RFC01: Allow Collection as an alternative to Collections
Talk Recommend Site Improvements
Join LibraryThing to post.
1JonathonL88
See https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/%22Your_books%22_Search
This is not a big deal, but would be nice as it makes the SQL read more easily when you are filtering on just one collection.
This is not a big deal, but would be nice as it makes the SQL read more easily when you are filtering on just one collection.
3JonathonL88
RFC is request for change
The query statement in LibraryThing is very similar to SQL
-----------------------------------------------------------
What is SQL and what is used for?
Structured query language (SQL) is a programming language for storing and processing information in a relational database. A relational database stores information in tabular form, with rows and columns representing different data attributes and the various relationships between the data values.
The query statement in LibraryThing is very similar to SQL
-----------------------------------------------------------
What is SQL and what is used for?
Structured query language (SQL) is a programming language for storing and processing information in a relational database. A relational database stores information in tabular form, with rows and columns representing different data attributes and the various relationships between the data values.
4Felagund
I'm curious why you are talking about SQL when the search syntax on Librarything (like many other websites) is definitely not SQL?
5JonathonL88
How would you describe it. To me it is very SQL like.
6Felagund
It's just a search syntax. There are no SELECT, WHERE, FROM (and others) reserved keywords. Just because you can use Boolean operators and specify some metadata fields doesn't mean that it's possible, or even advisable, to call it SQL. There is probably some SQL involved under the hood, there are evidences of that in some error messages (although it's no longer the 99% safe bet it was on all web platforms when LT started) but I see little value in this information from the point of view of an individual user. From my subjective point of view, you are trying to interpret LT functionalities using the concepts and vocabulary of a very specific but actually different framework, which doesn't help others who try to understand the motivation of your suggestions.
Individual LT users are free to use the platform in many ways that were not originally intended by the designers, and with which other users might not even agree. As long as this very broad freedom is used within one's own library IT'S OK UNDER THE GENERAL RULES OF LIBRARYTHING. There are probably ways to achieve many objectives of yours using existing functionalities. Furthermore, development resources are limited while people willing to provide ideas and suggestions are many. A civil discussion is never a bad thing, and your suggestions certainly contain multiple interesting points, but did you consider asking for suggestions that could help with your actual goals before proposing this series of changes?
In other words: I suggest taking a step back, to explain what *you* want to do as a user, instead of how you propose to change Librarything.
Individual LT users are free to use the platform in many ways that were not originally intended by the designers, and with which other users might not even agree. As long as this very broad freedom is used within one's own library IT'S OK UNDER THE GENERAL RULES OF LIBRARYTHING. There are probably ways to achieve many objectives of yours using existing functionalities. Furthermore, development resources are limited while people willing to provide ideas and suggestions are many. A civil discussion is never a bad thing, and your suggestions certainly contain multiple interesting points, but did you consider asking for suggestions that could help with your actual goals before proposing this series of changes?
In other words: I suggest taking a step back, to explain what *you* want to do as a user, instead of how you propose to change Librarything.
7conceptDawg
Just to clarify for the nerds: we do not use SQL for our search. We use ElasticSearch as our search engine. It uses ES/QL. But even before using ES we defined our search syntax based (loosely) on the original Google search syntax—which has changed in the intervening the years.
8Felagund
>7 conceptDawg:
This nerd appreciates the clarification :-)
This nerd appreciates the clarification :-)
9JonathonL88
>6 Felagund: but did you consider asking for suggestions that could help with your actual goals before proposing this series of changes?
-----------------------------------------------------------
to explain what *you* want to do as a user, instead of how you propose to change Librarything
===================================
1: All of my change requests have started with my trying to do something and then finding I cannot.
2: I am well aware that there is only a small development team, and this has been pointed out to me on several occasions
3: I have tried to make my suggestions fit in with the LibraryThing philosophy and many of them require minimal software change or effort to make.
e .g. increasing the size of an input field; adding one extra field to an existing export file; RFC01: Allow Collection as an alternative to Collections
I have focussed on the browser application rather than mobile apps for iphone and android to reduce development workload.
4: I am aware that LT2 is waiting in the wings so to speak, so there is the usual trade off, do you make a small change now or wait for the new version.
5: Since everyone seems to object to my using SQL, please give me an alternative. How about ?
