Music and movie cataloging on LibraryThing!

LibraryThing has improved non-book (i.e., music and movies) cataloging considerably.

While you could do it before, we didn't support it well. Now we are.

At the same time, LibraryThing is NOT becoming a movie or music site. We want to support small libraries and members who have non-book media in their libraries. We want to let them do better what many of them were already doing before. And if we do get an "explosion" of movies and books, we now have tools to deal with that, and maintain our bookish identity.

See the blog post: http://blog.librarything.com/main/2015/09/music-and-movie-cataloging-but-were-st...

I've always considered my personal library to be omnivalent with respect to media and format. This is good news for me, though I'm uncertain how soon I'll begin cataloguing in earnest my audio & video holdings.

There have been rumours and rumours of rumours about this for some time. So, I am not surprised.
I also understand the decision, and even agree with it. If Librarything is to survive, it must accommodate the needs of the libraries it serves; and libraries are all about multimedia these days.

When I was growing up my local library had a fantastic vinyl LP collection. The first record I ever hired out was BBC Sound Effects II for a role playing game I was developing at the time which I recorded onto audio tape, using the tape counter as a page marker, so that the listener could jump to the right part of the story and continue their adventure. It was called 'The Caves of Andregon' (I think) and I sold or traded copies to my school friends back in the 70s so that I could collect Star Wars or Superman the Movie bubblegum cards! Anyone remember those?

Anyway, I have resisted listing my video tape and dvd collections on LT - opting for a dedicated movie cataloguing site; but I was never that satisfied with using it, and didn't end up listing the rest if my collection on Take11.

I am still undecided as to weather of not to upload my massive video tape collection on here.
Part of me would like to know exactly what I have lurking between cupboard, my garage and the loft. But, it also goes against the grain of what I love about this site being a Book Heaven.

I am sure I will overcome my prejudices in time and start uploading my preciouses.

Thanks for giving us more of an option to do so.

>1 timspalding:

And if we do get an "explosion" of movies and books, we now have tools to deal with that, and maintain our bookish identity.


What are those tools?

Every time I've asked for them, I've gotten a brush-off, an "Oh, that will never happen, and if it does, we'll build some tools." I'm heartened that you've changed your minds on that front, and a little surprised that these tools didn't warrant a post; can you tell me a little more about them?

Edited to add:

I don't consider the mere existence of the "format" feature to be a useful tool. Things I would consider to be useful would be:

1. Allow me to limit site searches by format. That's a bare minimum.

2. Allow me to limit my view of other members' catalogs by format, in a collection-like rather than a search-like way (so that it persists when I do another search, and can see books they have tagged in a particular way).

3. Do not show non-book materials in my recommendations.

4. Allow me to limit other types of views, like tag pages, by format.

5. Separate out works by format on author pages.

Like elenchus, I don't know that I'll be adding a great deal of my music/movies any time soon; I'll probably play around with it a bit and see how things go from there (and post feedback about my experience as I go along, of course).

Any way you slice it, I'm glad to know that these features have been improved. Thanks, Tim & LT staff!

I will add that I think these features would also be useful for people who actually want to look at the music and movies that others have cataloged here.

I can't see myself using this additional feature since I use a more robust site for this, but wow, I can imagine how helpful it will be for small lending libraries. Fab.

>4 lorax: Item 1 on your list has already been implemented, though the announcement is buried in the blog post

>4 lorax: Search faceting (your request at #1) is already in place (ETA: >9 lorannen: beat me to the punch on that one)

With media formats in place, most of your other requests are definitely feasible, though they're not put into practice yet.

To clarify: I don't think you're likely to see us flat-out stripping non-book formats out of all recommendations on LT. But we know that limiting recommendations by format is going to be high on a lot of peoples' wishlists.

Personally, I'd like to be able to facet recommendations, much like search, or choose what formats I'd like to show in recommendations via a settings page. Sometimes I want movie recs, sometimes I don't!

There are, alas, some problems with cataloging music using albums as the atomic unit.

If all books were collections of short stories, the physical book itself would no longer be the atomic unit; instead it would be the story, and we'd want to index all the stories separately (because they each show up in many different editions). That's the situation with music, so that's the first problem: virtually all albums are collections of short pieces, and a given performance will show up in diverse collections. When you need to find "The Ballad of Mack the Knife," you need to see a list of the many CDs on which it appears.

Worse still, different performances of a piece should not be grouped: all instances are not created equal (though they can be logically grouped). It's okay if all versions of "The Ballad of Mack the Knife" appear under "Weill, Kurt", but the versions by Bobby Darin, Louis Armstrong, and Lotte Lenya need to be easily differentiated.

>8 norabelle414:

That's great news, thank you. It looks like it's just for the title search, though? Still, better than nothing, and much better than the dismissive brushoff that my requests for precisely that feature were greeted with!

9>

To clarify: I don't think you're likely to see us flat-out stripping non-book formats out of all member recommendations.

Why are you distinguishing between member and automatic recommendations? (And I wasn't suggesting stripping them out for everyone; a movie-to-movie recommendation is likely to be of interest for many. I was suggesting allowing members to choose whether or not to see them, for both member- and automatic recommendations.)

(Unlike many people here, I don't think one person is automatically more trustworthy than the sum of many people, and actually find the automatic recommendations more useful more often than the member recommendations, which in my experience often tend to be either obvious or advertising.)

>11 lorax: I'm seeing it work on Author search as well. For example, looking for Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins turns up a couple video recording results.

That said, it's going to depend on the cataloging of those recordings—if there's no mention in a video recording record of the author of the original book that inspired the movie, it won't turn up in a search for that author.

>12 lorax: Sorry, I meant automatic recommendations for a given member (i.e. the recommendations I see based on my library over here), or recommendations anywhere on LT, for that matter. That was very unclear for a clarification.

>13 lorannen:

I think we may be talking about different things; I was asking about the "faceting" working for other search types, not about whether other search types turn up non-book results (which they always have, so it wouldn't be surprising that they still do.)

>14 lorannen:

Ah! Given that on that page and elsewhere the phrase "Member recommendations" is used to refer to "member-generated recommendations" I think my confusion was understandable.

>15Aha, yes. I see what you mean now. Yes, faceting is only in place for Works at this point. I'll add faceting for other search types to the wishlist.

And you're absolutely right. Member Recommendations are a specific thing. Going to change the wording on that earlier message so it makes some actual sense.

>13 lorannen: The "faceting" for searches that you're talking about is in the search type in the left-hand column, right? So under the Work search you can narrow it down by media type.

>15 lorax: I don't see how faceting by author makes sense. An author isn't a book or movie. Or do you want the faceting of the author to be by Author Role, so you can narrow the search down by author or director?

I've always considered my personal library to be omnivalent with respect to media and format. This is good news for me, though I'm uncertain how soon I'll begin cataloguing in earnest my audio & video holdings.

If you have an iPhone, wait for the app, which is FANTASTIC for it. It's currently under final review at Apple, so it should be live any day now. See https://www.librarything.com/topic/195528

1. Allow me to limit site searches by format. That's a bare minimum.

Implemented, or I thought I implemented what you wanted. (FWIW, this required many hours of @miketopper's time to do, as well as storing all the data twice. We're not giving you the brush off.)

2. Allow me to limit my view of other members' catalogs by format, in a collection-like rather than a search-like way (so that it persists when I do another search, and can see books they have tagged in a particular way).

Okay, so not https://www.librarything.com/membermedia/timspalding and then clicking?

3. Do not show non-book materials in my recommendations.

This needs to happen, I agree. There are a few recommendation changes that need to happen, however, so it should go with them.

4-5

Doable. But before we do this, we need a way for members to "set" the media of an unset, or wrong, work. Most works on LibraryThing are… nothing--the system doesn't know what format they are. We need a way to change that.

There are, alas, some problems with cataloging music using albums as the atomic unit.

Right. There's a granularity problem with cataloging generally. The "granularity consensus" in library cataloging is, however, the book, album, movie, with very little cataloging of chapters, songs and so forth. In commerce (i.e., Amazon), the consensus is the same.

It does bring up that LT needs to be able to catalog these "insides," perhaps better than others do.

Why are you distinguishing between member and automatic recommendations?

FWIW, movie recommendations are already segmented out on work pages. They are not user by user.

