in selected works.
If an author has 100+ works as many do, knowing I am "linked" to someone who has a work by this author isn't particularly useful, especially if the author writes multi-genre. Knowing that we have a very similar copy of selected poems is much more likely to lead to good discussion and interest. It will also reduce the number of works from several hundred to a more managable number.
11timspalding
As Grayhead noted, the center of the current conception is social. I feel strongly that there is no clear, true way of doing this. We carve not according to nature but for what we want to eat. In this case, LibraryThing is aiming for the social dimension. Further, it's not some abstract social dimension, but how various features should work. Those features are things like shared books between users, lists of covers, reviews, ratings and tags by work, lists of works by author, lists of works in Zeitgeist and other list situations, recommendations book-to-book and user-to-book.
That said, I think the answer is a more nuanced model, and one which isn't completely "binary." By nuanced I mean that one ought to be able to express more complex relationships, like "contains X" or "is an adaptation of X." By not being binary I mean that the relationship between two texts is, like the relationship between text and its subjects, a matter of degree as well as nuance.
I've written a couple times about this, most notably on the NG4Lib list here, with various replies and counter-replies.
I don't know, frankly, how to do any of this in LibraryThing. Right now, all members of a work are simply in the same bucket together. That's what makes them a work. It would, I suppose, be possible to allow connections between works short of combination. I'm not sure how to get the "degree" of connection in there.
Incidentally, I quibble a bit with Grayhead's priorities. It's a bit too structured. Much of our development is opportunity- or passion-based, or responding to specific user requests. Then there are personal factors. For example, we're going to have a sudden rush of Javascript-based features when a new guy comes on, because he's only just learning PHP now, but his Javascript is golden...
That said, I think the answer is a more nuanced model, and one which isn't completely "binary." By nuanced I mean that one ought to be able to express more complex relationships, like "contains X" or "is an adaptation of X." By not being binary I mean that the relationship between two texts is, like the relationship between text and its subjects, a matter of degree as well as nuance.
I've written a couple times about this, most notably on the NG4Lib list here, with various replies and counter-replies.
I don't know, frankly, how to do any of this in LibraryThing. Right now, all members of a work are simply in the same bucket together. That's what makes them a work. It would, I suppose, be possible to allow connections between works short of combination. I'm not sure how to get the "degree" of connection in there.
Incidentally, I quibble a bit with Grayhead's priorities. It's a bit too structured. Much of our development is opportunity- or passion-based, or responding to specific user requests. Then there are personal factors. For example, we're going to have a sudden rush of Javascript-based features when a new guy comes on, because he's only just learning PHP now, but his Javascript is golden...
12reading_fox
So Tim,
Considering we only have buckets available at the moment, do you see selected works - where there is no other information - in general as one bucket? Or as several buckets?
We're all waiting with bated breath for a contains X feature, where X links to another work. I'm sure the combiners are already honing their skills for the massive amount of time that will be needed to get this tidy, but the end result will be worthwhile!
Considering we only have buckets available at the moment, do you see selected works - where there is no other information - in general as one bucket? Or as several buckets?
We're all waiting with bated breath for a contains X feature, where X links to another work. I'm sure the combiners are already honing their skills for the massive amount of time that will be needed to get this tidy, but the end result will be worthwhile!
13Noisy
My requirement is exactly opposite to that of SilentInAWay, because I have a large collection of anthologies of Science Fiction stories - both single- and multiple-author - and I wish to cross-reference all the instances of occurences of individual stories. As reading_fox says, I am waiting with bated breath for the "contains x" feature, since having gone to the trouble of recording all the constituent stories in Another Round at the Spaceport Bar in the comment column, I am not altogether keen on doing the same thing for all the other anthologies I have (stored in the garage, and therefore ... pending). I would have thought that poetry owners would have a similar requirement (but perhaps I am too keen in assuming that list-o-mania is the driving force for other users, as it is for me).
(Edit: no-one saw that, did they?)
(Edit: no-one saw that, did they?)
14andyl
13>
Putting the individual stories and authors into the comments is what I have done for most of my short story collections, anthologies and SF magazines. I have done about 550. So I can safely say that you aren't alone in wanting to go down to sub-work level.
I have a few magazines and anthologies and collections to go, and then I will proabbly work on fully cataloguing the papers within my conference proceedings etc.
Putting the individual stories and authors into the comments is what I have done for most of my short story collections, anthologies and SF magazines. I have done about 550. So I can safely say that you aren't alone in wanting to go down to sub-work level.
I have a few magazines and anthologies and collections to go, and then I will proabbly work on fully cataloguing the papers within my conference proceedings etc.
15StanShebs
Just to harp on the part/whole thing a bit more, I don't think one needs to do a be-all/end-all version of the concept. A basic version that can handle individual poems and short stories in anthologies, and sometimes-multi-volume works like LotR will give us a chance to experiment with the idea and learn more about how it's most useful.
