Continued discussion: Publication dates [etc.] at the top of work pages.

I've been thinking a great deal about this over the last couple weeks. There are a whole bunch of things caught up in the same net (work vs. book-level data, OPDs, edition date, other author data, &c.). I think we need to not just deal with each piece separately, but think about the whole range of things that have gotten caught up in this discussion.

I'm still working out a proposed solution (that may or may not have anything to do with what actually ends up happening), but part of my thinking is to revive an idea Tim had during the "other authors" discussion (or maybe it was in here, I forget which): to change the current "Book information box" to something like "Bibliographic Information" with a work tab and a book tab.

On the work tab could be shown OPD and other associated information, and on the book tab, information specific to that particular copy of the book. Having date and other information in this spot would solve the need to add another sidebar element ...

Even with that, however, there's still the very important question of what should be displayed right at the top of the page: work-level information (title, author, other authors, for example) or book-level information. Right now it's something of a confusing mish-mash, which is leading to some pretty bizarre-looking records (and has caused people to suggest that they might delete their own book-level data because having it leads to aesthetically-displeasing results).

Ideally, "work pages" would always display work-level data at the top. But people don't like that because they expect to see there the language of their copy, &c. So, what's the answer? I'm continuing to think through it, but would certainly appreciate thoughts and comments. Hopefully next week Tim and I will be able to sit down and discuss this more fully, but in the meantime I'd like to hear what you think.

#1 by @jbd1> Ideally, "work pages" would always display work-level data at the top.

I hope you qualify that with a strong "in my opinion". Because hasn't it been book data since... well, since LT even started? Honest question, here. I know it's been that way for years and years, at least.

I think the problem here may be the assumptions. A "work" page is a page you get when you click on a book (in your catalog, profile, home page, etc.) If there was an actual book page that you went to when you clicked on these things, I might be able to hop on board the "work pages should show work data at the top". But as it is, LT has made work pages pull double-duty. And I'm not sure how work data should be primary considering that LT is a site for cataloging your books. Hence, when I click on my books the most prominent thing I expect to see is my book (title, author, etc.)

>2 brightcopy: - Well, hence the "ideally" (work would show work, book would show book). The problem is just as you say - "work" pages have never really been either strictly "work" or strictly "book," they've been a rather odd mishmash of the two. And as we add more data, that structure starts to be more and more constrained. So, is the answer something like true "work" and "book" pages? Or is there a way to keep the current structure and still show people what they want to see in a way that makes sense. That's what I'm trying to puzzle through.

Basically, I think the work page should be for work data, with one exception: the basic identifiers of the work need to be in a form that we can recognize. There's no point in having a page of work data if we don't immediately know what work it's about. This is why it's important for the work page to show our title, our cover, and (probably) our author. But that's all. Once we've gotten past the basic identification, the page should be about the work in general.

I don't personally think the Book Information box belongs there, but I know it's probably not going away. I have no way to justify its inclusion on the page except "people like it", but I suspect that that's enough. If it's there, I think it makes sense for it to toggle between book and work information.

But I still think a main priority for the work page, and especially the top of the work page, should be to display information efficiently. OPD is a major piece of information that takes up a tiny amount of space, so I'd like to keep it even if there is a work toggle for the Book Information box (which I'll probably still minimize and move to the bottom of the page--it's not efficient enough to justify the prime real estate). The longer form, with OPD and edition dates and text specifying what each is, becomes more cluttery, so it's more problematic at the top of the page. I also don't think edition date should be given so much primacy on a work page.

Efficiency of CK display in general also deserves consideration. The current format is very clunky and is designed for editing; I would never move it up to the top of the page even if it did happen to contain some information that I cared about. We used to have a beautiful short-form CK that was meant for displaying the data rather than editing it, and I'm still sad that this went away. It should be brought back, and it might even be useful to have various pieces of CK data broken up into their own display sections so that they can be moved around more freely. There are other things that could be done with CK display too (more customizable options, in particular), but that should probably be a separate thread.

In brief, two basic principles:
1. Make sure we can identify the work.
2. Show information about the work as efficiently as possible. (This doesn't mean cramming everything in above the fold; white space contributes to efficient reading as well.)

I'd also focus on displaying data rather than explaining data. I don't think a bare date next to a title is as mindboggling as people make it out to be; especially if it ends up being a link to a list, it will be trivial to confirm what it refers to, and that confirmation only needs to happen once, rather than having explanatory text take up space on the work page forever.

