Read but not owned

How do you personally handle the "read but not owned" books? Up to this point, I have added non-owned books that I've read to my LT as library and/or read but not owned. As my library grows, I'd really like to have a place to just have my owned books. At the same time, I don't really want to delete all the read but not owned books. How do you deal with it? Any word on when and if LT is implementing a read but not owned option? That is the one thing I want to see above all else on LT.

I don't yet handle it, but I'd like to see a work-around. I don't add books I don't own to my catalog (since I don't own them). That might change if there were a way to add books without the assumption of ownership. There are book I want to read that are available at the library, but are not available at stores for what I can afford, if at all.

My library is exclusively things I have read, so I wouldn't worry about it.

One quick and ugly hack would be to use tags such as "read" and "owned".

What I would like to see is a field to this effect in the "Other Fields", along with an option to just display owned books in the library display.

Why this is needed - if I can catalog the books I read, apart from the one's I own, I should (theoretically) get better results in the recommendations.

Why not just catalog everything, including, what you've read along with what you own? Well:

-> I'm a stickler for correctedlyness (as you can make out from the previous word)
-> I use libarything.com as personal library management software (more on this in another post)

So, in short, we must have a method of tracking read/owned books for humanity to be able to find the meaning of love, life, the universe - everything.

So far I have avoided cataloguing books that aren't exclusively in my possession, but I think I will have to change this soon, especially if I want to review the latest Harry Potter which is catalogued with another family member at the moment. I would just tag them un-owned I guess, so that I could sort them out quickly if it ever became possible to distinguish better.

I use "own" as a tag, and then I search for the tag. This excludes the books I do not own, and returns my personal library as the search results.

I really, really would like a way to differentiate between owned and not owned, aka I'd like a wishlist option.

However, for now I'm tagging certain books that I've liked from the library as "favorites from library".

Heather

I only catalog books I own. I keep a hand written reading journal of everything read whether I own it or borrowed it. So I guess I keep my read books the old-school way and go electronic with owned books.

For those that catalog read but not owned books, do you try to enter the exact edition that you read? I know for me, there is no way I could figure out which edition I read a long time in the past and I wouldn't really care to anyway. So when you add the unowned book, do you blank out any edition-specific information like ISBN or publisher?

I'm a purist. The current LT catalog is only of books I own. The feature I want to be implemented before all others is that read but not owned list, so that I'll be able with a clear conscience to add books that I've read. :)

Hi have a similar situtation in that I have books I own, but are not what I consider part of my collection :-)

I have copies that are reading copies, and some that are "collectible" copies. Just like collectible baseball cards, sometimes I have a rough copy I can use as a filler until I can afford a signed first edition (as an example).

Might use that 'tag' suggestion.

I'm another of the few that goes against the grain on this conversation. My library list is exclusively the books I've read. My wishlist would have to consist of the owned books that haven't been read. I use the site mainly for recommendations, so I don't want to add books that I've no clear idea about to the list that will affect the rec's.

I use @library as a tag for books I love, but don't own. I think they still belong here, as they should be part of my profile more than a stupid book of bathroom humor -- which I do, but is not representative of what I read. (I hope not.)

>9 jjwilson61:

I do specify the edition, because I only started adding read-but-not-owned books last summer, when talk of collections ran high and it seemed like the feature would be out very soon. So as I would take things out of the library I would catalogue them and tag them @library, and since I had them right then I would know the edition. I haven't been interested in adding the hundreds of books I read before that but don't own until there is really a feature in place for them. There are just too many for me to think of until then.

I only include books that I physically own. I would sort of like to include books I've read but don't own, but only if the hypothetical collections function makes it possible that the two groups won't mix. Same with wishlist (which would actually be an 'interesting-looking books' list). Tags aren't strong enough for that.

Also, I wouldn't bother about specific editions for read-but-not-owned, because for one, I would add the books I've read over the past year and a half (since I started keeping track of all my reading) and I certainly don't remember the editions of all (any) of them. For two, what do I care if it's the right edition anyway? It's not important to me when it's not a book I own. And for three, if I've read a not-owned book more than once, it's not unlikely I read it in different editions, and I'm not going to add that sort of book more than once.

