LibraryThing Series Locked For New Feature

LibraryThing series, publisher series and related data, like series descriptions, have been locked down while we transition to phase one of a new series system.

The new system starts from the old series data, but fits it into an entirely new data structure. We didn't want to lose edits as we transitioned, or try to "ride two bicycles at the same time," keeping both systems going and writing to each other. So the old data is now locked.

The new system will take some time to populate. Although we've been testing for some time, a full production load involves millions of data points. Programming staff is pretty stressed out right now with everything else, and it's possible we will run into snags. So I'm not promising an ETA. My guess is that it takes 48 hours. If it takes longer, that will be unfortunate, but we want to get this right.

The "phase one" release will have a number of important features, including conceiving of series as single entities with names in different languages, a distinction between a series's "core" and other categories user specify, like omnibus editions. But it won't have certain key features, like "following" series. These are coming later, but soon.

The new data will require a lot of user help to get into shape. The most important task will be combining all the non-English series together, followed by labeling "core" and periphery. LibraryThing staff are going to be unusually involved in this effort, but we're leaving a lot to users. We expect to have to hammer out certain norms and guidelines as we confront difficult problems. It should be fun!

Chris (@conceptdawg) also pushed some changes to the "shelf" feature, seen on certain pages, including new, crisper checkmarks. I notice a few problems there, and his wifi is out of commission until tomorrow, so let's hold back on bug reports until he has a chance to look at it tomorrow.

Thanks!

Ooh, sounds good. I look forward to having a peek at the series and seeing what I can do to help out (I'm guessing it'll primarily be Swedish series/series titles).

we are eagerly waiting :-)

As long as it doesn't take "two weeks" to finish!

Sound good. Thanks for the heads up though.

Good. I thought I was the only one locked out :D

I'm missing the social media react-icons for "like" and "love" here ...

Sounds good! Looking forward to helping out with Series!

Yay! Thanks for the warning.

(I'm now assuming that whenever the ability to edit something disappears, an implementation is in the works. Today, it's Links on Author pages.)

I wish this notice had been a little more prominent on the site, like a note above the Common Knowledge section or even a post on the blog. I had to go to Talk and do a search for "series"; this was the third result.

A hover pop-up on the lock icon seems like a simple solution. Would coding that have been difficult? (Serious question, my knowledge goes no further than html.)

>9 karenb:

Looks like the links are back, at least. Still waiting with delighted anticipation for the new series....

Saw the lock symbols yesterday and was mystified. Was going to ask and then I saw State of the Thing which brought me here tonight.

Still working on it. My day :)

I'm very curious about how this will look and the new things we will be able to help out with! The little preview-image in the State of the Thing email looks really nice.

A link to this post on the small padlock icon would have been nice: it took me a very long time looking everywhere for an explanation of the reason why suddenly I could not edit Series anymore until I stumbled here.

I'm guestimating series data will be locked for two months. Even it were to take only a few more days, a more obvious announcement would help members understand the lockout.

State of Thing didn't arrive in any email folder I could acess (including Junk) so that doesn't feel like it's going to be enough. I doubt I'm the only CK-editing member who didn't receive the email for whatever reason.

>17 aspirit: I'm guestimating series data will be locked for two months
That's the "a" spirit.

We are working furiously to release it in the next few days.

We went through an exhaustive testing day on Friday and found—to be perfectly honest—too many bugs and unfinished features to release it on Monday. But we're hard at work on fixing all of that and hope to release it this week. That's not a promise, but we'll see what happens.

>19 conceptDawg:

I'm done with *MY* bugs… ;)

ahem.

>19 conceptDawg:, >20 timspalding: Share the work rationally. Let one of you create the bugs and the other one fix them.

>18 conceptDawg: ahaha.

>22 anglemark: Imagine all those bugs. What a sad life.

If we removed all of the bugs we wouldn't be needed. Job security!

