Expand the FAQ page

After having yet another conversation explaining to someone who primarily uses Goodreads that LT will most likely never have comments on reviews, I thought I'd write up an RSI asking for LT's official stance to be added to the FAQ page so members will have a convenient place to link to and won't have to dig up scattered posts where Tim said it's not going to happen as evidence.

Ideally, I'd like to see a section for developing features. Maybe something like:

Coming Soon—what's currently being worked on

On the List—what will be worked on next

Delayed/Deferred—what might happen, but not in the foreseeable future

Never Going to Happen—features that won't happen, preferably with a brief explanation

Oh, and I'd also like it if there was an easy to find link to the FAQs. I only found it by looking at the FAQ group.

https://www.librarything.com/faq.php

You can have comments on views if you have a thread somewhere. It’s easy you just have a link to your review and ask people what you think about it. I think too many people expect a site to do everything and just like that does everything is going to be very hard to navigate.

>2 kjuliff: I know, but people who are new to LT don't and I don't think it's unreasonable of them to ask. Having a place where LT's stance is clearly stated, and maybe explaining how you can do much the same thing by using Talk and the shiny new attach review button, would be nice.

>3 amanda4242: That’s true, but people need to learn to explore themselves, and not want everything to be like everything else. Having comments on refuse would completely ruin the review section.

>1 amanda4242: The issue with that list is that every other time this has been done, some of the coming soon things never happen and the things being worked on next are actually delayed for years and a thing that was Never Going to Happen pops up one day because the situation changed.

On the wiki home page ( https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Help_and_FAQ ) down at the bottom is a link to "Index of Features" ( https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Index_of_features ) which includes a similar list - frequently recommended features (many of which have been implemented already), current features (as of several years ago, a few of which are no longer functional), etc.

It's one thing to create a list like this, and a completely different thing to keep it updated.

I'd love to see a push to update the whole Wiki/Help. Several of the pages the FAQ points to are outdated or incorrect. Technologically anyone can update it but I think many people don't feel confident or feel too overwhelmed to do it themselves (myself included).

>4 kjuliff: I'm not advocating for having comments on reviews. I'm advocating for a convenient, and logical, place where people can read LT's position on them.

>5 norabelle414: Yes, I know a list would have to be updated fairly regularly, but that was me wishing for a unicorn. A Never Going to Happen section wouldn't need nearly as much updating.

I'd also like to see Help improved. I've updated some stuff myself, but I find the whole thing difficult to navigate.

tbh the Tour page really needs an update, too.

(one of the curses of tech: there's always more documentation somewhere that needs to be written or updated. it's never ending)

>4 kjuliff: eh, I don't think it's an expectation of everywhere *ought* to be the same so much as confusion when it isn't. Just explain that comments/conversation are kept to dedicated sections of the site, namely Talk and direct messages.

A FAQ that explains some important concepts of LibraryThing that will never change (eg comments on Reviews), things that sweet helpers have answered time and time again, that new users (like me) have asked and tried to understand "but why not?" would be helpful all around. Point the new user to that FAQ link where it is clear and matter of fact policy would be helpful. I know I pushed it too far thinking it was still negotiable, not understanding it was distinctly not negotiable as per a foundational concept of LT.

I hope you'll consider adding that about comments on Reviews. It's a biggie when coming from GR and it will be asked again, no doubt. It's so integral over there.

P.S. Amanda and Norabelle were very helpful. But I do think my asking (probing really because I'm hard headed like that) was stressful and wearying. I'm sorry, Ladies. I did eventually though, "get it." But a link would have been better on the wear and tear of everyone.

>8 keristars: one of the curses of tech: there's always more documentation somewhere that needs to be written or updated. it's never ending

Amen to that!

As for >1 amanda4242:, the Index of Features listed in >5 norabelle414: is, I think, exactly what you want. It's part of the Wiki — so if you think it should say "comments on reviews — Tim and many other LT users are against this (link here)," you can just put that in, and the next GR refugee who asks can be given the link to the Index of Features.

There is already a page for "comments on reviews", it just hasn't been updated in 15 years:
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Comments_and_discussion_on_reviews_(reco...

>10 GraceCollection: The point is to have a clear message from staff that can be easily found, not a wiki page that is hard to find and can be edited by anyone.

>11 norabelle414: That's helpful if anyone wants to wade through old discussions about the topic, but, again, it's not a clear statement from staff that is easy to find.

Most of the information about the site is on wiki and help pages written by members. Staff have a lot of other things to do than to constantly update the documentation.

If you feel strongly that this needs to be included somewhere, you can add it ti the wiki.