I know that some members actually maintain two separate LibraryThing accounts: one for books owned, and one for books read.

I haven't broken down yet and purchased another account, although I've been sorely tempted.

I currently use my blog to keep track of the books I've read. I'm not concerned too much about specific editions since it's more hassle than it's worth, but if I was using LT I probably would because it's so easy.

I have thought about getting a separate account, but it seems too messy, since there is no way of joining them. This seems like a feature that a lot of people want. Why not work on this at some point? I know from the first day I joined, I realized it was a feature I really wanted and needed.

I currently catalog all books, owned and read but not owned. I am kind of a purist, as well, so it bugs me to see read library books on my LT. At the same time, I like keeping track of them here as well.

As for editions, if it is a library book or other book that I don't own, I don't care which edition shows up on LT. I just search by title, typically and pick one.

I catalog everything I own, even if I haven't read them yet (tagged "tbr") and everything I've read that I've taken out from the library (tagged "library"). The only thing I don't do is catalog books I want to buy/read in the future, it would be too confusing to me.

Agreed, jenson. I keep my wishlist at Amazon. If a wishlist feature was introduced here, I would probably use that.

This seems like a feature that a lot of people want. Why not work on this at some point? I know from the first day I joined, I realized it was a feature I really wanted and needed.

Yeah, agreed. I have been saying for a year and a half that this is an absolutely essential feature for me. Many people do want it, and for a long time it was on the horizon. More recent talk though has suggested it will never be developed and we should just use tags. But I agree with bluesalamanders that tags just aren't powerful enough - I don't want these books to be completely mixed in with my real library. Plus, if I really liked them, I would own them, so there's a social difference for me that I think is pretty significant.

I recently stopped waiting for wish-list functionality and started adding books I don't have, but really want ... I'm an avid used book sale hunter, so it's important to me to have a simple, efficient way of keeping track of books I'm looking for ... and I wanted all my book-related data in one place ... that being said it still rubs me the wrong way to do it ... one thing I do beyond tagging these books with "wish list" is I've created a kind of generic "wanted" cover that I upload for books I don't have ... this makes it very obvious visually which books aren't yet physically in my library ... feel free to check out my library to see what I mean.

Seems like a crazy thing to worry over when there are work arounds. I list everything I have read whether I own it or not.

A wish list might be nice but I can add that tag, own or borrowed can be tagged up too. Maybe I'm being crazy but I don't see this as an urgent need!

Though to be fair I can see why others might want it!
Eoin

9days: I think you're headed toward flagsville with post #23 ... if you really have that point of view you should be talking WITH Tim, not ABOUT Tim.

I'm also a member at Paperbackswap (different user name) and I keep a wishlist there (limited to 200) and a "reminder" list (unlimited). That is truly wonderful since if it is on my wishlist, there is a real chance of my getting it!!

If I get a book from the library or borrowed from a friend and I really really want it, I will get it. I re-read books a lot, or I keep them for reference.

"read but not owned" would be more of a list of books that could also be tagged "not worth the money".... but that would be my opinion & how I would use it.

I might want a feature for "no longer in my library" ... but that could be done any number of ways.... but not here.

I own the books in my library.... and there are only books listed.

#9 I do try to catalog the exact edition. With a few exceptions, the Library of Congress seems to have a lot of the editions that I've actually read.

One notable uncatalogable series: I still have a bunch of science books from the 1960s from the Foyle's book club, cheaper reprints that never found their way into most libraries, so in those cases I usually have to fake it. A lot of these books are scientifically pretty obsolete, but I can't bear to give them up; too many good memories.

Once I start loading my science fiction, I'll run into all sorts of trouble.