Yes, granularity is the term I was looking for, and Amazon is terrible at it.

We're looking at a peculiar situation where anyone who does not partake of music the way Amazon and/or iTunes chooses to dispense it has invented their own workarounds, or uses genre-specific specialty sites (such as CastAlbums.org).

>18 timspalding:

1. Allow me to limit site searches by format. That's a bare minimum.

Implemented, or I thought I implemented what you wanted.

I've been seeing that option on the main search page for days.

Okay, so not https://www.librarything.com/membermedia/timspalding and then clicking?

That's kind of back-door, though. I think most people start their searches of a member's catalog from the catalog, and there's no way to do a format-limited catalog search there.

>18 timspalding: It does bring up that LT needs to be able to catalog these "insides," perhaps better than others do.

Yes, yes, please! I'm still longing for the opportunity to properly catalog short stories and omnibus contents on librarything. I've worked out some hacks that work for me using tags, but it makes it take so much longer to catalog collections & anthologies that I mostly haven't been bothering.

I might start adding video games to librarything. At least I hope that'll be a supported media type along with CDs and DVDs.

I'm unlikely to add CDs, though, as that's not as useful without a way to link to tracks & flacs and integrate with a music player.

18>

1.

Thanks so much for that, it's fantastic; I must have missed the announcement.

2.

That's great for browsing, but it looks like it has the same limitation that just clicking on the desired value in the format column would, which is that if I then do a search it loses the format limitation. (I went to look at your CDs, then searched for "title:Alexander", which I knew would have results from your books, but not for your CDs; the results did appear.)

>21 andyhat:

I'm still longing for the opportunity to properly catalog short stories and omnibus contents on librarything.

Me too!

My main annoyance on LT is when someone (i.e. bluetyson) has cataloged most but not all of the short stories in an anthology I have; I can use the Work Relationships functionality to say those stories are in the anthology, but can't add the missing ones (even if I wanted to add them to my catalog I am explicitly forbidden from doing so for the purpose of using Work Relationships).

Okay, so, I've had the opportunity to play around with adding some of my CDs and DVDs. As promised (see >5 artturnerjr:), here's some feedback.

The main problem I'm having is that most of the time when I add one of these items, LT doesn't seem to understand that I'm talking about the same item that other members have.

Here's an example: I go to add the DVD Reservoir Dogs. I enter the item's ASIN number (cut and pasted from Amazon), indicate that I want it in my DVD collection, indicate that I want to search in Amazon.com books, music and movies, and click on the applicable result. When it comes up in the "Recently added" column on the "Add books" page, it indicates that no other members have this in their libraries. But when I go to Quentin Tarantino's (i.e., the film's director's) LT author page, it indicates that 82 members have this film. I tried the same procedure, but searched by the film's title rather than the ASIN number - same result.

What gives?

>25 artturnerjr:

The edition that you've added doesn't have an author, so it didn't automatically get combined. I've left it uncombined for now, so you can see the issue; I'll combine it if you want. (You certainly don't have to add the author, but I suspect you may want to.)

While it may be easier to add from Amazon, I suspect that as for books, you'll get better-quality data if you use a library source.

>25 artturnerjr:

Thanks. We need to think about how to solve this. While the system makes good guesses, it isn't always successful, and items without ISBNs have one less way to make that initial match. You can, of course, combine them afterwards, but we should do more to match them initially.

I suspect that as for books, you'll get better-quality data if you use a library source.

Yes and no. Amazon has better author data for movies and music--they have directors and composers marked out. Libraries generally don't. So, for me, the Amazon data is generally better for music and movies.

>27 timspalding:

Can you use ASIN to match in the absence of ISBN?

>28 timspalding:

Well, in this particular case, he added from Amazon and got an authorless edition, so clearly their data isn't always superior.

>29 lorax:

Yes, although the main fix is going to be numbers. ASINs are unique, but they're also specific to Amazon. If the title isn't in, the ASIN won't be either.

>29 lorax:

Ah. Right. What ASIN did you add. I found another RD, and it had a title. But it didn't match up, just like yours.

Re: media, they sometimes come in clusters, like a couple books, movies and perhaps video lectures on a certain topic, as might be assigned in a course syllabus. No way to tie them together so I just html link to them in reviews.

>26 lorax:

I'll combine it if you want.

No, that's okay - I actually figured out how to do it on my own. Thanks anyway, though.

>27 timspalding:

You're welcome. Yeah, if you guys could work on this, I'd appreciate it. Sometimes the item I select matches to the correct title (e.g., it did so with The Godfather Collection), but it looks like generally I'm going to have to combine them.

>32 artturnerjr:

You may want to try adding by title to see if Amazon has multiple versions, and choose the one that includes the director as "Author" if it does. The more complete your data, the better chance of auto-combining.

You'll still probably need to manually combine more than you would for books, though; there's less data here for movies, so less chance that someone's already combined the "edition" you're adding into the main work.

I've added some movies and had them automatically combined with the book instead.
I think adding the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe movie was one of the ones that got mis-combined. I've been looking at them all pretty carefully and fixing the problems as I go. (BTW-this was using my alternate account, al.cover.)

>30 timspalding: is it an idea to have a page that displays the newly added non-book media works that have 0 or 1 other members, so people who want to help can combine these in any existing works?

Perhaps marking them as unique to LT for now when they are so everybody doesn't have to search again and again, and reintroducing them after a few months?

>35 JerryMmm: Some people us the tag ultb (unique LibraryThing book). Other people sometimes go through those to see if any need combining.

I really don't like this. I use LibraryThing for books, I catalogue my media somewhere else.

>37 the_red_shoes:

If you don't like it, don't use it!

This is excellent! Thank you! I can now catalogue all of my media in one (the best) place.

>37 the_red_shoes:

Where do you do it? I'm interested.

>36 PhaedraB: yes, but that would require a few things from members who are unlikely to do them.

We definitely need some helper pages here. Although so far non-books are running about 5% of cataloging (hardly a flood!), it's surfacing some issues.

No changes until next week, though. This is not a working weekend!

Am I right in gathering that we can only use this feature for movies that can be in some sense *bought*? ie, I can't use it for a just-released movie that doesn't exist on DVD yet, unless I want to add the record in manually. Is that correct?

I might get pelted with tomatoes for this, but I use LibraryThing to keep track of every book I *read*, not every book I own. I read books I don't own, and I own books I don't read. Similarly, I'd like to keep track of all the movies I see, even if I don't own them. But for new releases (movies that haven't made it to amazon), LT seems not to be the best choice for that.

unless I am misunderstanding...

>43 amydross:

Yes, this wouldn't be the easiest way of tracking movies that you saw in the theater but which aren't on DVD yet; there's no rule against it, but you would need to add them manually.

It's the same for early review copies of books. If it isn't in Amazon or been cataloged by a library you're going to have to enter it manually (where else would the data come from?)

>43 amydross:-44

It's not just DVDs. Amazon has a lot of streaming movies too.

While I don't want to get carried away, I see no reason not to have someone make records for current movies. There are so few movies, fundamentally. It could be divvied up.

>46 timspalding: In that case why not make it more general and solve a much longer standing problem by allowing the use of any manual entry as a source.

>40 timspalding:

take11.com

Thanks for making it easier to add DVD's to my Library. I've already done it a little, but the Amazon link is WONDERFUL.

I'm pleased at the addition of movies and music to the catalogue and have started adding my collection. For music I probably wouldn't attempt to link it with anything else in the library. I suspect it's pretty rare that any such link would be relevant, though having said that, War of the Worlds by Jeff Wayne would possibly qualify.

What is the general consensus on such links. The reason I ask is that I tried adding my collection, all of which reported no other member additions bar one. The ISBN for the extended edition of the LOTR Two Towers DVD came back blank. Entering it in a general serach found it readily enough, with over a thousand members. So should I link Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King or not, and what about Ender's Game with Harrison Ford? There are countless more, some more closely identifiable with the books than others and some barely more than sharing a title...

>50 hoddybook: What kind of link are your talking about? The Work to Work relations in Common Knowledge? (I hope you aren't talking about combining the movie and book records!)

Are there any plans to also support video games? I have an alternate account for them (here) but gave up on due to having to constantly enter everything manually.

