This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1xtien
One of the features I've been wanting since I joined LT is the following. I'd like to be able to group books that are basically the same work, but in a different edition. Like a work that's been published in one volume, but also in two volumes. Or a work that has been published in one volume in Engilsh, but in two volumes in French.
I like to see who else read the same books I read. But right now, LT separates us in those who read The Karamazow brothers in one volume, and those who read it in two or three volumes.
A similar feature would be to group books that contain two or more novels. I have bought Huis Clos (No Exit) by Sartre, and it turns out to contain "Les Mouches" as well. I can't combine my copy with "Huis Clos", because my copy has another novel included. But I'm interested in Huis Clos, not in the other piece. Currently, my copy is not combined with the majority of copies of "Huis Clos". I would like to have my copy included with "Huis Clos" as the main work, in a sub category that also includes Les Mouches (The Flies).
All I can do now is go back to the store and ask for a copy that contains only Huis Clos, wich of course is silly.
I like to see who else read the same books I read. But right now, LT separates us in those who read The Karamazow brothers in one volume, and those who read it in two or three volumes.
A similar feature would be to group books that contain two or more novels. I have bought Huis Clos (No Exit) by Sartre, and it turns out to contain "Les Mouches" as well. I can't combine my copy with "Huis Clos", because my copy has another novel included. But I'm interested in Huis Clos, not in the other piece. Currently, my copy is not combined with the majority of copies of "Huis Clos". I would like to have my copy included with "Huis Clos" as the main work, in a sub category that also includes Les Mouches (The Flies).
All I can do now is go back to the store and ask for a copy that contains only Huis Clos, wich of course is silly.
2lquilter
The oft-requested "included-in" and "work-to-work relationships" feature(s) would do this, but you lay out the problem for multi-volume editions very nicely.
You didn't ask for a work-around but I'll share mine anyway: When I really want to get recommendations or other single-volume-features on a particular title, I do add the title by itself, and I either tag it or add it to a collection specifically for the purpose of these "virtual volumes". You could even use the built-in "read but unowned" collection -- if you own the omnibus of A+B, you don't own "A", so it would make sense to put it in "read but unowned". Of course, this only fixes it one way -- your volumes -- it doesn't connect you to other people who have similar issues and have chosen not to use a work-around approach. ... which is why your RSI is nicely phrased.
You didn't ask for a work-around but I'll share mine anyway: When I really want to get recommendations or other single-volume-features on a particular title, I do add the title by itself, and I either tag it or add it to a collection specifically for the purpose of these "virtual volumes". You could even use the built-in "read but unowned" collection -- if you own the omnibus of A+B, you don't own "A", so it would make sense to put it in "read but unowned". Of course, this only fixes it one way -- your volumes -- it doesn't connect you to other people who have similar issues and have chosen not to use a work-around approach. ... which is why your RSI is nicely phrased.
3Nicole_VanK
LT separates us in those who read The Karamazow brothers in one volume, and those who read it in two or three volumes.
Not necessarily. "The brothers Karamazov" and "The brothers Karamazov (3 vols.)" would be combined (though there are probably still lots of works on LT that have escaped proper combining attention so far). But you're right that you do loose connection to people who have entered their multi-volume editions book by book.
I can't combine my copy with "Huis Clos", because my copy has another novel included.
I have sort of "solved" this predicament for myself by creating a phantom collection - still a work in progress - that shows works included in omnibus volumes (and such) separately, excluding them from my "library" collection but including them in connections and recommendations. It's not ideal, but...
Many of us are hoping some form of relations feature will come about - and preferably sooner than later.
Not necessarily. "The brothers Karamazov" and "The brothers Karamazov (3 vols.)" would be combined (though there are probably still lots of works on LT that have escaped proper combining attention so far). But you're right that you do loose connection to people who have entered their multi-volume editions book by book.
I can't combine my copy with "Huis Clos", because my copy has another novel included.
I have sort of "solved" this predicament for myself by creating a phantom collection - still a work in progress - that shows works included in omnibus volumes (and such) separately, excluding them from my "library" collection but including them in connections and recommendations. It's not ideal, but...
Many of us are hoping some form of relations feature will come about - and preferably sooner than later.
4xtien
"The brothers Karamazov" and "The brothers Karamazov (3 vols.)" would be combinedL
Yes, but most people enter the volumes as separate works, and they object to combining individual volumes with the work in one volume.
Yes, but most people enter the volumes as separate works, and they object to combining individual volumes with the work in one volume.
5Nicole_VanK
Certainly. A loose volume 1 doesn't equal a loose volume 2 after all. That sort of combining would get nasty for books where volumes can be read / owned as independent works too.
But you're right: we badly need a way to express relations like "part of", "contained in", "adaptation of", etc.
But you're right: we badly need a way to express relations like "part of", "contained in", "adaptation of", etc.
6AnnieMod
xtien,
The 3-volumes set or a single volume one always get combined - it is the same book. What never gets combined is volume 1 with volume 2. If they get combined, the whole idea of cataloging goes away and then someone may make the case that all novels of one author should be combined together. :)
We need the relationships but for some reason I am not very optimistic on getting them.
The 3-volumes set or a single volume one always get combined - it is the same book. What never gets combined is volume 1 with volume 2. If they get combined, the whole idea of cataloging goes away and then someone may make the case that all novels of one author should be combined together. :)
We need the relationships but for some reason I am not very optimistic on getting them.
