So how are we supposed to combine back in zero copy works?

First, let me ask that no one touch this example. I know how I can hack around it and force these to be combined, but this is more of a general question about the "official" LT user interface. Thanks!

I found that The Gate of Time had been incorrectly combined into Two Hawks from Earth. I set about dividing off The Gate of Time and ran into a lot of zero copy editions. I separated these out along with all the non-zero Gate ones in preparation for re-combining them into a single Gate work. Well, once I had gotten to the Gate work, I ran into the issue.

As you can see here, there are plenty of potential work combinations involving those zero copy works:

http://www.librarything.com/work/10952873/editions

Lots of entries there. (Aside: Yet another reason why zero copy works are annoying - multiple entries of the EXACT SAME THING, no capitalization or case differences... why can't these be just ONE entry apiece? I get the reason for hanging onto crufty data, but can't we minimize the duplicate cruft?)

But if you click on "(combine/separate potentials)", you get this:

http://www.librarything.com/combine.php?work=10952873

Note that all the zero copy ones have lost their invitation to the party. I understand why this was done, but it puts users in a no-win situation. We're supposed to combine those back in, but there's no (official) way to do it.

Bleh.

I'm writing this here rather than a bug because I don't think it's as "simple" as a bug. It's really a design question. And I know I'm not the first to bring this up, either.

I'm writing this here rather than a bug because I don't think it's as "simple" as a bug. It's really a design question. And I know I'm not the first to bring this up, either.

Actually, I think that the zero-copy works have only disappeared off the work combination page in the last few days. I'm fairly sure I've combined some in the last week or so.

2> I remember them not showing up on the combination page before, but perhaps it was only if they were zero copy EDITIONS attached to a non-zero copy WORK. This seems to be the case of zero copy WORKS going missing.

2> Yeah, it's been like this for a long while. I've been using the unofficial method to join them back up when I split them off, because it's often the only way to do it.

#4
I only ever combined them if they showed up on the work combination page. It's a kind of passive resistance: I'm still convinced it would be better to delete them completely, so I resent any time wasted on them. If they disappear when I separate them from a wrong combination, then good riddance: I don't waste my time tracking them down. I recombine them if and only if they are obvious on the work combination page. But I'm sure I've done some fairly recently.

5> The problem with that is when someone adds in one of these, it might stick to the zero copy works, right? Like if they added:

The Gate of Time (aka Two Hawks from Earth) by Philip José Farmer

which is how it shows up at amazon, I think that would get auto-combined into the zero copy one, right? My worry is that then someone will combine THAT into Two Hawks from Earth, which is wrong in this case (The Gate of Time was later expanded into Two Hawks from Earth).

I believe this is Tim's entire argument for keeping zero copy works, and it does makes sense.

ETA: That is, it makes sense when the user interface actually lets you combine these zero copy ones back into the new work like it should.

Yep, I use the unofficial method, with the work numbers. Your best bet, if you can't combine them yourself right away when you separate them, is to make a note of the work's URL, and post it in the combiners group along with the URL for the work you want to combine.

Also, have you tried going from the author page? Sometimes zero-copy editions will show up there (and may say 1 copy).
http://www.librarything.com/combine.php?author=farmerphilipjose

ETA In this case, though, I don't think they all do.
I've also noticed that both zero-copy editions and zero-copy works have been disappearing or hidden in the last week or so - from work/edition pages, and from author combination pages.

8> No, those were other legit copies that I just didn't see before. I've combined them in. Now only the single non-zero copy Gate of Time work shows up on the author combine page.

#6
I believe this is Tim's entire argument for keeping zero copy works, and it does makes sense.

It makes sense for zero-copy editions which are already combined into the main work. Putting the effort into combining zero-copy works now, to preempt doing the same amount of combining effort later on the small fraction of them which actually pick up real copies, seems a bit misdirected to me. Since works with actual copies show up on the author page as well as on the work page, and so are much easier both to spot and to fix, leaving them till thery're an actual rather than a hypothetical problem seems more efficient to me.

As I said, I'll combine them if they show on the work combination page, but I won't chase them up if they go astray.

10> It makes sense for zero-copy editions which are already combined into the main work. Putting the effort into combining zero-copy works now, to preempt doing the same amount of combining effort later on the small fraction of them which actually pick up real copies, seems a bit misdirected to me.