Personally,as I state quite clearly on my profile page,everything listed by me is owned and is actually in my collection. There are no wish-lists,want-lists,once-had,never-hads or anything of that sort. I can really see no point in listing these as 'Your Library',because they are clearly not 'your library' at all,and this simply makes a nonsense of 500 or 50 or whatever largest libraries listing.It also makes comparisons with National Libraries rather pointless too I would have thought.When proper wishlists ect do appear,then is the time for members to enter their non-owned books.Indeed I shall no doubt join them with great pleasure,but until that come about,no,no,no!

#24

I don't really care. My post isn't an attack, and it doesn't violate the TOS. I understand there are people who think Tim can do no wrong, but I'm not one of them. Flag away.

As a paying customer, I'm well within my right to complain. Myself, and others, have attempted talking *with* Tim, to no avail. So, what next? Suck it up?

Sorry, but I handed over my money after seeing promises made that were never delivered. If that's not false advertising, I don't know what is.

>27 devenish: clearly not 'your library' at all

Oh but they are, whether they are in my physical possession or not.

27, 29 = And that's the basic conflict... between "include everything I read evah" and "my books are my books. and I must be able to hold them."

Message 23: 9days

Perhaps a visit to the about page is in order. To wit this sentence - "LibraryThing is an online service to help people catalog their books easily."

See that? Books with the modifier their, meaning books they own. (wow, I didn't think I could still diagram a sentence!) Not books they would like to own. Not books someone said they should check out. Not books they read at some point in their lives. Not books they wish they wrote. Books people own.

If this site doesn't work for you, perhaps you should find one that does. Personally, I would love a way to track vaporware, but until Tim builds it and then promotes it and then takes it away, leaving his promises out there for the world to see, I don't think The Better Business Bureau needs to know about it.

>30 infiniteletters: The nice thing is that you have the option to do it any way you want once you make the decision.

32> Exactly. We just need better options to cover both ends. :)

33>We just need better options to cover both ends.

Yes, please!

>31 Bookmarque:
From Message 15
I'm not cataloging objects, I'm cataloging my intellectual life. I lost a bunch of books and I have a bunch so moldy they're in a sealed plastic bag (I should throw them out). They both in my head's library. Why must I imply that I have current title to them, one way or the other?

I didn't add my 49 wish list items until Tim uttered the above statement. It seems to me that physical ownership isn't a prerequisite, even for the staff.

That may be the case now, but it certainly isn't evident on the site information page. It seems Tim had a change of thought/heart/mind once he really got into things. This is probably why the drastic shift in things social v. things actual. If I were handling an actual lending library public, private or otherwise, LTwouldn't be enough to track all of the aspects of organizing such a collection.

9days, it's quite clear when and if you purchase a membership that what you're paying for is the currently-existing set of features -- if you chose to buy one because of the expectation of future features that may be cause for disappointment but certainly not for legal action. Deadlines and target dates get missed. Those of us who have been here long enough know that wishlists have been on the "Real Soon Now, I Mean It!" list since, oh, say, October 2005. I'm sorry if the promise of a wish list was what made you go with LT, and I wish you'd asked about it beforehand if it was! Once I gave up on ever seeing wishlists I created a second account to keep track of mine; unless your wishlist is > 200 books you may want to consider doing the same.

I'm quite disappointed with the direction the site has taken in recent months as well, as Tim has decided he wants LT to be a social network for book-lovers rather than a cataloging site with social aspects (I realize he insists otherwise, but unless he's got big changes going on that he's not telling us about the recent development history says otherwise), but even the real true book features are much improved from when I joined (which was before work combination, to give you an idea).

I posted this elsewhere, but probably should have put it here.

I'm OK with tagging. But, there are a lot of good points above. There does seem to be a logical need in differentiating between owned and unowned at a fundamental level; something not accounted for by tags.

But, I wonder why users hesitate to included read-but-unowned books - that is information we truly possess and we can share. Certainly adding a rating and/or review for a book we have "read but don't own" is adding a lot more value to LT than adding a book that is "owned-but-unread".

note that there are two threads active on this topic, and I am responding to posts in both threads

Part of it for me is that I can be sure that I've listed my complete physical library, but the listing of all the books that I have ever read will never be complete. And even if I could remember everything that I've ever read I'm not sure that all that Sword and Sorcery that I read 30 years ago as a teenager should be lumped in with my current books for the purposes of similar libraries and suggestions. Of course the same can be said of some of the books in my house, such as the old textbooks that I can't get my wife to get rid of. Perhaps what we need is some sort of relevance ranking that we could give a book to weight it in the suggestions according to how relevant the book is to our current reading habits.

