Statistic: number of unique works?

I'd love to see each member's statistics include the number of unique works in his/her library (i.e., the number of titles unique to that person's library). In fact, I thought that stat was available already, but I've looked and can't seem to find it.

Is it there? Or does it need to be added?

It's on the library statistics page: Go to someone's profile, click Statistics on the navigation bar, on the left near the top you now have "number of distinct works".

> 2

I 'd rather think that JJH was asking for a (real) "you and none other" number--i.e. : not in the weird meaning that LT's deity is attributing to the latter now, but rather as in : "(you are) the one and sole Thingamabrarian that has catalogued a copy of {number} works (so far)".

Yes, thanks, that *is* what I was asking for.

"You and none other" would be a good way to put it. Or "Only you."

"You and none other" is available on your own statistics page, and that of other members too. But the "you are the sole owner on LT" isn't, I guess you could sort the person's catalogue by the shared column perhaps...

It can be a bit misleading, as it includes books that are actually shared by other users, but whose titles or authors haven't yet been combined properly.

It's misleading because (as boekerij pointed out upthread) "you and none other" in the LT context means that two people have the book: the person being profiled and one other reader.

What I want is a stat showing the number of works that I share with no one.

To be clear, on further thought, given the confusion attending "You and none other," what I'm looking for should probably be called something unmistakable, such as "Me, myself, and I."

It would be great if Tim would change the name of "You and none other" to something else. It's a bit of a private joke coming from the French (which I don't know off the top of my head), but it's confusing as heck for about 99.9% of users, especially since it's not even the original French phrase - it's been translated into English so any colloquial meaning has been lost.

I believe the source is an old French custom of exchanging rings with, or giving a ring to, one's beloved, the ring being engraved with the words "vous et nul autre" ("you and no other"). Hence the little picture of the rings next to this statistic.

It's fine with me, because explained, but only if we additionally have the statistic one would expect from these words: the one I'm proposing in this thread, the one that's actually "me and no other."

I can understand the confusion about the terminology. I can't understand the demand for an additional "books you share with nobody else", because that's already available with two clicks in your catalog (sorting by shared, reverse). Or in anyone else's catalog, for that matter. Why single these out further? Can someone explain this?

I also find the "shared with one person" more interesting, because it highlights libraries that may share obscure interests with me (less so now that LT is so huge, and I only have a handful of books on that list, admittedly).

I'm not suggesting the deletion of the "shared with one person" feature. I'm simply suggesting that the "shared with no one" statistic be available on the statistics page.

Among other things, such a statistic suggests the number of works that one's library contributes to the LT universe.

for me I wouldn't care about the list of unique ones, mostly because as lorax said, it is fairly easy to get, I would however like a count of unique books, I have around 800, I don't like having to count them.

I agree about count vs. list. I am looking for a number, not a list of titles. The number to reside on the Statistics page for each library.

Ah, a count rather than a list! That makes a lot of sense. (I have fewer than 20 books on LT that nobody else does, so that didn't occur to me. I blame my woefully non-obscure library on having an academic background in a science where everything is in papers, not books, so it's not in my library.)

Hmmm... I never tried clicking on "shared" to get a sort on that!

It turns out about 8% of my library is exclusive to my library ... 145 books ... that almost makes me feel better about my obscurity number heading to the "mundane" side as grossly as it has.

 

> 9

As you explain and right so--though, IIRC, Tim tried and point at and Old French (rather than old French) saying--the (fr) "Vous et nul autre" (en: You and none other) is in use up 'til today and is making sense--on condition that the one speaking/writing/sending the message (the active person) is the first person: "Me", thus making for two persons: me and you, that's both of us together and none other. One doesn't need French either Old French in order to get this understanding, does one? However, for at LT-en the active person is considered as being "You"--i.e. : NOT "Me"--the "You and none other" turns into meaning "Me and myself only".

At LT-en, it turns out to be quite difficult to talk about "Me", because "Me" is called "You", hence making "You" the same person--except, as it turns out, in the weird interpretation of "You and none other" it has got now.

To BTRIPP:

See? Wouldn't it be nice to see that number and/or percentage handily displayed on your Statistics page?

That's all I'm asking for, after all.

Actually what would be really cool is a histogram of the different shared number how many singles how many with one other how many with 2 others etc.

The reason I don't particularly want this is because, as has been stated, it's false. There are quite a few books that are allegedly unique to my catalogue that aren't, simply because they've not been combined (for various reasons).

By that logic most of the stats outside of personal stats are false as well. Doesn't mean it's not useful to some of us.

19>

The fact that it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't useful -- it can be an enormous help to combiners even when it is wrong. (For instance, I noticed that one of BTRIPP's allegedly "unique" books was his copy of Return of the King, which had no author and thus wasn't combined. It's now properly combined and his obscurity rating has no doubt edged downward slightly.)

19> That just means that it's incentive to get to work combining!

20>
But I like being obscure :-)
On the other hand, I like combining, too. Does that make me schizophrenic?

And for what it's worth: I find the "You and none other" statistics (a) confusing due to its title and (b) of no particular interest. If a special number of other LT users owning a given work had to be selected, my choice would have been zero. But a better solution would be a histogram plotting the number of other owners versus the number of works shared (with links to the relevant subsets of one's library and/or matching users).

> 22

Actually, I've deliberately kept some uncombined because to combine them would mean screwing up the data. For example, I have a pop-up book about an artist the main listing of which erroneously lists him as the author. He's not.

23>

I like being obscure :-)
On the other hand, I like combining, too. Does that make me schizophrenic?

Only if you maintain your obscurity at the expense of accuracy -- deliberately separating or refusing to combine your copies of popular works so that owning, say, The Lord of the Rings won't lower your obscurity rating.

(Utterly random aside: I just had a look at your profile, and the first book listed on your "random books" was the QFT book written by the guy who I took undergraduate quantum mechanics from!)

I came to this board to post a thread on this topic. I definitely want a "One is the loneliest number" list (not count). Quite often I show up as the sole owner simply because I happened to select one from Amazon that had a typo in the title or something. I'd like to know about those and go back and check them for accuracy, combining them, if appropriate.

26>

As noted upthread, sort your books by "shared" (click twice to get the just-you books at the top) to get exactly what you want.

>26 TadAD:, For what it sounds like you're looking for, the easiest way to do this is to sort your catalog on the "shared" field.