>24 conceptDawg: They are not bugs, they are "beauty marks". . . I cannot claim credit for that one. A project leader from back in the early '70's coined that one. . . in COBOL days!!

Greetings!

I nearly "freaked out" when I saw the series locked. I am very much looking forward to the enhanced version. I have used "Series" and "Publisher Series" extensively and have corrected many many other works where the series were slightly different (or wrong), bringing all entries under one heading. I currently have 2,412 series. This includes Magazine titles /A4 : Magazin für aussereuropäische Kunst und Kultur (16)/, multi-volume book series /An Ethnographic Bibliography of New Guinea (3)/, travel series /Lonely Planet Travel Guides (28)/, museum series /Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Völkerkunde, Berlin; Neue Folge (34)/, and many others. Also, some self-created series. For example, there have been a number of publications issued on the occasion of the 150 anniversary of Austrian - Japanese relations. All the works were printed with this special phrase and logo on the cover or back page, so I created a "series" 150 Jahre Freundschaft Österreich-Japan (8). This was appreciated by the Japanese community here in Vienna.

I have often noticed that original books and translations have different series. Sometimes they appear each under a different "publisher series", and sometimes both language series appear under "series". I check to see which has been used more often and try to clean up the various entries, but sometimes I simply give up. Also, many books that belong to a series do not have the series entry, but it is included in the title (often in parenthesis). By going to search site with the series title one can find these books and add the series under each entry - crosschecking with WorldCat to be sure!

I use series extensively for ordering books I do not have and want more of the series - in many cases LT has the best listing!

Greetings from Vienna coming out of lockdown
John Marshall

The plan is to release in the morning (Tuesday)!

There's a Tuesday every week.....

>28 lorax: Badum tish...

>28 lorax: You've caught me. Damn. heh

>27 conceptDawg:

How is that impacted by the announcement that Tuesday Morning has filed for bankruptcy protection? https://www.tuesdaymorning.com/update

I was just combining some works, and wondered if they had a CK series locked, how would that affect the migration?

So, how do I calculate the popularity order of series? It is by:

1. The number of members who have any of the books
2. The number of books held by members

Or should I try to combine the two somehow--like each user adds one point, plus the square root of the number of copies they have?

The number of copies catalogued for the entire series? It should somehow reflect if members have an entire series or just the first book (or more than a single book in non-fiction series)

>34 SandraArdnas:

Entire series is tricky, because there are often many hangers-on. I could look at how many have books in the "core" of the series, but not until members separate that out more.

>33 timspalding:

For popularity, my vote is for the number of members who have any of the books.

I think otherwise fictional universe series etc, where a single member could have hundreds of books, would end up being treated as overly popular as compared to reality.

>37 timspalding:

Yeah, definitively by members. Having Star Wars/Star Trek in the By Copies Top 10 is exactly the issue I think wants avoiding, given those books just aren't that popular in the ordinary sense of the word (and I have a number of books in both those series!).

By members:

1. Harry Potter (134,657)
2. The Lord of the Rings (99,539)
3. Robert Langdon (73,219)
4. Chronicles of Narnia: Chronological by publication (59,460)
5. Chronicles of Narnia: Chronological by story (59,460),
6. Twilight Saga (58,151)
7. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (54,798)
8. The Hunger Games (53,958)
9. Homer's Epic Cycle (43,171)
10. His Dark Materials (41,586)

By copies:

1. Harry Potter (668,327)
2. Discworld (363,432)
3. The Lord of the Rings (276,082)
4. Star Wars (207,667)
5. Star Trek (200,512)
6. I Can Read Books (195,845)
7. Chronicles of Narnia: Chronological by publication (176,647)
8. Chronicles of Narnia: Chronological by story (176,647)
9. Twilight Saga (171,731)
10. Magic Tree House (147,866)

I would like to be able to switch between the two options.
That would give me the opportunity to compare.
It could could later on being discussed a key, that combines both systems as suggested by >33 timspalding:.

