Canonical title now working

The "Canonical title" field in a work's Common Knowledge is now working. Changing the title there will "force" that title on the work. It works language-by-language.

Note: Let me remind members that the "Canonical title" is not the "right title," "perfect title" or the "persnickety title." It is still intended to be the most *recognizable* title. So, for example, the canonical title is NOT the title in the original language, or even the original title in English if another title is more recognizable to more members on LT. That is, the point of the canonical title is to make it recognizable, not "correct."

Another explanation of this is here: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Common_Knowledge#Canonical_title.2C_c...

The Canonical Title is, however, a great way to get rid of promotional crud—publisher names, series names, movie-tie-in trumpetings, etc.

You will be seeing a number of other title changes over the next few days. Basically, I am recalculating all titles right now, starting with work number 1 and counting upward.

The new process does not favor library titles over non-library titles. This means more Amazon-ish parenthesis will creep into the titles and that fewer titles will be in "sentence case." I have mixed feelings about libraries' use of sentence case in cataloging. (See http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1090000309/post/1170029117.html for a recent discussion of the topic.) Doing without it, however, is remarkably faster under the current system.

As an example of the series thing, see http://www.librarything.com/work/1978:

Cryptography: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

I very much favor using Canonical Title to blow away the parentheses there. (But don't do it yet, so people can see the problem.)

Incidentally, that shows how far the recalculation has gone so far—from work 1 to work 1978.

And suddenly this log is all about the title:
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php

Thank you, we will try and use our new powers for good (as opposed to British vs American edit war pie fights).

I have a "quick pick" feature for Canonical Title in the works—since 99% of the time the canonical title is in the list of possible titles. I'll bring it live tomorrow after checking with Chris about something.

Since the title can now be managed, I'm trying to manage, it, for the first time (from my POV).

But I'm confused (of course!)

I've got The Complete Nemesis the Warlock: Volume Two: 2 in my library, and it shows up as "The Complete Nemesis the Warlock: Volume Two: 2"

If I invoke Edit Book on it, and remove the trailing ": 2" from the title, it now shows up in my Library as "The Complete Nemesis the Warlock". Note the abscence of any volume suffix.

Now going to the Work page does show the ": Volume Two" suffix. And this is repeated in the Book Details, but not in the Work Details.

Re-editing the Book details to put the ": 2" back on the end, and then revisting the pages does see this full text reappear.

a) What's happening? (I don't really need to know this, but I'm curious)
b) Do I need to edit the canonical title at all?

Splendid!

Now can we do something about authors showing up as "koppellily" instead of "Lily Koppel"?

When I go to the work page from my catalog the title on the work page is always the title from my catalog. And if I change the title in my catalog it seems to be reflected immediately in the title I see for the work page. And I still see my title on the work page when I search for the book using the site-wide search.

How can I see the work page title as someone who doesn't have that book in their catalog would see it?

>8 jjwilson61:, you want the url that ends in /work/xxxx, not the one that ends in /work/xxxx/book/yyyy -- you can just delete the last part to get there.

I did truncate the URL and I still got my title. The only thing that I can figure is that LT knows the work is in my library and always gives me the title of my book. Or maybe it pulls up the last /work/xxxx/book/yyyy page out of the cache when a request for /work/xxxx comes in.

>6 wimble:

The trick is that the title of the work is your title, if you have the book. I should put in something like "Work Title: xxxx."

>7 lilithcat:

Next.

11: Yay on both counts. :)

>10 jjwilson61:, Yeah, I noticed that after correcting -- sorry about the mixup. The best I'm doing for right now is finding them from author pages.

Tim, something like Work Title:xxxx would be lovely. Thanks!

Adding work title would fix the problem, which is, if you can't actually see the work title, how do you know if you need to set the Canonical Title?

Also, if canonical title is already present, I have to resave it for the work title to update.

>15 infiniteletters:

True, but the machines are working through all works right now, retitling them according to the new algorithm.

> 11

Ah, thanks! I see what's going on now: when I edited my book title, I ended up with the book actually being attached to a different work!