And I'm not sure how work data should be primary considering that LT is a site for cataloging your books. Hence, when I click on my books the most prominent thing I expect to see is my book (title, author, etc.)

I think the idea is that when you want to see your book data, you look in your catalogue.

>4 _Zoe_: - If you'd gotten all the emails I have over the last couple weeks asking what the gray number is after the title :-) ... of course if we added a link that would settle, but it definitely hasn't been immediately obvious to people.

>6 jbd1: Well, HelpThing could be edited in the meantime.

But I'd be curious to know how many people forget the answer and email you again in a few weeks ;)

>7 _Zoe_: - Ha! Yes, it's only a matter of time!

#5 by @_Zoe_> I think the idea is that when you want to see your book data, you look in your catalogue.

So that's why in my profile, clicking on the book listed next to Currently Reading takes me to my catalog, right? Or clicking on any of the books in "Most recent activity" takes me to my catalog. Or on any of the links for "Random books from brightcopy's library" takes me to my catalog? You see where this is going. ;)

So yeah, I heartily disagree that when you want to see your book data, you look in your catalog.

I should have started this by asking everyone to post once and then refrain from replying for a while so that we could get a good range of posts from various folks. It's probably too late to do that now but I will request that if you've already posted on the main question, please give others a chance to do so. I'd really like to hear from some of the many who posted in the other thread with strong views on these questions, too.

11: I think the problem here may be the assumptions. A "work" page is a page you get when you click on a book (in your catalog, profile, home page, etc.) If there was an actual book page that you went to when you clicked on these things, I might be able to hop on board the "work pages should show work data at the top".

This. I'm seeing the need (or it could be just me) for separate "book" (specific) and "work" (generic) pages, with an easy way to toggle between the two. When I click a link in My Books, I want to go to my book page. When I click a link in someone else's catalog, I want to go to their book page. When I click a touchstone, or other generic book link, for a book I have cataloged...I'm undecided whether I'd want to be taken to my book page or the generic work page, but I'm leaning toward the latter, and either way, the work page needs to clearly indicate that I have a copy or copies of that book cataloged.

>6 jbd1: "If you'd gotten all the emails I have over the last couple weeks asking what the gray number is after the title :-) ... of course if we added a link that would settle, but it definitely hasn't been immediately obvious to people."

I still think the simplest solution is to have a third line, below the author info, that says "Original Publication Date: 1954", but I know LT sometimes prefers to have fewer words even when it comes at the expense of clarity. Call me old fashioned...

Then the edition year can be where it has been -- in the box for the book.

k4k

In general, I would like to see a greater separation between work and book data. I've also long thought that the book details page isn't very useful and that the main work page is performing too many different functions.

I don't know what the redivision of content should look like exactly. But a more useful book details page could become the default landing place when you have the book in your catalog. The work page could then be reserved for work-level information only.

Even if it takes a while, I think I would prefer a from-scratch rethink of the layout to a simple reshuffling of the current display elements.

But even a complete redesign wouldn't necessarily resolve the question of what dates should be displayed where. This may simply be an unresolvable conflict of aesthetics and interest. I think the smaller gray date after the title is very useful and looks fine. Many other people think it's pointless and looks terrible. What'cha gonna do?

I'm more worried at the moment about the "other authors" situation. The current display for books I own, especially books with many contributors, just isn't working for me. See discussion starting here.

>14 eromsted: - Thanks; I want to bring the other authors stuff into the discussion too, and I definitely agree with you about the current aesthetics of that how that looks on books in one's catalog with lots of contributors.

> >4 _Zoe_: - If you'd gotten all the emails I have over the last couple weeks asking what the gray number is after the title :-)

Or maybe not a link, but a mouseover help-text.

I think there should be a work page and a separate book page. When I look up a title, I want to know about the work not my particular edition. I REALLY don't care about my edition. I'm not a collector, I'm a reader. I think we should be automatically be brought to a work page when we look up a title. Then if someone wants to see their particular edition(s), they could click on a Your Book toggle.

I would love a better, clearer seperation between work-data and book-data. With the exception that I don't want my book-data segregated to some other page I can't quickly/easily get to. Yes, the "work" page is called "work-page" for a reason, but it has never *been* a "work-page" and I don't think it's realistic that it should turn into all-work-info now, after so long.

