More CK Fields in Library View

Does anyone else want more CK stuff to be viewable while in library/catalog mode? I'm (im)patiently waiting for a Dedications column.

I'm seconding fleela - not because I need it for myselft, but because I think the LT community should benefit from all of her Dedication info that would get entered if this were available.

PortiaLong waves to fleela.

Seriously, why do you want dedication? I am struggling to find any meaning in those for people other than to which they are about. I don't care if it's an option, I just wonder why.

Mostly because it's much much easier to edit CK content from within your catalog compared to going to the respective work pages.

>4 conceptDawg:
I've got a lot of Dedication data already entered in my Comments fields. I want to move it all to the new CK section but that would be a lot easier to do if I could have the two columns side by side instead of opening and navigating between multiple browser tabs.

Tim mentioned when the new CK fields were implemented that he meant for this to be possible at some point, so this is just a gentle reminder.

>4 conceptDawg: Yeah it's easier, but when the history log then marks you as the person who last updated every populated CK field - it's more accurate to check all the fields and edit CK from the work page.
When I do CK edits, I want to make sure some other previously entered mistake isn't going to then have my name on it as the person who entered that.

Adding that I am not against adding more CK to catalogues as it is easier. But I think people entering from there should know the implications and make an informed decision.

That just means that it would be better if CK updates per username applied on a field by field basis, instead of the entire section.

6: CK only marks you as the updater for that particular field, not all of the information for that work. So if you are editing dedications it will only mark you as the last updater for the dedication, not the characters or other items.

CK items in the catalog only edit a single field so that's a weak argument in this case.

9: Yes. It might be better that way but we had to make a decision when we designed the system. It's not something that's easy to change at this point.

>9 conceptDawg:
ryn in #6 was referring to the bug I referred to in thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/49244
where I was "Credited" with changes to CK that I HAD NOT made and seems to think the explanation is that if you change ONE CK field you are listed as the "Whom" for all the CK fields. (or in my case - since I combined the works - not touching the CK fields - I got credited with the stuff that "carried over")

The combining issue is one that we've talked about but haven't had the right answer come up in conversation yet. It's not something that I would consider low priority but it's not our biggest issue right now.

As for the crediting of changes when you edit a field: I think that it's a miscommunication of what "field" means. "characters", "education", "birth date", etc.

What people are wanting is row-level identification of the CK author. We don't have that. We have field level authoring. Basically, if you edit a field that has multiple rows you are implicitly saying that you agree with the other rows in that particular field only. I admit that this idea might not be the perfect solution but it's what we have and changing it right now would be quite a mountain to climb.

Thanks CD for clarifying when someone is credited and when not. (combining oddities aside as per Portia's post). Good to know.

I'd always misunderstood how the CK crediting works because many of my first edits were coincidentally - adding characters. So I read the talk threads at the time asking about the 'additional credits' filtered through 'my' understanding :-)

I agree that my concern in >6 ryn_books: about adding extra CK fields into the catalog was based on wrong info.

It'd be nice to see row-level identification of the actual CK author one day but there's loads of other things that LT developers rightfully need to spend higher priority on.

I can un-star this topic now AND move all those dedications I had been recording in the comments field to their rightful place in Common Knowledge.

w00t!

Yes, I noticed that you were going crazy with dedications in the last few minutes. Enjoy.

peeping tom....

Yo, fleela! Yay for your pet CK field being available in catalogue view (and more columns)!

I have started adding CK info - including dedications - to works as I review/rate them. I figure that if I care enough to have all these opinions, then I should care enough to add to the data!

Chris: Are you sure about the updater issue? I agree that's how it should work, but maybe this is how wrong CK updaters are happening?