I'm hoping this was the result of some bizarre data in the combination data, and not a system error. I'll assume so until further evidence arises, and I'm trying to clear it up. Certainly, now I look, I can see the information in the combine/separate page, but how it got there, I don't know.

You can see the work title by clicking on Details on the left (which by default appears to always start on the Book Details tab) then clicking on the Work Details tab.

>18 r.orrison: You can see the work title by clicking on Details on the left (which by default appears to always start on the Book Details tab) then clicking on the Work Details tab.
Yes, but it would be so much easier just to see it right there without having to click around for it.

Thanks! This is a delightful new feature.

>17 wimble:

That's a feature, not a bug. Works are essentially collections of title/author/isbn. Editing any one of them can shift it to a new work. So, change Huckleberry Finn to The Crucible and the work changes.

Some members have reported inappropriate separation. I think it's supposed to keep the work if you change the editions details to something not already used by another work. Let me know if you're having such problems.

I'm curious about Ŝolandro; what is the appropriate canonical name for this, given that there's no English translation? I've been tickled pink since my copy of the Esperanto translation came up as the main title, but should the canonical name be the German one?

>22 prosfilaes:

I thought about this today, too. If canonical title is language-by-language (which of course is sensible), shouldn't we leave the canonical title field empty in cases like this? If there is no English title then there is no English canonical title, either.

>22 prosfilaes:

Canonical titles are language-by-language. On top of that, however, there's some logic about what to do when there is no English title, canonical or no. I think it picks the right title for the original language or, failing that, the most popular title in any language.

>21 countrylife:

I need to play with it a little to see how it works now.

I think there is something wrong with the new algorithm for automatic title calculation. The following work doesn't have a title anymore:

http://www.librarything.com/work/8015

while it did have one before last Friday.

Is this eventually going to propagate into the series pages?

>25 koffieyahoo:

I'm looking at that now. Report soon.

>26 readafew:

What do you mean?

http://www.librarything.com/work/8015 is now working. The algorithm has also been fixed, although it may have left some problems in its wake, that will get smoothed out over time.

27 > I mean, are you planning to use the Canonical on the series pages? I also noticed that on my own personal series page it is not consistently using my titles either, nor the Canonical title, but the work title (Which I assume will change to match the CT)

Show me an example. It should be using the work title anyway.

readafew, are these pre-existing canonical titles, or ones that you've just added? If there was a canonical title assigned to the work before this weekend's changes, click the edit pencil and then save to get it picked up as the new work title (including in series etc.)

This was mentioned somewhere a few days back, but it still caught me by surprise a few times while adding canonicals -- I'd go to what I expected to be an uncorrected work and find that it already had a canonical title, but it just hadn't been picked up as a work title by the db yet.

They are using a 'work' title, but the 'work' title does not match the Canonical title. What is really weird is, in the Uncanny X-Men series (below) Many of them are singles by me and the title shown is neither mine (that I changed it to) or the CT. Is this just something where a change to CT hasn't caught up yet?

http://www.librarything.com/series/The+Uncanny+X-Men+-1963

31 > Most of the CT's are months old, quite a few, and I REALLY don't want to have to go through a thousand entries and resave them, so I am assuming this has an automatic change that is happening, how long do we expect it to take to propagate to all of them?

>33 readafew:

Right. A few days. It's chewing through them slowly. I don't want to go too fast, and degrade the site. We have about five million works. (Not all are active, but they still need to be examined.)

34 > sounds good, now I know. Thanks

1> Canonical title is the wrong name for the most recognizable title, especially as it says "Authoritative title for a work." under the edit box. Can the text under the edit box at least be changed to something like "The most recognizable name to English speakers"?

28> Thanks!

I'll of course report if I find more.

>36 prosfilaes:

Give me a better short name.

Maybe I'm missing a step, but here's what I see happening.

My novel Homestead has been translated into a handful of foreign languages. When I click on Homestead from any search list, I am taken to the Spanish language edition.

When I saw the canonical title post I thought, aha! I way to force Homestead as the primary title. So I changed it in the common knowledge field -- but still, clicking on Homestead in a search results screen takes me to the Spanish edition.

A related problem: for some reason Homestead shows up under my penname (Sara Donati -- and this novel was written under Rosina Lippi.
Any suggestions?