Relevance ranking, now that would be interesting. Lots of work, but interesting.

#39: I wasn't sure how to express this, but I did not mean to imply users MUST input every book they have read. I think that if a user is considering rating or reviewing a book - ownership should not a major consideration.

But, I agree, we want our physical libraries separated from other books.

I am quite curious about why physical ownership is of such overriding importance to some. I mean, I understand the organizational interest in keeping track of what's on one's own shelves. But if that's all one wanted to do, why use LT instead of, e.g., Excel? Yet, for example, #27 suggests that anything other than an inventory of one's own library messes up the social aspects of LT. From a social P.o.V., though, why is ownership of greater importance than readership? How is owning an unread book different, socially, from not owning it? Unless one sees books as physical trophies of a sort, rather than an intellectual or æsthetic experience.

One way (out of several) that I look at it is, owning is to reading as who-one-thinks-one-is, or who-one-wishes-one-were, is to who-one-really-is. (This doesn't work with individual books, of course — we all read out-of-character stuff on occasion.) There is obviously some overlap, of course. Still, there are also people who read both fiction and nonfiction, but only buy nonfiction (because of the reference element) because (1) they don't expect to go back to the fiction they read and (2) public libraries seem to be better resources for fiction than for nonfiction, especially specialized nonfiction.

Isn't the social element of LT about identifying shared interests? Because while ownership certainly reflects interest, they're by no means isomorphic. Ownership can be affected by financial means, dwelling size, personal and family history, &c., &c.

To me, it seems that readership is a better proxy for interest than ownership. Of course, the vast majority of LTers have reading histories longer than the life of LT, and unless one has kept a reading journal, it's hard to fill in previous years, so in that sense ownership makes sense as a proxy for readership which is itself a proxy for interest.

But, aside from that and keeping an inventory of one's bookly property, what does physical ownership signify?

But, aside from that and keeping an inventory of one's bookly property, what does physical ownership signify?

See my post 8 in the other thread... http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=16834

As an aside, I don't think of LT as being about shared interests, I think of it as being about shared books. Since that's what the shared statistics are actually about, and all.

I didn't keep a reading journal, but I did keep a list of what I had read and rating since the 1980s. I tried to start a reading journal after I started LT but . . . couldn't continue.

I mean, I understand the organizational interest in keeping track of what's on one's own shelves. But if that's all one wanted to do, why use LT instead of, e.g., Excel?

Excel won't search libraries around the world for you and help you input book information just from ISBN, author, or title. Besides, you can export your data from librarything and use Excel or some other program to manipulate the data if you so choose, such as by adding information that there's no good place for in LT, the average retail value of your particular edition of a book for example. Another advantage of Librarything over Excel is that you can buy a book in a strange city and catalog it without having to carry around your laptop, jump drive, or whatever.

I had originally planned on using Excel or database management software to catalog my books, but then ran across Librarything when I was looking for a particular book online... it makes things so much easier.

I understand that some people are cataloging their intellectual lives, to paraphrase Tim, and some are cataloging real things. I don't know exactly why it's a bone of contention, but it does make for some interesting discussions.

If they could be separate from my library but in the same account, I would enter books I've read but don't own--to the extent that I can remember all of them--as well as books I want--to the extent I can remember to write them all down. These capabilities would be useful for me in isolation but might also give a more accurate view of relationships to other users.

wishlists and owned/unowned are the two things I would REALLY like to see at LT in an official way and I don't really care how it is implemented, check boxes, collections, or tags (whether specific 'official' ones or a user defined one) I don't care.

It is a fairly basic and easy distinction to make about books and it is one that I would like. It won't be something 'forced' on anyone who doesn't want or need to use it but for those of us who do, it would be a wonderful addition.