I like the idea of "Bibliographic Information" with a work tab and a book tab. But that still leaves it up in the air about the top-level data, what would be shown as the title, etc.

Personally I have a very knee-jerk reaction to that top area. When I click on a book link in my catalogue or on my homepage, I expect the resulting page to have my data on it. Which means *my* title at the top of the page, not a work-title that I don't recognize. I hate the OPD stuff, because I'm used to *my* title being up there, so why should a date that has nothing to do with *my* book be up there? I don't use OPD and for the longest time didn't even know what it was.

Ideally, I would like two completely different pages, a "book-page" and a "work-page", and anytime you clicked a link from your catalogue/homepage/profile/etc you would get your own book-information, on the "book-page". And then you could easily click over to a "work-page". But I'm sure that's a pony.

edit: and Morphidae apparently wants basically the opposite. lol

I don't care what's at the top, but I need work data that is clearly LT's consensus view of the title, primary and main authors and original publication date somewhere, where I can find it and be sure, whether I come from my catalog, someone else's catalog or the search page, that that is really what I'm looking at. The new ability to change/add work authors, makes it really important that you know what you're looking at.

Speculating -- if you do the tabs, could the data at the top change depending on which tab you were in? I assume it would default to the book tab if you come from your catalog or someone else's catalog, so most people who only go to the so-called work page from their catalogs, would see their stuff and those of us who want work data would see it after asking for it.

Agree that better distinction / separation between work and book information would be very helpful, and would be helpful whatever the primary interest of the user: their copy of a work, LT consensus, or another user's copy. I'm convinced that central to this idea is not only separation & organization by tabs or area of the page, but something visual to help keep track of the different levels: whether that's colour coding, icons, or what I'm not sure. I've tried my own hand though I'm not a designer and I've not come up with anything I feel is worth sharing -- but I remain convinced that approach would be really helpful.

Sidenote: I like that this thread continuation was automatically starred (unless I'm mistaken?), since I starred the original thread. Nifty!

I like the idea of tabbed bibliographic information boxes, with OPD and edition date prominent in those, depending on whether it's the book or work tab.

I also would like better distinction of work and book info.

I think work pages need to have work-level info at the top (canonical title and work-level other authors). Book pages can have book-level info at the top.

I'd prefer not to have the gray dates after the title, because all the versions I've seen are either confusing or cluttered, and I don't think we can reach consensus on which dates should be there. I'd like to see the OPD somewhere on the work page, but not displayed in that way.

> 2 A "work" page is a page you get when you click on a book (in your catalog, profile, home page, etc.) If there was an actual book page that you went to when you clicked on these things, I might be able to hop on board the "work pages should show work data at the top".

No, there is already a book page, and when you click on a book from your catalog, profile, or homepage, if it is a book you've cataloged, you go to the *book* page, not the work page.

Here are some pages I get when I click on books from brightcopy's profile and catalog:
Clicking from recently added: http://www.librarything.com/work/12554/80173347
Clicking from random books: http://www.librarything.com/work/3869435/72593673
Clicking from the catalog: http://www.librarything.com/work/12554/book/80173347

Work pages are in this format: www. librarything.com / work / XXXX
There's a single number: the work number.

Book pages have two numbers. The basic format is this:
www . librarything. com / work / XXXX / book /YYYY
Sometimes the work number or the /book/ string might be omitted:
www. librarything . com / work / book / YYYY
www. librarything . com / work / XXXX / YYYY

In my view, the *work* pages (XXXX - single number) need to have work-level information at the top. The book-level pages (XXXX / YYYY - two numbers) can have book-level info.

>4 _Zoe_: Basically, I think the work page should be for work data, with one exception: the basic identifiers of the work need to be in a form that we can recognize. There's no point in having a page of work data if we don't immediately know what work it's about. This is why it's important for the work page to show our title, our cover, and (probably) our author. But that's all. Once we've gotten past the basic identification, the page should be about the work in general.
I disagree with the bolded part. Canonical title can be used to show the title in the site language being used, and authors should be work-level authors. I'm indifferent as to whether the work page shows my cover or some other cover. But generally, I think my info (my title, author, and cover) are only relevant when I'm looking at my book. I want to be able to see what the generic work page looks like too, though, and right now I can't without signing out.