16timspalding
Let me put a worry out. It seems to me that "these works overlap" is a simple thing. Maybe even "these works overlap (a little|some|a lot)."
But dealing with overlaps by actually specifying contents is hard—very hard. It would basically peel back a big subset of books, disclosing them to be not the book you thought they were but a collection of interior items. The amount of work would skyrocket, and the same issues would resurface on a lower level (eg., is this reworking of this essay the same or different?). The trouble would be that this lower level has no firm basis in existing data. LibraryThing depends very strongly on data from Amazon and libraries. Can we effectively junk this for a large number of works, go deeper and expect it to work out?
Tim
But dealing with overlaps by actually specifying contents is hard—very hard. It would basically peel back a big subset of books, disclosing them to be not the book you thought they were but a collection of interior items. The amount of work would skyrocket, and the same issues would resurface on a lower level (eg., is this reworking of this essay the same or different?). The trouble would be that this lower level has no firm basis in existing data. LibraryThing depends very strongly on data from Amazon and libraries. Can we effectively junk this for a large number of works, go deeper and expect it to work out?
Tim
17Noisy
16>
In all probability the concept is hard to develop in a way that will satisfy everyone, because it would have to incorporate a lot of bells and whistles. However, for a lot of novellas, short stories and the like, these were the items that were the original "works", and the anthologising is what came along later to create the "book". OK, the data does not exist in a form that can be easily captured electronically, and only someone who is really keen is going to take the trouble to put together a set of apps that will take a scanned contents page and use OCR to convert it into the basis of a dataset that will form a tree of works. But I think that making it difficult may actually have a benefit, in that only those who are monomaniacal enough to go to the trouble of performing such a data capture would be concerned enough about the detail to ensure that the level of data quality was sufficient to keep everything hanging together.
So, yes, it is a basic requirement for LibraryThing, but the design may well require a fundamental rework of the underlying database schema. In such a case, it's probably best to hone the design over a long time and introduce the structural changes a bit at a time, as other features are introduced. Maybe we'll get it when LibraryThing moves from Beta to Gamma?
In all probability the concept is hard to develop in a way that will satisfy everyone, because it would have to incorporate a lot of bells and whistles. However, for a lot of novellas, short stories and the like, these were the items that were the original "works", and the anthologising is what came along later to create the "book". OK, the data does not exist in a form that can be easily captured electronically, and only someone who is really keen is going to take the trouble to put together a set of apps that will take a scanned contents page and use OCR to convert it into the basis of a dataset that will form a tree of works. But I think that making it difficult may actually have a benefit, in that only those who are monomaniacal enough to go to the trouble of performing such a data capture would be concerned enough about the detail to ensure that the level of data quality was sufficient to keep everything hanging together.
So, yes, it is a basic requirement for LibraryThing, but the design may well require a fundamental rework of the underlying database schema. In such a case, it's probably best to hone the design over a long time and introduce the structural changes a bit at a time, as other features are introduced. Maybe we'll get it when LibraryThing moves from Beta to Gamma?
18skittles
Tim, this is "my" take on this issue: (sorry about the length)
first of all, each work 'deserves' its own listing. it has a title & an author. people read it. people may even discuss it.
but if it is in a larger collection of works, then it needs to be "connected" or linked to its "home" book. I usually won't remember the name of an anthology of short stories, but I will remember the story & will have trouble remembering which anthology it is in.
Example: one fantasy story I love is the one about the million names of God, which is a conversation between two computer programmers on an airplane flight from Tibet (or another similar area). I know it is in one of my science fiction anthologies, but I'm not sure which one.... If that story had its own "listing" than I could do a search on that since I'm fairly sure that "names of God" is in the title.
Also, I would be able to discuss that story specifically with other readers since it is a very interesting story with a scary concept. There is also the chance that the story is also in other anthologies & someone looking for that story could find it more easily in another book... possibly one that they already own, but didn't know the story was in there.
The challenge with this method is that it will create more "works" and more work for those who initially enter the novellas, stories, poems. Then there's the work for those who have books with a few of the same stories & yet others in the same book... not to mention that some editions of anthologies ADD & DELETE parts of it each year or edition. (think about the Norton Anthology of Poetry & the variety of poems in each edition... and poetry books are going to be a BEAR to enter based upon each variation!!)
YUCK!!! but the fussy person that lives inside my brain (that doesn't have the concept of time management perfected) thinks this is a GREAT IDEA!!
Second: The idea of having the ability to "link" to books would be wonderful, not only for shorter works & anthologies, but books in a series or that are connected by characters or other things in common.
An example would be Dick Francis's Sid Halley books. He originally wrote three Come to Grief, Odds Against and Whip Hand. but recently I found out that he added to that group with Under Orders. If these books were linked (with something other than a tag) than others who might not know about the new book might find out faster or more easily.