>13 MarthaJeanne: Again, it's about a clear statement from staff. This is a question that comes up frequently, and I imagine it's going to occur more frequently since Amazon continues to screw around with Goodreads. Having an FAQ from staff that addresses frequently asked questions is an important—and expected—feature.

I honestly don't see why staff should have to document every point where LT fails to be a Goodreads clone. That's icky and demeaning to LT.

>15 paradoxosalpha: It's not about documenting the ways LT isn't GR. It's about making a clear statement of policy regarding a frequently asked question. Statements of policy should come from staff and members should not be able to edit them.

It's not policy; it's functionality. The absence of comments on reviews is patently obvious to anyone who looks at them.

I don't think we have many things that we would say "Never going to happen" to.

The major way that LT is different from most sites is that we are an extremely small staff (usually around 10 actual living breathing people) and we make human decisions.

That means that we may have a stance today that will be different from our stance a year from now. Our features will change based on what we feel is the best for our members. As an example: If we come to the conclusion that it would be best for our membership, overall, if we added comments to reviews then we'd do it. We haven't come to that conclusion yet.

The recent surveys on the site have been an attempt to get to the heart of some of that information for future development.

>17 paradoxosalpha: But it's LT policy that review comments will not be added; people can't see that policy from work pages so they keep asking if they will be added. I would like to see a clear statement about LT's existing stance from @timspalding regarding this frequently asked question on the existing Frequently Asked Questions page.

Likewise, our development timeline changes often. Sometimes rapidly, depending on needs: both features and technical. So having a "working on next" list is also problematic from a public-facing perspective.

>18 conceptDawg: Thank you for chiming in. Review comments are one of the few things that LT has continuously said no to, but newcomers keep asking about them because it's hard to find where LT has previously said no. I would like to see the question addressed on the FAQ; if things change, then the question could be amended or removed.

>20 conceptDawg: I understand that a timeline would be difficult at best, but one can always wish. :)

I still think that updating the Tour would be helpful, and you could use it to say "Talk is the place for member interaction. Go here to discuss what you're reading, ask for help identifying a book, blah blah blah" but more better written that can make it clear that's where you can post your reviews if you are open to replies. (and maybe "use the thumbs up to let others know you appreciate their review or find it helpful!")

>23 keristars:

That's a good solution. More accurately, Talk is where you can share reviews you have posted if you want to invite responses.

I've collected Tim's various remarks about comments on reviews and updated the wiki page: https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Comments_and_discussion_on_reviews_(reco...

>18 conceptDawg: Looking into the "recommended features" wiki has been an adventure. Other things that were "never going to happen" at some point include spoiler tags in reviews (implemented 2014) and book value (implemented 2025)

>25 norabelle414: I feel like this now solves the original ask for just a central place with the direct statement of the site creator/developer on why no comments on reviews.

>23 keristars: That would be helpful, too.

>25 norabelle414: Thank you! I'm going to bookmark that page so I'll be able to find it again when I need to point someone to LT's stance.

It's so hard for me to navigate the wiki pages that I've pretty much given up on helping keep them up to date.

>26 norabelle414: I didn't know that about spoiler tags! I don't tend to use them in reviews, but they're great for the treasure hunts.

>27 gilroy: Collecting Tim's responses in one place does give us a place to point to when answering the question, but it's not something new members will be able to find on their own—and existing members may not be able to find it even if they know it exists.

A new Tour is definitely on our internal road map. It has just been continually punted while other features keep getting moved to the front of the line.

>29 conceptDawg: haha, the curse of webdev! always something new going, never enough time (or interns) to go back and update all the documentation.

i totally get it. :)

>29 conceptDawg: Good to hear! You guys do so much great work improving the site, but it's been some time since the documentation was updated—the About page is still using dead salmon pictures!

ETA: Just saw that the press information page also has dead salmon screenshots. That seems like something that should be changed sooner rather than later.

I am one of the newbies (yes, from GR and certainly not ashamed of it) that would have LOVED a simple, official stance on the CURRENT plans/no plans on a particular feature to which members have very firm views against.

I appreciate @amanda4242's dogged efforts here to garner a single link that is clear (threads are NOT clear nor concise, especially to a newbie) that easily provides an answer the new to LT user. It should have the psychological power and understanding of officialness.

ETA: Things change. No documentation anywhere here that I see is always up to date, so objecting because it might become outdated is not a convincing reason not to do it for all the years it might be useful, until the one miraculous day it MIGHT change.

>25 norabelle414: That link is perfect! That will work for me (would have worked), in particular because it has responses by Tim Spalding and discussion of the concept behind it.