From my perspective it would keep MY data clean, I don't really care about others data and how they want to represent things, though I think in general it would make LT more accurate at least as far as the wish list is concerned, AND some interesting stats could be made from wish lists by themselves.

readafew: for me, it's not that I care about others' data, but more that without an accurate Zeitgeist I can't get a handle on my own data ... I mean, even something like the "shared with just one other" stat is off if I literally have a book and the other person doesn't ... also, it gives a kind of misleading appearance to site visitors when LT claims to have catalogued 16,556,344 books ... while I know that can be interpreted to include wish lists, etc., I don't think that's the meaning that first comes to people's minds.

#47 "also, it gives a kind of misleading appearance to site visitors when LT claims to have catalogued 16,556,344 books "

But, the presence of owned-unowned feature won't make the data accurate. I think such a feature would only be valuable for our personal libraries.

I agree with Heather19!!

The organization I'd like to see:

Books I've Read, Books I Own (can overlap) and Books I Want to Read.

Or have a little column you can check marked "I Own This Book."

Not owning a book doesn't make it any less deserving of discussion or recognition.

Also I hardly ever know what edition of a book I own or have read, unless it's a signed first edition or something I bought speficially for that reason.

I think all that gets away from the book itself and into a "showing off" or "on display" realm where it's not that you read the book but what version you have matters. Granted it's nice to note that I own the signed first editon of something but that to me is more a side note.

I get most my reading material from the library. I don't have the space nor the money to purchase and keep every book I read. I have either read or partially read all the books I physically OWN. And those partially read books do not, of course, make the list.

47> KromesTomes > I was mostly putting that in for those who keep asking 'why should this exist'. Though I think many will use it and will thus make the Zeitgeist and thing more accurate, I have little to zero influence on how others use the site, so I really want this for ME!

>42 drbubbles: I think there's a fundamental difference in people who like the physicality of books, and those who don't care about the book itself so much.

My husband loves to read (PhD in literature), but other than some specific books with art and/or illustrations he likes, he doesn't care about owning books. He is fine with the library and/or borrowing books from others.

Me, on the other hand . . . . I love books - the books themselves - and I will purchase them so that I have them. Books are the only thing I collect. Why? I don't know. Probably for the same reasons that people collect anything. Some women have tons of shoes. I happen to have tons of books. And this isn't necessarily a matter of "showing off" (#50) - all our books are on shelves in a basement where guests very rarely go.

This disparity between my husband and I causes occasional discussions around Visa bill time, but otherwise, we accept that each person has a different point of view.

So, to finally get to the point - people use LT for different reasons. It doesn't really matter what those reasons are. Debating this as if there is one right or wrong answer isn't productive - both/all answers are correct. It would seem to me that developing LT to accommodate the wishes of as many users as possible, giving each user flexibility in cataloging their own catalog in their own way would be the best way to go.

For me, that would mean having some way to distinguish read-but-not-owned books, wishlists and collections. People like me could use these features, other people could ignore them. If they're optional, people can pick and choose what they want to use and what they don't want to use.

I think all that gets away from the book itself and into a "showing off" or "on display" realm where it's not that you read the book but what version you have matters.

Except what version I have does matter. Some people collect certain books and need to keep track of what editions they actually have. Some people are interested in rare, antique, or collectible books. Why would there be fields for publication information if people didn't care what edition they were cataloguing?

There should be a way to indicate what version one has.

I just don't know what editions of what I've read. UNLESS it is a first edition, or a collector's or something. But that copy of A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND from the library? No idea what edition that was/is. Or even my, heck, IN COLD BLOOD, I have no clue on the edition. And being FORCED to specify that from step one (adding a book to the list) seems silly to me.

But there SHOULD be a way to specify the edition, I never said that there shouldn't, does it really matter what edition it is unless it WAS something rare or antique or collectable? Especially when some, such as the "classics" have multiple editions out at any given time.

