Simplify simplify?

Okay, what are your nomination for the most confusing interface elements, pages, concepts or other things about LibraryThing, especially for new users?

Talk people tend to be power users. But the answer is not, say, the distinction between combining and aliasing authors, which very few members ever deal with. Rather, remember back to your first use of LibraryThing, or otherwise put yourself in the shoes of a "regular" or new user.

The difference between all the various views of what you perceive as a book: Main page, Edit your book, Change cover, Work details, Book details

That the Add to Your books button in fact does not add the book to your books?

That data is pulled in from external sources when you add a book and not from an internal database of all books on the site

That some data you change will affect all users and other changes just yourself

The distinction between Groups and Talk in the main menu. It's fairly artificial since both are gateways to the same content. I've wondered if the Groups/Talk ambiguity might be one reason why new members are often confused where to post.

Add books button

I can never find the "junk drawer" when I'm looking for it. This is, of course, due to my only looking for it about once a year or so, but to upload that graphic (in the "don't panic" thread), I had to poke and poke and poke through various help screens before finding something that said that it was on my Member page, in the "Your Profile" box (which only makes sense when one realizes that it's connected to the "gallery" for one's picture). Needless to say, it's a minor issue, but with over a decade on the site, it should be easier to find stuff like that!

>2 anglemark:

That the Add to Your books button in fact does not add the book to your books?

I absolutely agree with this.

And: How the heck do I get in touch with these folks? Where's the "contact us" link?

The entire ADD BOOKS page is confusing. It needs a major overhaul

Though I remember it now, I used to have a hard time finding the collection editor.

/home, "Your Collections", "settings"... nope.
/profile, "Edit profile and account"... nope.
/catalog, at the bottom of the drop-down menu where you select which collection you want to view... ah, there it is.

Add books Add books Add books Add books Add books

The work/edition concepts. That some data is 'owned' by the user, no matter how wrong, and that some other data is 'owned' by the community (like CK) and edits affect everybody.

Going by questions that often come up, the most non-obvious things for newcomers are:

- "How can I read books on this site?"
- "I'm looking for a book I read 20 years ago about a servant-girl who is raped by a Lord..." (there should be a big red button for this on the homepage!)
- "Add to your books" (mentioned twice already)
- "Where do I put shelf-marks?"
- Collections vs. Tags (and generally private vs. shared data)
- "what's that field to the right of Title in the Edit Book screen for?" (sort-character)

Situations/questions like this come up pretty often.

Okay, but my feeling is that, if I ask what people think is confusing about "Add books" I'll get 10 different, and contradictory, answers.

But I'll try. What's confusing about add books?

The Groups / Talk distinction, which before people have joined groups is especially arbitrary.

In response to "What about Add Books is confusing", I'll say that the fact that the workflow

Do a search > See that the book you want is there > Add tags, collections > Select the book you want

does not result in the tags and collections actually being applied to the book is very non-intuitive; if that part of the interface is not available between search and selection, it should not appear to be available; either change how the process works, or grey out that part of the screen.

Incidentally, I'm particularly interested in UI elements you find confusing.

>14 lorax:

Right. That's my thought too. I think that's the main issue. Your solution is a good one, but I don't see how you'd get "back" to being able to change it.

While there are those of us who care about editions, and correct data, there are many more who just want to add the fricking book. They don't want to have to walk through the ten steps it takes to find the book to add to their library as it is now.

They see the Add to Your Books button, and it fails, the get frustrated.
They go to enter a title and the system throws out fifty pages of results, they get frustrated.
They don't find the basic add books interface to be ... simple.

My number one preference would be to use LT as a source for Add Books so that if you click "Add to your books" it actually adds the book. But otherwise:

- Make it clearer on the Add books page that you are searching outside of LT so people don't get frustrated that they can't find a book in "Add Books" when they can find it on LT. Maybe you could put the search source at the top of the page, above the search field, or an explanatory sentence.

- If possible, have the "quick edit" for the book you just added be shown, so that people know they can add tags and collections that way.

- Personally I prefer to manually add all of my books so I'd like to see the "add manually" link more prominent, and also an abbreviated manual add form for faster adding. But those might not be helpful for new/casual users.

Also, it should be clearer that the "Reply" link on messages in Talk does not automatically reply to that particular message. I think either "Reply" should start the message with "{arrow}{message #}" automatically, or hide "Reply" under "more", or get rid of it all together.

I seem to recall quite a bit of confusion back in the day between my book view and the work-only work page, and wondering why, for example, a ULTB whose info I had updated was not also updating on the author page too (due to needing a recalculation).

Another one which is a bit confusing to newbies is Search when you are viewing your catalogue - the fact that there are two search boxes. This is especially so because the "Search site" box appears to be more prominent as it is larger and it appears on a darker background.

>24 andyl: Yes, I've found this too. Rationally I know which search field is which, but because they're so physically close together I've often typed in the wrong one by accident.

>25 Collectorator:

You may be talking to yourself, but I'm answering: I think that's a brilliant idea.

>25 Collectorator: I don't know nearly enough about AJAX, etc., to know how hard this would be to implement, and I don't know enough about the databases to know how long it would take to find the list of sources used, but at first glance this looks like a great idea.

>25 Collectorator:

I think that is probably better. However not ideal. If a book is catalogued and all the sources are US sources for US editions, and I have a UK copy of the book I will want to search a UK source.

I think part of the problem is that there is a split in how users want to use LT. Their user stories are divergent. Some don't care about getting a record that represents 'their copy' of the book. They are really just interested in title and author (and some are not all that interested in those otherwise we wouldn't see those records with titles like "all books in X series"). Whereas others are very deliberate about getting the correct publisher and correct edition for their copy.

I am not sure that there is an UI which will be ideal for both sorts of user. However some small wins as you describe should be achievable.

As a user who only uses LT as a reference for my collection, and who does not go into LT everyday the GUI can frustrating. My suggestions would be:

1. When adding a book if the book already exists in your library indicate as such before adding. This would resolve the 'add then immediately delete' or 'search before adding'. Both of which wastes time. Also a more advanced search perimeter would be helpful so you don't get 20 results that may or may not include the book you are looking for.

2. If you go to an Author page or you search by Author being able to add all the applicable books on one screen or by series would be a tremendous help. Having to add each book individually is frustrating and time consuming. Also if you hit the "+ Add Book" from the book page it just added it for you without taking you back to that Add Book Page.

3. I like that you can have multiple sources to pull from when adding a book, but again it would streamline the process if you had an all sources option. I have mine set to Amazon but often I run into not being able to pull up a book or especially a comic but I don't want to have to keep searching and remembering to hit a different radio button to locate the material I am looking for. (might be resolved by changing the Add Book feature which is very cumbersome, see comment #1)

4. I also think a functioning App that was synced to the site would be helpful. One with a scanner that allows you to see reviews of the book, determine if you already read it and you could add to your books.

5. A lot of the function of LT gets lost in the GUI, the GUI is familiar enough that you think you know how to find things and yet I can't quite figure out all the tools that I know are in LT. Not to bring up Goodreads lightly but they have a great GUI that is user friendly to even low tech people.

6. Lastly the Reply function which has been mentioned above does not reply to that message which was very confusing when I had an issue and was trying to reply to the LT person assisting me.

Thanks

>30 Soraya71:

GUI?

>28 Foretopman:

I don't think that idea would be technically very difficult. Maybe there would need to be some fiddling around to reduce queries to hit every copy to find the sources. Also something needs to be added to prevent old sources which no longer exist from being listed. But in theory it doesn't sound too bad to me.

I often think - but have forborne to say so - some LT users really ought to try and get out more.

Certainly so. It's nice outside. But we're indoor people. ;)

GUI?

Graphical user interface.

Yes sorry, Graphic User Interface.

>30 Soraya71:

2. If you go to an Author page or you search by Author being able to add all the applicable books on one screen

Really how would that work? Look at the author page for Ian McDonald - http://www.librarything.com/author/mcdonaldian-1&all=1

Do you want to add all the works in both sections or just in the "Works by" top section?
What about all the short stories which will not be found by any search because they have been manually entered? There are at least 30 of those in the top section.
What about the foreign language editions which have not been combined - maybe because there is no direct English analogue?

>35 andyl:

People have long argued for a multi-add. So, for example, instead of having "Add books" add one book, have each item have a checkbox next to them. So you check what you want, and then click "submit."

Would be faster for that situation. But adds complexity and, normally, isn't faster at all.

>36 timspalding: It would be much much faster for people who are initially entering their catalog for the first time, but of limited use after that.

Maybe there could be something similar to the "work-to-work relationship" interface, where you have the option of a new search OR you can select from a list of works by the same author

>36 timspalding:

Yes I know they have said this. I'm just trying to dig into how Soraya thinks it should work.

We both know that if you have a series of 20 works with disparate titles then an "add all" would almost certainly mean 20 search requests being fired off to the search source. Each search request may bring back a whole page of results. Digging through and ticking the right editions (or even titles) sounds a nightmare to me. Also how would you handle going to the next page - or would you just hope the right result came back on the first page of results? It is even worse if you are talking about an author page where you might have 100s (or even 1000s) of works.

I have never seen how it could work acceptably but that may be because of the two modes of usage I talked about in post 29.

>37 norabelle414:

Just searching for an author name (Stephen Baxter) on amazon.co.uk brought back 1,448 results - that is just a huge number of results to be selecting from especially when the Add Books page chunks it up 10 books at a time (with next/prev page buttons).

Thought process:

The Add book Green + button:
Could it auto add a Title and Author to a user's catalogue, then open the edit book page so they could fill in additional details or just hit save to verify?

Would this make it easier?

For people who just want to add a title and an author to their catalog why make them go to a source at all. Forcing them to choose an edition from a source will probably just pull in data that doesn't apply to their book. So, I think making manual add on the add book page be as prominent as source add would actually lead to less bad data.

>39 andyl: It would depend on using LT as a source. I suggested using a similar interface to the work-to-work relationship function, which sorts the works by # of copies. And there is always a regular search if you can't find what you're looking for quickly.

>40 gilroy: *drool*

>41 jjwilson61:

Sure, but that means throwing away the original design decisions from 9 or 10 years ago.

>43 andyl: Why? People who cared about getting the data right would still use sources and those who don't would use manual. And both methods currently exist, I'm just proposing making manual add easier to find.

>44 jjwilson61:

Sorry misread you a bit. Yes a more prominent manual add on the add book pages would be good. It still doesn't fix the green plus issue though - unless it auto-populates title and author.

To answer the original question, I think the biggest confusing part of the site is that while the book/work distinction is vital to how the site works, it isn't clear that when they click on the title in their catalog and go to the work page that what they're seeing is a mix of their data, calculated data, and common data.

People don't realize that changes to Common Knowledge, work pages, and author pages affect everyone.

It was a long time after I began needing it that I came upon WikiThing; in fact it's only because I have some pages in it bookmarked that I found the name of it to use in this post. I wish/ed a link to it along with a brief description of it were in a reasonably prominent place.

>50 Collectorator:

How about just not allowing in-catalog editing of CK?

Get rid of that awful Add Books plus sign, which causes more problems than its worth. Maybe just label it "Go to Add books to enter your personal copy."