Recently, I have found out that there are many authors who have written books using the characters from Jane Austen's book, Pride and Prejudice and it would be nice if somewhere there was a link to those books (good & bad) so I could look through the list to choose one or two to read.
I'm speculating that perhaps a link to a list of books "linked" together might be easier than one "work" having numerous links on the book page.
Thirdly(??): in the case mentioned in a previous post, the book Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn in the same volume, I would list both books, but having the title to the other either in (parenthesis with 2 books in 1 volume) or another indicator to the fact that the book is volume rather than a single work. (also think about the tome Complete Works of Shakespeare and the links to the individual plays...
Using the cocktail party methodology, there are many works that should be combined, but have variations that would drive a perfectionist crazy!!
LT links works by author & subjects ('sorta' via tags) but linking series, anthology works & multi work volumes would be very useful, in my opinion.
first of all, each work 'deserves' its own listing. it has a title & an author. people read it. people may even discuss it.
but if it is in a larger collection of works, then it needs to be "connected" or linked to its "home" book. I usually won't remember the name of an anthology of short stories, but I will remember the story & will have trouble remembering which anthology it is in.
Example: one fantasy story I love is the one about the million names of God, which is a conversation between two computer programmers on an airplane flight from Tibet (or another similar area). I know it is in one of my science fiction anthologies, but I'm not sure which one.... If that story had its own "listing" than I could do a search on that since I'm fairly sure that "names of God" is in the title.
Also, I would be able to discuss that story specifically with other readers since it is a very interesting story with a scary concept. There is also the chance that the story is also in other anthologies & someone looking for that story could find it more easily in another book... possibly one that they already own, but didn't know the story was in there.
The challenge with this method is that it will create more "works" and more work for those who initially enter the novellas, stories, poems. Then there's the work for those who have books with a few of the same stories & yet others in the same book... not to mention that some editions of anthologies ADD & DELETE parts of it each year or edition. (think about the Norton Anthology of Poetry & the variety of poems in each edition... and poetry books are going to be a BEAR to enter based upon each variation!!)
YUCK!!! but the fussy person that lives inside my brain (that doesn't have the concept of time management perfected) thinks this is a GREAT IDEA!!
Second: The idea of having the ability to "link" to books would be wonderful, not only for shorter works & anthologies, but books in a series or that are connected by characters or other things in common.
An example would be Dick Francis's Sid Halley books. He originally wrote three Come to Grief, Odds Against and Whip Hand. but recently I found out that he added to that group with Under Orders. If these books were linked (with something other than a tag) than others who might not know about the new book might find out faster or more easily.
Recently, I have found out that there are many authors who have written books using the characters from Jane Austen's book, Pride and Prejudice and it would be nice if somewhere there was a link to those books (good & bad) so I could look through the list to choose one or two to read.
I'm speculating that perhaps a link to a list of books "linked" together might be easier than one "work" having numerous links on the book page.
Thirdly(??): in the case mentioned in a previous post, the book Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn in the same volume, I would list both books, but having the title to the other either in (parenthesis with 2 books in 1 volume) or another indicator to the fact that the book is volume rather than a single work. (also think about the tome Complete Works of Shakespeare and the links to the individual plays...
Using the cocktail party methodology, there are many works that should be combined, but have variations that would drive a perfectionist crazy!!
LT links works by author & subjects ('sorta' via tags) but linking series, anthology works & multi work volumes would be very useful, in my opinion.
19Noisy
That'll be The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clark.
20StanShebs
That's a good point about lack of "authority" for works that have never been published by themselves. On the other side, having now entered my own library, I'm astonished at the amount of caca that infests all these library records (doesn't anybody proofread anymore?). The very notion of a "work" here is totally synthetic, but is obviously needed to even start making sense of the mess. People can enter their own works now, so we're not completely dependent on library records anyway, and it seems safe to say that people taking the trouble to enumerate short stories are going to be pretty fanatical about data quality.
I wonder if there are bibliographic databases that track individual poems and stories and such.
I wonder if there are bibliographic databases that track individual poems and stories and such.
21jjwilson61
Perhaps you could start with those books that are a collection of otherwise-separetely-published works, such as the Lord of the Rings. That way everything can still be found in one of the Sources. We can see how that goes and proceed to the harder cases when ready.
22LolaWalser
I agree with Tim (as can be gleaned from my previous posts on the "selected works" combinations).
skittles:
>Also, I would be able to discuss that story specifically with other readers
But is it necessary to have such detailed listings (down to individual stories and presumably poems etc.) in order to find people who may have read the story? Googling and addressing a query to an already self-identified group of readers with an interest in your question (science fiction, short story etc.) could be even more useful (since having an item on your list doesn't mean you've read it, or are even aware of it).