Right now, when I go to a 'work page' of a book in my library, I always get a book page, no matter how I have gotten there. I can't see a generic work page of something I own unless I sign out. I'm really happy that the work information is now available in the your book box, (although that may not be the most logical place for it). It used to drive me crazy trying to figure out what the work author was, as that isn't shown on the work details.

I'm in favour of having separate work and book pages. If anything only having to do with your book (edit, change cover) would be accessed from the book page, and things that affect the work (CK!) would be accessed through the work page it would also be clearer that some things are not just personal.

Like many others who've already posted -- eromsted in #14, rsterling in #21, MarthaJeanne in #22 -- I'd like to see a clear, sharp separation of work- and book-level data, and I'd be quite happy to adapt to a wholesale re-conceptualization of the Work Page if it achieved that.

The solution that seems clear and intuitive to me -- and I realize that others' mileage may vary -- is to have links that lead to a book go to the Book Page if there's a copy in your library and the Work Page if there's not. Ideally, clicking on a book in someone else's catalog should take you to the Book Page with the details for their copy . . . which feels like it should be straightforward to code, but may in fact be complicated.

Regardless of what points where, however, I think we need the Work Page to truly be about the work . . . to, for example, display the canonical title (perhaps with a secondary line for "also known as . . . ") and the OPD.

(Doing that might also be useful in terms of creating a foundation for down-the-line improvements like an "editions" level of data and the capability to add a generic edition of a book to your wishlist. But that's getting away from the subject at hand, so I'll leave it for the moment.)

To me it seems there is a fairly simple solution.
(1) We have proper 'work' and 'edition' pages.
(2) When we try to access a work page of a book that we own, we get redirected to OUR edition page. (Likewise when accessing someone else's work page).
(3) On edition pages, there's a small box that gives work details (as now, but smaller).
(4) There is a clear link on edition pages that goes to work pages. When you click that link, you don't get redirected.
(5) On work pages there's a small box that gives the details of the book you own (as now, but smaller).

It's very similar to what we have now, but with clearer concepts, I think.

I like the idea of tabbed work and book pages, but I'm just wondering how that would work if I owned multiple editions of a work: would I want each edition displayed on a separate tab? If they were on a separate tab, then the OPD could be on the work tab (the tab itself I mean, not within the page) and the edition date could be on the tab ... which would work for me - particularly as I hate seeing the date up on the header lines in any form.

I'm puzzled as to why I dislike seeing the date up there so much - particularly as I have no problem with the multiplicity of 'author' information items that can be up there. I suppose it's just down to what I personally think is important. And if I have such strong feelings, then I expect everyone else does as well. It strikes me that the various widgets containing the different types of information should be movable: I wouldn't object if just the primary author was shown beneath the title, as long as I could move all the other interesting author info to just below it.

Canonical title can be used to show the title in the site language being used, and authors should be work-level authors.

The problem is that not everyone reads in a single language. If the site starts showing translated English titles of works that I own in the original French, I may have no idea what work is being referred to. And I don't read across languages nearly as much as some people do.

This can be an issue even for non-translated books, too: The Book of Negroes was retitled Someone Knows My Name, and it's not immediately obvious that these are the same thing.

I know I wasn't supposed to weigh in again, but I think this is a critical point. In my case, going with the Canonical Title would be fine 99% of the time and would only cause a bit of confusion (unnecessarily enough that I'd still fight it, though); but someone who reads equally in two different languages would face serious confusion 50% of the time, and I don't think that's acceptable.

26> A good point, but moot if there are clearly distinguished book and work pages.

21> I strongly disagree that a book page is just a work page with two numbers in the URL. The two pages are so similar that I cannot bring myself to call them different things.

I agree with everyone who has called for a complete separation of work and book pages with the links from libraries going to a book page that only has information about that particular book but with a prominent link to the work page.

#21 by @rsterling> Thanks, but surprisingly enough I do know how the urls work on LT. ;)

No, there is already a book page, and when you click on a book from your catalog, profile, or homepage, if it is a book you've cataloged, you go to the *book* page, not the work page.

No, not really. If you click on a work anywhere and you have that work, you effectively land on the same page as if you clicked on the book in your catalog, profile, etc. There really is no distinction if you have a book, just a bit of a difference in URL. Yes, if you have multiple copies of the book, clicking on the work will bring you to the same one all the time. But it still brings you to the same page with the same info as if you'd clicked on it in the catalog.

This is what I mean by it being an artificial distinction, at least at present in LT. The difference between a "work" page and a "book" page is really just semantics if you have the book cataloged.