Thanks for your help.

Why do you believe it to be the Spanish edition? I'm seeing many editions combined into one work. http://www.librarything.com/work/660947

39>

Are you on the Spanish language site or do you have a copy in Spanish in your library? In both cases you might end up with the Spanish title. (For me it shows up with the English title).

Tim -- Because when you click on the link you supplied, the page that comes up shows the Spanish translation rather than the original title Homestead at the top. It also shows the Spanish edition cover rather than the original American edition cover.

And pardon me while I scream -- Homestead is still showing up, erroneously, under my penname.

41>
I'm not in the Spanish language site. I have all the different editions of Homestead entered here, hardcover, softcover, English language, translations into Chinese, Spanish, etc.

The original publication is the American one (Homestead). I would hope that it would be possible to make that the default title/page for the work.

>36 prosfilaes:,38
What's wrong with "the most recognizable" title? Or the most common?

Am I incorrect in assuming that the canonical title is language-dependent? If it is the "to English speakers" seems implied.

44> the reason I need "to English speakers" is the problem I'm having is with books translated into English, and I'd like that it's generally the English title made clear.

>39 rosinalippi: - I tried to take care of one problem - getting Homestead to appear under the correct author name. I separated out one edition that the LT user had listed with Donati as the author name. This should have worked - and did, if you look at the combine/separate page. However, the Lippi author page still shows Homestead (and Tied to the Tracks, which also does not appear on the combine/separate page but does appear on the Donati author page.

Tim - maybe you can force the pages to update?

>39 rosinalippi: - FYI - I also took care of the two other titles you mentioned in your disambiguation notice by separating out incorrect works. If you have problems in the future, I would recommend contacting the Combiners group - they will be able to help you.

One problem for Tim, though. The Sara Donati and Rosina Lippi author pages are currently incorrect - Donati lists too many titles, Lippi not enough - but each author's combine/separate page is correct with the correct titles. Is this just a caching issue? I no longer do much combining so am not familiar with recent changes to the updates.

>42 rosinalippi:-43

I just signed in as you and looked at the page. As I thought, it's because you have the Spanish language version. You'll see it, together with about a dozen others, under "Your library," with the Spanish language title in bold. You can flip editions by clicking on them. It's choosing Spanish because it's first on the list.

I think, as noted before, this action isn't understood by all. Either it should list the work-level title or link to the work record, absent your books.

I'm not sure what to get into as far as the combinations. I'll look at it later. So, should the two authors be combined or not. Do you want them combined, but with D or L appearing on books variably?

44> the reason I need "to English speakers" is the problem I'm having is with books translated into English, and I'd like that it's generally the English title made clear.

Canonical title is language-dependent. On the English-language site, use English, on the Swedish site, use Swedish.

Am I right in thinking we've now got three potential "right" titles for a book?

a) There's the title that the user has entered for the book.
b) There's the title that LT calculates from all the editions that users have entered.
c) There's the canonical title entered into the common knowledge (if any).

Can you clarify the priority in which these are supposed to be used?

The reason I ask is that the second confuses me :) And I think I've tripped over a problem with the third.

The problem with b) is that it's potentially subject to change: if all the other owners of a book decide to change it's name, then the calculated name could change, despite the fact that I've done nothing. And frequently, as has been observed in other threads, the other users just accept what Amazon says, so the calculated name includes the series or publisher's name. However, it does have the advantage that it's based on a consensus of multiple users (even if they disagree with me).

The problem with c) is that it's subject to change at the whim of a single other user, who can suddenly override the consensus. Assuming the title guesser in b) is plausibly accurate, should we be entering canonical titles for all works, since I suspect it renders the title guessing algorithm futile (and is one person's choice, rather than a consensus)?

Actually, the title for a book in your catalog will never change unless you change it. This is the title that will be exported to a file or will be returned by the new API. It's the work title that may change but even this title defaults to the title of the book in your catalog. It's only if you're not logged in or the you don't have the work does b or c enter the picture.

a. this only shows up in your catalog and is not changed by others, though it might match the 'work' for a variety of reasons.

b. is how the 'work' has been calculated for as long as I have been on LT. And titles DO change works now and then, sometimes on purpose by combiners.

c. New, to override overly verbose or misspelled titles. Anyone has the ability to change though in general (as far as I have noticed) it rarely has to be changed once set. If there is no CT then item b takes over. Once again this is the title for the WORK not a catalog copy.