7countrylife
Anyone want to have a relationship?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/37415
(Don't flag me! That was the title of Tim's post back in May '08.)
http://www.librarything.com/topic/37415
(Don't flag me! That was the title of Tim's post back in May '08.)
8Talvitar
I own, e.g., a work by Tad Williams (Shadowplay) which originally seems to be one volume. However, when it was translated to Finnish, it was split in two books -- don't know why, probably just to get more money from the buyers....
It looks funny that I'm the only owner of the Finnish Shadowplay (both volumes) -- but in English (one volume) it is catalogued 449 times........ and there's no way for us to "meet".
Frustrating!!!! I also hope something would/could be done about this.
It looks funny that I'm the only owner of the Finnish Shadowplay (both volumes) -- but in English (one volume) it is catalogued 449 times........ and there's no way for us to "meet".
Frustrating!!!! I also hope something would/could be done about this.
9eromsted
>7 countrylife:
That conversation wandered into the part/whole - contained/contained in problem. But "relationships" as Tim posed them are a much broader idea. I think it's an interesting idea, but I am more concerned with the part/whole problem itself.
I long while back I made the following suggestion. It was perhaps on the 10 things to improve LT thread and I don't think it got much notice. So, for the hell of it, here it is again:
On the works page have a section for sub-works.
Users can open this section and add the parts of a larger work by author & title.
Titles entered here appear only on the combination page of the listed author.
There they can be combined with the independently published versions of the same work.
Once combined the system would treat owning the larger work as also owning the sub-works for the purposes of social data (shared works, excluding owned works from recommendation list, ownership check marks, etc.)
Examples:
For The Lord of the Rings I would add Tolkien, J .R .R. - The Fellowship of the Ring; Tolkien, J. R. R. - The Two Towers; Tolkien, J. R. R. - The Return of the King.
For Harvard Classics Vol. 1 I would add Franklin, Benjamin - The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; Woolman, John - The Journal of John Woolman; Penn, William - Fruits of Solitude.
For News from Nowhere and Other Writings I could add Morris, William - News from Nowhere even if I don't know what the other writings are or if they were not published independently.
For A History of Private Life Vol. 1 I would add Veyne, Paul - The Roman Empire. This one is less obvious, but Veyne's book was first published as a chapter in A History of Private Life. And of course all of the Private Life volumes would go on the A History of Private Life page.
So what do people think? Would this work? My biggest concern is how the data would be handled when the larger work is combined or separated. Also some people would certainly enter bad data, but it would be restricted to the combiners page and hopefully wouldn't cause too much trouble.
That conversation wandered into the part/whole - contained/contained in problem. But "relationships" as Tim posed them are a much broader idea. I think it's an interesting idea, but I am more concerned with the part/whole problem itself.
I long while back I made the following suggestion. It was perhaps on the 10 things to improve LT thread and I don't think it got much notice. So, for the hell of it, here it is again:
On the works page have a section for sub-works.
Users can open this section and add the parts of a larger work by author & title.
Titles entered here appear only on the combination page of the listed author.
There they can be combined with the independently published versions of the same work.
Once combined the system would treat owning the larger work as also owning the sub-works for the purposes of social data (shared works, excluding owned works from recommendation list, ownership check marks, etc.)
Examples:
For The Lord of the Rings I would add Tolkien, J .R .R. - The Fellowship of the Ring; Tolkien, J. R. R. - The Two Towers; Tolkien, J. R. R. - The Return of the King.
For Harvard Classics Vol. 1 I would add Franklin, Benjamin - The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; Woolman, John - The Journal of John Woolman; Penn, William - Fruits of Solitude.
For News from Nowhere and Other Writings I could add Morris, William - News from Nowhere even if I don't know what the other writings are or if they were not published independently.
For A History of Private Life Vol. 1 I would add Veyne, Paul - The Roman Empire. This one is less obvious, but Veyne's book was first published as a chapter in A History of Private Life. And of course all of the Private Life volumes would go on the A History of Private Life page.
So what do people think? Would this work? My biggest concern is how the data would be handled when the larger work is combined or separated. Also some people would certainly enter bad data, but it would be restricted to the combiners page and hopefully wouldn't cause too much trouble.
10leahbird
desperately looking forward to some form of this... especially "adaptation of" and "contained in".
11xtien
Anyone want to have a relationship?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/37415
Tim mentioned it after several people had asked for it, but apparently the feature never made it to the development agenda, hence I ask again.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/37415
Tim mentioned it after several people had asked for it, but apparently the feature never made it to the development agenda, hence I ask again.
12brightcopy
Really wishing this was solved. Any news?
I pick up a decent number of book club omnibus editions at Half Price and they can be confusing when I'm trying to see what individual works I own. Especially with the checkmark - "What don't I get a checkmark next to Ender's Game? Oh... ok, that's right, it's in that omnibus with Speaker for the Dead..."
I pick up a decent number of book club omnibus editions at Half Price and they can be confusing when I'm trying to see what individual works I own. Especially with the checkmark - "What don't I get a checkmark next to Ender's Game? Oh... ok, that's right, it's in that omnibus with Speaker for the Dead..."
13jjwilson61
What I do is enter the omnibus in my Your Library collection and enter the component parts in my Inclusions collection. That way I get green checkmarks for the books I actually own but still get grey checkmarks if its part of an omnibus. Putting the included stories in the Inclusion collection keeps the count in Your Library an accurate reflection of the books I own.
14brightcopy
13> Yeah, I've been pondering doing that, but something about it doesn't quite sit right.