A good point, but moot if there are clearly distinguished book and work pages.

No, because I'll still need to know what work I'm looking at, even when I'm interested in work data on the work page.

Just say someone mentions a work on Talk. I go to the page to look at the tags, the ratings, etc.: the work data. If it happens that I already know this work by a different name, I want to make that connection immediately. But that doesn't mean I suddenly want to see a whole different type of content on the page.

I completely agree with Zoe (I think. .... I think we are in agreement here? I can't really tell anymore)
Books with multiple titles are confusing, no way around that.

To take a book in my catalogue, Saving Dove, the more popular title around the internet seems to be "One Unhappy Horse". I would have *no* idea that work was the same thing as my Saving Dove, if that's all I saw.

However, on that work, someone has put a "republished as" in the canonical title. I don't know if that's "proper" according to LT, but it's the best way I see to show both titles. Of course, that gets harder when you are talking about 3+ different-language printings...

Sorry to weigh in again, but I just want to reiterate that what we already have/see - if we've cataloged the book - is a book page, and easy access to that. We also have a work page. If you're looking at someone else's copy of a book you don't yourself have, the difference is clear: if you delete the book number, you get the generic work page. What we don't have is an equivalent process for books you yourself have: for those books, you have no way to get from the book page to the work page.

We already have everything in place structurally to have a clearly distinguished work page all the time: two very distinct forms of the URL. All we need is a way to get to the generic work page easily from a book page, and for the generic work page to show generic work info (ideally, if we have the book, also with "book information" below, to remind us that we have it).

Basically, I agree with everything markbarnes said in post 24, and I also think that should be a relatively simple solution. If you have the book, your links from your catalog, profile, and recently added section of your homepage are always going to go to your specific copy, which should assuage those who only ever want to see their copy/info. A generic work page would also be available, for those of us who want to see it. The question then is what to do with things like touchstones, etc. which I think should probably go to the work page rather than the book page; however, if there's a clear indication on the work page that you have the book, then you should be able to figure out what the book is if ever you land on the generic page, even if your copy has a different title.

If you create a touchstone, you actually need to know the work title:

Handbuch Garne

What I see on the right is

The Yarn Book by Penny Walsh (others)

29, 30> I completely agree with Zoe (I think. .... I think we are in agreement here? I can't really tell anymore)
Books with multiple titles are confusing, no way around that.

I don't disagree but in that case I'd still want to see the work title at the top of the work page. Then to avoid confusion there should be a line below the work title that says something like "Title in your library: Saving Dove".

31> I haven't seen any other posts anywhere that refers to a work page that's been enhanced with book data as a book page (even when it has been so enhanced the page still contains far more work data that book data). Do the help pages make such a distinction?

34: When the URL contains book/YYYYY, you're looking at a specific copy/book, not the work in general. To me, given the conceptual distinction between books and works, that seems very clear. (Am I the only one who pays attention to the URL of the page I'm on?) The difference is obvious if you're looking at someone else's copy vs the work in general.* The problem is that if you have the book, you can't see the work-level-only page (ETA: more precisely, the work-level page doesn't behave like a work-level page, but like the book-level page for your copy). The broader problem is that work-level and book-level info are not very well distinguished on all the work and book related pages, when, in my view and others', they need to be.

*Anyone who doesn't have a copy of this book (Smollett's Adventures of Roderick Random) look at the difference between these two pages:

http://www.librarything.com/work/104320
http://www.librarything.com/work/104320/book/20812274

I don't disagree but in that case I'd still want to see the work title at the top of the work page. Then to avoid confusion there should be a line below the work title that says something like "Title in your library: Saving Dove".

Yeah, I think we'll end up needing to go with something like this. I just hate the thought of all the clutter, given that in most cases there will be no significant difference between the two titles.

If you have the book, your links from your catalog, profile, and recently added section of your homepage are always going to go to your specific copy, which should assuage those who only ever want to see their copy/info.

This seems like a significant weakening of the whole "social cataloguing" concept.

36 This seems like a significant weakening of the whole "social cataloguing" concept.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I've described ("your links from your catalog, profile, and recently added section of your homepage are always going to go to your specific copy") is how things work now and have always worked AFAIK.