Also, when I've tried to refer people to the Author's intro or other intro materials, I have a terrible time finding it. I usually wind up logging out to look for it and it's still not easy.

The Wiki in general is pretty useless.

People don't know it's there, and if they do find it, it's hard to search and there's a lot of redundancy. It needs a major overhaul.

Clearly adding books in the first place needs to be improved. But after you've added a book, it's easier to get to the editable CK fields (they're right there on the main page), than it is to get to the edit fields for your own data. CK fields shouldn't be editable on the main work page (only from the CK page), but if you own the book then the main page should include editable fields for your own data.

(I'd love it if, after adding a book, you went straight to the Edit Book page. A lot of people won't care, but that's my workflow - after adding a book, I want to check that my data is correct. Most users, after adding a book, don't even know that there is such a thing as their own data about the book.)

Add my vote to:

--the green Add Book + sign that doesn't actually add the book
--Groups vs. Talk when Groups and Talk do the same thing
--the Wiki - there's too much stuff where the only docs are on the wiki and what's on the wiki is confusing and dated; we really need some kind of well-curated public-facing docs that cover everything (I realize maintaining this is a LOT of work but you did ask.)

The #1 thing for me, though, is how to go from a book's page on LT to actually finding information about the book, especially if I don't own a copy of it/am not logged in. We need a major redesign of work pages. The pages that currently come up are a mass of blank fields and confusing, difficult-to-find data, and in many cases it's completely impossible to find fairly basic information like publication data for a book you don't have in your catalog.

A lot of obscure, older books actually bring up their LT page as one of the only google results that isn't a used book seller, so that might be a good way to bring the book-collecting nerds who are your core demographic in, but the LT page that google brings up will be title, author, and then a bunch of blank fields, which is ugly, confusing, and discouraging. And they don't include basic bibliographic information unless they happen to be filled in on CK and someone has bothered to scroll all the way down past the several screens worth of (often blank) social fields to even find CK; and some really basic publication data isn't accessible on LT work pages at all.

If they then try the Work Details page it usually has no information whatsoever that isn't on the main work page. The rest of the sidebar options duplicate what's on the main work page until you get to the editions page, which is a confusing list of titles, authors, and numbers that STILL doesn't give you basic publication data.

I know a lot of this is because of the work/editions split and that we REALLY NEED an editions layer, but failing that it seems like it should be possible to design a main work page that fits on one screen all the work-relevant information that LT actually has and no blank fields, including the X most popular editions WITH their publication data, and doesn't have recs placed such that they draw the eye more than the actual book info. You can still send people to the sidebar if they want the things that are frequently-blank or the more power-user-oriented things.

I have been using the site heavily for more than ten years and I still can't find the info I want on work pages half the time, and when I'm linking to a book in an offsite discussion I've basically given up on LT and resorted to using That Other Site because it's just so impossible to quickly extract actual useful book information from the LT work pages.

And the fact that what you see on a work page may be completely yet invisibly different depending on whether you are logged in or own the book doesn't help either. And the "book details" page you get when you do own a copy is also unnecessarily confusing and sparse.

One of the main selling points of LT is how well it's designed to get exactly your editions and details in your catalog, but when there's no good way to share that with other people it's sad.

I would love to see a search for a new book to go after it in all the sources I check at one time. When you get down to it, I normally only use 3 or 4 but if it fails on the first, then I have to go to the second, and so on.

Clearly a limit would have to be set or searches would take forever. Maybe 10 as a max at one time?

Oh, yes, also the link that lets you go from the book page to catalog view is completely unintuitive. I was pretty sure it existed because I remembered a post or blog about it, but it was ages later before it was described again in a post, at which time I figured it out. I don't think it should be that hard.

Regarding "add book" sign. Alas it is confusing. But now that I know what it does, I can click it and on purpose add the kindle version, which is the one I usually want. So… is there a way to make "add book" some kind of a work flow where there could be a "one click" to add title (for example that's good for the Wishlist) and a longer workflow to get the correct edition etc.?

I've been on LT for two years, visit almost daily, and still feel like a newbie to the site. I was lucky to have a few friends here who could answer questions and give me advice on using LT. They still answer site questions for me.

I'm here less for cataloging (I'm a librarian . . . I do some cataloging for work - don't want to do that on my free hours!) and more for keeping track of the books I've read, chatting about books, and finding an online community of readers.

When I joined, this link was helpful: http://www.librarything.com/quickstart.php . I would have appreciated more detail on each item, though, and the "More" links could be more visual. Making the quickstart link obvious might be helpful.

I found touchstones very confusing. (Still do, sometimes.)

I found the ">some previous number" confusing, but have gotten used to it now. It took some trial and error before I felt really comfortable with it.

My daughter joined LT around the same time I did. She rarely visits here. As a college student, she isn't reading as much as she used to, but another reason is that she found the site overwhelming. She didn't have the same supports here that I did, so she felt very lost. Now that we're back under the same roof, I can show her a little more about how to navigate the site and see where she's encountering problems and frustrations.

Complexify? LT is many things to many people. For someone new they probably want to add books or talk to others about a book they read or want to read. Pathway and choices for adding books should be very clean on the home page (as seen by non signed in people ) and probably on the default home page when signed in. And as others are saying on the page where I am looking at a book in someone's catalogue and want to add it to my own. I would support the idea of a choice between a very simple Author and Title and otherwise manual entry add and the usual add book process. Clear instructions and options on how and why to do it one way or another should always be available.

How to talk about a book with others is not obvious (and I think not really a capability.) Looking at what groups and topics are active suggests that this is what people want to do but it is not intuitive that the way to do that would be to join a reading challenge group or a sometimes non intuitively named special interest group. The complexity is good but there could be a way to navigate people through that complexity.

For more experienced users there are numerous interests and opportunities. The complexity is an an attraction to me and I think others. What would be most helpful would be straightforward reminders of what does what and how to do things. A lot of notes and small print that seems to be mostly ignored could be cleaned up in favor of "what is this?" and "how do I use this" type clicks. Links to wiki or detailed instructions could be found there. Certainly each of the main pages on the brown bar across the top should have an easy click to "how do I use this" or "tips and tricks" and these should reveal useful information and easy ways to contact staff for help or be directed to posts where the help has been described. The current pages that clicking "help" in the upper right corner open to are not very helpful. Would suggest these could be cleaned up into some lists of topics so I could actually find the help I wanted without the clutter.

>56 r.orrison:

There is an "edit book" link on the add page, although I agree the big temptation is to click on the title.

However what I think is annoying is the redirect to the "add books" page on hitting save after following that link. I frequently have to then go back to the book's "main page" to handle CK or Other Authors or Relationships.

Example:

I'm on http://www.librarything.com/work/1472

I click on + Add to Your books

Now it searches for the title ( 1984 ) in the source I last used.

Instead, have it show the most popular cover of the work I just came from with a big title and author with a button like Add this work to My Library - which will add the book with the work Title and Author to your library.

Next or beneath it have a button like Search for my own edition - which will search for the title+author on Overcat by default unless you specify a different source.

The + Add to wishlist should just straight add the title+author to your wishlist. You can always specify in the comments if you want a specific edition or change the default no cover cover.

>2 anglemark: The difference between all the various views of what you perceive as a book: Main page, Edit your book, Change cover, Work details, Book details

Agreed 100%. I have no idea what some of these different things are (especially the last two), and it's confusing.

>19 norabelle414: Make it clearer on the Add books page that you are searching outside of LT so people don't get frustrated that they can't find a book in "Add Books" when they can find it on LT

As a matter of interest, why can't we search within LT when adding a book?

>24 andyl: Another one which is a bit confusing to newbies is Search when you are viewing your catalogue - the fact that there are two search boxes

Which still often confuses this non-newbie.

>60 krazy4katz: see >40 gilroy:

>62 Diabolical_DrZ: This actually makes me think we need to improve the suggestions and examples in the CK edit area. An attempt to get some fields entered uniformly, since it helps to have the same award or city or character name entered the same from book to book.

Right now, the fine print is hard to read and unless you know the system, doesn't work well.

So a link that says "What is this?" or "Examples" or something that opens a light box with how things should be entered, with screenshot examples would be an awesome pony.

">35 andyl:" Actually Tim's answer is what I would have suggested, having a check box so that I could pick what books from the author I wanted to add at once. I do not add books as I read, I generally enter them every few months so I may read an entire series by an author and I would like to be able to either add the entire series or every book that I have read by the author on one page.

">36 timspalding:" I disagree I do think its faster, but I agree in this case it might be to complex for the way this site is engineered.

One last comment the reply feature of this thread is odd and not intuitive, if I hit reply to a specific comment why does it not add the data for the user I am replying to? Why do I have to ">#" instead of even using @ to respond to a specific user? (I had to ask my super user friend how to reply to the user that had asked me questions, I shouldn't need a super user to figure out how to reply) These oddities are database functions that were not smoothed over when adding the layman's interface, but for the common user it makes it difficult to get the most out of the site.

>69 Soraya71:

Yes but at what stage?

What Tim suggested was ticking at the search results stage. So you do a search (presumably for the author name) then have to plough through all the results (in pages of 10) ticking as appropriate. As I said there could be thousands of results and there would be no guarantee that the books you want to add are near the start of results returned.

">71 andyl:" So lets look at Author Sarah J. Maas http://www.librarything.com/author/maassarahj
as you can see there are several book listed under her name on the Author page. Now instead of hitting the link for "Throne of Glass" which is the first book listed, and then being taken to the book page http://www.librarything.com/work/12179687 then hitting the dreaded green "+ Add Book", then being taken to the Add Books page, having to still hit "search" because even though you hit the Add Book button it still does not filter the results when I get to the Add Books page, then hitting the Throne of Glass option that best meets your needs to then add the book.

So if I could do something in one step vice 5 I think that is a win. Now why would I want to add books from the Author page vs the Add Books page? Because if you have a series it is easier to see them in a row on the Author page, opposed to doing the Add Books search which because of inconsistent metadata does bring all, some or none of the books associated with the Author/series I am looking for. If the series is not numbered or its is not a series at all but multiple books by the same author (I like an author I am going to read everything they have published) then seeing that list and being able to choose which ones I want to add makes much more sense.

Otherwise I end up doing the Add Books process and having to go back to the author page to see what books I remembered to add by looking at what green checks I have next to the book name on the Author page. It is beyond frustrating.

>72 Soraya71: Have you considered creating a spreadsheet of ISBNs as you read then just uploading the spreadsheet when you finish with the author/series/reading group?

">73 gilroy:" No, my ADD brain works on spreadsheets and document management systems all day at work when I come home I don't want another spreadsheet to have to remember to keep up and it defeats the purpose of having a site like LT or Goodreads. Also I read a combination of books and ebooks so that would take even more effort. But thanks for the suggestion.

Maybe just change the Add Book button to Search for Book.

>72 Soraya71:

Yeah I can't see your suggestion working.

OK say you want to add "Throne Of Glass" and "Crown of Midnight". There is no way of searching for both of those. You have to have two separate searches (at least in the background - that bit can be hidden from the user). LT would then have to stitch those two result sets together. What does hitting (next) on the results mean? You want more from both sets? Now obviously the more titles you are searching for (by ticking items in a series) the worse that will be.