Both will be available. But which appeals/interests/makes sense to you more?

By members who have entered at least two of the series.

I think members makes more sense than copies; "how many people read this series" makes sense to me as a popularity metric, and the other is much more driven by "which series is longer". But I like Martha's variant on it of "members who have entered at least two works in the series" since people who only have a single on aren't really "reading the series" (yet, at least).

>39 timspalding:, >40 MarthaJeanne:

Edited: 2020-06-02- 09:22 CET
By Members
- Serie in two volumes at least 1 book
- Serie in three volumes at least 2 books
- Serie between 3 and 5 books at least 2 books
- Serie between 5 and 10 books at least 3 books
- Serie with more tan 10 books at least 20% of the books

I'm glad beel likes my suggestion.

Pure copies of the book is pretty straightforward to understand, but the member stuff needs more info and an expanded explanation. I like where birder4106 is going with it.

I also like MarthaJeanne's idea.

I would not have guessed the Magic Tree House books had so many copies logged in LT.

>45 Stevil2001:

There are SOOOOO many of those accursed books.

>37 timspalding: I'd vote for "By members," if only because (excepting the Twilight Saga) it looks most like our library. So, yeah, it's most likely a personal preference sort of thing ...

Add another vote for "by members", because otherwise it overweights long series. "Members with more than one book" as MarthaJeanne suggests is another good one, since it doesn't consider people who have a single book in a series.

(Incidentally, one thing that I'd really find interesting is the decline in popularity from book to book throughout a series. How many more people have the first book than the last in a series? (Obviously this gets confusing for series with competing orders).

Update: We are still working on it. We're very close, but, honestly, I think I speak for everyone in saying we're distracted and discombobulated. For myself, working late to enthusiastically release series in the morning didn't seem quite so pressing with police using "pepper balls" on protesters several blocks down my street. Ugh.

Preferrably some kind of weighted thing on the lines of what @MarthaJeanne or @birder4106 suggest, but if it's between by number of books or by members holding a copy, definitely by members.

>39 timspalding: Neither. I think popularity is a bad thing to try to track when it comes to series.

>49 timspalding: oh, jeesh. May those protestors be safe today and recover quickly.

>39 timspalding: the copies list interests me more if considering popularity. We have libraries that keep multiple copies for loans, which doesn't weigh into the members list. Neither does the entry of many of the books in a long series. Series having many books is in itself a sign of popularity, because publishers stop a series that isn't selling well.

How about number of books divided by the number of books in the series? That way someone who has cataloged half the books in the series would count a half score towards the popularity of the series.

>53 jjwilson61:

That wouldn't work for me. I have the entire 'Earl Dumarest' series by E.C. Tube, but half of them are in Ace Doubles. LibraryThing doesn't handle Ace Doubles very well so it thinks I only have about 2/3 of the series.

I suggest that we put all the books on LT in one big series. Then the question is, should it be a publisher or an author series?

So, I made the decision to go with member count. Both are going to be available, but the ranked popularity list is by member count. While it would also be interesting to rank by other metrics--such as how many members have more than one book--I don't think a more complex metric like that should be primary.

Okay, we've really run out of things to do. Some tweaks left, but nothing that would hold up shipping it. We'll release it after a meeting tomorrow. Should be 11am-12am tomorrow. Expect some hiccups.

Oh look. 12 hour window...

>58 gilroy: 13 hour.

Sorry, 11am-12pm. One hour. Zzzz.

He didn't specify a time zone, so it's still a 24-hour window.

Well he didn't specify a day either. It's always tomorrow. This is how we work around here.

Huh; I noticed a few changes around the place (it takes a lot to wake me up) so I thought I'd have a look in Hot Topics to see what was going on.

The series page looks smart. I haven't explored fully yet - but it looks good!

See the New Series announcement post.

>61 lorax: Well over 24h, given the silly time zones they’ve got over in the Pacific.