>37 rsterling: Yes, but there's currently no meaningful distinction between the two--both show my title and author, followed by a bunch of work information. If the idea is to separate out the book page further, emphasizing edition information, and link to that instead of to the communal work page, then that seems like a step in the wrong direction.

there's currently no meaningful distinction between the two
There is if you're looking at a book you don't have. See the examples in post 35.

If the idea is to separate out the book page further, emphasizing edition information, ... then that seems like a step in the wrong direction.
I haven't seen anyone propose that. To my mind, something like what we currently have as a book-specific page seems fine. I would just like for there to be a work-level-only page that I can access, even if I have the book.

and link to that instead of to the communal work page
Again, this is what is already happening: that would not be a change. What you are seeing when you click on one of your books is not the communal work page. It is a book-specific version. You cannot see the communal work page for a book you have cataloged (the version with the canonical title and work-level other authors at the top), unless you log out.

>39 rsterling: I'm just not convinced that they'd go to the trouble of further distinguishing book and work pages without changing more than the title. They already have book and work details pages; creating two separate main pages as well only makes sense if they're going to be significantly different.

This will be my last post in this thread, since I've already gone over my allowed one by more than one. Maybe we can create a separate thread for spin-off discussions so other people can weigh in on the questions raised in the OP.

creating two separate main pages
There is no need to create two separate main pages, because these two versions of the page already exist. See the difference between the pages linked in post 35. All we need is for people who have the book to be able to access the generic work-level-only page, which they currently can't, alongside the book-specific version, which is all they can currently see. Again, the situation is very different when you're looking at a book you don't have vs. a book you have.

Book you don't have: clear distinction between book-specific page (someone else's copy) and generic work page. The former shows the member's title and author, and a book information box, and the latter shows the winning or canonical title, and work-level primary and other authors.

Book you do have: NO distinction between book-specific page (your copy) and generic work page. Both show your title and authors and a book information page.

What I've been trying to say is that we need a way for the distinction *that is already there* for books we don't have to also be available for books we do have. The simplest way to do that is just to make that generic work-level page (which already exists) available/visible and easily accessible for people who have the book too.

41> There isn't enough of a distinction, and no, people don't generally look at the address of the page they're on. Those two pages are different enough for someone already familiar with LT, but there's no way a non-power user is going to glance at those pages and know whether it's work or book information, much less that there's a difference on LT between work and book information.

What if all the main/book/work pages that you arrive at by clicking on a title stayed the same as they were a couple of weeks ago before the dates were added. Then on the left, where there's the choice for editions, there would also be a choice for LT level consensus data (we'd have to figure out what to call it, since clearly the word "work page" does not invoke a clear idea in users' minds). Then no one's current views would be disrupted and those of us who need/want the site-wide view can get it.

...and now, the second line of the heading (author) is showing a mishmash of author, illustrators, translators etc!

http://www.librarything.com/work/661011/book/70183073

This is getting worse by the minute.

>44 geitebukkeskjegg: - Well, that's what's so ugly about when you have a book for which you've listed multiple authors ... it's on my long list of things to deal with :-)

>45 jbd1: It's welcome where the work really have more than one author:

http://www.librarything.com/work/417630

This, however, is ridiculous:

http://www.librarything.com/work/2324271

Thanks for keeping it on your list, though. Filtering by role ("author") should do the trick. :-)

EDIT: I'm forgetting, of course, that the work-level mess isn't global. You'll not see it unless you're logged on with my userid. What the logged-in user sees as "a work" heading is not really the generic work data.

>46 geitebukkeskjegg:. Right! :-)

>46 geitebukkeskjegg:. I don't understand why some books are better organized than others.

This one is bad: http://www.librarything.com/work/5024505/book/70511941

And that's only half of the contributors

48: primary vs secondary?

>48 stretch: - because what you're seeing there is what it currently looks like when you've entered "other authors" in your own catalog. If you log out of LT and look at the "work page" for that book: (http://www.librarything.com/work/5024505) you'll see something quite different (there are still a lot of contributors, but the listing looks much less hideous).

There are several things going on (fixing all of which are the point of this thread):

- You can't see the overall work-level data for a book that you own, without signing out first.

- "Other authors" data on books that you own currently displays in a very unattractive way (see http://www.librarything.com/work/5024505/book/70511941). ETA: partly this is because there's currently no way to indicate primary/secondary authors at the book level, and partly it's just because the currenty display setup is ugly.

&c. &c. Now that SantaThing is off our plates, Tim and I are going to have a (probably very long) discussion about all this stuff, and I hope we can have a fix in place before too much longer.