It still comes down to a book is a book. There should be several features added to LT, and I think what edition of what books is needed, but maybe not necessary for every book.

I guess I got bewildered when there were say 5 different versions of a trade paperback GRAPES OF WRATH, just different editions, and I don't know what one I read (library) and if it's something I own, I don't want to get up and check. Unless, again, it's something that is unique or collectable...

"But, the presence of owned-unowned feature won't make the data accurate. I think such a feature would only be valuable for our personal libraries."

dchaikin: Did you mean to write "available" for "valuable" in your message? I mean, how do you know it won't affect the overall zeitgeist? (I ask out of curiousity, not to say "oh yeah, how do you know?" in a snarky kind of way.)

>54 BlackDoll: Each user can already specify the edition or not when adding books. This is the way LT currently works. If you're not interested in tracking the edition when you add it to your library, then you can choose any edition. I know my sister just chooses the one with the cover that she remembers, or if she doesn't remember, the cover she likes best.

#56 There is no option NOT to specify the edition - you are required to. That's my point.

It really doesn't matter but I'm thinking it should all start with the name of the book and the author. Simple. Just that. Then on my list page I can select the edition. Hardcover/Softcover. Whether I own it or borrowed it. Etc.
And go from there. But, as it is now, when I select the title/author I must also know or guess the edition at the same step.

(When I said "There should be a way to indicate what version one has," read it with the emphasis on "should." there SHOULD be, and there is. I was agreeing...guess there's no way to HTML this so I can bold words..)

Blackdoll says "I guess I got bewildered when there were say 5 different versions of a trade paperback GRAPES OF WRATH, just different editions, and I don't know what one I read (library) and if it's something I own, I don't want to get up and check."

and doesn't like to be FORCED to choose.

Well, that's kind of the point of the application - to catolog, not to merely list. If it doesn't matter to you, then just pick one and don't think about it again. Simple and done.

>57 BlackDoll:/58 - Yes, as Bookmarque says, just pick one. I edited my earlier message to say that my sister just chooses the edition with the cover she remembers and/or the cover she likes best.

Thank you Bookmarque!

You are right. I DO think the ability to specify editions is GOOD.

I just don't like that I am REQUIRED TO from the get-go, because I rarely know (most things I read are not collectables) so I am made to guess. Which I dislike doing.

:)

Talbin - eep! I was going by the covers too! Easiest way I guess when you don't know.

Hmm...that's a toughie, not wanting to guess, but not happy with having to make a choice. I guess if you don't have time when you enter it, you'll have to go back and fix it if it bothers you, or make time to get it right the first time. It just depends on what frame of mind your in I guess.

#55 KT: I did mean "valuable". Good point, I don't know how it will affect the over zeitgeist. But what level of accuracy can the zeitgeist ever possibly achieve in regards to the true number of physical books? I suspect very poor accuracy. The user philosophies simply vary too much.

There is no option NOT to specify the edition - you are required to. That's my point.

That's not true at all. You don't need to specify anything in the publication fields if you don't want to, and if you're entering the book other than manually you can remove the edition information if you don't want it there.

I have to agree with Bookmarque (Message 31) and devenish (message 27) and BlackDoll (message 49) . . .

I catalogue only books I own.

I have a separate Word file (chronological list) of things I've read (since the early 1990s). When there is a book I hear about that I wish to read, I add it to the bottom of the list. Once I've read a book, I indicate so by typing in the month and year I finished it.

It would be nice having Wishlist and BooksI'veRead features on LibraryThing, but I think the primary purpose of this site is to accurately catalogue, by specific edition, books that you personally own.

If people are cataloguing books they've read but do not own, LT's numbers don't really mean much anymore.

I'm sort of disappointed now I've come across this discussion; before I read it, I was living in ignorant bliss, thinking the numbers posted by LT represented the exact number of books its members own.

Call me a stickler.

Oh my oh my - you put a book you have heard about and wish to read but have not read onto your list of books read? Oh my. Ok, all have different methods and desires but . . .. LT has, to a certain extent, "killed" my off-line lists, but even now I keep my books read list and my books to look for list separate (and for that matter, my books own list).

dchaikin: I guess I was just hoping that if the option was there to easily separate out non-physical books, most users would do so ... but I also hope to one day win the lotto ...