Unfortunately Amazon data isn't very reliable for games though. They list publishers in the "author" slot, which would be the same as listing a book publisher in the author slot for books. I suppose that would make LT data messy with some people using faulty amazon data and others manually entering the proper developers. Still, it would probably be cleaner than what it is right now.

>50 hoddybook: Please do not combine your DVDs with the works for the books. I'm going to try to separate it, but hunting in the long list of editions is a pain.

OK, I found that one, and a few others and got them into the video work There is still a lot of work needed, but not with our bad connection.

>53 MarthaJeanne:

With the new format coding it should be pretty easy to see?

I have noticed a number of editions pages recently have one or more bolded refs to Video Recording e.g

I haven't felt compelled to try and address separating them however--partly waiting for this new feature to shake out a little more.

I probably would research it further if I was adding my own item to the record. Yeah, learning to be lazy, as difficult as that might be!

Not everything has it. Nor is it always right when it is there. And the lists are just very, very long, and for me take a long time to load.

>55 MarthaJeanne: Yeah, I just noticed several books of mine had been set to Reel to Reel/Video and I wouldn't have appreciated them being separated from the work for the book.

From an older member on a good idea, "Catalog your music and movies", Thanks.

Roger

OK ... I am deeply ambivalent about this. While I have a record/CD collection that is as large as my library (and possibly outnumbers the books), which I would certainly like to get cataloged eventually*, I'm NOT wanting the music and books to intermingle.

Under the current system ... would adding albums be counted in the "your library" item count?

If so, I have ZERO interest in adding any to my current catalog. Won't do it. Nuh-uh. However, I might spend another $25 for a second membership JUST for albums.

Will there be a way to "segregate" the music and video entries from the books within one's account, so the newcomers won't miscegenate in the data?

*"eventually" in recognition that putting the LP/CD data in is likely to require a LOT of manual entry, way beyond simply manually typing in an ISBN.

Ah ... I just tried the UPC search function, and it did find a relatively obscure CD box set from 2007 ... so the manual data entry concern might only apply to my vinyl collection.

I still don't want the music and books in the same data, however!

Well. you can make them a separate collection and not add them to the Your Library collection so the Your Library count won't go up, but the All Collections count will still record them.

>52 Ape:

We don't have any plans for video games. Sorry.

Please do not combine your DVDs with the works for the books. I'm going to try to separate it, but hunting in the long list of editions is a pain.

Right. Don't do that. The idea is that a work must be one media or another--either book or music or moving picture. (That's one reason audiobooks are under book.)

Will there be a way to "segregate" the music and video entries from the books within one's account, so the newcomers won't miscegenate in the data?

Just by collection. I'm contemplating adding "virtual" collections by format too. But they won't be further segregated.

>63 timspalding: I'm contemplating adding "virtual" collections by format too.

That sounds useful to me, both for my own library and for checking others.

What have you identified so far as disadvantages or reasons against?

>64 elenchus:

The main problem is technical, actually. It can very easily be done in your catalog. It would be very difficult to have it be a collection in all the places that take them, insofar as the media code and collection code is rather separate. I need to think it over a bit.

Meh ... the more I think about it, the more "throwing $25 at it" makes sense. I may wait till 11/11, though, so both accounts have the same anniversary date!

>66 BTRIPP:

Honestly, if you want total separation and the cost isn't a significant issue for you, that seems like the simplest approach. You could even name it 'btripp_media' or something so anyone interested would know the two accounts are connected. Even in a Collections-based model you'd have mixture in the tag cloud (though with your idiosyncratic approach to tagging that might be less of an issue) and so forth.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. The $25 would be a small price to pay to avoid the possible irritations involved in having the two inter-mingling.

Some time ago I entered a couple hundred 78's that had accumulated over the years. Since they were, for the most part, in the original albums as found, while I 'knew' I had something, finding it was difficult. I created a tag with the album number. They still all appear as 'Unset'. Here is my question: If I go through the pile and change the media setting to 'record' does this do anybody else an good? Will the system learn that something is a record from what I have entered? I only did this for the vintage 78's.
I just went through the sheet music entries and changed all those that still appeared as 'paperback' to 'sheet music'. About 1/3 had been corrected by the system. Again, did my changing my media setting for an item do any good? I had not considered getting into the vinyl but if all I need do is enter a title and the system will 'find' the recording I may do that.

>69 cassius2: record is listed under sound recording, (which is not where audiobooks are), so yes, I would say that setting the media to record would tell librarything that it is not a book.

>52 Ape:

Ape you may be interested in videogamegeek.com for tracking your video games.

Thanks, I'll look into that. I use Rateyourmusic for CDs but I've never found a decent video game catalog site.

Edit: Alright, definitely going to join that. If we can't have video games on Librarything, can we at least have a videogamegeek in the "also on" section of our profiles? :)

>72 Ape:

Video Game Geek like RPGG (Roleplaying Game Geek) are sister sites of Board Game Geek which does exist. All three are basically the same site - different skins on what is shown, and slightly different database structures for all three areas though, and all share the same login and password. So can just use the boardgamegeek AlsoOn and then switch to video games when you get to the profile. Although I suppose it wouldn't be a huge job to add rpggeek.com and videogamegeek.com to the AlsoOn section.

According to the wiki in order to get a new AlsoOn you need to add it to https://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Also_on with a *REQUESTED* label.

I don't think it's enough to just add the information to that page since I don't believe that any staff actually monitor it. You'll probably also need to notify someone on staff (see the contact info at the bottom of every page).

I'm most usually lost in these discussions and just fumble my way through LT. So apologies if my thought has been discussed or dismissed already.

In my mind (personal user) the catalogs would be more or less separate. By separate I mean, like a "Your Books" tab, a "Your Music" tab, "Your Video" tab etc.

I don't really want to add my ~1600 CD collection and have to sort through it several ways to get what I'm after. Being segregated is more useful for me. Maybe with some interplay, such as links back and forth from music to book to dvd.

Unno, just spit balling, a lot of people are way more advanced on the use of this site than myself.

>75 readysetgo:

Actually, I like the idea of each media having it's own tab.

>76 gilroy:

Which other two tabs are you willing to sacrifice? Tim hates tabs. And most users won't have other media in their catalogs, and those tabs would be completely useless for them.

I don't want tabs for other media. Not only would Tim insist that we get rid of tabs I use a lot, but Your Books is a reminder that this is mainly a book site. New Default collections would make sense, though.

>78 MarthaJeanne: Honestly, I'd probably combine Groups and Talk into one tab, create a new tab of "Media" and lump Music and Movies under there. Then Your Books remains separate.

>78 MarthaJeanne:

Like Tim contemplates in >63 timspalding:, you mean? I'd like that, too, and hope he's able to find a way through the technical challenges.

Sorry to derail the thread a bit here, but Videogamegeek has copyright paranoia, so boo and blah to them. I'll continue my search for a video game cataloging site that doesn't suck. :)

Now, on topic, personally I think tabs would be great, because tabs are just the best ever.

>81 Ape:

Really? I've been a member of BGG and RPGG for years. I'm not sure what you mean.

The rules are pretty clear, but that maybe because I've been there a long time. You cannot upload copyright stuff. You retain all ownership rights in your User Submissions but grant ?GG a license to use/modify your submissions. In reality the only way your submissions are used/modified are on the site - with people quoting them.

>81 Ape: Yes, perhaps off topic, but I'm curious to hear what you are referring to. I've been on Boardgamegeek for about ten years and I haven't got a clue what you mean.

I uploaded images of covers and they were rejected, saying that in order to upload covers you have to scan them yourself. They are actually afraid of being sued over cover images. I'm one of those "free internet" wackos, so copyright paranoia is a huge no-no. I can't support a site with that kind of policy.

Also, LT staff, thanks for the "grab from the web" option for.uploading covers. Did I mention I think you guys are the best? :)

Can't support a site that...supports copyright protection? I'm rather disconcerted what that idea of "free internet" is supposed to mean. Because it sounds suspiciously like you're trying to say "if someone has put it somewhere on the internet at some point I can take it and do what I want with it," and that is so wrong on so many levels, that I do hope I am misinterpreting.

I don't think you misinterpreted me, but I think you may be confused about your own feelings on the topic. I just looked at your Book Covers statistic and I noticed you are using 542 user-uploaded covers in your library. According to copyright tyrants, you are breaking the law. If this is so important to you, you need to change those immediately! Switch them to blank covers now, and then manually scan and upload the images yourself.

