Original Publication Date peculiarity in library stats
Talk Common Knowledge, WikiThing, HelpThing
Join LibraryThing to post.
1macsbrains
I was just poking around in my LT statistics, and from the stats & graphs page I clicked on the books I have in my library that were originally published between AD 1-99. Aside from some of the Roman stuff, I noticed that Canterbury Tales and Beowulf were showing up on my list and I know those are wrong.
When I look at Beowulf's common knowledge, it doesn't show anything on the .com site that I think would make it fall into that range by mistake, however, when I let the OPD field show in my catalog the first entry says "10de eeuw" which might explain why it falls between 1 and 99. I did discover that it has that under the German language tag.
Is there a way this can be corrected?
(I haven't discovered anything with Canterbury Tales that would make it be misclassified.)
When I look at Beowulf's common knowledge, it doesn't show anything on the .com site that I think would make it fall into that range by mistake, however, when I let the OPD field show in my catalog the first entry says "10de eeuw" which might explain why it falls between 1 and 99. I did discover that it has that under the German language tag.
Is there a way this can be corrected?
(I haven't discovered anything with Canterbury Tales that would make it be misclassified.)
2AnnieMod
>1 macsbrains: That's Dutch - it comes from the Dutch CK...
However, I wonder if it is "10th century" in the English one that trips the same logic, sending the book in the year 10.
However, I wonder if it is "10th century" in the English one that trips the same logic, sending the book in the year 10.
4al.vick
Do we need the 10th and 14th century dates? When there are other dates that are more specific?
5Cynfelyn
>4 al.vick: I agree those dates need deleting, and the rest need tidying up. Do the dates of some, and only some, of the modern English translations deserve listing? And on what basis has the list of English translations of Beowulf been salami-sliced over recent years?
6Stevil2001
You couldn't pay me to wade into something like Beowulf translations on LT.
8macsbrains
>2 AnnieMod: Ah, I see. I got to it from clicking the language links above the field, not from going to the other LT sites.
Even if we delete the more generic "Xth Century" entries when there is a more specific alternative available, do we know which of the the remaining dates will it default to for the purposes of the chart? Does LT somehow just try to figure out which of the dates supplied is the earliest? Is it the date at the top of the list? Is that the same thing? I'm simply curious because I'd like to adjust the more egregious misclassifications without removing any of the data.
A book in my library Homeric Hymns has two OP dates listed: ca. 700-500 BC and 1976 for the translation. It shows up as "700 BC–691 BC" on my stats page which is appropriate. (I'm not debating any scholarship, just that by the data given it's showing up in the correct window.)
(Touchstone for Homeric Hymns is now working.)
Even if we delete the more generic "Xth Century" entries when there is a more specific alternative available, do we know which of the the remaining dates will it default to for the purposes of the chart? Does LT somehow just try to figure out which of the dates supplied is the earliest? Is it the date at the top of the list? Is that the same thing? I'm simply curious because I'd like to adjust the more egregious misclassifications without removing any of the data.
A book in my library Homeric Hymns has two OP dates listed: ca. 700-500 BC and 1976 for the translation. It shows up as "700 BC–691 BC" on my stats page which is appropriate. (I'm not debating any scholarship, just that by the data given it's showing up in the correct window.)
(Touchstone for Homeric Hymns is now working.)
9AnnieMod
>8 macsbrains: Who knows - I hope the earliest in the list but I never checked to make sure.