Even if someone may come along and combine the newly non-zero work into the wrong work before you notice them, thus causing things to get gunked up? My point is that it's not the same amount of work, as untangling things after they go wrong is often much more work than just getting them right to begin with.

The example here would be someone adds "The Gate of Time (aka Two Hawks from Earth) by Philip José Farmer" from amazon. That combines with the floating zero copy work of the same name. Since it has Two Hawks in there, it winds up being an combining suggestion for the Two Hawks book. Someone follows the suggestion and combines it into Two Hawks. Now that this book is combined with Two Hawks, LT helpfully suggests that the main Gate of Time work be combined with the main Two Hawks work. Someone follows the suggestion. Whamo.

#11
If you're dealing with a work whose title or authorship is problematic, like your Two Hawks example, then sure, chase up the zero copies. For the vast majority of works, once they're actually showing on the correct author page, the combination is obvious.

12> Yeah, I understand your point, but just have a different preference I suppose. Where I find it not obvious and unfortunately frequent is when people have the ISBN from book A along with title from book B. Those aren't so obvious without actually chasing them down. Of course, that one's debatable as to where the "right" place to put it is! (I usually go with the matching title)

I've eliminated 'The Gate of Time (aka Two Hawks from Earth)' from Amazon, so no-one else will be pulling that version in.

I've set the combine page to show zero-copy works when in the "suggested works" mode. (It's still not showing them on author-work combinations.) I am torn whether it makes better sense to remove them from the suggested combinations on the edition page. But as has been pointed out, works can be incorrectly marked as zero-copy works.

I am torn whether it makes better sense to remove them from the suggested combinations on the edition page

I'd rather we could see them, so that we will know when they need to be combined back in. At some point many people were actively separating them out (before the new rules), and even recently, since there hasn't been a way to combine them, normal separating processes have left a lot of strays. Since newly added books can be automatically combined into zero copy works if they share key data, it would be better to be able to see these so we can combine them into the main work where they belong.

15> I am torn whether it makes better sense to remove them from the suggested combinations on the edition page.

If you don't, how do you expect us to follow your wish to keep zero copy editions combined with their non-zero copy editions in a work? The only way to do that is to use the forced URL combining. That's not even an actual part of the site's UI but something we've had to hack together. Should URL combining become part of the FAQ since that's the only way to do it?

17- The first part of Tim's message said that he's added them back to the combine page when you get there from editions (ETA which means he's added back a way to combine them). He's torn about whether they should show up on the suggested combinations list on the editions page. One option, presumably, is not to show them as suggested combinations there, but to show them on the combine page (still allowing a way to combine them).

As I said, I'd prefer to have them shown in suggested combinations on the editions page, so we can see that they need to be combined without having to stumble upon them on the combine page.

18> I may have misread him. I say him asking if it "makes better sense to remove them". The "makes better sense" meaning instead of adding them back into the combine page like we asked, maybe he should just nix them from BOTH.

Count my vote for completely integrating zero-copy works among both suggested works and on combining pages, just as with any multi-copy work; or, in the alternative, eliminating zero-copy works from LT altogether. All or nothing -- unless, of course, there's clear reason or benefit from a middle (muddle?) of the road approach.

In the meantime, I don't know how I'll ever find all the zero-copy separations I made since February 8 (or whenever it was they disappeared from combining pages). But another member took pity on me (or got exasperated with me, to similar effect) and shared an URL combining technique, which I'm using left and right on other zero-copies, as and where I find them. It feels a bit like the fox in the hen house, a bull in a china shop, even pyromaniacs playing with matches. (Quite gratifying, actually!)

ETF: pUncTuaTiOn & tYPo'z.

Personally, I think that wherever it shows options of combining, it should show *all* options, including zero-copies. It just doesn't make sense to have them show up in some places but not others, especially if it's expected that we will do as told and combine them with the correct works....

Like the author page. Why can't we see zero-copy editions when combining on the author page? I'm aware that might make some already-huge author-combination pages even bigger, but not by *that* much. And really, the author page is how I combine most of the time, so it's very frustrating that zero-copies can be combined again, yet I can't do it through that avenue.

Uh, jasbro, you might want to read message 15 and following. We know it's "fixed". :)