I'm assuming you don't want to do that. Neither do I. So you see, we actually feel the same about this, with our libraries filled with "illegal" "copyrighted" scanned covers.

So, anyway, yes, I will steal pictures of cover art for books/games/movies and use them for my own devious means. Like using them in my catalogs.

Scanning them yourself vs finding them online sounds the same for me copyright-wise tbh...

eta; I think both are fair use, but there are some publishers who disagree.

>87 JerryMmm:

Well it depends on the source of where online. For example taking them from the publisher when that publisher doesn't want you to is seen as bad form.

Also Ape is much too harsh about PolymathicMonkey. By people uploading cover images they give permission for others to use them on LT.. A similar case can be made for bgg/rpgg/vgg although you do not have an image associated with your catalogue entry, just images (and some can be in-game images and creative work) associated with the game. I have certainly known bgg to have had issues with people stealing images from their users.

I would note that LT uses exactly the same criteria of making sure that the image is free to use (copyright-free, or rights-granted, or one you took yourself) for author and venue photos.

I would also note that Tim ha the right to take down ANY image - cover image or author/venue photo if someone complains about copyright violation.

Personally I think it is a complicated area in that our use of cover images is probably technically illegal but no publisher in their right mind is ever going to sue anyone, or issue a take-down notice - and let's be fair, if they were then they would pick on the big boys with deep pockets first. I am sure that this discussion has been thoroughly hashed out before.

By people uploading cover images they give permission for others to use them on LT..

But are they giving that permission legally? If they uploaded their images by finding them on Google (as I did on VGG) then it violates the copyright of whoever scanned it first. When I upload a cover onto Librarything, I just use the "grab from the web" option. I did the same thing on VGG and they were rejected. So, back to my original point, I can't consciously support a website that implements that level of copyright paranoia in their policy. It's like donating to a charity with the opposite political view as your own. VGG has the opposite opinion on this topic as I do, and so supporting them through user activity is supporting a political view I don't agree with. *Shrug*

I apologize, I didn't mean to turn this into a debate, or sidetrack the thread, so hopefully that clarifies my (admittedly) brash and hasty comment that started the whole thing.

To further muddy the waters ... I have heard of rare instances where publishers have complained about the cover graphic being used AT ALL! One would think this was a marketing suicide wish, but in discussions regarding this, it was suggested that these publishers may have fallen into a very restrictive licensing situation regarding cover art, which had only been licensed for the dust jacket and for no other purpose. This is equivalent to having an author image being licensed from a photographer for a very narrowly-defined range of uses, and having that appear, for example, on LibraryThing as the author picture would be a de facto "theft" of the image (which is why I assume LT is very picky about the provenance of author images).

In a case like this, even user scans would be considered copyright infringements.

then it violates the copyright of whoever scanned it first

There is no such thing. Taking a scan/photo of someone else's copyrighted material does not give you a copyright claim. Only one person (or group, whatever) holds the copyright on that piece of work.

I agree completely, please tell VGG that. :)

They're obviously erring on the side of caution, which in this sue-happy age with DMCAs getting thrown around willynilly by anyone with internet connections, with or without actual legal grounds to back them up and not caring because the other person has to want to take the time and possibly money to fight them, is really not the horrible thing you're making it out to be.

(And just for the record, many of my covers were photographed/scanned by me, and eventually almost all of them will be. It's simple to do, and then it's 100% correct to my actual edition.)

Erring on the side of caution is no way to live. :P You are right thouh, it isn't a huge deal, but like I said, it is like supporting someone with opposing political views. I'll catalog elsewhere.

>91 .Monkey.: There is no such thing. Taking a scan/photo of someone else's copyrighted material does not give you a copyright claim. Only one person (or group, whatever) holds the copyright on that piece of work.

I don't believe that's been decide one way or the other in the US. There are certainly museums that photograph artwork, thereby making a derivative work, and claim copyright on the derivative work.

There was recently an attempt to pass a law in European parliament forbidding taking photographs of buildings or parts of buildings without the permission of the owner. It failed. (Can you imagine what it would have done to the tourism industry?) But it was based on the owner and/or architect having rights to the image of the building.

>95 aulsmith: Right but that's entirely different than a photo/scan of a cover, which is the exact same thing as the cover. It's not derivative, it's identical.

I think it's wonderful that LT has added more tools for cataloging music and movies and I'm very thankful for it.

I have a library, which consists of media. I am here to catalog my library, not just the book part of my library.

My library is a personal one, but I loan to my friends and the friends of my friends. I love the fact that someone can search, for example, 'The Outsiders' by 'S.E. Hinton' and my LT will show them a book AND a movie. I have a wonderful movie edition of 'The Wind in the Willows' that anyone who borrows my book copy would probably love to watch after reading the book. But how would they know I have it, if the movie was cataloged in a different LT account or a different website altogether?

I've found using Collections to categorize my different library media is very effective.

Thanks very much, Library Thing Team, for making this site even more responsive to my needs.

>95 aulsmith: Museums are not claiming copyright on a photo as a derivative work, they are claiming copyright because they own the reproduction rights on the artwork that is being photographed.

>99 PhaedraB: I know of cases where that's not true and they are simply asserting their rights to the derivative work. None of which makes this settled law in the US.

I have followed the thread with interest and the time for my two cents has come.

First of all, I love the idea of cataloguing music and movies. I have entered most of mine and, in spite of some tag confusion, the whole looks great.

I also like, very much indeed, the idea that LT is to remain a book site. I have made separate collections for "Music" and "Movies" and I do intend to keep "Your library" separate from them. I will not be adding composers and performers to my "Favourite authors". I cannot promise I won't be recommending movies under books, but I do promise to keep such recommendations to minimum.

Now a few questions. The first is about copyright: by some eerie coincidence the issue has already been raised. I know nothing about these matters, so I ask.

I have catalogued a few decidedly pirate CDs. Nicely produced with covers and even liner notes, but fully piratical affairs all the same. I have had no part in their production and distribution, but I did become an accomplice by buying them from a street vendor with the full knowledge that they contain recordings still in print by major labels. Should I remove these CDs? If they could possibly cause any trouble, just tell me and I will delete them immediately.

The next questions concern the issue of combining. Am not sure this is the right place for them, but here they are.

For large-scale works usually released on their own (opera, oratorio, some symphonies), what do I combine, all editions of a single recording, or all recordings of a single work? I would suggest the latter variant, with all recordings separated into audio, video and highlights.

For relatively small-scale works arises the problem how far combining should go. Is it acceptable to combine a set of Beethoven's complete symphonies with another that contains all symphonies but also some of the overtures? Or complete recordings of the same opera with different "bonus tracks"?

In theory, it might be nice to have a separate work for each recording, but I don't know if it would be technically possible and convenient. This obviously must be the case with box sets or large compilations that contain many works. Then there is the problem of the work-to-work relations, but let's leave that for some other time.

When you have some time, let me know what you think.

In analogy to books of short stories, I'd say that only recordings that include the same collections of pieces (symphonies, overtures, whatever) should be combined.

>101 Waldstein:

I have catalogued a few decidedly pirate CDs. Nicely produced with covers and even liner notes, but fully piratical affairs all the same. I have had no part in their production and distribution, but I did become an accomplice by buying them from a street vendor with the full knowledge that they contain recordings still in print by major labels. Should I remove these CDs? If they could possibly cause any trouble, just tell me and I will delete them immediately.

An interesting question. I recently added a Grateful Dead recording (5/8/77 Cornell University) to LT that is not an official release, but the Dead have always been a taper-friendly/trade-friendly artist, so that may be a somewhat different situation than what you're talking about.

>101 Waldstein: I don't see how your cataloging pirated CDs could hurt LT, but it might make it easier for the copyright holder to find you.

I don't believe the cataloging of pirated material breaks any copyright laws. It's not the songs that you're actually storing on LT after all.

>103 artturnerjr: When you are speaking of combining "all recordings of a single work" I must remind you that most people who might have such a thing might consider each recording to be a different piece, and not like to have them combined. I own two Karajan versions of Beethoven's Ninth (as an example), and would not even what them combined (slightly different orchestrations, and completely different voices on Ode to Joy).

Then again, it is completely unlikely that I will ever catalogue a single CD/DVD here on LT.