Many people wanted c for a variety of reasons and the biggest one is that Amazon titles generally win out and quit often have multiple problems. I think more people are happy with the addition of c than are unhappy. There is generally very little malicious changes here in any area of the site and most people are willing to compromise to get the best data possible.

I think this also makes it easier for combining and separating as well.

> 52, 53

Thanks for the clarifications. I really must pay more attention to the distinction between the "title" entry and the "Work: title and author" entry in the catalogue styling page. Now I understand, and my list by titles is all fine and perfect, but the list by Work titles still leaves a little to be desired, for the reasons that readafew includes in his(?) fourth paragraph.

I wasn't intending to suggest that anybody might malicously make changes to the canonical titles, but what I had tripped over was someboy else's style of titling, which, being different to mine, is clearly all wrong. But I'm loathe to change the titles that have been entered, or otherwise risk getting into a futile argument (because I'm willing to admit the viewpoint which suggests my style's wrong. Although clearly that viewpoint is deranged ;-)

What had occurred to me was that, at least the work calculation algorithm has the advantage of being democratic, even if many of the votes being counted were substandard (and I note that Tim's looking for ways to improve that algorithm, which may be wasted if everything ends up with a canonical title anyway, whatever the quality of that title).

>53 wimble: The 'library' style without capitalization except the first word? Yeah, it drives me nuts too. But since my books are titled the way I want, I can wince and ignore it.

I hadn't realized that the 'Work: Title and Author' literally drew from the work. Well, I don't use that one (my only combo is Tags and Comments, and that one's annoying enough! - no editing).

There are _lots_ of interesting things in those column choices that I don't know about until someone points them out to me (but still no Series column - yeah, I know, CK:Series but that's not MINE!). Thanks, wimble - my knowledge increases!

THANK YOU.

This will get rid of the "Oprah's Book Club" sort of crap that appeared, thanks to Amazon, in things like One Hundred Years of Solitude.

Two more books that are missing their title, in Dutch this time and even after the canonical title has been filled in:

http://www.librarything.nl/work/31194

http://www.librarything.nl/work/31157

So still something wrong with the new automatic title generation algorithm.

I've also noticed that the canonical title is not "forced" on the work after two works have been combined, even when the field is still populated. Entering the field and saving will once again "force" the title.

Does LT recalculate every night or so, or do we have to manually check after each combination?

#56 thanks koffieyahoo for posting this.

Now the books have their title back, but still do not show on the LT.nl Author page: http://www.librarything.nl/author/almonddavid

How would I get a + to show up in the canonical title? For example: http://www.librarything.com/work/365962

59: I don't know. It appears LT uses + to separate words in a title. This is what I found on the page source code for Common Knowledge for this book (substituting braces for angle brackets)
{a href="/commonknowledge/search.php?q=Mary+Anne+++2+many+babies&f=21&exact=1"}Mary Anne 2 many babies{/a}

Shoot, that didn't display either, should show " Mary+Anne+++2+many+babies"

I put in 'Mary Anne %2B 2 many babies' which seems to have worked for now, but it's possible that at some point that may get changed back to a + and lost.

Can I open up this thread to ask a question and make a suggestion? There has been a lot of discussion elsewhere about cataloguing CDs, DVDs and other non-book stuff: the main upset that it seems to cause is the confusion in the Author/Works pages. In the absence of some dinky little icon denoting the medium of the entry when it is added, is there any reason why the Canonical title should not be used to facilitate separation/combination? E.g. CT for the scores of Beethoven Symphony No.9 - "Symphony No.9 - scores" as opposed to "Symphony No.9 - sound recording" for CDs.

#62

It makes as much sense to put it in your catalog that way. I often put that info in square brackets after the title. I'm slightly less likely to put it in as Canonical since someone surely will object to #5 over Eroica or something similar. But I would absolutely put it in the disambiguation CK field.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.