The step of choosing from the results has to stay too. Firstly so people can choose the right edition if they want, secondly an exact title match might not occur on the first result (it doesn't with "Throne of Glass"), the first result may not be the right book (although it is in this case), there are likely to be multiple exact matches further down the results (which is the case for "Throne of Glass" if you look at page 2). Finally if it was a common title you might find several books with that title but with different authors.

Some of those issues can be solved (or at least ameliorated). For example the search criteria could include author (or at least the primary author according to LT) after clicking the green plus - and that seems like it would be a pretty quick change.

However some things like the paging is a limitation of the upstream systems - for example I think Amazon only gives you pages of 10 results. Now sure LT could (in the background) go ask for "next page" of results until Amazon (or the library service) gives no more - then sort and maybe filter and then show them to the end user in sensible sized chunks. However that would be bad. It would mean LT doing a lot more work, sending lots more requests, and the majority of the time it would be totally superfluous. My gut feeling is that the vast majority of items are added from the first or second page of results.

Unless the Green-+ just adds a book with only a title and author to your catalogue I can't see how you could snip a lot of steps out of the current process. You could change the process so that you didn't have such a confusing screen - so there would be a screen which only asks you to choose/confirm where you want to search, then a new screen with only the list of results. It would be less confusing but no more time efficient.

>72 Soraya71: The add books page shows you a list of the books you have most recently entered. The author page may well have several works for a single title if they haven't been combined or a confusing list of various things that aren't of interest.

>76 andyl: Her suggestion doesn't work with the current search/add books functionality, but why assume that she wants to use the current search/add books system? What kind of add books system would LT have to have in order to be able to add all books (or a checklist of books) from a particular author?

I must be the only user here for whom the "add books" page does exactly what I anticipate/want it to. Go figure.

{edit}
While reading though this I kept wondering where this "green plus" thing was ... as I didn't recall having seen it. I guess I don't poke around in other people's books much, as I looked up the author of my most recently added book and clicked on another title by him, and there it was. Since I don't add books that I haven't finished reading, and have the ISBN handy in a text file on my desktop, this isn't something I have to interact with. How odd.

>79 BTRIPP:

Generally it's OK for me too. I add a lot of books manually as I have old railway books and Africana which don't tend to show up on most of the sources.

">76 andyl:" As I said, it may not be feasible with the way the site is engineered. However there is an association with title of book to Author on the Author page. Using LT as its own searchable source then I could see creating a page that allowed you to associate multiple books at one time. Opposed to going to an external source which seems to be the crux of your issue with my suggestion.

">78 norabelle414:" Exactly.

Again Tim asked for examples for the non super user. I am not a super user, I have spent more time in the last 2 days on this thread then I have in the last year partly because of the issues mentioned above. This site works well if you take the time to figure out its nuances and having some coding back ground also appears to be a big help but most people and I might be the minority but given my discussion at the LT meet ups I don't think I am, having something that was more user friendly would be helpful. It obviously not a deal breaker but I am just offering my opinion.

">79 BTRIPP:" I have a lot of antique books that don't have ISBN numbers as well, I have thought about adding them manually but haven't had the time to do so. The spreadsheet method might work well for that.

>79 BTRIPP: and >80 John5918: I also do a lot of manual adds as well. Nature of the collection.

>82 Soraya71: I simply add many by just author and title to avoid collecting them a second time! I go back later and add the rest. I only use 4 or 5 fields.

>78 norabelle414:

Yeah but there are hard constraints because of the way upstream search sources work. The upstream sources do not support searching for X different titles. You can only get the results page by page. The results you get back are totally determined by the upstream search source.

The only way you can get exact results is when you have something like an ISBN like you have when you do a universal import.

Now there are ways around some of these (and I talked about those) but they do come with costs. It is far more complex code for LT. The upstream sources will be hit far harder (more requests more quickly) and some libraries may not be too chuffed about that.

>81 Soraya71:

Maybe my tone is not coming across as I intend. I am not criticising you (or anyone else) for suggesting ideas. But there is quite clearly a difference in user experience between selecting multiple books then searching compared to selecting multiple books from the result set of an existing search. A large difference in development effort too. I am not against making the workflow easier, indeed my previous post (number 76) included some ideas on how the existing process could be made more user-friendly but IMO less time-efficient for the user. As always there are a number of trade-offs to be made - between those who want exact editions, and those that don't care. Between those who want to add things really quickly, and those who want things more user-friendly. Between those who want flexibility and between those who want something simple, which is usually more user-friendly too (flexibility implies more choice implies more complex UI). Between those who like intermediate screens and those that don't. Between things which are quick and relatively cheap to change, and between things which are complex and costly to change. Some of us who have been here a long time, and some of us who are developers (although not of LT), tend to like kibitzing and discussing larger options in those terms. It isn't that choosing items from a series page, click add, and poof they all appear in your catalogue with library grade data is something that we would hate (on the contrary if it reduced some of the issues I see I would love it) it is just that there may be issues which mean that is not likely to work.

>84 andyl: Oh, going back, I think I see the break in the communications.

She's not wanting to do connections to outside sources. She's asking to go to the author page, select the appropriate books by check boxes, and have those get added to her catalogue. Not search new sources and get new information.

Which again leads back to my suggestion in >40 gilroy: where it just adds a title and author, with the user adding appropriate additional details.

">84 andyl:" I am not taking offense to your tone, I do not have intimate knowledge on how this site is developed. But in my opinion nor should you have to be able to use the site effectively (not that its hard, but for a broader audience which I assume is what Tim is reaching for since he asked about newer or layman users) so my suggestions are based on my needs and perhaps others needs without the full knowledge of how this site is architected and with the understanding that what I am asking for might be out of the current scope but could be considered for future upgrades or rebuilds.

Maybe the answer is that LT is for a specific kind of user and the casual or layman user is more geared for the Goodread's of the world and I think that's ok. It depends on what the target audience is and how you want to grow the site.

>22 Collectorator: "As for add books, once you finally figure out that the green plus doesn't really do anything, . . . If you are still with us, you might ask yourself, "Why do I have to go to each and every one of these members' catalogs to see the source? Why can't the sources for this book just be listed somewhere?"

Yes. It would be very nice to see associated ISBNs and input sources on the Work Detail page like the DDC and LL Class and Subjects.

Also I often, still, wish the help pages were easier to find, more detailed, and updated after changes. I still feel like I stumble upon things, and grope around with them till I learn them or don't.

">85 gilroy:" Exactly which takes me back to saying if you use LT as your searchable index you could create additional associations since they already exist to add books to your personal catalog.

>85 gilroy:

Yep if you only want titles and authors that is a perfectly acceptable solution. It all goes back to the two modes of usage in >29 andyl:.

It is just when I see a feature request saying "I want to be able to add all books on an author page" - it sounds to me like there should be a "Add All" button, which then goes and searches for all those books.

TBH I'm not sure really want to see checkboxes on Author pages and Series pages (at least not as default). Most views of such pages do not lead to books being added and I am not sure it will make those pages more palatable to users as there is already fairly confusing functionality attached to author pages.

I joined LT in 2006 but didn't become an active user until 2010 because I found it confusing. I'm trying to remember why, but there have been enough interface changes and new features since then that I'm having trouble remembering all the details.

Personally, the biggest issue I remember having is that I couldn't figure out how to manually add books back in 2006. I didn't even have the vocabulary to know I was looking for "add manually." I just knew I wanted to be able to enter all my own information about each book exactly the way I wanted it. That's why I chose LT over other sites and software, because the marketing information noted that I controlled all my own data. Well, that and the price was right. :) I eventually found the manual entry option, although I don't remember how now.

Just based on my own observations, I wonder if people are sometimes confused because LT is more like what libraries use and less like other social book sites. For me, that's one of the real perks of the site, but I'm a librarian by profession. I know LT's approach to data made a lot more sense once I studied cataloging and library systems in grad school.

I guess in the interest of better understanding you could always make Basic Cataloging a prerequisite to using the site. :)

Addendum: I realized I haven't added a book non-manually since I joined 11 years ago (where has the time gone?), so I added a book through the Add Books tab and then added another book by searching sitewide for the book and then clicking the Add button from the book page. Either way, it seems to work the way I'd expect. I'm on only one other book site (Goodreads) and the two sites seem similar enough in terms of non-manual book adding.

Hi,
I'm new to Tiny Cat. I was able to add a few books to my program, but now there is no ADD to click on so how to I add anymore books? Frustrated S. Mary

>92 MonasteryLibrary:

Be aware that since your library is marked as private, nobody else will be able to see the TinyCat version, either.

>90 andyl: For the layman and basic user, that IS all they want.

For the power user and the more CDO user, the cataloger, etc, we want more details, more data. We're the type that will have no problems with the present add books style.

The basic user just wants to pick a book title and author, put it their catalog. They don't care about what edition, or if they used the right ISBN. Sometimes, they don't even care if they spelled the author's name right. All they want is the record.

>94 gilroy: The basic user just wants to pick a book title and author, put it their catalog. They don't care about what edition, or if they used the right ISBN. Sometimes, they don't even care if they spelled the author's name right. All they want is the record.

Then why not use manual entry for everything? (I mean for generic users, not gilroy/andyl specifically.) From this thread, I went up and clicked on the Add Books tab, clicked on Add Manually, and typed "Robinson Crusoe" in the title field and "Defoe, Daniel" in the author field, and clicked Save. Took 16.11 seconds according to my cell phone stopwatch, and that includes the time waiting for LT to process my having clicked Save. Searching for a book from the beginning can't possibly be faster than that, unless I'm missing something.

ETA: The only disadvantage I can think of to this is that it won't automatically pull the cover and the system won't always automatically know which pre-existent work with which to connect the new addition. On the other hand, I catalog stuff with full details and an ISBN and I still don't get the correct cover and combination automatically. So not necessarily a side effect of too little data.

>95 casvelyn: I find manual add to be the best solution for me, but there are a few problems with its use for casual users:

- they don't know it's there. It's a small link at the bottom of the page
- the manual-add page lists ALL possible fields, so it's very intimidating if you only want to add a few pieces of info and you don't know what many of the fields are
- manually added books are much less likely to get automatically combined than those added from a source. Not a problem for myself but a casual user wouldn't have the first idea how to combine their copy into the main work. Sometimes they might not even notice that they are not combined.

But even with a simplified, easy to find manual-add page, I can understand how it would be frustrating. LT already has all the data about a book on a handy work page, why shouldn't you be able to click a button on that page that says "I own this book" ? Why should you have to go to a second page and type in the title and author that LT already has on the page?
Which is not to say that I don't understand why LT works the way it does, or think a different way would be better (I don't), just that I understand how it could seem counter-intuitive compared to the way the rest of the internet works now.

>96 norabelle414: I think what you describe would make more sense to new users, or even current users who don't enter things manually. I think it would probably be the best solution to the problem. But if we're going merely on the grounds of what's fastest, I think manual entry is best for simple title-author adds.

>97 casvelyn:

But if we're going merely on the grounds of what's fastest, I think manual entry is best for simple title-author adds.

We're not, though. See >1 timspalding: "what are your nominations for the most confusing interface elements . . ." {emphasis added}

Tim is looking for ways to make the site less confusing, easier to use, for non-power users. That does not necessarily mean "faster".

>99 Collectorator:

Yeah.