Just a "see more" button when there's more than a line of other authors would do a lot to address the problem.

>50 jbd1:

I hope whatever you comes up with gets rid of those dates behind the title. Each time I see them I get more and more annoyed.

Whereas I hope you'll keep one single date, providing a lot of information in a very small space :)

I've thought about this a bit more and I want to pull back from my statement above requesting more separation between work and book data. Rather I have three problems with the current work page that could use some creative reorganization, but do not necessarily require a new, separate work level page.

a. Other authors for books in your catalog.
As many people have noted, putting everything at the top is just a mess. I think there are three possible solutions:
1- Go back to what we had before, only showing your primary author at the top of the page. I'd very much like to see this in the short-term, though it's not an ideal solution.
2- Find some way to use the all editions work level information to sort and supplement user catalog data. This would be ideal, but it never seemed to work properly and may be impossible.
3- Create a check-box to assign main authors in the catalog-level other authors field. Main authors join the primary author at the top of the page, the rest have a separate section that is by default collapsed and expandable with a more link. I'd also like to see other authors sorted by role (so e.g. all the illustrators are listed together.)

b. The Book information box.
I like this feature functionally, but not aesthetically. The box is too big, especially with other authors included. And if we are going to have book level title and author at the top of the work page, we don't need it again in a book information box.
The box currently serves the following functions:
1- An immediate indication that you have the book in your catalog.
2- A quick way to edit ratings, tags and collections.
3- A way to switch between different copies of the work when you have more than one in your catalog.
4- And recently, a way to see work level title and author information.
I don't have a complete suggestion, but I'd like to see these functions split up and displayed with greater spacial economy elsewhere on the page.

c. Dates.
I definitely want original publication date at the top of the work page. I'd be fine with a separate, labeled line since having it after the title seems to be the main sticking point for many people. I'd be less worried about the extra space this takes up if we could save some space on other authors and the book information box.
I'm much less happy with the "edition date". One problem is what to call it. It's based on the publication date field in the catalog, but people may use this field differently. For books I own, I use it for printing date (to the best I can determine). That's not exactly the same as an edition date. Some people may use it for original publication date in order to have a sortable column for OPD. I do that to some extent with my wishlist books. And many people may pay little attention to the exact edition and it's date when importing. For them, displaying this date at the top is shoving incorrect and or meaningless data in their faces.

And some people would rather use "eighth printing" as opposed to a date.

Bumping, since there was some sort of undertaking to revisit this issue. The top of the work page didn't get less of a depressing mess with time.

v

Oh believe me, I know. Tim's been finishing up lists; I *VERY* much hope to get back to this as soon as we can.

Oh Jeremy, I believe you :)

v

Bump. FFS.

v

I haven't forgotten, I promise!

But has Tim? ;)

Ha. Probably, but I'll remind him as soon as we get a spare moment. They are few and far between. :-)

Seriously - clean it up man! I already find myself altering key data when I add books in order to have have the top of the work page look sensible. With the number of books in my library it is not feasible to do more than that. It's not like all this information isn't available directly below on the same page. When I open the work page of a book I want to see a clean title and author at the top of the page, not details of every monkey that scratched its arse within sniffing distance when each book was produced! It looks so unprofessional.

Can someone please develop a simple form of LT (for idiots, if you like, but which allows for multiple languages and non-ISBN) that looks clean and works?

v

Yup. I'd just like a simple year (OPD) in parentheses. None of these words and multiple dates.

Also, this was a sad missed opportunity to get people to enter the CK data: since it fails for dates that have more than just a year, I've mostly given up on checking when I see a work lacking a date at the top.

Sorry all. I know it's still hanging out there. Tim's been to two conferences in the last two weeks, and has been working on other bugs and new features when he can. I understand the frustrations - I want it cleaned up too.

I'm getting frustrated with the new features when there's so many new features that are still half finished. And that's on top of old features that were also left unfinished.

>67 brightcopy: - You're not the only one, I promise :-)

#68 by @jbd1> I know, I know. I think Tim has the same problem that authors do when they get too big to have to obey the directions of their editors.

>69 brightcopy: Heh.

I wouldn't even mind partially-finished new features if they were at least partially-finished in a systematic way. For example, the top thing that people wanted for Lists (based on polls that I created almost entirely for this eventuality) was a way to star the ones they were interested in. That at least could have happened before the project was set aside indefinitely.

