Displaying work-to-work relationships

Is there a way to display work-to-work relationships in search results? I'm particularly interested in the 'Contains' relationship for omnibuses and anthologies.

>1 Maddz: Great question! You can control the fields that show on the search results pages themselves from your settings: https://www.librarycat.org/admin/settings/search. That said, the available fields for that are somewhat limited. We wanted to provide options there, but restrict the options enough so that search pages would have a relatively consistent look and feel.

I don't believe there's a way to show LT's "Work Relationships" field in TinyCat, since it's usually not always relevant to what a given small library actually offers. You may find some workarounds using other fields which are available in TinyCat's item detail pages. Some of those (tags, series) you can also display on search results pages.

You can include, exclude, and reorder the fields of your item detail pages here: https://www.librarycat.org/admin/settings/sections.

One specific option, which would take a bit of work, could be to paste relevant work relationships under Comments in LibraryThing. Then rename your "Local Notes" field in TinyCat to "work relationships" etc. You can also override the standard LibraryThing book description with your Summary field. Both of these options can be managed from your Detail Page settings: https://www.librarycat.org/admin/settings/detail.

Let me know if I'm missing anything or if you have any other questions!

>2 ZephCraven: I've got tags and series displayed already, but what I'm after is displaying the contained in from the LT record in the TinyCat record. The latter tells me that it's an omnibus of books 1-3 in the series but doesn't tell me what the titles of books 1-3 are. The problem using the comments field is that it's static; if the relationships are updated, I won't see that reflected (this is a common problem with anthologies - it's often the case only some stories are included as the work was entered some time ago). As I have 220 omnibuses and 999 anthologies (probably more - the print ones aren't up-to-date), it's not an easy task to input everything or to maintain it.

Does this make sense? I'm primarily using TinyCat as a quick search for my main LT account because the interface is quicker on my phone (and the iOS app is laggy). I haven't displayed the comments field as that's where I input cross-references - to Discogs for my audio collection, to RPGGeek for my RPG collection and they are irrelevant to the search function.

>3 Maddz: Aha, thank you so much for clarifying! Sorry for my delay in getting back to you. It seems like this is something that we'll probably keep on the LibraryThing side, rather than also bringing it to TinyCat. These fields are very useful for folks wanting to catalog their collections, but are likely less useful to libraries sharing their catalog and circulating items. As an example, usually if small libraries get an omnibus, it's not to circulate it all together, but to get convenient access to a variety of items they can circulate.

There are some workarounds if you want that sort of info displayed in TinyCat, such as the Local Notes field which you can rename. That said, you can also simply include a link to the record in LibraryThing (which you have already done, according to your screenshots) which should allow you and others to see those work relationships in LibraryThing with a couple of clicks. If you like to share your catalog, you can certainly add a note to that affect on your TinyCat homepage. You'll just want to make sure the LT link is set to direct to your exact book in LT, rather than the larger work. You can do that here: https://www.librarycat.org/admin/settings/detail

I would say the only relevant relationship is the 'contains' one. The other relationships aren't that useful, I agree. I would have thought that being able to search and display the 'contains' entries would be the sort of thing useful for a library catalogue. Otherwise, the title would be missed.

Short of a searchable dedicated table of contents field, I think it's going to be a pain to maintain in a field that's not directly taken from a LT field.

Oh well, it's a thought.