Here's what I'd do in an ideal world:

Replace it with a "Search to add" link (which duplicates current functionality, more clearly described) and a "Add basic record" link. The latter would open a Manual Add page with title of the most common edition + most common author name - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling, rather than Harry Potter y la piedra filosofal by Joanne K. Rowling - prepopulated, and the user could either save that basic record or fill out further information. Users who don't care about editions won't care anyway, and just pick the first result in the current system, and this way at least things are spelled right.

This is an interesting discussion, but I feel it's missing the point somewhat. It's all very well to talk about changes to the GUI and the look and feel of the site, but this needs to be firmly rooted in the long-term strategy of LibraryThing. Basically, where do you want the site to be positioned in, say, 5 years time?

At the moment, it seems to be trying to cater for various groups:

The casual user, who wants to track their reading, discuss books and their reading experience, and maybe fill in a few details about the book they've just read. Basically a Personal/Lite experience.

The serious collector/reader, who wants to pin down their exact edition in as much detail as possible. Again, they would gravitate to the social aspects of the site. You could call them Personal/Power Users.

Small organisations with a book inventory who want to catalogue in some detail but aren't too fussed about every last detail. They lend their volumes out and need to keep track of them. The Pro/Lite (aka TinyCat) users.

Larger organisations with multiple copies of the same work but differing editions. Like the Personal/Power Users, they need to catalogue in as much detail as possible, and keep track of their inventory. Pro/Power users in effect.

What this means is that the different groups get access to different areas; the power users can see all that the lite users can see, can edit more and see more (effectively the edition layer as well as the work layer). Pro users get access to lending functionality and a whole lot more details in the edition layer. This allows you to think about which groups you need to attract to keep a vibrant community and the site alive, and also allows to monetise the site in a bigger way which in turn funds the development of the site.

Hope this makes sense, and throws some things to think about into the mix.

>100 lorax:

It might be possible to be a bit cleverer than that. If you are on https://fr.librarything.com/ then it might be possible to pick the most common French title up using the primary language for the book.

What this means is that the different groups get access to different areas;

NO NO NO.

If we want people to be able to get their toes wet and then branch out later, we can't start by confining them to a playpen they can't get out of, or have a tiered membership with elite members who get real full access and everyday members who aren't trusted without training wheels.

>103 lorax:

But then you end up with the current situation where the casual user sees everything and understands nothing, things don't work intuitively, and the result is people entering rubbish which doesn't get cleaned up because user data is sacred.

Perhaps they can see the power areas, but can't touch them unless they upgrade their membership. Training wheels, yes, but don't let them touch stuff until they know enough not to be a danger to everyone else. To take the analogy further, you wouldn't let a 5-year old cycle off into the distance on their own without some kind of supervision.

>104 Maddz: Some people know enough not to be a danger to everyone else within a few minutes of joining. Some people still don't know enough not to be a danger to everyone else after 10 years. People on LibraryThing are not children, they are just a wide range of adults.

>103 lorax: I cannot agree with this comment more. I'm all for Tim's apparent goal of making the interface less confusing and there are plenty of ideas for doing that, but dumbing it down and restricting people's access to features is a terrible idea.

Honestly, I've always assumed that most people who don't care even one single tiny bit about cataloguing probably use Goodreads because it's super-easy to add new books. But we've had people transition from GR to LT once they realize they actually would like to have more control. Similarly, many people start on LT by just adding books without regard to edition, cover, etc. at first, and then begin to care more about getting accurate data about their books and want to "clean up" what they've already added. Locking people in a playpen, as lorax puts it, means that sort of transition would never happen.

>105 norabelle414: I feel like I am being personally referenced here as a ten-year user. :P

But you can make a site that has a "lite" layer and a "power user" layer without locking people out of anything - just make it so you can *choose* to only see the simple version if that's all you want. Like: don't lock new people out from editing CK, but make the version that displays on work pages non-editable with empty fields hidden, and make them have to deliberately click an "edit CK" option if they want to edit. Or like the discussion about creating a simple "add book" option that only includes work-level data and doesn't make you search a source and then pick an edition. Having a main work page that is much simpler and making people actually click on "work details" if they want all the details. The advanced options are still there if you want them, but you have to choose them, instead of having to actively work around them if you don't want to use them (which is the current system).

Restricting access to certain features is often very necessary. I work in social care, and the various case management systems all have access controls. It is very often the case that if your job only involves working with adults, you don't actually see the children's sections because you have no need to in your role and vice versa. Similarly, unless you are involved in the commissioning, you don't set up care providers and you don't see the modules that allow you to do so; you only see the providers set up already (if it's not there, then you send in a request for the provider to be set up).

You would also only have read access to certain areas until you have been trained to input the data; once that had happened, you got write access (and yes, it was the case write access got suspended if you consistently kept making mistakes in the data input even after refresher training).

What I am saying, does every Tom, Dick and Harriet need write access to absolutely everything even if they have no earthly use for it? Read access, yes, to see the various features and perhaps decide that yes, they'd like to use them so can they upgrade?

The point I am making is that too much choice is as equally bad as too little choice: both lead to bad data.

>107 melannen:

Exactly my point!

>104 Maddz: >108 Maddz:

So someone fixes whatever happened (the world won't end no matter what it is) and explains to the new user why these needed fixing. :) Usually that is more than enough when dealing with reasonable adults.

Everyone in LT is a librarian - that had always been the site position. And most of the information would not have been here if there were easier UIs (a lot of people would not have tried editing if it was not easy - I would have presumed that only special people can edit as opposed to having separate UIs :)

I could see a "Basic Mode"/"Advanced Mode" division, so long as it's a clearly-visible toggle.

>108 Maddz: What I am saying, does every Tom, Dick and Harriet need write access to absolutely everything even if they have no earthly use for it? Read access, yes, to see the various features and perhaps decide that yes, they'd like to use them so can they upgrade?

Yes. They do. Because a large majority of this is crowdsourced data. You take away the crowd, you take away the data.

>80 John5918: I just added the University of Bakhtalruda as a source. Give it a spin sometime. ;-)

>109 Maddz: I'm not sure we're advocating for quite the same thing - my point is that you can reduce the visibility of things without actually restricting access to them. It's not about keeping people out, it's about keeping the complicated parts from getting in their way if they don't care about them.

GR has a tiered system where you have to apply, present credentials, and be approved before you can edit book data, and it's annoying, scares a lot of potential editors off, and frankly doesn't seem to lead to much cleaner data. On the other hand, I *am* approved for editing access on GR (apparently saying "I'm an experienced LT user" was enough credentials, who'd've guessed,) and I can still very easily get into the data to edit things without the extra capabilities constantly complicating things when I just want to add a wishlist book.

If Tim's goal is to have as much book data as possible, then yeah, current system is probably good (although in that case it should also be editable and sortable in the catalog...) If the goal is to make the site simpler and friendlier for new and casual users, though, not so much.

>107 melannen: I like the idea of being able to view Common Knowledge on the main work page, but having to go to the secondary page to actually edit. That's a good compromise.

>114 melannen: I was a "librarian", or whatever it's called, on GoodReads a long time ago, and I was constantly fighting with the other "librarians" over what was correct.

>115 norabelle414: I never do anything with my GR librarian powers except go back later and add more info to books I had to enter manually, or correct obvious errors on books with very few users, but I watch the discussion group from a distance and back away slowly. (tbf I do that with certain talk threads on LT too. :P) I only use GR to track my wishlist and current reading, though, because it's so much better than LT at that and so much worse than LT at actually cataloging.

But, yeah, seems like it should be possible to make the more advanced stuff easy to find without also making it the first thing anyone sees.

>110 AnnieMod: Everyone in LT is a librarian - that had always been the site position

Can you elaborate on that? I would have thought that most people on LT are not librarians, except in the sense that they have a collection of books that they wish to catalogue at some level or other.

Librarians in LibraryThing - not in real life. :)

>118 AnnieMod:

Thanks. Understood!

Groups ....
When you select a topic there is an option to go yo the bottom of the page or last post ...

there should be a button/option to g
return o top when done ...

Groups
When you read a reply to a previous post you can read that previous post by selecting the right arrow number ...
but there should be a way to return to the post ...
I always forget to check where I was!

Add Books

Since I am adding my books manually instead of on an upload ... I always find book at a source I like ... then I go to add page.

Maybe a search mechanism could be listed at the top of the Add Book page ....
giving choice of sources.. as a subroutine ...

then when ISBN, ASIN, or other identifier is located use that cute Add a book button that doesn't do anything .. to take you back to the Add Book page.

I personally like ALL the fields on the current page, I hope you don't change this.

>120 Bettesbooks:

If you mean "Talk" - the thing we are using at the moment then End and Home work fine for me. Of course that doesn't work for mobile phone users. There is also a return to Top icon on every post.

>121 Bettesbooks:

Should that work like a stack?

For example A is a reply to B is a reply to C is a reply to D etc. If I click the link to B, then click the link to C, then click the link to D should the "return to where you are" take me back to C (where I see another "return to where you are" to take me back to B and then again another link to take me back to A)

>123 andyl:
Thanks home works now will I remember it???

But don't see "return to where you are" on my screen.

Btw: as a newbie you really don't see that you have passed to "talk" when you are responding to a post.
Thanks for pointing this out.

>92 MonasteryLibrary: Sorry you're having trouble, Mary. I'm messaging you privately!

>109 Maddz:

If "Everything is available to everyone, but you have to deliberately choose to use the advanced features" is your point, then it was not at all obvious from "different groups get access to different areas".

>127 lorax:

I probably expressed myself badly (in fairness, it was late in the evening after a 2 hour commute which these days I'm no longer used to - I started a new job last week - over the past 2 years I've gone from 20 minutes to 45 minutes to 2 hours+). Basically, access as in write access as opposed to you can't see it at all (although there is some justification to modularising the site so you can more effectively tailor people's views and access).

I have purchased software in the past that offers a series of tutorial emails over the course of a few weeks, designed to gradually introduce more complicated features to the end user. Maybe LibraryThing could do the same thing — start with an email that lays out the basics of what the different parts of the site are (catalog, talk, individual book pages, the wiki, etc) then with each email adds more detailed knowledge (how Add Books sources work, tips and tricks for finding the right book, what Common Knowledge is (and isn't) and how to edit it, the difference between works and individual books, etc. It would serve two purposes: Give people a gradual immersion in the site, and provide a written support document that they could keep and refer to whenever they needed to.

I would be interested in helping to write some of the material if this seems like something LT is interested in.

I think the "Help" link could be more prominent. I find HelpThing to be very, well, helpful but I don't think casual users notice it's there.

Thanks Kristi for your e-mail. I was using the page that comes up when I click on add books. I found out finally that if I double click on the highlighted title of the book the search engine brings up , the book is added.

I see many useful suggestions in this thread. I'll add my voice to these:

• Get rid of the "Add book" button or change its functionality
  
• Make a principled distinction between user-specific data and site-wide data (through different background colours, how directly users have access)
  
• Introduce a bare-bones Add Books where canonical / majority title and author is pre-filled in, alongside a more detailed search of the various sources
  
• Allow LT as a source for users' additions
  
• Make the differences between "Main page" and "Book details" more outspoken
  

>131 MonasteryLibrary: Can I ask, what operating system (i.e. Windows 7, etc.) and web browser (i.e. Google Chrome 47, etc.) you're using to add titles from the "Add books" page? I think you should only have to click a title once to add it, but I want to make sure there's nothing here that needs fixing. Thanks!