"Search your library field syntax"?
or "Search your library field ES/QL syntax"
or "Search your library field ES/LT syntax" ?
I presume ES/QL stands for ElasticSearch Query Language.
6: Finally, some of my suggestions will be of interest to everyone, some will not even notice and some will only apply to "power" users, but hopefully the "power" user will appreciate the changes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
to explain what *you* want to do as a user, instead of how you propose to change Librarything
===================================
1: All of my change requests have started with my trying to do something and then finding I cannot.
2: I am well aware that there is only a small development team, and this has been pointed out to me on several occasions
3: I have tried to make my suggestions fit in with the LibraryThing philosophy and many of them require minimal software change or effort to make.
e .g. increasing the size of an input field; adding one extra field to an existing export file; RFC01: Allow Collection as an alternative to Collections
I have focussed on the browser application rather than mobile apps for iphone and android to reduce development workload.
4: I am aware that LT2 is waiting in the wings so to speak, so there is the usual trade off, do you make a small change now or wait for the new version.
5: Since everyone seems to object to my using SQL, please give me an alternative. How about ?
"Search your library field syntax"?
or "Search your library field ES/QL syntax"
or "Search your library field ES/LT syntax" ?
I presume ES/QL stands for ElasticSearch Query Language.
6: Finally, some of my suggestions will be of interest to everyone, some will not even notice and some will only apply to "power" users, but hopefully the "power" user will appreciate the changes.
10Felagund
>9 JonathonL88:
Of course, I do not doubt that there was a perfectly reasonable inspiration for each of your proposals, it is just not always clear what this inspiration is. But first of all, I think you should start by learning more about the way LT works, how you can use it, and its general philosophy, before you propose any changes. To me, the way your proposals have been phrased suggest that you could have spent more time on that step? Your posts seem to be assuming quite a lot of background that's totally fine in the general IT world but might not be as relevant in the Librarything context. That also makes it more difficult to evaluate the potential value of your changes.
Last but not least, you might be overestimating the development resources behind LT: my perception is that essentially nothing happens these days that isn't related with the LT migration, that's been going on for months/years and there is no known timeline for its completion. Even ideas involving a fairly light workload are extremely unlikely to be implemented in the near future.
To conclude with a friendly note, I must add that I mean absolutely no disrespect here, you obviously care about LT and want it to be as useful as possible not just for yourself but also for others. That's great and many people (including me) feel the same.
Of course, I do not doubt that there was a perfectly reasonable inspiration for each of your proposals, it is just not always clear what this inspiration is. But first of all, I think you should start by learning more about the way LT works, how you can use it, and its general philosophy, before you propose any changes. To me, the way your proposals have been phrased suggest that you could have spent more time on that step? Your posts seem to be assuming quite a lot of background that's totally fine in the general IT world but might not be as relevant in the Librarything context. That also makes it more difficult to evaluate the potential value of your changes.
Last but not least, you might be overestimating the development resources behind LT: my perception is that essentially nothing happens these days that isn't related with the LT migration, that's been going on for months/years and there is no known timeline for its completion. Even ideas involving a fairly light workload are extremely unlikely to be implemented in the near future.
To conclude with a friendly note, I must add that I mean absolutely no disrespect here, you obviously care about LT and want it to be as useful as possible not just for yourself but also for others. That's great and many people (including me) feel the same.
11r.orrison
>9 JonathonL88: Since everyone seems to object to my using SQL, please give me an alternative
I think the people objecting to SQL either know what it means, and that it doesn't apply, or they don't know what it means don't know what you mean by it.
In your original post, would be nice as it makes the SQL read more easily could have been written as would be nice as it makes the search read more easily
I think the people objecting to SQL either know what it means, and that it doesn't apply, or they don't know what it means don't know what you mean by it.
In your original post, would be nice as it makes the SQL read more easily could have been written as would be nice as it makes the search read more easily
12kristilabrie
>9 JonathonL88: 5: Since everyone seems to object to my using SQL, please give me an alternative. How about ?
Just for clarity, LibraryThing members generally use the terms "catalog search" for the "Your books" search and "site search" for the general "Search LibraryThing" box. If you use those terms, we'll know what you mean.
Just for clarity, LibraryThing members generally use the terms "catalog search" for the "Your books" search and "site search" for the general "Search LibraryThing" box. If you use those terms, we'll know what you mean.