I do not understand your point. I have won the lotto. Several times. Oh, you mean something more than "free game"? Strange occurance. Acquired some cards as a gift and they kept leading to free games, and those lead to free games and so forth and so forth.

I think you misunderstood me, Mike (Message 65). I have combined my Books Read list and my Books I Want to Read list into one: once I've read the book, I indicate this by month and year. Books which do not have a month and year beside them have not been read, but I want to read them.

The list is chronological so all the books I have read are on the first 12 or so pages, and the books I haven't read but wish to read follow below. When I read a book from the 'lower part of the list,' I date it and move it up the list.

It's very clear which books have and haven't been read.

booksinbed: ah, so it's in two different sections... I think 65 and I were both thinking all mixed together, depending on when you read/noticed it.

No, I understood :) It is just that it is so easy to have more than one list - heck if you used Excel, you could have the read list in one sheet, wish list in another sheet - all in the same file (might be using the wrong name for those subfolders at the bottom of the screen).

#64> I'm sort of disappointed now I've come across this discussion; before I read it, I was living in ignorant bliss, thinking the numbers posted by LT represented the exact number of books its members own.
******************
It probably evens out. I own 4,000 books (or so) that will never get put on LT. It's books I've picked up cheap that are in my trade/sell room. I use these so I never have to 'pay' for a book. Some people have books they don't own listed on LT while others own books they don't have listed on LT. I'm sure there are some users who have every single volume they own listed here but people being people I'm also sure there are a lot of users who have piles of 'someday I'll get those up on LT'.

>9 jjwilson61:

I have kept such a list for a long time, so I was able to identify editions. If I have an edition which I can't find, or if I had one not in the database, I use manual entry.

I guess it all depends what you want to use LT for. I enter books I own (mostly read, some unread) and books I've read (about half of which I - still - own). It's impossible to find out what exact edition I read of a book I had from the public library 20 years ago, so I just pick one I think is right.
I enter only works I find worthwhile, mainly novels. I haven't entered my physics and astronomy books, nor my collection of management books, nor software engineering books.

If you want to discriminate between read and owned books, and maybe more, just be patient. I'm sure that in due time, LT will support everything you'd like in that area. If you need it sooner than "in due time", help them grow the LT community faster by getting all your friends on LT :-)

>27 devenish:

And I state clearly that my list is everything read by me :) I consider the list to be my virtual library, as opposed to my physical library. In fact, I generally tag these books "virtual" (though am a bit behind). Though I do think a check box would be more useful.

I'm with dancesong... my library contains books I own and books I've read that I don't own. I use LT mostly to keep track of what I've read, but since I tag everything "owned" or "not owned," it is pretty easy to determine what is actually on my shelves.

If you want to discriminate between read and owned books, and maybe more, just be patient. I'm sure that in due time, LT will support everything you'd like in that area. If you need it sooner than "in due time", help them grow the LT community faster by getting all your friends on LT :-)

Well, I used to feel this way, but the more LT has grown the less likely it has become that this feature will ever be developed. Considering a decent number of us have been waiting over a year and a half for this, I don't think "be patient" is the appropriate advice anymore.

How about "be even more patient"? :-)

I agree with you, 18 months is a long time. Have you requested the feature in the features group?

if i want a list of owned and to-be-read, do i register 2 accounts? the to-be-read list will throw off the statistics. the amazon wish list is not ideal for what i want to do.

>77 xtien: Yes, and in the group that existed before Talk was even created, and in the course of emails, etc etc. In the early days of the site wishlist and owned/not owned were together the most requested feature. I think everyone involved at that time was sure we would have had both long before now. One of the things people say now to detract from the need is that it wouldn't really fix site statistics, because people have already got so many unowned or wishlisted books listed, and they wouldn't go back and use the new feature - but if it had been there a year ago, that would have been completely circumvented.