>132 Petroglyph: Allow LT as a source for user's additions.

That is what the original "Add Book" button did. Of course, allowing LT as a source will not happen because of all the ratty data.

>134 rgurskey: Um, no. That Add Book button has always taken you back to the Add Book Page. It's never taken directly from LT.

>128 Maddz:

Then I am still firmly opposed to that proposal. Let people need to click through to the work page to edit CK, rather than being able to edit it in-catalog (as I've suggested before), but do not forbid them from editing it.

My sympathies on your commute!

I'd be happy if the green button only copied, say, some basic CK data (original publication, canonical title) or aggregated data (i.e. least likely to be ratty, such as title/author) into an otherwise empty manual add form. I know Tim has issued his ukase against using LT as a source, but vetoing even title/author seems extreme (given all the aggregating and combining and nevering that goes on here, all processes designed to de-ratty-fy the data here).

If perfect data is the standard, then not a single source LT has access to (or will ever have access to) ought to be tolerated.

>135 gilroy: No, the Add Book button did add the book to your catalog from LT. I used it. But very early on, it was changed.

>135 gilroy:, >138 PhaedraB:

Here's the thread from when Tim made the change, nearly 10 years ago:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/23950

>138 PhaedraB: >139 lorax: Huh. Guess since I never used it 12 years ago, it never did that for me...

*coming into this late*

The biggest thing that's "confusing" is the "Add Books" button, which has been talked about a lot in this thread. I like the idea of an option for "title/author" entries, that doesn't include searching through sources. The "manual" adding is very, very hidden and non-intuitive.

I completely agree with the idea of having to take an extra step to edit CK, and making them non-editable in the catalogue view.

I think it could be made more obvious that this is not a site where you read books on the site. We get that question every now and again around here, and I can understand why.

>> 141 We also get a lot of questions about how to check out/buy the book as well as read it, so maybe it would make sense to make it clearer that the "quick links" on work/book pages are links to external sites? (Or maybe those people don't even get that far, idk.

It seems like we could have an "add work to my library" button instead that ONLY adds most common/canonical in your language title + author, automatically combines with the work you added from, and if you wanted to get fancy maybe marks it clearly as an entry that was added as a work with the lack of edition data intentional (especially if combiners could see that. The simplest way with the current system would probably be to hash a fake ISBN that was clearly coded as "not an ISBN, added as work"; that would also do the autocombine.) Either auto-add the most common cover or have a second prompt to pick a cover. And include a clearly-worded option after you've hit the "add work" button to go to Add Books and search for your specific edition instead.

That would probably cover 90% of people who want to use that button (including power users who just want to add a wishlist book) and doesn't seem like it would be any worse data-wise than people picking a random edition or badly using manual entry.

I just clicked the "Add book" button on The Upside of Unrequited and it immediately added it to my catalogue. It went to the "Add books" tab and acted like it searched, but then added it without me clicking on anything. Is this new? (But then I tried it with another book and it did take me to the results page, no automatic adding, so maybe it's just a fluke?)

It does that if there is only one result returned from the source.

(And that is another problem; since it only searches on title, it occasionally automatically adds entirely the wrong book.)

Though I remember it now, I used to have a hard time finding the collection editor.

/home, "Your Collections", "settings"... nope.
/profile, "Edit profile and account"... nope.
/catalog, at the bottom of the drop-down menu where you select which collection you want to view... ah, there it is.

This is a small thing, but I went ahead and added the edit-collections link to the home-page "Your Collections" section. It was harder than it should have been, but it's there now.

>147 timspalding: Nice... I went down exactly the same rabbit hole yesterday helping someone to add a new collection.

I just noticed that when I go to a touchstone I may go to to the book BUT there is seldom a description of summary of what the book is about. Not much help in recommending possible readings!

>149 Bettesbooks: Many, I would say most, books have descriptions from Amazon or library sources if one is available for an entered ISBN. You can also enter your own description (but please make sure it is your own, not copied). Often some of the reviews will include summaries. If there is no ISBN, or if the usual sources don't supply one and no member has bothered, then there is none available.

This isn't something that can be changed as part of the user interface. LT has to get the data from somewhere.

>149 Bettesbooks: Not to disagree but here are links to the first 5 books I have read this month
http://www.librarything.com/work/16832455/book/141971773
http://www.librarything.com/work/18455163/details/141972052
http://www.librarything.com/work/4376656/book/142056611
http://www.librarything.com/work/12025594/summary/142038659
http://www.librarything.com/work/13151073/book/142057107
there is nothing on these links to tell me anything about the book s or the stories.

>151 Bettesbooks:

there is nothing on these links to tell me anything about the book s or the stories.


Each of those books, except the first, has at least one description.

>151 Bettesbooks:

That's strange. You've chosen three different ways to display the records. See the different URL formats? The one with /details/ is your book record. It will only have the information that you entered, or selected in Add Books. The /summary/ page is a main page for the book. It would include descriptions to the extent that anyone has brought them in from library records, and all reviews entered publicly in LT.

I can't even figure out how to bring up the /book/ URL format, which accounts for most of your listed pages.

>153 paradoxosalpha:

Pretty sure the /book/ URL format comes up when you go to the book from someone's catalog.

>154 lilithcat:

Oh, I see it now. That's the page that comes up if you just click in from a listing on the home page, profile page, or catalog display. It looks like it has most work-level data, including Common Knowledge.

>155 paradoxosalpha:

Yes, it looks as though it takes you to the "book" of the person from whose page you are navigating. So if you and I share a book, I'll see something different if I go to it from your catalog than if I go to it from mine.

>151 Bettesbooks: And they all have reviews.

Tim, the only way to improve usability and accessibility of the site is to hire consultants who do tests with users, run a/b tests and do analyzing.

>158 royalhistorian:

Running a/b tests is not hard, and sure as hell doesn't require hiring consultants. The hard part is figuring out what to test, and what metric to use to determine success. And, for major changes, this requires a ton of development work that may end up not being used - LT has too few developers for this to be worthwhile. There's a huge backlog of bugfixes and much-wanted feature development before they reach the point of not knowing how to make the site better.

>158 royalhistorian:

Yes but then there's the argument about getting the right user-mix to do tests with. There are (at least) two different user populations who want completely different, often diametrically opposed, things out of LT. I am not sure that analysing user behaviour will help too much in that situation. I am pretty sure that the received wisdom would be that LT is too information-dense. Generally lower information-density is associated with ease of use. However reducing the information-density would make LT much lesser than it currently is to many users (me included).

I also think A/B testing is not appropriate for a lot of these suggestions. Most of the stuff above doesn't involve swapping in a new look, or making a link more prominent or in a different place, or different wording, for a component (or page) but complex functionality that takes a long time to write.

What is A/B testing?

Basically you have two versions of a web page (the original and one with a change). You direct half your customers to one, and half to the other. You measure which is more effective by some measure (which could be how quickly they click a link, or how many people buy a product). If the change improves things you put it live, if it doesn't you do not.

>152 lilithcat: Thank you. Knowing there was a description somewhere I started reading through all the bullet options and spotted 'description' .

My problem stemmed from the lack of knowledge that the description of the contents wouldn't be found on the main page or work page. When I think about it maybe the old card catalogue system of the 19502 didn't provide a description of the content either. I guess LT hasn't progressed past that format.

Since this is a topic for comments on what we think would simplify the use of LT I suggest it would be more convenient of to me if the entry (main page, or work page) had one or two lines added for description that could be expanded with a "more:. therefore taking up a limited finite amount of space.

>164 Bettesbooks: There is a place where people can put in a description. If no one has bothered, there is none. Data doesn't come from thin air any more than it did for card catalogs. Someone from the library had to type the card. Someone somewhere has to provide a description that LT can access. LT isn't creating this data; LT is scooping it up and bringing it back from its sources. If there is no source with a description, it simply doesn't exist until some kind soul types one up.

>164 Bettesbooks: I'd really like to know what it is that you are calling the main page and work page. From my reckoning, the description field *is* on the work page, that is the page where the url starts with "www.librarything.com/work". I suppose you could also call it the main page since that's what is highlighted in the left-hand column.

ETA: Ah, by bullet options you must mean the links on the left-hand side of the page. But those all just take you to details that are already on the main page. If you'd scroll all the way to the bottom of what I think you're calling the Main page, you will find the description fields.

>164 Bettesbooks:

the description of the contents wouldn't be found on the main page or work page.

It is on the main page. I don't know why you think it's not. For example, go to The Chase, which you listed in your post as not having a description. It has descriptions in two of the three description modules, with links to more. If descriptions matter to you, you can re-order the modules on that page so that they appear closer to the top.

Furthermore, you must understand that LT's data comes from libraries, bookstores, or users. If you find a page for one of your books without a description, add one in the "LibraryThing members' description" module.

>167 lilithcat: I am more than happy to add a description and will check all books I add, if there is no description I will ad one.

To answer your question of what I am calling main page or work page -

When I do a search for a book in the LT library using the top right-hand search box below username and sign in/sign out bar
for example: The Bone Yard - the first book listed I select http://www.librarything.com/work/10337546 and it takes me to the first screen which is labeled MAIN PAGE see highlight on left side of screen. The light blue area of information is what I am calling main page. If you select work page you will see same.

the bullet options, sorry if that isn't the correct terminology - these are the items highlighted in blue on the left side of the page when your edit page comes up, in order they are:
Main page
Edit your book
Change cover
Work details
Book details
Reviews
Recommendations
Members
Descriptions
Conversations
Common Knowledge
Popularity
Editions

An easier way to see different editions on the work page so you can eliminate wishlist books from the edition at hand, that you've just treated yourself to. Often I just pick a.n.other copy as the wishlist item and don't particularly care (and I approve of the add item where it's just title/author for wishlist items for this purpose) but then when you buy it it can be a bit of faff to eliminate the other, non-at-hand copy.

There are a lot of ways of improving the UI of the site that do not involve hiring UI consultants and running tests with users. The idea that nothing can be known about usability without doing tests is much like the notion that chefs can't open a restaurant with a great menu without convening a panel of citizens to do taste tests.

>168 Bettesbooks: I'm sorry to be pedantic, but we need a common language if we're to understand each other.

When people refer to a page in a browser it means the whole area below the header. The light blue area is a section of the page and I'd call it the Work Details section or the Book Details section depending on which link on the left is used to get to it.

A bullet list is a list of items with some symbol to the left of each one, typically a round dot, which is called a bullet. A list without the bullet to the left is just a list.

>171 jjwilson61: thanks for language info I will keep and use in the future.

Okay, how is this in order to simplify LT for users who catalogue their books here but also use the site to search for title/author/book description, would it be possible and feasible to add the book description on the main page to a position within the light blue area which resembles an index card.

>172 Bettesbooks: Light blue area that resembles an index card?

Are you referring to the information block with your book data?
(To be honest, I see no light blue area, but I admit that it's possible that it shows different on a tablet or browser than what I'm using.)

>172 Bettesbooks:

If by "the light blue area that resembles an index card", you mean the module titled "Your book information", I would not like to see the description there. That's the module I have at the top, and I have no particular interest in book descriptions.