It seems to me that the two dimensions of LT, as a database and as a social network, need to be kept in balance, because they could be at odds with each other. If you expand and complexify the database by dissecting books down to their "elementary particles" (anyone up for listing individual haiku? Heroes step forward!), the social network will likely collapse under sheer burden of data into meaninglessness. But, similarly, combining indiscriminately into a gumbo can make connections meaningless too.
The "single stories/poems" issue depends on how the function of LT as a bibliographic database is imagined. I for one wouldn't insist on this level of detail in making library connections. I don't know how feasible it would be to add contents of books to individual titles, like you see sometimes on Amazon? But not as a combinable matrix, just info.
In general, it seems to me the best compromise is leaving the boundaries somewhat fuzzy, allowing for a range of overlaps (from complete to degrees of partial), because insistence on strict identity, and at that high a resolution, would paradoxically result in huge amounts of data--and yet, little insight.
skittles:
>Also, I would be able to discuss that story specifically with other readers
But is it necessary to have such detailed listings (down to individual stories and presumably poems etc.) in order to find people who may have read the story? Googling and addressing a query to an already self-identified group of readers with an interest in your question (science fiction, short story etc.) could be even more useful (since having an item on your list doesn't mean you've read it, or are even aware of it).
It seems to me that the two dimensions of LT, as a database and as a social network, need to be kept in balance, because they could be at odds with each other. If you expand and complexify the database by dissecting books down to their "elementary particles" (anyone up for listing individual haiku? Heroes step forward!), the social network will likely collapse under sheer burden of data into meaninglessness. But, similarly, combining indiscriminately into a gumbo can make connections meaningless too.
The "single stories/poems" issue depends on how the function of LT as a bibliographic database is imagined. I for one wouldn't insist on this level of detail in making library connections. I don't know how feasible it would be to add contents of books to individual titles, like you see sometimes on Amazon? But not as a combinable matrix, just info.
In general, it seems to me the best compromise is leaving the boundaries somewhat fuzzy, allowing for a range of overlaps (from complete to degrees of partial), because insistence on strict identity, and at that high a resolution, would paradoxically result in huge amounts of data--and yet, little insight.
23readafew
Well I think have stories from anthologies listed as parts of a work would be helpful. I thought I had never read Neil Gaiman. Recently I discovered one of my anthologies (Tales of the White Wolf) has a story by him. Same with Tad Williams. I don't know about poems, but anthologies would be great if the stories and authors could be recorded and searched some way to help find these things, missing stories from your favorite authors and such.
24bluesalamanders
When I first joined LT, one of the things I was most excited about was the idea of keeping track of all the stories there are in the dozens of science fiction anthologies I have (most of which are not cataloged yet). I've wanted a way to do that for years.
I have, of course, found other things to be excited about, since that isn't currently available, but I would be thrilled if it somehow would be.
I have, of course, found other things to be excited about, since that isn't currently available, but I would be thrilled if it somehow would be.
25skittles
#20 StanShebs:
you said: "I wonder if there are bibliographic databases that track individual poems and stories and such."
Yes, that would be from Gale Research (is it still located in Detroit??) ... they do Author Index, Poetry Index, Short Story Index... they "do" all sorts of research books ...
I interviewed for a job there in my early 20's (didn't get it) but I will still KILL to get a chance to work there still!!
21: I agree that "works" like LotR need "connections" since many times they are published in single volumes & sets... perhaps not combining, but linking somehow in a stronger form than tags.
22: yes, poems would be largely too "voluminous" (no pun intended... really) a job for LT anytime in the near future... but...
23: One of my absolute favorite SF writers, Zenna Henderson had quite a few short stories that didn't make it into her collections, even the Ingathering collection is missing some stories... I think due to copyright issues. Robin McKinley also had some stories published in multi-author anthologies.
The romance genre (& probably SF&F, too) publishers frequently introduce authors via anthologies with authors of greater name recognition... so you might miss a story by them if you weren't aware that they had published in an anthology.
Sometimes the short stories are published in a couple of different anthologies... Lake of Dreams by Linda Howard is a good example since it also exists in the LH anthology Timeless.
Here are times that I've been really tempted to enter my short stories into the LT database with a notation that they are located in a certain anthology... but I'll wait for Tim & John to finish the "other authors" fix that they are working on.
19 Noisy: YES!! that's the story... wasn't it a good one?? Thanks!! I hate when my mind goes blank on a title/story.
you said: "I wonder if there are bibliographic databases that track individual poems and stories and such."
Yes, that would be from Gale Research (is it still located in Detroit??) ... they do Author Index, Poetry Index, Short Story Index... they "do" all sorts of research books ...
I interviewed for a job there in my early 20's (didn't get it) but I will still KILL to get a chance to work there still!!
21: I agree that "works" like LotR need "connections" since many times they are published in single volumes & sets... perhaps not combining, but linking somehow in a stronger form than tags.
22: yes, poems would be largely too "voluminous" (no pun intended... really) a job for LT anytime in the near future... but...