Similarly, showing Abouts on the work pages was sort of the point of the whole feature. Hardly anyone was talking about the Your Books view of Talk in the many, many discussions leading up to the change.

Another county heard from:

I am not having any more problems with the work page than I was before this feature was introduced. (I think the multiple uses of the page is at base confusing, but I also know how hard it is to re-conceptualize and reprogram UIs that have grown up organically, so I don't expect this to ever be "fixed" so that everyone is happy.)

I like the date/s at the top. For my purposes they are not ugly, confusing or in my way.

The fact that I'm not entering more CK data with original pub date is due to lack of time, not lack of interest.

Also the features fixing the old other author problem and introducing the other authors on work pages have solved my biggest problems with the site. I am even fond of lists, a feature I thought I would mostly ignore.

So if you guys never got back to this, I'm not going to be upset.

But surely it should at least show a date for all works that have a date entered?

Now I've been inspired to waste my time on this.

72: Frankly, fixing the book edit screen so, if you blank out the Dewey number, it doesn't auto-fill again would be higher on my personal list of things that "should" happen. But to each their own nitpicks.

Carry on.

I'm waiting for the dates to be removed from the work headings.

74 I have a '-' in most of my LoC and Dewey places for just that reason. Oh, yes, and we were promised a proper place to indicate other category/shelving schemes. In the meantime for those books that I have a scheme for I use the Dewey space.

#65: Yeah, that's supremely annoying. More precise data shouldn't display worse then vague data.

75: Yes, I know. And I'm going to be extremely upset the day they do that. Can you see why they might have moved on ...

76: Actually they did add a proper place. If you click on (change) under From Where you can change that space to free text and put whatever you want in it.

Bump. Ugh, I do detest the clutter at the top of the page -- too many dates, too many people, especially for books in our own catalogs. It just looks messy, and it's wrong. All those authors are not on the same level.

Please reverse some of these changes, and also just give us the option of viewing the generic work page for books we own too.

I know. Believe me, it's still on my list, and I'm sorry I haven't managed to persuade Tim to take another look at it yet. I promise I'm still trying!

Will it do any good if there are more of us bumping?
Bump. Bump.

Tim's just back from vacation tomorrow, and I'm off to Maryland to give a talk, but when I'm back in the office on Wednesday I'll see if I can move it up the list.

I'd just like to point out that some of us are not having a problem with the display and think of it more as a feature than a bug.

If Tim's really able to fix the mixed use of the work page and make it more intuitive, I'd be for that. But if he's just going to fiddle with the display, it would be very low on my list of priorities.

Unbump.

Understood. Thanks.

ETA: I hope that any changes we make will retain the information that folks want to have handy, while removing some of the clutter and confusion on the work pages (and, as many have pointed out, making it possible to see the work-level data for books in your catalog, &c.)

I am finding the current display useful. On most occasions that I look at the main work pages it isn't all that cluttered and, since I'm going to be scrolling a lot anyway, the extra info at the top is helpful and doesn't interfere with my use of the page.

My top concern is getting it to work for dates that have more than just a year (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD). It should pull out the year and display it at the top, not just ignore it. And if this can be figured out here, there are other nice features that can be developed too.

That said, I much prefer the simple display for books I don't own to the cluttered edition-added display for books I do own.

What she said.

If you're "intentionally" not showing the year in cases where it's given in YYYY-MM-DD form in CK, then I think you should scrap the feature entirely. Deliberate inconsistency is not a good thing.

No, it's just that Tim doesn't want to add that bit in before we decide if we're going to change (slightly!) how they're displayed.

Thanks for clarifying.

I hope there's no consideration of showing the full dates, though. The month and day of publication are really not critical top-of-page information.

I also think it will be useful to store the year of publication somewhere for other purposes too. For example, things like these lists.

>91 _Zoe_: - no, we definitely won't do that. And yes, having pub year will be useful for various things!

Phew! Thanks.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. It seems that these small changes really are too trivial for there to be so much debate and perhaps the fact that there is so much debate means that it would be best just to scrap the changes altogether. (please)

Although I probably don't still qualify as a 'newbie' I don't know what is 'confusing' on the work pages and so far I haven't had any difficulty 'seeing' what I need.

I agree with @aulsmith and @hailelib.

See http://www.librarything.com/topic/137843 for a bit new on this ...