>78 logic: It doesn't matter - check out the largest library on the Zeitgeist. Only about 5,000 out of 15,000 books listed are owned. There are only like five of us who still think that's absurd. In the early days of the site a user was forcibly removed from the Zeitgeist page for similar but smaller-scale behavior. Now we have threads about how "ownership" of a book could possibly mean anything at all.

I have opened another account reserved for cataloguing the books I own, so I suppose I'm trying to get the best of both worlds. Some books will appear in both lists.

New here, haven't cataloged my books yet, but reading this thread, obviously, everyone has a different reason for using LT.

However, one of the LT site blurbs says: "Enter what you're reading or your whole library"---which would imply entering books you don't own.

But another blurb says "over 16 million books on library shelves".....ON would seem to imply ownership, However, I guess you could have a borrowed book ON your shelves.

I like the idea someone posted about having 2 accounts: one to chronicle one's intellectual life, based on books owned or read, and the other to catalog actual books owned.

I never even thought about cataloging books I don't own 'til I started reading this topic. :)

Edit: As for being patient, didn't I read that LT is looking for IT employees? For anyone who has not grown and managed even the simplest on-line community, 18 months could seem like a long time. It's not.

Communities grow and prosper, over time, due to feedback and collaboration. That's what's so great about them. Even using template-based software, which Tim obviously isn't, like a simple phBB software for a forum, takes months to get the kinks worked out. I helped start, and grew, an on-line community that has a Constitution of sorts, entirely owned by the members, and therefore, all decisions are made by everyone. It's taken almost 4 years to address all the good ideas and features that we *could have*.

It's a tremendous amount of work, and in LT's case, I see the software itself is being written, unless I'm mistaken?

18 months is a drop in the bucket, IMHO....I'm amazed by what has been built here in such a short amount of time!

WinterTriangle, with all due respect, I can see that you're very new here.

I'd have more sympathy for the "18 months is a long time" argument if it weren't for how much LT has changed in that time -- a host of new features (like Talk and Groups) that are much more complex than a simple wishlist feature have been rolled out in that time. Unfortunately the old Google Group has been deleted, so you'll have only the memories of those of us like myself and nperrin to rely on for the statements that wishlists have not only been requested since very early on but that in early days Tim also said they were "coming soon". There is this blog post from Oct. 31, 2005 listing "wishlists" in Tim's priorities for Nov. 2005, however.

In fairness, those clamoring for user-defined fields have an even more legitimate gripe -- Tim calls it his number 2 priority as far back as Sept. 2, 2005.

Lorax, thanks...I went searching for the Google Group a few minutes ago to back myself up and found it was (finally) gone.

#82--Lorax

I did not mean to trivialize your requests, or expectations from this site.

Stats say there are 242,302 members here.

Does anyone know what the "staff-to-member-ratio" on LT is?

Without knowing THAT equation, it would seem difficult for any member-- old or new-- to make a judicious evaluation of what constitutes an appropriate timeline in fulfilling requests for site improvements?

In the meantime, I took your advice and read the blog from Oct. 31, 2005.

In it, Tim says: "I basically work on it {LT} every waking hour."

To me, that statement suggested that if the site owner wanted to accomplish *more*--- he would have to jetison his sleeping hours. :)

>84 WinterTriangle: Does anyone know what the "staff-to-member-ratio" on LT is?

STAFF:
Abby - Librarian
Altay - Developer
Tim - Founder and Developer

and I believe that Christopher is working on contract for the summer (but I assume he will continue his college education in the fall).

Has John from Squirl finished up his term at LT?

One of the features I like about LT is the ability to access reviews and check ratings of books I am considering reading. Since ratings & reviews can't be made unless a book is added to one's library, I guess I prefer to see our libraries as a reflection of what we've read or are reading, rather than what we currently own.

>86 AndrewB:

I don't know for sure. I thought I read that he was moving on to other things. He isn't listed on the blog page anymore.

He went on to http://www.tagsahoy.com/ I think, I haven't seen anything much of him here since the the great server crash of 2007.