23: One of my absolute favorite SF writers, Zenna Henderson had quite a few short stories that didn't make it into her collections, even the Ingathering collection is missing some stories... I think due to copyright issues. Robin McKinley also had some stories published in multi-author anthologies.
The romance genre (& probably SF&F, too) publishers frequently introduce authors via anthologies with authors of greater name recognition... so you might miss a story by them if you weren't aware that they had published in an anthology.
Sometimes the short stories are published in a couple of different anthologies... Lake of Dreams by Linda Howard is a good example since it also exists in the LH anthology Timeless.
Here are times that I've been really tempted to enter my short stories into the LT database with a notation that they are located in a certain anthology... but I'll wait for Tim & John to finish the "other authors" fix that they are working on.
19 Noisy: YES!! that's the story... wasn't it a good one?? Thanks!! I hate when my mind goes blank on a title/story.
26myshelves
Just found this topic. I have a question.
Is there any official objection (Tim?) if a user goes ahead and lists the individual stories in an anthology?
My listing method would be: "The Nine Billion Names of God" (in Best SF Blahblah) by Arthur C. Clarke.
I've seen it done, just as I've seen records and CDs and DVDs and VHS tapes and sheet music and stories from magazines listed. But I have a lot of anthologies, and I don't want to break any rules in a big way.
Is there any official objection (Tim?) if a user goes ahead and lists the individual stories in an anthology?
My listing method would be: "The Nine Billion Names of God" (in Best SF Blahblah) by Arthur C. Clarke.
I've seen it done, just as I've seen records and CDs and DVDs and VHS tapes and sheet music and stories from magazines listed. But I have a lot of anthologies, and I don't want to break any rules in a big way.
27PuddinTame First Message
Like myshelves, I have sometimes added analytics, that is, records for parts of an item, like a short story, or a single issue of of magazine. We often did this in the library that I worked in. It would be nice if there was a way to enter short stories and then link the record to various anthologies. I also put in calendars, card decks, etc., since they often have ISBNs and to me, a calendar bought for its representations of artwork is the same as a book. I look upon the catalog as being more for my convenience than as a social tool, as that's why I made the decision to include these, but if it hurts the site as a whole I'll take them out. I like the idea of cataloging different stories & poems, it's just a lot of work and a lot of storage if it is exhaustive. Of course if we did it, I might, in a fit of madness, decide that I need to catalog all the pictures in my art books.
I have been struggling with the concept of a work, as I see what titles in my library people link together. I consider Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary and the Unabridged Devil's dictionary to be separate, but in LT terms, they are apparently the same.
I have a few other examples to seek clarification on:
1. Someone linked my various Ripley's Believe it or Not books together. Under the "social" goal, I can see that, but if that is corrects, why not link all books in a series, say the Monica Ferris Betsy Devonshire mysteries, as one, someone who is interested in one might be interested in all. The one difference is that the content of the Ripley books is somewhat miscellaneous, so there is less likely to be a real distinction in interest among the various volumes. There are dozens that need to be linked together if the are all one.
2. What about volumes of a set with individual titles? I have all thirteen volumes of The Mythology of All Races. On one hand they are a set with an index volume for all. On the other, each volume is about different cultures, so some people have some, but not all volumes. If one is generally interested in mythology, linking them into one work makes sense. If one is only interested in Asian mythology, then one might only be interested in the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Finno-Uighric myths, and lumping them all together is misleading. The volumes are generally sold separately, incidentally.
3. I have three years of the Jason Gold Mermaid Calendar. Someone has linked two of them together as being the same work. This is something like various anthologies of different poems by the same author. Maybe I should have just one record and a private note of the years that I have.
Added 12/20/2010: Now that I have learned a little HTML, I have started making links between individual titles listed in an anthology's description and analytics for the short story title. I put "short story" in square brackets after the title of the short story. I don't catalog all the short stories in an anthology, but I do like to catalog the ones that are part of a series so that I can link them in the series. I then put a link back to the anthology(s) in the description of the short story, like this Miss Marple short story The Affair at the Bungalow. I also like to catalog ones that involve real people or famous characters so that I can link them to the character
I have been struggling with the concept of a work, as I see what titles in my library people link together. I consider Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary and the Unabridged Devil's dictionary to be separate, but in LT terms, they are apparently the same.
I have a few other examples to seek clarification on:
1. Someone linked my various Ripley's Believe it or Not books together. Under the "social" goal, I can see that, but if that is corrects, why not link all books in a series, say the Monica Ferris Betsy Devonshire mysteries, as one, someone who is interested in one might be interested in all. The one difference is that the content of the Ripley books is somewhat miscellaneous, so there is less likely to be a real distinction in interest among the various volumes. There are dozens that need to be linked together if the are all one.