Why not just move the various description modules up?* That way, you can see the description in a higher position, and those who don't care about it as much won't need to.

*To re-order modules, go to the bottom of the page and click on "reorder modules".

>172 Bettesbooks:

What do you mean "the book description"? There can be multiple book descriptions. Take a look at http://www.librarything.com/work/15603/descriptions

If you look at the Main page - http://www.librarything.com/work/15603/ the descriptions are there just as mentioned by lilithcat (you probably just need to go to the bottom of the page). Furthermore if you would prefer the descriptions to be more prominent (higher up the page) you can do that too - click "reorder modules" and change the order.

Having it at the bottom of the page is convenient too. You just have to have to hit the end key on your keyboard to get there (and home to get back to the top). Those keys should work that way for most any web page.

So, did anything come of this discussion? It seems like a major issue is the Add Books process, and specifically the green plus, combined with the inability to quickly add multiple books. Much of this stems from the lack of a "generic edition", a book consisting only of the title and author (I would argue that it should also come with a cover, even if people later change it). Are there any plans to implement something like this?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that by the definition of several posters in this thread, I'm a "casual", "basic" user.

>172 Bettesbooks: Look what is in that box. The basic information that you have entered about the book plus the title and author of the work it is part of. No, descriptions, wherever they come from, do not belong there.

>c173 yes, I beieve so, I can only tell you what I see on my screen.

>174 lilithcat: Good alternate suggestion.

>175 andyl: Please note I suggested using a more command which would allow longer or more descriptions without adding additional lines to the entry.

>175 andyl: I was asking if they could belong here.

>173 gilroy:, >174 lilithcat:, >175 andyl:, >176 jjwilson61:,>178 MarthaJeanne:

I have read everyone's comments and everyone seems to like it the way it is.

I really didn't post here to open a debate but rather to say what I would like to see for how I use LT. This group is pretty much cemented in how things are and therefore how they should be.

>183 Bettesbooks: This group is pretty much cemented in how things are and therefore how they should be.

Only when it comes to where book descriptions should be located. On the contrary, there are lots of suggestions here from regulars for changing things.

>183 Bettesbooks: Uh, yeah, no. All I was trying to do was figure out where you were talking about.

>183 Bettesbooks: We can't always agree with you, but we did make suggestions on how to make it easier to use the existing features of LT to do what you want. Doesn't that count for something?

>182 Bettesbooks: The data in the blue box is taken from your catalog and include only things you have entered yourself (even typos or inaccuracies, if that is how you entered it), the one exception being the name of the Work to which your Book has been associated. Work pages for books you don't have in your catalog will not have a blue box at all. So Description, as with other data that is common to every edition properly belongs outside of the blue field. I hope this makes it clearer. It's not so much that everyone wants it the way it is, as, the way it is isn't broken, it's working the way it was designed to work.

>70 Soraya71: One last comment the reply feature of this thread is odd and not intuitive, if I hit reply to a specific comment why does it not add the data for the user I am replying to? Why do I have to ">#" instead of even using @ to respond to a specific user?

To add to this, I wouldn't necessarily use the @, but it would be nice if the ># is added in automatically.

>149 Bettesbooks: Interesting to learn there is a description, anywhere! I've been on LT for a while, and never knew where to find this info (maybe it just needs to be more prominent somewhere?). I tend to head over to GR for a description. Sometimes I'll see it here in a review, but I'd LOVE to see the description of a book someplace more noticeable/obvious.

>164 Bettesbooks: Since this is a topic for comments on what we think would simplify the use of LT I suggest it would be more convenient of to me if the entry (main page, or work page) had one or two lines added for description that could be expanded with a "more:. therefore taking up a limited finite amount of space.

YES!

>174 lilithcat: Why not just move the various description modules up?* That way, you can see the description in a higher position, and those who don't care about it as much won't need to.

Ok, as I've read more comments (and clicked on one example), it looks like when I've looked for a description in the past, either there hasn't been one or I haven't scrolled down far enough.

I would agree with moving it higher up on the page. Again, to make it easier to find.

ETA: Would help if I read through the entire post before commenting! So, that is something I can move higher up myself? And it would appear higher up on every book page I look at? Thanks!

I'd also agree, thinking back to when I started, that the Add Books is quite confusing for someone new. I don't know what to suggest to improve it, but a one step option of some kind, rather than two steps?

>174 lilithcat: thank you for telling me I could reorganize the page by re-ordering the modules. For a new user this is key info, perhaps it could be in a larger font and maybe not on the bottom of the page 😃

Sorry for my typos I am having eye surgery next week and I can't see very well.

>194 Bettesbooks: If anything about LT that a new user might not know was at the top of the page in a large font the actual book information would be hard to find. Actually, the bottom of the page is a good place - easy to go to, but not in the way of everyday use of the site. If you haven't yet explored the links at the bottom of the pages, I suggest that you do so. There is lots of useful stuff down there.

>195 MarthaJeanne: Thanks for tip. However I bet you don't use a kindle for accessing LT. There are no up down keys, I can get back from the bottom of the page by going back to previous screen but otherwise it is finger scroll while a holding the unit in my concomitant hand, which is a pain, literally!

Now, that I have learned a useful trick today (re-ordering the modules on the main page) 😃😃😃 when Tim asked for what he new people would find simpler .. I am led to ask my next question

Are the sequence of the add book page modules?

Or, could they be made into modules based on the virtual organizational boxes I see on the page?

If, they were then each user could organize the virtual add book page to our own use as this seems to be one of the primary discussions.

>196 Bettesbooks: Actually, I use an iPad. Same method you use. I think I've got a bigger screen, but that is why I bought an iPad and not an eReader.

>197 Bettesbooks: I'm not sure what you mean. You can certainly add, delete, reorder your prefered sources. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be that much on the add book page that could be reordered.

>194 Bettesbooks:

Best wishes with the eye surgery.

>192 LibraryCin:

So, that is something I can move higher up myself? And it would appear higher up on every book page I look at?

Yes, just go to the "reorder modules" link at the bottom of the page.

>192 LibraryCin: Cin, I reordered the modules on the main page. Really easy and finally I see the descriptions!

>199 John5918: thanks

>200 lilithcat: Thank you! I've found it and reordered it!

>203 LibraryCin: Ditto from me!!

@Tim Spalding

No, it is more about the point that external consultants are not as biased/emotionally invested in the site as developers and users are. And they are not used to strange ways to find what you want/need on the site. Users - especially long time users - are used to them and don´t notice them anymore.

External eyes are needed so that you developers see the many usabilityfaults in the design and act on them.

Believe me, it is long overdue. The website needs a new/clear structure. Maybe you find Librarything wants to do too many things and you need to bring back focus on the cataloging. Maybe you find out other surprising things due to tests and analysis.

But please, the design and structure of the site need a serious overhaul. And please give some love to international sources. I haven´t been adding books for a while, because they mostly can´t be found. And adding books manually is a pain (adding from site search results or other users libraries would be soooooo nice).

And do something about the mess that is talk. It is way too cluttered and not intuitive for me. The same for the wiki and the helppages. If the helpsection was up-to-date, not cluttered and intuitive we wouldn´t need that wiki!

In the Netherlands and Belgium you are loosing ground to Goodreads. People love it as they can quickly add books and share things on Twitter and Facebook easily. Sure, their bookdata isn´t as great as here, but adding and sharing books is easy. And they mostly love it because of the bookchallenge you can set on your profile. They find Librarything way to complex and don´t like the design (someone said to me it was way to ´90´s, after the initial page)

All the points sophies_choice makes are valid.
Except I do like the design. ;)

>205 royalhistorian: Thanks for the note on Dutch books. I'll take another crack at Dutch & Flemish sources. I think I might have just figured out how to get Vubis Smart servers working, which is a start. Fingers crossed...

>205 royalhistorian:

I do think some of your concerns boil down to the fact that, thank goodness, LT isn't Goodreads. The sites are fundamentally different, and for many, if not most, of us, the fact that Goodreads' "data isn't as great here" is WHY we are here, rather than on GR. It's the data that matters to us.

As for Talk, I like it a lot. And the design is great, simple, uncluttered, mostly graphics-free, really nice.

I do agree that the wiki needs an overhaul, as it's hard to search and not always up-to-date.

>205 royalhistorian:
The website needs a new/clear structure
Doesn't it have a clear structure? Catalogue your books. That seems rather clear to me.

the design and structure of the site need a serious overhaul
Oh the lack of details is overwhelming.

As many have already stated, the "add books" process is a multi step PITA . Lol ! Ironically now that the apps exist, most newbies will probably only be using the app for their adding which is just a one step process . If you could do something similar on the main site there might be less confusion .

>205 royalhistorian: For what it's worth, I work with systems in several other non book related areas that have hundreds of choices and fields but I only use what works for me.

Systems with many options fall into the category of "all things for all people" in my way of thinking.

I joined LT because back in the dark ages I wrote my own system but I then got lazy and decided I could make LT work for me and it does!

As far as locating books here in the US, I find that the vast majority of my collection (19th and early 20th century with very local imprints) does NOT show up in searches other than in Worldcat. There have been many threads in the past about why Worldcat is not an integrated option for LT.

I'm well practiced in performing manual entries!! Practice makes perfect.

>208 lilithcat: I think this is the crucial point. LibraryThing can never really progress (in terms of both features and market share) because it and many of its users are primarily concerned with not being GoodReads.

>212 _Zoe_: LibraryThing can never really progress (in terms of both features and market share) because it and many of its users are primarily concerned with not being GoodReads.

This is a fascinating insight. Could you expand on it? (Not being sarcastic. Really want to hear more on this thought process.)

Now that the apps exist , you should seriously consider adding the Early Reviewers program and Legacy Libraries. Putting those two things on a future version of the apps would definitely set LT apart from Goodreads .

>213 gilroy:

I suspect the thinking is this:

For many of us who prefer LT to GR, the distinction in our minds is defined by what GR lacks - quality data, a simple way to browse other's catalogs, etc. So calls to emulate GR are viewed as requests to get rid of features that we value, and we push back. (This view is not wholly without merit; many suggestions involve creating highly simplified views, or even forcing new members into those simplified views without full access to site features.) I suspect that what people are actually asking for are features that GR has that LT lacks, but for those of us who don't care for GR, we don't think of those features first when we hear GR.

I suspect that all would be better served by leaving GR out of the discussion altogether, and judging feature requests (better read tracking, easier Facebook sharing) or feature elimination requests (get rid of all that beautiful data because it scares people) on their own merits.

>214 AquariusNat: Early Reviewers was already on my radar for this, but LLs—that's a cool idea. Would love to hear your thoughts on what that might look like/how it might be useful within the app!

I'll just add that I like the "Talk" section. I like that I can look at posts without having to go into each of my groups separately.

I don't know anything about creating computer pages . But maybe just a simple button that takes you to a list of all finished and/currently active LLs . There are alot of celebrity-obsessed geeks that would love to learn something new about their favorites . I have another thought, maybe teachers would use LL as way to delve deeper into the historical figures they are teaching their students .

>219 AquariusNat:

Like this one?

http://www.librarything.com/legacylibraries

Yeah , quick link to a list like that one ! It could even be just a quick link to the website's LL page .That alone would be good .