I think member count was the right decision for series popularity. It’d be weird if my single-volume The Lord of the Rings contributed less to popularity than someone’s three-volume set with the same contents.

I know I am missing something ..

Where do I add the series for:
https://www.librarything.com/work/12106579

There are eight different titles entered in LT that belong to this series but since no one ever entered a series your new feature doesn't pick them up.

>66 Bettesbooks:

To add a series to a work, you need to go to the Add/edit link under "Series and work relationships" on the work. There is a "create" series button there, if the series does not already exist.

>67 shadrach_anki: Thanks, I finally thought to reorder my modules and there it was at the bottom, no wonder I couldn't find it!

>67 shadrach_anki:
I finally found the series module

1. why is there NO Add to series button when you go to "edit a series"
2. Since there is no add to series button you have to know, or go thru all drop-down choices until you realize you add a title to a series under "Organize".
3. How about changing "organize" to "ADD a title or Organize the series?

>69 Bettesbooks: For followers of this thread, this has been changed: https://www.librarything.com/topic/321174#7183026.

do we get helpers badges for all the new series stuff?

>71 bergs47:

Yes. A good reminder to me to get those out soon.

Did this problem get fixed? Do you have an estimate on when we will be able to edit "common knowledge"?

>73 Sisters: There was no problem to fix. Series is now part of the Work Relationship box. The Common Knowledge Series feature is not going to be reopened.
Please follow the link in >64 conceptDawg:

I think that the question one should ask is "when will the obsolete Series field in CK be replaced with a proper link to the new interface, or be deleted entirely".

>75 Felagund: Ultimately, I guess. It should be. It's now causing confusion

>75 Felagund:
>76 Nicole_VanK:

DITTO BOTH COMMENTS.

when are we getting helper stats?

I need help to edit a series of books and have them all listed properly in my collection.

For example, I have the complete set of No Fear Shakespeare books and have added them to my collection. Some of them show up with "No Fear Shakespeare" in the "series" column on my list of books but others don't. I can't edit that info and see no place to add it. Am I missing something somewhere or is this not working? Who do I need to talk to for help? Thanks for any advice or help you can give me.

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but I'm completely and totally confused about series and how to fix the information for my books. I googled to find this page, so I'm not even sure I'm asking in the right place.

>79 susanwithagoodbook: Please see the thread linked in >64 conceptDawg:.

Also please note that series are no longer part of the Common Knowledge section for a work. It is now a portion of the Series and Relationship box on each work.

>79 susanwithagoodbook: Under the new series system, I don't think it's possible to edit series information from the catalogue listing of your library (that's what you're trying to do, yes?). You have to go to either the book page (scroll down until you find the section "series and work relationships") or the series page (top right-hand column under edit series -> add to/organize).

You may wish to check that your copies have been combined properly with the other copies on LibraryThing. This is a not uncommon issue with books that have a corporate author or varying author attributions.
(For example, for "The Tempest" it seems that the "No Fear" series has been added to this work: https://www.librarything.com/work/818589, whereas your copy ended up with this one: https://www.librarything.com/work/10185612. The two works merely need to be combined and then the series will show up.)

>82 spiphany: I have combined those.

....and I no longer see Series or Publisher Series under CD on my book pages. Hooray!

I got a series helper badge (73). However I cant find the 73 anywhere on the helper page. So where is it hidden?

I'm going to reiterate my stance that series names in Your books should be in the same language as the editions we have. In my case, that would mean the series originally written in Swedish would have the Swedish series name. I do not think it makes any sense to force non-English people to have series names in English (or any other language) if they don't have the books in English.

Also, I'd like it if the covers on the series page could be the same covers that we've picked for our editions. It's not as big a deal as the language issue, but it's a bit jarring to see covers you don't recognise when you click on one of "your series".

>86 PawsforThought: Are you using the English site?

>87 gilroy: Yes, because the non-English ones aren't fully translated and never will be. It's just confusing to use one, IMO.