2. What about volumes of a set with individual titles? I have all thirteen volumes of The Mythology of All Races. On one hand they are a set with an index volume for all. On the other, each volume is about different cultures, so some people have some, but not all volumes. If one is generally interested in mythology, linking them into one work makes sense. If one is only interested in Asian mythology, then one might only be interested in the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Finno-Uighric myths, and lumping them all together is misleading. The volumes are generally sold separately, incidentally.
3. I have three years of the Jason Gold Mermaid Calendar. Someone has linked two of them together as being the same work. This is something like various anthologies of different poems by the same author. Maybe I should have just one record and a private note of the years that I have.
Added 12/20/2010: Now that I have learned a little HTML, I have started making links between individual titles listed in an anthology's description and analytics for the short story title. I put "short story" in square brackets after the title of the short story. I don't catalog all the short stories in an anthology, but I do like to catalog the ones that are part of a series so that I can link them in the series. I then put a link back to the anthology(s) in the description of the short story, like this Miss Marple short story The Affair at the Bungalow. I also like to catalog ones that involve real people or famous characters so that I can link them to the character
28PuddinTame
I haven't tried searching other people's libraries by tags, but I do use tags like "Elizabeth Bennet (Fictitious character)", as a way to connect books that are pastiches, sequels, etc., of works by other authors. I also add the title of the original book and author to my tags.
29r.orrison
I haven't listed short stories myself, but if I did I'd just put "(short story)" in the title, and the book that my copy appears in in the comments. The story could well appear in more than one book, so the book name doesn't seem appropriate in the title, to me at least. (IMHO)
Separate books of a series should not be combined together, they're different works. (IM not-at-all-H O). In working on the Time Life books, I've often had to separate individual volumes from a work that claims to be the whole set, in order to combine them correctly.
For calendars, if the year is in the title there's no excuse for combining them. (IM somewhat-H O) (I've just separated your 2003 and 2005 editions.)
Separate books of a series should not be combined together, they're different works. (IM not-at-all-H O). In working on the Time Life books, I've often had to separate individual volumes from a work that claims to be the whole set, in order to combine them correctly.
For calendars, if the year is in the title there's no excuse for combining them. (IM somewhat-H O) (I've just separated your 2003 and 2005 editions.)
30andyl
#26
Some people already have put their short stories in as separate works. However your naming scheme is less than optimal due to length and the reasons rorrison explains in #29.
I have seen some who use (SS) but with square brackets so as to distinguish the short story from the collection of the same name.
Some people already have put their short stories in as separate works. However your naming scheme is less than optimal due to length and the reasons rorrison explains in #29.
I have seen some who use (SS) but with square brackets so as to distinguish the short story from the collection of the same name.
31jjwilson61
It's your choice whether to put multi-volume works in your catalog as one entry or as separate volumes. If the latter is done however, they should *not* be combined. Likewise, Vol. 1 of a 3 volume work should not be combined with Vol. 1 of the same work divided into 5 volumes. Someday, hopefully, we'll get a way to indicate part-of relationships in LT.
32muumi
>28 PuddinTame: I strongly second this suggestion. I also have used tags such as "Pride and Prejudice", "Jane Austen", to identify books that are sequels or pastiches. In addition to this, I occasionally add tags to anthologies where the presence of one particular author or story is of importance to me: e.g. I might tag the anthology under discussion with both "Arthur C. Clarke" and "The Nine Billion Names of God", or with tags relating to the theme of that story. If there were more than one or two stories in the anthology that I wanted to keep track of, the Review or Comments fields are also useful.
33PuddinTame
>32 muumi: In my flailing about for a way to find short stories, and other sub-units, I have also used tags. In addition, if I have saved a particular issue of National Geographic, I catalog it under the title of the article of interest as if it were separate, and then put in the notes that it is from National Geographic, issue such and such. I might do the same for a special short stories, but I do worry about it becoming overwhelming to the system. On the other hand, it works very well for me in locating what I have in my library.
34muumi
The relationship between recipes and cookbook is not unlike the relationship between short stories and anthology. Today I tagged a cookbook "panettone" because that particular recipe is outstanding. But I feel that my own system (never mind LT's) would be overwhelmed by entering every single entity in every collection.
Here's an example of tags for a short story collection with one particularly outstanding story - Orson Scott Card's Flux: Tales of Human Futures : science fiction, short stories, Isaac Asimov, Foundation, Hari Seldon, "The Originist"
Since I'm basically keeping the book for the sake of the one story, it's particularly important to me that the tags reflect that.
Here's an example of tags for a short story collection with one particularly outstanding story - Orson Scott Card's Flux: Tales of Human Futures : science fiction, short stories, Isaac Asimov, Foundation, Hari Seldon, "The Originist"
Since I'm basically keeping the book for the sake of the one story, it's particularly important to me that the tags reflect that.
