Series

A bit frustrating that series and publishers series is only on a work level. When I Include the columns in my library, it is in order to show the series the specific edition belonged to when published, but now it lists every series the work have ever been included in ...in different languages than my translation. (Also should have ability to sort by more than two factors. Author-Series/publishers series-volume-Publishing date would be my preference)

>1 Fundin: It isn't possible because LT has no edition layer. There's book level, meaning your own entry, and work level, meaning all the entries/editions of that particular work. It would need an edition layer in between to be able to recognize whether your copy belongs to a publisher series or not. This shouldn't be an issue at all for regular 'series' since edition is irrelevant. Every edition of the work belongs to the series.

Yes, publisher series in current form isn't useful to include in catalogue view. It's still very valuable when you want to check what is included in a particular publisher series.

I would settle for a Series field at the book level then. As it is I have no place to enter such info as the volume number of a series without it

In absence of a dedicated field, some users will use a Tag (eg. AuthorName-Series-01), or the Other Call Number field, or the Comments or Private Comments field, all these can be sorted on (mind that it's alphanumeric sort, so leading zeros or a decimal system are needed if a series goes above 1-9).

>4 Nevov: Yes I have started using Tag for publication series/edition info, but the sorting system only have a depth of two. So you can not sort by author, publication and tag. 'Other Call Number field'?

>5 Fundin: You can sort by only 2 parameters, but you can combine it with search/filter results. Assuming you're looking to sort books in a certain publisher series and you tagged them as such, clicking on that tag will bring up only books with that tag, which you can then sort by author and something else. Advanced search lets you define 4 parameters to pull a subset of your books, which can then be sorted by 2. Similarly, collections can be used to limit what you're sorting.

>4 Nevov: It's one of the classification data items on a book record, and an optional column that can be displayed in Your books – by going to the Settings button on the top row when looking at Your books, then it's under Classification 'Other call number system'. If you wished you could set something up for your books such as letters for the author and series name, then numerical for the order, then the original publication date, eg. TP-DW40-2013-11. For a multi author series you might use MUL- or anything that makes sense to you and how you want them to be ordered, by genre etc. The purpose of the field is like a DIY version of the Dewey shelving system, for us to use in any way that we wish to order our books.

Adding that into the mix that >6 SandraArdnas: lists, gives a lot of customisability.

>6 SandraArdnas: Yes, that would be an idea if I want to only see one particular series. I wish to sort the whole thing. For sorting my whole library there is still only two deep if I did not misunderstand you meaning.

>7 Nevov: Yes, I see. Could be useful. A dewey system of my very own. It does add a manual operation I would have to enter for each book. Having entered some 250 books so far of about 3000 I do thing there are too many things I have to enter manually already. It amazes me how many books appear as a 'paper book' only. Surely it is known if the book is paperback or hardcover? The importance of such have diminished after the advent of e-books I guess (And I do believe the Genre classifications to be a bit lopsided. No 'Play/theater', no 'comedy/humor'. No 'Essays'?) I do appreciate all the answers from you all though. do not let my grumbling hide that fact :-)

>9 Fundin: "a 'paper book' only" That is from the source. This is a relatively new addition because people wanted tobe able to record this information. LT does NOT know what you have in your hands, unless you tell it.

>8 Fundin: Sorting is limited to 2 parameters, yes, but combining it with search, filter and/or collections makes for numerous ways to do things. Perhaps specify exactly what you want to do and we can help. Sorting Author-Series/publishers series-volume-Publishing date from the original post is not feasible in any way that I can think of, but what is the purpose of the 3rd sorting parameter (publishing date, assuming author and series/volume are made the first 2) anyway? You'd need multiple books with the same author and series/volume data for it to come into play at all. I suspect that is why sort is only 2 levels deep to begin with.

I'm assuming you have some workflow in mind. If we understand it better, we might have ideas. Catalogue is very flexible to manipulate and it's unlikely there isn't a way to show you what you want to see.

From what I've gathered so far, I'd put 'Series Volume' with leading zeroes for number as the first tag, e.g. Penguin Classics 001, or Harry Potter 01. This enables you to sort the entire catalogue by author-series-volume or series-volume-author. What's the next thing you want to do?

>11 SandraArdnas: The series field(s) is nice in that you indicate which series it is and which volume it is. Some series do have more than one volume per year though. When I sort by Author-publication date i sometimes see the volumes be sorted in strange orders. Like my Piet Hein Grooks that with this is sorted 3, 2, 1 then 4. Except for the nr 4 book, they were already entered into the series with volumes. Solutions that mean I have to enter additional info in order to get the sorting right when the information is already there irks me

>10 MarthaJeanne: The ISBN should tell it. The sources like amazon does not have the same ISBN for both the paperback and the hardcover books other than for rare instances. So it should be in the info already. I have never seen Amazon list a books media form as just a paper book?

>13 Fundin: Amazon results indeed specify paperback vs hardcover, but libraries don't for some reason. I'd stick to library sources anyway since you'll probably still need less editing. Older books in particular are useless from Amazon, or more precisely anything whose data comes from their market, not Amazon itself. It's one hot mess usually and even manual entry takes less time than editing those:D

>12 Fundin: That's why I suggested tagging 'Series Volume' (both for publisher series and regular ones). That way you only uses one of your sorting options for both series and volume, plus you get to order the volumes the way it suits your purpose. It has to be the first tag, though, to be useful.

Many series have different orderings, some even have multiple pages organized by different orderings of the same books, like chronological vs publication order and such. Publisher series are even worse to rely on the ordering on the series page since they often start in an ordered way, but later it becomes impossible and you have half the list ordered and half following in alphabetical order.

>14 SandraArdnas: That libraries do not specify binding might stem from the fact that many libraries over the years have not relied on the publishers binding and often rebound them themself or through different services. Library bindings took paperbacks and stiffened the boards and gave the spine a cloth cover in many instances. Either see-through or covering the book in a plastic like surface 'Turtle back' is one such service

>15 SandraArdnas: Yes, that would be an option if the sorting was three deep. If sorting my whole list I have to sort by author and I need to sort by publishing date. That is my bare minimum. I do not know the complexities of web programming and do not know if the reason why sorting is only two deep. Maybe system resources involved in the processing?

Oh well, these are wishes, never demands. As it stands LT is still usable. It has better design, price and cover handling than many other options, so it is the best option I have found. I have my wishes and others may have other needs. I use it as a catalogue of books I own. More a collectors view. Others may use it more as a reading journal, not so concerned about the edition of the books. It is important to me. I have about 25 editions of The Lord of the Rings for instance. That will be challenging when I get to my Tolkien shelves

>17 Fundin: Ah, you'll actually have multiple books where both author and series+order are the same. Still, you can append the publishing date to the tag to get the sorting you want. Or 'Other Call Number' as mentioned.

You can also make an RSI to expand sorting 3 levels deep, just post a new topic in Recommended Site Improvements group, but that will not happen soon even if it's one of the suggestions developers take on.

>17 Fundin: If you care about covers, you should not be using Amazon covers. They are on Amazon's servers. If Amazon changes the cover they use for an ISBN or stops using a cover for that ISBN, you will end up with a different cover or none without warming. Member covers are on LT servers, so are stable.