Zoë hits the mark in 212.

People think I am asking to copy GoodReads. I am not. Librarything has the better data. More data. But the website would be and easier to use if options and features were grouped together in a more intuitive way. If they were not hidden (where the hell do I find how to reference people or earlier posts in topic, like I see some do here?). If adding books was easier.

Because goodReads is easier to use for a lot people, they don't pick Librarything. Let's change that.

Again, proposing these changes does not equal: hey, let's turn this into a copy of Goodreads.

(where the hell do I find how to reference people or earlier posts in topic, like I see some do here?

Easy Peasy. Just click on the Help link in the upper right hand corner of this page.

>219 AquariusNat:

Under Stats/Memes you'll find in the left navigation a link that goes to this:

https://www.librarything.com/profile/MEMBERNAME/stats/legacy

>222 royalhistorian: But the website would be and easier to use if options and features were grouped together in a more intuitive way. If they were not hidden

Okay, can you give examples? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but without concrete examples, it's not easy.

If adding books was easier

AH! We have another vote for the Add Books overhaul!

>205 royalhistorian: Wasn't easy, but I got a few more Dutch sources in. Let me know if you find them helpful.

>226 davidgn: that's great. How did you manage to add amstelland? It's part of all the national library system, from their page I can eventually search through the whole country. Or would you have to add each regional system separately?

>227 JerryMmm: I'd have to add each separately -- and believe me, I tried (for all, or nearly all... every one on the libraries.org list, at any rate). For some reason Amstelland was the only one I could find with an open port for Z39.50 connections. (An oversight soon to be corrected, for all I know...) Now, maybe they're using strange and idiosyncratic port numbers. Practically speaking, that's the sort of thing that only inquiries to the technical staff could reveal.

If you have a particular library or library system you want included, ask them whether they support Z39.50 access to their catalog and, if so, whether they can provide working connection details (i.e. server URL, port number, and database name). Send those details to @ccatalfo or myself (or to any of the other maintenance group members who wants to volunteer for relay duty), and one of us should be able to add it.

@gilroy

- adding books should be easier
- I don't get why the option to ignore a group is not placed with the other options for a group. Don't make me search for it
- the help section should be clearer
- make Local actually useful or get rid of it. Maybe it is because we don't have a lot of events and things like that happening here compared to the US.
- do something more with subjects (see my profile page). It would be great if we could combine fashion and Fashion. And that we could combine translated subjects.
- changing names and such should be accessible from the editing profile page. Not onder the More-link in the menu. That doesn't make any sense.
- import and export should also be accessibie from the editing profile page. More ideally, only on the your books section.
- better combining/seperating (related: multiple stories/novels in a book should be handled better, issues with author pages that remain or need clean-up)

>229 royalhistorian: - make Local actually useful or get rid of it. Maybe it is because we don't have a lot of events and things like that happening here compared to the US.

Do you mean the "Local Events" module? You can get rid of it. Just click the X in the top bar of the module.

The "Local" tab and corresponding page are working well, I think. I find the map quite useful.

>229 royalhistorian: - import and export should also be accessibie from the editing profile page. More ideally, only on the your books section.

I'm not sure it makes sense on the Profile page, and there is a link to Import on the Add Books tab which I think makes sense, although it's buried at the bottom of the page under Other Options.

I agree though that adding a link to Export on the Your Books tab makes sense.

>229 royalhistorian: The add books request is a given. Lots of people asking for it.

- make Local actually useful or get rid of it. Maybe it is because we don't have a lot of events and things like that happening here compared to the US
Are you looking for local events or the entire local tab? Local events aren't that active unless you're near a major metro area. The local tab works for finding bookstores, especially when unsure of the area. (It's also linked to an app called READAR which from other discussions will be merged with the LT app.)

- do something more with subjects (see my profile page). It would be great if we could combine fashion and Fashion. And that we could combine translated subjects.
I can see combining like subjects as fashion and Fashion. I think there is too much differentiation in languages to merge translated subjects. That's MNSHO. I feel the same way about tags usually, which took the place of subjects for MANY years. And I'm frequently told I'm wrong. *shrug*

- changing names and such should be accessible from the editing profile page. Not under the More-link in the menu. That doesn't make any sense.
User names? Shouldn't be easy to change. Any database programmer will tell you constantly shifting user names is a nightmare. Though you don't have to go under the More link. On your profile, there's a link that says edit profile, then the last option of the left menu has the profile name and profile delete options.

- import and export should also be accessibie from the editing profile page. More ideally, only on the your books section.
I can see these from the Add books or Your books page, not the profile. But I must be weird.

- better combining/seperating (related: multiple stories/novels in a book should be handled better, issues with author pages that remain or need clean-up)
That's what I forgot. Need to finish some modules, like the Contains/Is contained section, since it really doesn't do a lot. Though some of that was recently updated...
As for combining, have you tried the Workbench? Does wonders for combining books. Authors, not so much, but that might be a good thing...

Add books
Finish Contains,is contained in
Close export,import loop

Re: groups
Would you consider archiveing by years. This group is an example to try to organize the postings contain 11 years of postings, very difficult to organize.

>234 Bettesbooks: You can chose to view by date of last message or by the number of unread messages.

As topics often contain messages from different years, I don't understand how that would work.

>229 royalhistorian:

- make Local actually useful or get rid of it. Maybe it is because we don't have a lot of events and things like that happening here compared to the US.

The problem with Local and events is that someone has to a) know about the event, and b) make the effort to enter the information about it. LT does get some information entered automatically from publisher feeds, but that is often incomplete or incorrect.

So it's really up to members to take the time and effort to go to venue event webpages and then enter the information. There's no other way to do it.

>229 royalhistorian: One element of LT Local that does stand be very useful is the stated plan to link Local venues with Add Books sources, which among other things will make it clear which add books source(s) should be used to search the holdings of a given library venue, and conversely (I image, or hope) which library venues' holdings are included in each add book source. I'd also like to see some sort of indication on the map of which library venues are searchable, etc. All falls under the "future features" heading, though.

>234 Bettesbooks: >235 MarthaJeanne: I suppose this could work by archiving it in the last year that a reply came in, at least for dormant threads?

Honestly, it doesn't bother me one way or the other, but just thinking how it could potentially work, if more people wanted such an option.

>235 MarthaJeanne:, >238 LibraryCin: now often do you go back and read postings from 2008? What about key word search within a year? Why not keep current postings limited to 3-5 yeads. I prefer to "ignore topic" so most current conversations I am interested in are at the beginning of the list. But, I haven't been able to ignore before 2008 and if the current topic I am following gets ignored due to my car fingers .. well I have to go looking for the beginning of those ignored.

>239 Bettesbooks:

'm wondering if something simpler like "hide dormant topics from search by default" may not get at what you really want, which is "Don't accidentally show me topics from 2008 when I'm looking for something recent." But if your use of Talk is via All Topics and lots and lots of Ignore, even that may not help. (Also, if you're having trouble finding something ignored accidentally, even when you're specifically just looking at Ignored Topics and sorting by Last Message, which will show all the topics you have ignored, with the ones with most recent activity at the top, I'm not sure how archiving things from a couple years ago will help with that.)

If you're ignoring so many topics, maybe you should try joining the groups you are most interested in and using the Your Groups or the Groups and Posts filter on the Talk page.

Or ignoring particular high-traffic groups that you aren't interested in - ignoring the 75 Book Challenge and each of the new Mystery & Suspense group read groups that come along goes a long way toward making All Topics (which I check in on occasionally) managable.

>242 lorax:

Thank you! Believe it or not I had never thought of ignoring groups like the 75 Book Challenge. I've just done it and now All Topics looks much more friendly. Mind you, I usually use Groups and Posts and only look at All Topics occasionally.

Is there an easy way to ignore entire groups? From the group page, I assume. I'll check it out. Thanks!

>244 LibraryCin: It's down the right hand hand side a ways.

>245 MarthaJeanne: Thank you!

>241 jjwilson61: it isn't ignoring topics, per se. it is getting the topics i am not going to contrbute to at the beginning of the pink banner of "ignore" i like reading the posts i lean from them. i just have limited vision and time.
i

>247 Bettesbooks: Couldn't you have the same effect by starring the posts that you contribute to so you can see at a glance and read first the posts you've responded to?

>248 jjwilson61: No, starring doesn't organize as well as skipping a topic does.

But your using a feature for ignoring threads to manage the order in which you read the threads, so I'm not surprised that it doesn't work perfectly. Instead of asking for the ignore threads feature to work in a way for which it was never designed, perhaps you should request a new feature for prioritizing the reading order of threads.

With the "coloured checkmarks" conversation, I have a suggestion to make here. I had forgotten, but I must have done this when I first joined. I was reminded later, I think with the influx of shelfarians. Then, I was reminded again with the coloured checkmarks conversation.

It does amaze me that there is not automatically a "Read" shelf here. That is my suggestion.

If "Your Library" is supposed to be what you've read and own (vs. Read but Unowned), that just doesn't make sense to me. To me, "Your Library" indicates my library here on LT, which is really "All Collections". I don't use Your Library, anyway, because in my mind, it is the same as "All Collections".

I can't be the only person who doesn't see a need to separate what I've read into separate owned or unowned shelves. I do remember some confusion with the influx of shelfarians, though, of people wondering why "Read" isn't a shelf that's automatically there. It still seems to me to be an odd one not to include.

So, I can see that having a "Read" shelf as one of the default shelves would create less confusion for new people.

>251 LibraryCin:

If "Your Library" is supposed to be what you've read and own (vs. Read but Unowned) . . .

Except that it's not.

I use it for all the books on my bookshelves (and on the floor and other flat surfaces in the house), whether or not I've read them (the minute a book comes into my house it is catalogued and entered into the "My Library" collection), and I know that I am not alone in that. It is not the same as "All Collections", because that includes my "Deaccessioned" collection and my "Read but not owned" collection (and these are not the same thing).

I can't be the only person who doesn't see a need to separate what I've read into separate owned or unowned shelves.

Maybe so, but many of us do see the need for that.

Maybe so, but many of us do see the need for that.

And that's fine, but why is there not simply a "Read" shelf for those who don't want or need to distinguish?

If "Your Library" is supposed to be what you've read and own (vs. Read but Unowned) . . .

Except that it's not.

So, if that's the case, then where would you put everything you've read if you own it? The only other automatic option given is "Read but Unowned". I couldn't see another shelf that would indicate "Read and Owned", which is why that was my assumption.

I'm sure everyone uses the shelves for slightly different uses, but "Read" by itself still seems to me to be one that should automatically be there.

Ultimately, I'm just suggesting that there should be a gathering shelf for everything one has read, but I don't see one automatically there.

>253 LibraryCin:

So, if that's the case, then where would you put everything you've read if you own it?

I don't use a collection for that. I have a "read but unowned" collection, because I don't want books I don't own in "My Library". But I keep track of my reading elsewhere, in a document that includes all the books I have read, owned and unowned.

I thought I'd try to rephrase what I'm getting at.

The idea of this thread is to make things simpler for new members.

I *think* (am I wrong?) most people join a site like this to keep track of what they've read. (Yes, possibly along with other reasons, but I would guess that would be a main reason for many (most?) people.)

The only shelf that comes to a new member on LT for books you've read is qualified by "but Unowned". I just don't understand why the only read shelf would have the qualification.