35jimroberts
#33: juglicerr, #34 muumi
It should be possible to search comments (you can select Comments from the pull-down list), so if you list the stuff your are interested in the comment field, you should easily find it, and the system is hardly going to be overwhelmed by the size of comments. At the moment, it apparently works only for single words in comments, but I understand that the LT team is working on improving the search functions.
It should be possible to search comments (you can select Comments from the pull-down list), so if you list the stuff your are interested in the comment field, you should easily find it, and the system is hardly going to be overwhelmed by the size of comments. At the moment, it apparently works only for single words in comments, but I understand that the LT team is working on improving the search functions.
36PuddinTame
@#35 jimroberts: I will take your suggestion for concepts, like "panettone", but I am sometimes cataloging short stories and providing links in the descriptions between the story and the anthology. That allows me to put the individual story into a series, or link it to a famous character or real person, like The Affair at the Bungalow
37jjwilson61
First of all, you do realize that your responding a post from 2.5 years ago, don't you?
Second, what do you mean by "providing links in the descriptions between the story and the anthology"? By descriptions, do you mean the Comment field or something else?
Second, what do you mean by "providing links in the descriptions between the story and the anthology"? By descriptions, do you mean the Comment field or something else?
38jimroberts
#36
You seem to have set up a pretty good scheme, using the Publication field for links to the anthologies your stories are in, and it is very helpful to LT as a whole to distinguish clearly between a short story and an anthology of the same name. You've been a bit inconsistent though: mostly you add [short story] to the title (as you say in your addition to #27), but in a few cases you've added [short stories], which I think is a bit confusing — was it by accident, or does it mean something different?
You seem to have set up a pretty good scheme, using the Publication field for links to the anthologies your stories are in, and it is very helpful to LT as a whole to distinguish clearly between a short story and an anthology of the same name. You've been a bit inconsistent though: mostly you add [short story] to the title (as you say in your addition to #27), but in a few cases you've added [short stories], which I think is a bit confusing — was it by accident, or does it mean something different?
39PuddinTame
@36: No, it is meant to always be "short story". I'll change any that are mine. The problem is that in some cases the links are to records set up by other people, and they have varied ways of indicating that it is a short story. When I'm feeling cocky, I set up my version in Common Knowledge as the Canonical form of the title.
I also try to add a synopsis of the story in the description, as well as the Common Knowledge fields for the individual story, even if I don't add it to my own collection.
I also try to add a synopsis of the story in the description, as well as the Common Knowledge fields for the individual story, even if I don't add it to my own collection.
40PuddinTame
@#37 jjwilson61> Yes, I know it's old, doesn't time fly?
The links are in the Descriptions field (that's not actually the word I want, but as time flies, so does my memory) that is listed on the right-hand side of the record. I put it there so that it is accessible without going into my library, which I think is somewhat laborious. The information is also in the Publication field of the bibliographic record.
The links are in the Descriptions field (that's not actually the word I want, but as time flies, so does my memory) that is listed on the right-hand side of the record. I put it there so that it is accessible without going into my library, which I think is somewhat laborious. The information is also in the Publication field of the bibliographic record.
41jjwilson61
The right-hand side of what record? I take it you don't mean you library page since you say it's purpose is to get to the link w/o going to your library. The work page? I don't see anything labeled Descriptions there. Can you copy the link to one of those pages from the address bar of your browser so I can see what you're talking about?
42jimroberts
#39: juglicerr "I'll change any that are mine."
The ones I saw were definitely yours, they're in the Title field of your records:
The Plymouth Express [short stories]
The Lonely God [short stories]
The ones I saw were definitely yours, they're in the Title field of your records:
The Plymouth Express [short stories]
The Lonely God [short stories]
43PuddinTame
I found some others, but I missed those. Thanks for pointing them out, I've corrected them. I must have been very tired when I did the "Plymouth Express," it was also in the wrong collection and had no tags.
For some odd reason, a title search of my collection turned up all the ones that use "short story" as well.
For some odd reason, a title search of my collection turned up all the ones that use "short story" as well.
44PuddinTame
@jjwilson> actually, I should have said the LEFT hand side of the record, under the picture of the cover. I think it is on just about any page associated with the record: the main page, detail page. etc.
45eromsted
>43 PuddinTame:
There's this bug where if you use more than one search term it searches everything, regardless of what you select in the drop-down. It's been reported and assigned and Tim actually bumped it recently. So here's for hoping it will get fixed.
I bet you have "stories" in the tags or elsewhere for those books and so you got a lot of extra matches. You could search for "short stories" in quotes in title/author. That would be one term and it would sick to the selected field.
There's this bug where if you use more than one search term it searches everything, regardless of what you select in the drop-down. It's been reported and assigned and Tim actually bumped it recently. So here's for hoping it will get fixed.
I bet you have "stories" in the tags or elsewhere for those books and so you got a lot of extra matches. You could search for "short stories" in quotes in title/author. That would be one term and it would sick to the selected field.