You should do what you like, of course.

We combine audio books of the same work when they have different readers so I don't see why two recordings with different voices shouldn't be combined.

> 102 jjwilson61, I'm trying to look for book analogies, too, but it's not easy. The same novels or collections of short stories are combined even when they contain different forewords/afterwords/etc., aren't they? I think that's right. On the other hand, I think separating the Norton Critical editions is wrong, for it deems criticism and other additional material more important than the original work, but if the majority of users want it that way, so be it.

I suspect formulating some sort of general rules about music would prove even more difficult than about books. For instance, we all agree (I hope) that complete and abridged editions (that is, complete recordings and highlights) should be separated. But Karajan's 1950 recording of Le nozze di Figaro omits all recitatives and would be considered merely "highlights" by some people. Others would claim, and with good reason, that it belongs to complete recordings because all of the music is actually there.

Many classic rock albums have in recent years been released with plenty of bonus tracks, sometimes filling a whole disc. Following the practice with the Norton Critical editions, these should be separated from older editions. But should they really?

> 104 MarthaJeanne, good point! I doubt big labels, with so much of their stuff being illegally online, would come after me for a few CDs, but one never knows.

> 106 Lyndatrue, exactly. All classical music aficionados can testify that different recordings of the same work often sound like different works. It is very unlikely that Karajan used different "orchestrations" of Beethoven's Ninth, but his interpretation did change through the years.

I suppose it's unlikely that many recordings will be catalogued on LT and so it might be feasible to have them all separated. I think it's the reviewer's duty to make it clear exactly which edition they review, especially if it contains some bonuses, but most reviewers don't bother with that. Amazon regularly merges different recordings of the same opera, much to the outrage of many users. But Amazon is a shopping site with altogether different purposes than LT.

> 103 artturnerjr, yes, your case does seem to be different. If the recording you catalogued has never been released officially, I guess it might be all right. My pirate recordings have not only been released, many times at that, but some of them may still be in print.

I think the best book analogy would be translations.

We combine English and French and Japanese translations of, say, the Iliad all together; not just one English translation with another, but all translations into all languages together. By that token, we should combine all recordings of the same piece together.

Don't like it? That's the consequence of using what is still primarily a book site to catalog your music; it may not be ideally suited to your needs. (Not everyone likes the rule when applied to books, either.) It won't affect your ability to see your different recordings separately, review them individually, or rank them differently; it just means the overall data isn't filled up with hundreds of versions of a single work.

> 109 lorax, I like it. I did suggest it actually. So I'll proceed to combine then.

Every performance is a work of art. That is why I have over a dozen versions of "Stormy Weather" and over half that of "Strange Fruit", two by Billie Holiday. Combining them all together is like combining Pride and Prejudice with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or The Odyssey with O Brother Where art Thou. That is my 2cents. I don't plan on listing any music.

I agree that Lorax's analogy of translations is appropriate. Different words with different meanings, cultural references, names, etc, all kinds of things slightly shifted while the overall work is still the same. And translations, like it or not, are combined.

> 111 TLCrawford, I see your point, but I can't say I have the same problem. I have nine versions of Puccini's Tosca, but the difference between the best and the worst of them is a lot smaller than the one between Pride and Prejudice and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. And it's really nice to see them all neatly listed one above the other, all details available at a single click.

There must be a compromise somewhere. For my part, collecting recordings together is a sensible compromise and the music cataloguing works fine so far. There's plenty of work still to be done, but it looks good.

>111 TLCrawford: Actually, it would be like combining one translation of Les Miserables with another. Each translation may be much different but they are all reflections of a single underlying work.

>108 Waldstein: (Is your space between the angle bracket and the number deliberate? I ask only because sometimes a person, even one who has been around a long time, may not realize that it only makes the link if there's no space.)

I should probably have used another word than "orchestration" to imply that there are different instruments used in the later version than the earlier one. This is especially noticeable when the final movement begins, and the chorus starts up. Now I want to listen to them both, again (but will not, since I know that it would take up the better part of a day). Another time.

For your reference, in case you possess either, they are 415-832-2 (originally 1977) and 447-401-2 (from 1963). As I'd said earlier, I won't be posting my music collection here (or elsewhere).

I've really only posted a small portion of my library, also, which is as it should be.

>115 Lyndatrue: Lyndatrue, thank you for the tip. I didn't know that. I was wondering how you made these links.

I have both recordings (though the one from 1977 in a different edition) and will listen to them as soon as I can. The difference is intriguing.

If we ever get a sub-Work 'edition level' for books, that might serve as a sub-Work 'performance level' feature for music.

LT staff - thanks for the new feature. I have been entering my media using categories and tags, but it's nice to have official support.

>117 Crypto-Willobie: I like the sub-work idea.

An editions layer is sorely needed.

Thank you, LibraryThing, for your great care in working all this out! I look forward to making use of these features and your marvelous support! Well done! :)

On the topic of covers:

1. We rely on safe-harbor provisions to some extent. If someone issues a DMCA order, we will consider it.

For the rest, see #1 and IANAL.

2. but covers can be defended on the grounds of Fair Use and a related exemption for promotional use—taking photos of stuff to show it off or sell.
3. Publishers WANT their covers out there.
4. Entities that sell covers, like Amazon and Bowker do not get permission from publishers for all their photos.
5. There's a difference between a smallish pixelated image, which HARDLY reduces the "market" and printing up and selling posters of book covers. This applies doubly to copyrighted images "embedded" in a cover. If your cover includes a permissioned, copyrighted photo in it, the size and cover-features are going to make it hard to use, and therefore to violate copyright.

As for cataloging pirated CDs, we have NO legal exposure. It would be perfectly legal for us to open a site for people to catalog things they've shoplifted, even. Lists of stolen things are not the things themselves. If there's legal exposure, it's on you. But, well, I doubt the police are going to knock on your door because your LibraryThing catalog contains some possibly pirated material.

Last note before I go to bed:

At present, music and movies is averaging 5% of cataloging. That's not nothing, but it's hardly swamping us. It's going to be many months before that even equals the number of movies and music already on the site.

Ladies and gentlemen of LibraryThing I applaud and approve of these recent changes to LT - the fact that I can go to LT to search my entire library, small though it may be, pleases me and simplifies my life - thank you !!

Re. #122 ... hmmm, I have some cassette tapes that I bought at the night market in Chiang Mai, Thailand ... maybe I should avoid adding those when I get around to cataloging my music!

>124 tommyarmour:
I second this!!

Kudos LT staffers! This really helps me to be even more organized!

Still no good source for stuffed bobcats.

I'm sitting here with some Swedish DVDs and I must admit I'm stumped as how to find sources for them. Is it so bad that this only works for stuff that's on Amazon (i.e., the big six or whatever it is languages?)

>129 anglemark:

German Amazon, perhaps?

You can use libraries. We have the Royal library. Doesn't work?

No, German Amazon doesn't seem to sell Swedish DVDs. As for the Royal Library, what do I search for? Title and director? EAN doesn't work (of course, I guess).

Try UPC. And, yeah, probably title.

This is my first try at posting messages here at LT, so please forgive me if I mess it up.

The idea of cataloging non-book media sounds great. However, the fields available for books only poorly support the data relating to other forms. I've tried a small sampling of DVDs (15) and had a few issues. Some of the things I want to include, like duration, may appear in the original source but do not transfer to the new record (which limits itself to pages, unlike robust cataloging systems with MARC records which are quite capable of including minutes in the physical description). Other things I would like to include can only be accommodated by comments or tags, with no field existing for them (e.g. MPAA rating, color vs. B&W, live action vs. animation, aspect ratio).

I can work around these issues, but I really don't want to "clutter" up my tags with all the things I want to note about my media (I'd love to assign multiple tags to every program, so that I could search my catalog for whatever I might be in the "mood" for: crime drama, POW flick, historical epic, buddy picture, etc.; I'd also like to know whether it's filed alphabetically or in one of those boxed sets of mixed titles; is it a special edition? director's cut? etc.). Yes, I can separate the non-book items from my other collections and keep them out of "your library" but that wouldn't address the proliferation of tags.

So, my solution is going to be opening a second account for DVDs only (the limitations of LT for my music collection are too great; I'll stick with the printouts I made using MS Access, where I can find every composer and every selection). If I'm happy with the results after the first 200, I guess I'll be paying for another lifetime membership.

I do appreciate the effort to be more inclusive, as one nice thing about the policy change is that I'll be carrying no guilt about putting non-book media into the database. :)

So, there's my two cents (please excuse my verbosity).

>133 armc: There's no policy change, everything has always been allowed; the change is merely to help people do a (slightly) better job at it, since they do it anyway.

I'm also one of those who has manually added my video collection to another site over the years.

That site does allow me to export the information, and I'd like to see LT offer a way to batch/bulk upload everything from a spreadsheet or CSV file.

Is this a possibility in the future?

>135 editfish: That has been a thing here for years... http://www.librarything.com/import

Only for books because it requires ISBN, doesn't it?

As it says on the page you linked to:

"CDs and DVDs: LibraryThing Universal Import does not currently support UPC (Universal Product Code) or EAN (International Article Number) data. This means that importing CDs and DVDs without ISBNs will not work at this time. We plan to update our Universal Import functions to support UPCs and EANs soon."

Ah, wasn't thinking about that, just that CSVs have been a supported import for quite some time. Frankly I wish precious dev time would not be wasted on non-book things for a book site, but oh well.

If one comes across a film or DVD of a work http://www.librarything.com/work/14066596 (Life of Pi), is it right to add the movie to the related movie film?

If it's the movie, it should combine to this work here: http://www.librarything.com/work/13360628
If you don't have enough information to combine it, then it goes to the work you linked.

We are adding EANs and UPCs soon. So check back. Anglemark, if you want to send us your file, we'll use it as a test-case.

T

It is @editfish who has (or can produce) a file to import.

> 140 I meant the Related Movie CK field not the combining

>143 bergs47: Okay, so I'm not understanding your question at all then.

>143 bergs47: I think it's fine that you've added The life of Pi as a related movie to that work. However, that work may not be a DVD. Three people have tagged it as such but the editions don't have enough details to go on to be sure of format. See the Disambiguation Notice. http://www.librarything.com/work/14066596/editions

But there is a work that is related to the film. It currently doesn't have Life of Pi in the related film section of CK, but does it really make sense to add it. It IS the film, why would you add itself as related to itself?
http://www.librarything.com/work/13360628/commonknowledge

The work for the book is http://www.librarything.com/work/5197633 and the film is listed in CK.

>146 MarthaJeanne: noticed that too, didn't mention it as it made sense. Maybe we need a related book field in CK for a work that's a film? To link the film to the book?

>147 wifilibrarian: Wouldn't "adapted from" cover that?

>148 PhaedraB: I can't see an adapted from field in CK, or would you simply put "adapted from" in a disambiguation notice?
Doing a site search for 'adapted from' I see that term is used in many different fields in CK, disambiguation, but also others including title, awards, description. A single field for it would offer some consistency, maybe I'm missing the field?

It's a type of work-to-work relationship.

Do people know how I handle one off (A DVD I author for a birthday party) and small batch DVDs (the DVD of the recital that we bought through our daughter's studio)?

Thanks!

>151 Robert@sterbal.com: Go to the Add books tab. At the very bottom you will see "Add manually." It takes you to an edit page where you can fill in the data as appropriate.

Honestly, I'm pretty jazzed to just have a record of my blu-rays in case I get robbed and need to make an insurance claim...

>153 dizzyweasel: That's a great application for it! Good thinking. Now I feel a little bit safer. I won't cry if they take some of my 2-star movies, though. :)

Auditing my audio collection today to work off the turkey and dressing, and noticed that the Media lists Sound Recording with subcategories for digital, CD, record, and streaming BUT not for cassette -- which constitute a large portion of my holdings.
.. was going to ask for it to be added but then saw the "show complete list" item and DUH there it is!
Back to the pumpkin pie.
(Did I tell you that I love this feature??)

No, it does. Toggle to "Show complete list."

New data have been added to my records by this feature but it seems a lot of existing data have been removed or altered. And I am not happy with that because it means a lot of extra work. And I don't even know if the result of my efforts won't be removed again.

It is nice to know whether a book is a paperback or hardcover (sometimes they went to the wrong category, can happen) and for other information media than printed books it is certainly a plus. After this feature was introduced I had some 40% of my books "not set" probably meaning that they are not known to Amazon.
I started to add this information by hand, piece by piece. But then I discovered that hundreds of my book records on LibraryThing did not have page numbers or height any more.
However, I did add height for all of my books when I first entered them. And also for the CD's, maps etc. All had page numbers, unless not applicable.
Subsequently I found out that ISBN's had been altered, places of publication deleted or altered, sometimes even the year of publication changed. For example, in one case I own the 1976 edition of a book but this had been changed to 1957. And also my book covers have been changed. At the moment I have 154 Amazon-provided covers (ISBN). Well, before this action all of my books had a cover approved by me (often scanned by me) and no guesses based on an ISBN.
I also dislike that if I choose for an Amazon-provived-cover, the ISBN of my copy is automatically changed. (The system asks for your permission but if you don't give permission the change still happens.) I want the ISBN in my record to be the same as it is in my copy of the book, whatever Amazon says.
In some cases I add the number of volumes or pages to my record, and a day later this information has gone again.

I like that new information is added, based on what is already there. But I don't see the use of altering or deleting information that has been entered by LibraryThing users about their own book copies. As far as I am concerned it should be a "adding data only, nothing else" policy.

So I would like to know what you are going to do about this.

>157 Rommert: This is a very old issue; and I agree totally with you.

>157 Rommert: I don't think that this is unique to musuc and movies. I have noticed this phenomenon for a long time now with books. I know that Tim fixed some of these issues with Dates but that others needed further discussion.

>157 Rommert:

Adding music and media cataloging to LibraryThing has not changed or altered your data in any way. But I'll address your concerns one-by-one.

* LibraryThing has not changed or removed any of the page numbers from your books. The system simply doesn't have any mechanism for doing this.
* LibraryThing has not changed any ISBNs for your books. It's possible only for an ISBN to be changed when you select a cover for a different ISBN. In the past, it warned you that this would happen, if you were choosing such a cover. It now allows you to keep a different ISBN for the cover than for the work. But in either way, you chose the ISBN.
* No places of publication have been changed or altered in your books.
* Book covers are more complicated. By default, we provide the Amazon cover for the ISBN. If there is none, we provide our best guess cover, based on other members covers. Covers can change either because Amazon changes its cover (rarely), Amazon adds or subtracts a cover (rarely), or if LibraryThing's best-guess cover changes from one mermber-cover to another (more common). If, however, you say you explictly chose all your covers, I can only say that LibraryThing did not move from your choice to some other choice.

Overall, I can't say much. We have had bugs, especially with dates. But dates have some special wiggles to them--transition between two systems, both of them too complicated. The sorts of changes you're alleging are simply not something the system can do. Did you, perhaps, use the import feature, replacing books you had? Do you have another account? Are you adding books from other people's catalogings, and perhaps not seeing that add books always gets fresh data when it adds a book?

>157 Rommert: Tim has made a lot of fair points, and I can not argue with what he has said.

Having said that.

Have I ever noticed, like you, data mysteriously vanishing when I was certain that I had entered it previously?
Yes indeed I have.

Can I be sure that it was not user error on my part?
No. Not 100% - and I can not always repeat the data loss. If I can, I raise it as a bug. If I can't I often just grumble to myself muttering something about 'God' and 'dice' and 'Spooky action'. ;)

I have seen thing that I can't explain. I have had book covers appear as Amazon covers after I uploaded my own. But, mainly when displayed in series lists.
I would understand that being the case; but not when I happened to be the sole owner of such a book. Which has also happened to me.
It may be that these were just glitches that corrected themselves over time. I honestly have not gone back over such cases to check. I didn't make a note of which books were affected and unless I notice this happening with any great frequency I tend to just ignore it.
But, I certainly have not had things happen to the extent that you say things are happening to you.

My advice would be: to keep an eye on what is going on here. Take screen shots as evidence and then log a bug report. If you can show proof, then someone will have to investigate. If you feel you are Being fobbed off, and you are still sure you are right. First, double check your evidence; then come back and challenge what you have been told.
This is what I had to do recently; and it turned out that it was a very real bug, just one that was invisible to everybody else!

Take hart. Librarything is a very good organisation when it comes to customer support. I can not fault Tim's team on that. If you show them something tangible, you will get their full attention.

Best,
Sylak

I have seen thing that I can't explain. I have had book covers appear as Amazon covers after I uploaded my own. But, mainly when displayed in series lists.
I would understand that being the case; but not when I happened to be the sole owner of such a book. Which has also happened to me.

Series books always use the default cover, which is always Amazon if one exists, even if every single holder of the book is using a member-uploaded one. This should never happen in your own catalog, and if it does it's a real bug, but for series pages this is the way things are intended to work.

It is disappointing to me but author pages and series lists use the "most popular" cover. And, yes, this is usually an Amazon cover since it is the "path of least resistance."

Often these "covers" are generic images with a title on them. They don't represent a real book but rather "what a book might look like."

I do like that the iOS app uses my covers, even if it can be delayed as they are downloaded.

James

>163 Keeline: As a visual thinker I rely on accurate book covers. :(

#164 by @Sylak>

You can select covers from ones available in the system (e.g. from Amazon, libraries, or uploaded by members) or you can upload your own.

Within your catalog, you can see the covers you've selected.

The exceptions are author and series pages where the "most popular" cover image is used.

James

Thank you timspalding and Sylak for thinking with me.

I cannot exactly say how I entered a specific book two years ago because so many other ones have followed. What I can say is that I always add the place of publication, or use S.l..
Many of my entries now don't have that information anymore, especially Penguin books.
Many of those books were originally entered by looking them up in Overcat or Amazon. Amazon doesn't always list a place of publication. So what I did when I used Amazon information, was to add extra information about my book copy, such as "Harmondsworth" (where Penguin used to be in the 60's, as mentioned in those books). Some time later this information was gone.
But I understand this will not bring us much further because it isn't very specific.

Some books had 9-digit ISBN's from the end of the 60's, more correctly a BSN, I believe. The difference is the absence of a 0 in the first position. An example is https://www.librarything.com/work/1144670/book/94442350 , a description I derived from the Library of Congress and adapted.
If one uses a LoC description and alters it for one's own copy, do the data revert to the original LoC set after some time? Because with this book a 10-digit ISBN had been (re)generated. I changed it again today so it cannot be seen anymore now.

Then there are cases which are clearly outside LT's responsibility: for some books I ticked an Amazon-provided cover as my choice, and later Amazon attached another cover to that ISBN. The original cover is nowhere to be found anymore on the internet. Two of those I scanned today myself so to give the right cover.
The two books I refer to are https://www.librarything.com/work/891777/book/94446841 and https://www.librarything.com/work/2065663/book/94446973 . These were marketed as print on demand I believe, and each run can have a different outlook while keeping the same ISBN. Presently Amazon shows covers with some kind of flower for those two titles.

I am not waiting for unexpected changes to happen, however. From now on I wil add all books (and cd's etc.) manually. This is more work but not as much as it sounds. I never imported things in batch and I always checked and added data anyway. If necessary I will enter suspect cases again and throw away the old description. I did so with 18 books in the last 8 days. (One first has to detect them, of course.)
And I'm de-Amazon-ing the book covers I use. These can simply be found with Stats/Memes. I got rid of more than half of them by now.

What I don't understand at al is the Data/No-data for Volumes. I my collections the no-data cases are mostly maps. And many of those were added manually anyway. When I enter "1" in the number of volumes box, it's empty again the next day. What's wrong with considering a map a 1-volume publication? Most of these are folded as a booklet anyway.

Kind regards,
Rommert

Very thankful for the addition of DVD cataloging capabilities. I had used an app called DVD Hunter which does a good job on bar code scanning, but that app lost all of my tagging when the system was upgraded to El Capitan OSX. So far the default field population seems to make sense.

I notice that within 'Media', under the heading 'Video Recording', there is a setting for 'VHS'.
I was just wondering if it would not make more sense to have this format nested within a new category titled 'Videotape'. That way if people desired to specify their own formats (VHS, Betamax, VCC/V2000 etc.) they could still do so; but, alternatively, they may simply find 'Videotape' sufficient.
This would mirror the existing category 'Reel-to-Reel/Film' which, so far, does away with the need to populate the list with almost a hundred different formats of film.

Having already added at least one new item of media myself. I can foresee a time when the list potentially gets so rich that it becomes laborious to wade through. So, it may be time to start putting in place a few simplifications before this monster grows out of control.

What about video games? Many libraries have video game collections they check out as well...

>169 bibliovermis:
I see your point. And since many video games these days contain the equivalent of a whole movie sectioned off in numerous 'cut scenes', it would be hard to allow film and DVDs and not modern video games.
Then there are the old school text based RPGs! You couldn't deny these without putting into question their paper bound equivalents such as the Steve Jackson & Ian Livingstone adventure books from the '80s (anyone remember The Warlock of Firetop Mountain?).

There is already a heading under 'Other' in Media' for 'Software', and also one which I added at the start of the year for 'Game'; which I needed to do for this entry:

https://www.librarything.com/work/17048499/summary/125149361

I can imagine 'Video Games' justifying its own entry higher up the hierarchy as a backbone entry in its own right, rather than hanging off of 'Other', since it is bound to be subdivided by platform (Xbox, playstation, etc), and whether it is a hand-held device, connected to a TV set, or running from a PC/Mac. There may also be divisions for genre etc.

Then there is the question of video cassette and DVD based games such as Nightmare (aka Atmosfear).
'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosfear_(series)'

...which opens the way for including traditional boardgames as a category in LT too!

What about Toy Libraries? Should we start allowing people to list Kerplunk and Buckaroo?
These are legitimate questions.

My worry is that as LT expands its scope it will weaken its core topic which is books.
We don't yet have a Media set up for baseball and cigarette cards, or blotting paper collections, or nice vintage bookmarks (I have a few of those, as I expect other do as well).
Are we happy to include all these? I'm not saying we shouldn't, its just a question I'd like to put out there.

>170 Sylak: Just the other day I came across a member who has cataloged her doll collection.

>170 Sylak:
I remember the Warlock, and have fond memories of many of the other Fighting Fantasy books.

LOL - I was complaining about keeping track of the seeds I buy for my vegetable garden the other day (duplicate purchases, etc.) and someone suggested I needed SeedThing. So I thought - perfume and bobcats - why not seeds? I could use LibraryThing for just that purpose. After all, there are seed libraries, right?

I wold have a collection called "Seeds". The title would be name and cultivar (Tomato, Old German), date field would be the year I purchased the seeds, author would be the packaging company (Thompson & Morgan), I could use reading dates for planting and harvesting dates, tags for where in the garden I planted them, reviews for how well they grew and how good they tasted... it would be brilliant!

Before anyone's head explodes, I'm not really going to do it :)

There actually is a website where you can do that sort of thing - Folia. I have an account that I never use. Too much bother to keep it updated. I'll stick with paper lists and graph paper :)

>157Rommert I had this happen a number of times when we first started using LT but eventually decided it was because I was not actually hitting SAVE or hit it with a glancing blow or maybe just moved too fast. I've slowed down a bit when entering data and that seems to help. I try to double check before moving on now.

Are we still supposed to include DVD or {DVD} at the end of our DVD's TITLE? Would it be wise?

Will it confuse others if we continue to use them? (We add them after we enter the DVD into LT). Will using it prevent combining with other DVDs?

We've been using brackets because that's what LT told us to do before this new feature was added. In fact, when I searched the site today for "catalog DVD" it still comes up 1st in TALK as: "Using LibraryThing as an Integrated Library System"
https://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Using_LibraryThing_as_an_Integrated_....

Sadly, the current conversation doesn't come up at all when searching "catalog DVD".

The old conversation "Using LT as an Integrated Library System says: "Although this is set up for book data, you can use it to add an item such as a DVD
When entering the title, please add DVD to the title, so combiners know not to combine "Pride and Prejudice" with "Pride and Prejudice DVD"."

>175 StJosephIssaquah:

I don't see why not.

There is no rule that says motorists need to switch on their headlights in winter, when the morning sun is low; but, anything that prevents an accident has to be a good idea.
So, I would say; continue to add DVD in the title.

Best practice of all is to add a Disambiguation notice. That way, overzealous combiners are faced with a warning massage, telling them not to combine such with such, should they try to combine the wrong items.

I hope this helps.

