This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
Following on http://www.librarything.com/topic/244676#5854621 I've made some more changes to the combining process:
First, all work relationships that link works within a combination are noted, and prevent combination.
Second, I've added notices and made the call-outs more regular and detailed:
First, all work relationships that link works within a combination are noted, and prevent combination.
Second, I've added notices and made the call-outs more regular and detailed:
2r.orrison
I'm not sure I like the "You must resolve the work-relationship issues before combining this title." message - I suspect that most of the time the relationship will be correct, and it's the combination that's wrong. I'd rather see something along the lines of "You cannot combine these works because (work) (relationship) (work)" e.g. "...because The Lord of the Rings contains The Fellowship of the Ring"
4Petroglyph
>3 omargosh:
That would indeed be cool!
But this already is a big improvement to the combining system and will definitely cut down on errors that create so much combiner-work that would be much better spent not undoing silly mistakes. Thanks, Tim!
That would indeed be cool!
But this already is a big improvement to the combining system and will definitely cut down on errors that create so much combiner-work that would be much better spent not undoing silly mistakes. Thanks, Tim!
5scott_beeler
Tim, the user aeclark pointed out in this Combiners discussion: https://www.librarything.com/topic/244741
...that this change is likely the source of some apparent problems a couple of us have seen today. Blocking a contained work from being combined with the work containing it (like your example here) is a great policy, but we're seeing examples with works that have perfectly normal "Contains" being blocked from being combined with completely separate entries that are not Contained and do not Contain anything.
So is there maybe something off in the implementation, or in the accessing of the work-to-work relationship data?
...that this change is likely the source of some apparent problems a couple of us have seen today. Blocking a contained work from being combined with the work containing it (like your example here) is a great policy, but we're seeing examples with works that have perfectly normal "Contains" being blocked from being combined with completely separate entries that are not Contained and do not Contain anything.
So is there maybe something off in the implementation, or in the accessing of the work-to-work relationship data?