46jjwilson61
45> I see. That is a Common Knowledge (CK) field and is shared data so that anyone looking at the work page can see it. It sounds like your doing something rather idiosyncratic to your library so I don't believe that it's appropriate for you to be using a common field for that info.
47jimroberts
Putting the table of contents of an anthology into the CK description field is useful. Links to pseudo-works representing the individual stories is a bit more questionable, but is it doing any harm?
48SimonW11
Let us consider the hypothetical works.
"The Happy Prince and other stories"
"The Selfish Giant and other children's stories"
"Selected Children's stories of Oscar Wilde"
Some one suggest that my son would enjoy the Canterville Ghost.
While I am at the local Library I decide to order it.
I pop on-line they have "The Happy Prince and other stories" out on loan but as THe Library is an LT subscriber I look it up and the very first review tells me. "Worth getting just for the canterville Ghost."
so I order it.
wait three weeks and pick it up only to find that It is not that book. there. I ring the Librarian and ask why her Library information was wrong? Why I ask does she pays for Librarything at all?
you see the works are combined. Trust me far more bizar thing are combined in Oscar Wildes works in spite of occasional weeding.
I count myself lucky I had decide against just ordering it from Amazon.
as a social user I decide to talk to some one who has read the selfish giant so I look it up The Selfish Giant and other children's stories, in my Library. and see that Verybusyguy Has a copy.
AndI contact him only to find that Verybusyguy, Has not read it because it is not In his Happy Prince collection. Now VeryBusyguy is a nice enough bloke but he is Verybusy and decides to block me as a time waster.
Still thats better thnan the reception I got in the " viscous bastards who like children's stories. where I was accused of purposely misleading someone so they would spend the exorbitant sum of 1 pence plus post and packaging ordering it from Amazon.
Not all social interaction is pleasant. I decide not to risk any more.
and if these similar works were not clumped what would have happened. well social interaction would have occurred. only it would have been helpful and welcome, likely then to encourage more.
Clumping as opposed to combining is counter productive.
If I want to discuss The Ten Million names of God. I go to the Science Fiction group and talk about It I don,t need to know what collections it appears in. Knowing a group or person who is interested in the author Is a good enough starting point.
If I need to find out if it is in a collection in print. so I can give some one a copy Then the last thing I want is to find some clumper has combined "A C Clarke's Selected Short stories" With "The selected Short stories Of A C Clarke".
contents is usefull information and i appreciate people who keep a record of works.
Could I suggest though that tag fields are a better way of doing it. since they are easily searchable and ad value to the site as a whole.
49skittles
#48: Well, then you might have a problem.
Why?
Because there are many members, including myself, who will list the anthology or collection in the title.
example: The Nine Billion Names of God (in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 1)
(although I might list it as being "in SF Hall of Fame, v.1")
The story is also listed as being in the collection of Arthur Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God
So, what are you going to do about that?
What can you do?
Nothing.
It is my listing & I will list it the way that I want to see it. I will list my books the way I want them because I want to be able to find them in my library & on my bookshelves. I want to be able to find my short stories in my books.
Am I going to worry about how you will use my listing?
No.
If you are not smart enough to check the contents of a book that you are buying before you buy it, you have the problem & not I. And the same goes for others, too.
And, I am a stickler for good & correct records. I'm fairly close to obsessive about it. I would probably put in the description "This story may be found in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, volume 1 (1972) and in the collection The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke." Others could add to that information with what knowledge they have. (which is why it is called Common Knowledge)
but I wouldn't put YMMV. I would hope that would be understood.
My book.
My listing.
My way.
LT work.
CK way.
Why?
Because there are many members, including myself, who will list the anthology or collection in the title.
example: The Nine Billion Names of God (in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 1)
(although I might list it as being "in SF Hall of Fame, v.1")
The story is also listed as being in the collection of Arthur Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God
So, what are you going to do about that?
What can you do?
Nothing.
It is my listing & I will list it the way that I want to see it. I will list my books the way I want them because I want to be able to find them in my library & on my bookshelves. I want to be able to find my short stories in my books.
Am I going to worry about how you will use my listing?
No.
If you are not smart enough to check the contents of a book that you are buying before you buy it, you have the problem & not I. And the same goes for others, too.
And, I am a stickler for good & correct records. I'm fairly close to obsessive about it. I would probably put in the description "This story may be found in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, volume 1 (1972) and in the collection The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke." Others could add to that information with what knowledge they have. (which is why it is called Common Knowledge)
but I wouldn't put YMMV. I would hope that would be understood.
My book.
My listing.
My way.
LT work.
CK way.
50SimonW11
>49 skittles:
I have no problem at all with you creating an entry for the Nine Billion names of God . I do not see why you think I might. I would do it myself if it were not so time and labour intensive.
I have no problem at all with you creating an entry for the Nine Billion names of God . I do not see why you think I might. I would do it myself if it were not so time and labour intensive.