>175 StJosephIssaquah:

I would say yes. Without it the DVD may automagically combine with the book of the same name (and I think I have seen some cases of this).

Just saw this now - I prize librarything for its bookishness, and while I don't have a problem with other members using the service for whatever they like, I would love LT to be viewable and useable as a pure book site, as far as possible.

I'm not sure what that looks like in practice, but ideally, music/movies/etc ought to be in the background. If I look at a legacy library, for instance, I care only about the books. I suppose you should treat "unset" works as being books, just because they are far more likely to be books, but it would be nice to have a book-only librarything available for bibliophiles like me.

>175 StJosephIssaquah: Making sure your media-types are set correctly in the new field is also a big help in case you forget to use the brackets in the title. What you choose for that field is visible on the editions page.

Is it possible to add Amazon.IT to the list for books, music and film? We order from there with regularity.

I just started adding my board games, one of which is a SJ production. I used to impress my GURP-playing children by nonchalantly starting sentences with "When Steve and I were at college together...."

For cataloguing any not-books/videos/audios/games/etc, uncheck the boxes in the Collections list to keep them out of the general slush pile.

>181 librisissimo: I'm not your kid, but I'm impressed by that! ;)

>180 K.J.: I don't think so. Not all Amazons allow have the links that allow LT to download their data.

As far as I know, nothing changed since here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/106118#2757912

>181 librisissimo: That is an impressive thing to say!

>181 librisissimo: You've impressed *me*, and that's nearly impossible to do.

I've actually *met* the elusive Mr. Jackson once, in the long ago times. Class act.

Maybe I'll find my deck of Silicon Valley Tarot Cards and enter them here, out of celebration.

>180 K.J.: >184 jjwilson61: and >185 davidgn: is right! Sorry for the trouble.

> 184 It could have something to do with the privacy laws of Italy, although I would have thought Germany's privacy laws were more stringent.

>188 kristilabrie: Thanks for the heads-up.

I agreed that the point your are trying to make is irrelevant but can you comprehend that meaning of procrastination 😂.

>191 QuintonsmithJr3:
Well, yes and no..

I would answer this, but I'm too busy figuring out how not to get anything useful done today without looking lazy.

So whats the best way to enter music CDs? Can I use the mobile app to scan barcodes?

Ignore >194 humouress: I'm playing around with it, and have added one CD to practice on.

If I want to add the tracks listed (so that they are easily accessible to other viewers, too), where would be the best place to do that? I could put it in reviews, but I was thinking of Book Details or Common Knowledge .

>195 humouress: Please don't put it in reviews. That is not a review. Put it in comments for your own use.

>196 MarthaJeanne: Well, I don’t want to put it in reviews.

But is there nothing akin to, say, a chapter listing on the book (or CD) page where I could list the tracks and anyone could see it?

>197 humouress: There is nowhere to list a book's table of contents, so how could there be an equivalent for CDs?

Nor is there a way to list stories (short or novella length) in a book as separate entities, ie. Works
I sometimes have several films on a DVD. I usually just record them as different films.

I think "TIM" said the contains functionality would be worked on "soon", like 4+ years ago :-(

I suspect there are many...many LT'er whom would like a proper contains before some of the newer toys offered us recently.

I do wonder what is the attention span of a typical LT'er staff is?

And that is not in any way meant to be an approbation of LT (which I do love)

Thanks. I’ll just enter the CDs for now and add tracks later, once we get the feature :0)

You can use comments. It's not worth it to wait for such a feature..

I've seen people put table of contents information in the disambiguation field for the sake of keeping different anthologies separate. I've also seen things put into the book description field. In both cases, these are CK and possibly editable by others.

Then there's comments, which are available to a lot of people, but only you can edit.

>199 guido47:
Sure you can. You are able to list stories in an anthology as Work-to-work relationships. You could do the same for your double feature DVDs. :)

>195 humouress: >196 MarthaJeanne:

A mere track listing is not a proper review but if you post an actual review of the item, you can include a track listing or table of contents as part of the review.

>204 Crypto-Willobie: On LT "I liked it" is a proper review, so you could just add something like that and add the content listing. Although overzealous taggers might tag it Not A Review. But even if they do, it doesn't hide the review, just knocks it to the bottom of the list.

>202 gilroy: That should only be put in disambig if there are different copies with the same/similar titles with differing contents. That kind of info does not belong in disambig just in general.

Hello. I am new to LT. While searching for a template to catalog my books (I assumed I'd have to create an Excel doc for it) I stumbled across a glowing review for your site and signed up. I am in the process of moving so I'll simply be scanning my books before they go in the moving box. I don't know if I'm going to have enough shelf space at my new place and haven't decided how I'm going to organize my books. There is a lot of sunlight on the open walls and I'm very protective of my babies so there is a lot to think about.

While reading through the information on your site, I read that movies and music can also be scanned. I scanned a few and it was just as easy as scanning the books. What I'd like to know is how others are organizing the different media on their lists. I'm not sure that I want movies and music mixed in with my books when I sort by author. Do I use tags or some other indicator? I'm sorry, I'm a newbie :(

Thanks!

>207 Lirialle:

Welcome! There is no single way to designate non-book media, but the general convention is to indicate it in the title somehow (following the work title). I use square brackets and the format in all capitals, e.g. DVD.

There are a number of reasons for doing this but for now, suffice to say it's highly encouraged you use one or another, whichever you deem most suitable!

>207 Lirialle: For your own use, in your catalog, you might consider creating additional "Collections" for your non-book media. I, for example, use the default "Your Library" collection for my physical books, and I've created an "Audiobooks" collection and an "Ebooks" collection (among others) for those other formats.

Thank you so much for the suggestions!

I started cataloguing music CDs and film DVDs long before the improvements of 2015. I can remember the time when doing so was regarded as heresy by some printed word purists. The approach I took then was to create a second account so as to separate the audio- and audio-visual material from my books completely. This has served me well. I have not come across any reason not to have done it and now, unlike earlier, you don’t have to pay for the extra account.

Since this thread has been revived, I will mention that some readers may be interested in Discogs which is a specialist music listing site. I think they may have been inspired by LT!

I find this to be a splendid idea! In the course of my lengthy life (I'll turn ninety this September), my major formative influences have always straddled more than just one or even a tiny handful of fields. For this, in turn, demands dealing with lengthy strands that keep unfolding over a good many decades that can therefore never rightly be divided into seperate, distinct, or "unrelated" categories. Please allow me to quickly indicate just how and why this is so, by citing merely two or three instances drawn from a veritable mountain that actually contains a good many more. As a boy, my father had a good friend he grew up with in Nebraska. They were in a youth orchestra together and performed in routinely. They kept in touch afterwords over the years until they both died. He later became my home town's most famous man as a film star known the world over as Robert Taylor. (I met him when I was eight years old.) His life intersected with a good many other movie stars, some of whom I unexpectedly encountered myself. The films these unquestionably great performers made sometimes carved out art forms that no one, including themselves, foresaw would later come to be. To actually see and know offshoots such as these for what they truly held and represented -- and experience those directly oneself -- you need to experience pieces of the films themselves, and learn first-hand the stories recounting just how these emerged. (My own personal contacts, for which I'm everlastingly grateful, led to my having such direct personal exchanges with this hometown man, Olivia de Havilland, James Cagney, Fielder Cook (the director of "The Waltons" series), and other such figures. These never fade! There's simply no substitute for grasping directly that source out of which something new genuinely arises and comes into its own.) Anything short of this doesn't rightly see the form that is right there before their eyes. This is crucial in the arts, but it happens in the Sciences, Literature, and the Political & Economic fields as well. And so as not to overlook all this, but also anchor it in a book as well, written about the woman who admittedly enabled Robert Taylor to learn to combine and personally handle those creative interconnectlions that ultimately fashioned his succesful film career -- you'll find the greater portion of this particular phenomenon in the 989 pages of the carefully written biography: A Life Of Barbara Stanwyck: Steel-True, Volume One, 1907-1940, by Victoria Wilson. So, I wholeheartedly vote for this combination of the two forms mentioned. (What's more: I could instantly illustrate this by selecting a "very brief video piece" of each of the prominent stars mentioned above who I had the good fortune of coming to know directly and personally. These tiny three or four video clips can each sing and dance for themselves right there before one's very eyes. -G.R.)