Why not automatically offer an unqualified "Read" shelf?

(My apologies for making assumptions about what people use their shelves for... in my weird way of trying to figure that out! I should have kept it simple in my original suggestion! Hopefully my rewording/phrasing here makes it clearer.)

LT has collections, not shelves. You are always free to create another collection. You are also free to use the existing collections the way that makes the most sense to you.

Your assumption is that people want to keep track of what they have read. For a long time after I joined I did not enter books as I read them if I didn't own them. I think that the list of preset collections is set up on the assumption that people join to keep track of what they own, and that Read but unowned is there to remind people that they can also enter books they don't own, and keep them separate from those they own.

Do you need a 'read' collection? I enter the dates when I finish a book. That is more data than just being in a 'read' collection. No set of collections is going to suit everyone. I don't think that having lots more presets is going to simplify things.

How difficult would it be to have "mouseover" text prompts on the coloured checkmarks stating what they signify?

ie "Your library", "Read but unowned", "Wish list", "Other collections"

I'm colourblind and I love the concept of the checkmarks, but I can't tell what colour the they are.

>255 LibraryCin: I *think* (am I wrong?) most people join a site like this to keep track of what they've read. (Yes, possibly along with other reasons, but I would guess that would be a main reason for many (most?) people.)

For quite a bit of LT's history you are wrong. Most people joined this site to catalogue their collection/accumulation of books - not to keep track of reading.

>255 LibraryCin: Why not automatically offer an unqualified "Read" shelf?

For one thing it's ambiguous. I don't know whether that supposed to mean "I have read it" or "I need to read it", that is should that be pronounced Red or Reed. So I'd prefer if it were added it be spelled "Have Read" but I think finds that formulation ugly and he doesn't want to do it.

>258 andyl: For quite a bit of LT's history you are wrong. Most people joined this site to catalogue their collection/accumulation of books - not to keep track of reading.

And that answers my question "why". That actually makes sense now.

>256 MarthaJeanne: LT has collections, not shelves.

Well, i think we knew what i meant. Sorry for the wrong terminology.

Free to create another collection is apparently what i did, but my point was that someone new (and this thread was meant for suggestions to make things easier for someone new; i was making such a suggestion) wouldnt immediately have to figure out how to do that, when (to my thinking, at least), it seemed to me that it would be an obvious collection to have to start off. It has now been explained why it wasnt so obvious.

Apologies for some lack of punctuation and capital letters; i hate typnig on my tablet.

>259 jjwilson61: So I'd prefer if it were added it be spelled "Have Read" but I think finds that formulation ugly

Id be ok with that, too, but one of the default collections is also "to read", so i think that helps with the clarification.

Eta: maybe "to read" isnt a default? Maybe i added it later, as well. I dont remember.

And I just noticed importing books still not works correctly.

Grmbl.

In my xml file are books that are already in my library here, but also books that are not. While importing, I checked the option that duplicates shouldn't be added.

A slew of duplicates get added, and a few books that are in the file don´t get imported. For instance Blogboek by Kelly Deriemaeker.

This really makes me giving up maintaining my catalog here....

Fix importing please.

Yes, the idea of a basic Read collection was discussed extensively when collections were first implemented almost a decade ago. Tim is philosophically opposed to the idea:

"Every classification system implies something about the world. The GoodReads system divides the world of books into "read," "currently reading" and "to read." It implies that books are about read-ness. Some people clearly want that. But I can safely say that many LT users do not. For my part, I think that's an impoverished way to see your books—the way people see books who aren't fundamentally book lovers, let alone collectors. It's a classification system that sees books as "done" or not, as if any book worth reading is ever "done." I don't throw my books out when they're done, and I reread them. And neither of these activities are why I want a catalog of them on LibraryThing! And that leaves aside reference, essays, poems and short stories the "read"-ness of which is very problematic. Down deep, LibraryThing isn't a simple reading tracker. You can use it as one, but we're not going to reorient the system for the benefit of a minority."

Incidentally, this also demonstrates the fundamental anti-Goodreads attitude that underlies a lot of site development—>213 gilroy: asked me to clarify this point. Goodreads is about reading. Therefore LibraryThing can't be about reading. This is more important than allowing users to keep (and access) detailed records of all aspects of their books. LibraryThing is about the book as physical object; GoodReads is about the reader's experience with the book. La fin.

(And of course, Tim found it necessary to make this point in a way that insults anyone who does want to track reading data: those of us who care about reading-tracking "aren't fundamentally book lovers". LibraryThing's superiority complex is what prevents it from being more broadly successful, and that's a deliberate choice.)

>263 _Zoe_: Wow! Well, i guess that right there tells me it wont happen then.

You know, the funny thing is i am a library cataloguer at work. Im just not that specific about my books at home, but then i also get a good portion of my books from the library and i rarely reread.

>259 jjwilson61: I, too, read 'read' as 'reed' until the context told me it was 'red.' The single word is ambiguous, if not outright confusing. If you want to make a case for it, it's got to be either a different word or more than one word.

For a posting that asks for suggestions to making LT simpler for new users it seems few wish to consider that LT may be evolving or want to evolee. i find that an odd business model.

>263 _Zoe_: Incidentally, this also demonstrates the fundamental anti-Goodreads attitude that underlies a lot of site development—>213 gilroy: gilroy: asked me to clarify this point. Goodreads is about reading. Therefore LibraryThing can't be about reading. This is more important than allowing users to keep (and access) detailed records of all aspects of their books. LibraryThing is about the book as physical object; GoodReads is about the reader's experience with the book.

Thank you. Very complete answer and what I wanted to better understand.

And I believe Tim is ... wrong. Because if the book is read, being read, or to be read is still important to the state of the physical book. Because as a collector, a pristine, never opened book would hold a touch more value. Just like a book which has a signature of the author has a touch more value (if authenticated.) So that excuse, from Tim as far as I'm concerned, is horse hockey.

I'm not keen on the "READ" collection unless it offers a second word due to the nature of the single word. However, I say the reading date SYSTEM could use a major update, even if only to actually USE the data. (Whoa, strange thought there.)

Would I like to see this place evolve into more? Sure. There are too many features that are half complete right now, so I'm scared of more being created and being left half done.

Sorry, but I am confused about the problem with Collections. There is a "To Read" collection. I have hidden that one because I don't use it. So you can hide what you don't use and create your own. That flexibility is great. My only complaint (which is a complaint for many people) is the inability to keep wishlist out of all collections. But, oh well...

>268 krazy4katz: my only complaint (which is a complaint for many people) is the inability to keep wishlist out of all collections
I've never understood that desire. Because then it wouldn't be all collections, and you'd have to rename it to something like "All Collections except Wishlist". And then you'd have to add "All Collections" back for people who want to be able to search their whole catalog in one go. When I'm in a bookstore looking at a book, I don't want to have to search twice for each book, once to see if I own it and once to see if it's on my wishlist. I just want to search once, in All Collections, and find out whether I own it, borrowed it from the library, read my son's copy, want to buy it, had it and gave it away, or whatever. I think if there were only one pre-defined collection, it would have to be All Collections.

I'm also happy with the existing To Read collection, instead of the inverse. I often browse my To Read collection to choose what to read next. If I want to find something I've likely already read, I search All Collections (and then check which collections it's in to know if it's To Read or Wishlist).

>268 krazy4katz: but there's no default collection for "Have read" regardless of ownership. And >263 _Zoe_:'s post show's there's a fundamental aversion to LT being a place to track reading in that way by default. I make my own collections for Have read, but yes, thinking about it now it still could be ambiguous "Read in 2017" is to that to read or have read? So second @LibraryCin's suggestions.

>270 wifilibrarian: I went back to read Tim's entire post that >263 _Zoe_: quoted from and I don't see that he has an aversion to tracking reading. It's worth reading the entire post because it seems (to me anyway) as if he is going for flexibility and simplicity. So people can make their own collections and use LT as they wish. Anyway, I am not a power user so maybe that is why I am basically content.

>269 r.orrison: You are correct. I think what I should have said is that I don't want the wishlist to count as books in my library. Sorry for the confusion.

How about "Done Been Read"?

>271 krazy4katz:

Yes, god forbid she should quote the part where he says, From the start until now people have used it to list books they own, books they want, books they've read and many other categories--sometimes marked off with tags (and now collections) and sometimes not. We welcome every use of the system, have defended users who don't follow the majority use.

Well, he doesn't want it to be a default (and I'm sure that's what she was saying with what she quoted), which was what I had suggested (to make it easier/obvious for new members), so my suggestion isn't going to happen, anyway. It will remain as it is, so if people want to add a "Read" shelf (whether that be Red or Reed), they'll have to add it themselves.

>275 LibraryCin:, Well, he doesn't want it to be a default
Sorry, I M missing something - who is he?

when tapping reply to a specific post why isn't the right arrow post number automatically given?

Why does one have to add the post# reference?

>277 Bettesbooks: He is Tim.

Because sometimes simplicity in programming takes precedence over simplicity in UI. I would tend to agree with you that it would be a major help to new users if a reply had the post reference entered automatically - in such a way that you could see it and edit it if you wanted.

>255 LibraryCin: I *think* (am I wrong?) most people join a site like this to keep track of what they've read.

I'm struggling to keep up with the fine distinctions being made in this thread, but I joined LT more than ten years ago to keep track of what I own, not what I've read.

>279 John5918: hi john, i joined LzT a little over a year ago because i neede to keep track of my electronic books. With no physical object where i could go to a shelf to browse i needed a source to remind me of what i own, what i have read, what has been forgotten in cyberspace.

Another change that technology has brought.

The supposed ambiguity of the Read collection is a red herring. It's clear in the context of "To Read" that "Read" should be pronounced "red". You can look at Goodreads as an extremely successful example of this. Their default collections are "Read", "Currently Reading", and "Want to Read". People have no problem understanding this system.

>274 lilithcat: Yeah, Tim might want to rethink his use of "welcome" there. Because saying "We welcome you to this book site, despite your impoverished view of books and the fact that you're not really a bibliophile", is not really a welcome.

Yes, people are allowed to use the site however they want, and it has minimal tools for reading tracking. For example, I can enter the dates that I read a book, but I can't search those dates; there's no quick way to pull up a list of the books that I read in 2010. The Date Read field can be added to catalogue view, but it's not in any of the five default views. A "Read" collection can be created, but it's not one of the defaults. The system is set up in a way that allows reading tracking if you're determined to do it, but it's not at all encouraged.

Tim started this thread asking about the regular new user. That regular new user is not going to come across reading tracking features unless they really search them out and customize the system to meet their needs. And while they may have taken the time to do that ten years ago, when LT and GR were basically equals, there's frankly no reason to bother anymore now that GR has become dominant and provides those features right out of the box. If LT is interested in these users (which is a big if), they need to make these features more noticeable.

Tim, what was the underlying motivation for this thread? In other words, why do you care about new users, and what sort of new users are you trying to attract?

>276 Bettesbooks: Tim - he started LT.

>277 Bettesbooks: Yes, it would be nice to have the post# entered automatically when clicking "reply" directly under what you want to reply to. I agree!

This is taking a long time to load, so I'm continuing in another topic.

I'm on the "own" page as is >279 John5918: