Touchstone list on right of topic pages

I'm redoing the Talk pages a bunch and I want to know what, if anything you want done with the "touchstones" section on the right of the topic pages. I'll make sure there is one on this thread by saying that Lisa Carey is my wife, and her novel Every Visible Thing is great.

Note, this is a one-day's-worth overhaul, not a soup-to-nuts overhaul. I plan to get one or two "new" features in, but mostly I'm interested in incremental improvements, especially to the user interface.

Some ideas I've been kicking around:

1. Mixing works and authors together.
2. Should touchstones be in order-in-topic or alphabetical?
3. Should the works you have be put first, to entice you more, or even have the ones you don't have hidden by default, to reduce clutter?

Lastly, the links now don't function. They SHOULD offer you two choices--to see the messages in question or jump to the work/author. That their non-functioning isn't mentioning makes me wonder if anyone gives a damn about the touchstones column anyway. But:

1. Maybe I can change something above to make people care
2. Maybe some people do care
3. Even if nobody cares, I'm thinking people will scream and yell if I take it away :)

Tim

An example of what I think of touchstones can be seen in the original "Fix This Book" thread starter in the combiners group: Give us the URL of the books, not the touchstone... the touchstones don't always work. (paraphrased)

I like the list, but I don't trust the links.

Having the checkmarks by books that are in my library (and color coded by collection) is great.... but I won't use the links. Not worth the hassle.

You know, fundamentally most touchstones work—the vast majority. The biggest problem is that people think they don't need to check the work that came up. The world of books is very large. You can't expect to put in some fragment of a title and expect it to read your mind.

Anyway, as I said there and on the other thread, I can't fix the search algorithm myself. I am therefore asking about the feature generally.

There actually were a few threads about the links not working awhile ago. I would really love to see the links work again, because I still try to use them occasionally when I forget they are broken.

Uhm, I use them all the time, and it is rare I find one that does not work. And then, as Tim says, it is probably because whoever linked it didn't grab the right book.

Granted, periodically folks will say, 'touchstones not working' but in a few minutes they usually are back.

I like that they link to the book, but I'd also like them link to the first post where they are mentioned. For long threads it is a hassle trying to find out who posted and what was said.

I disagree, Touchstones are very wonky. I always check the link and search for the right book.

I have seen links:

(others) no title nothing, I have seen title and no author, I have seen touchstones not load, touchstones load and not hold when the message is posted. I have also seen when you click into others two identical touchstones, but the one you choose doesn't work.

I have clicked into others looking for the touchstone to my book, but it doesn't exist, and there is no way back from other if you don't click a link (sometimes you can remove the brackets in the message or add another book with brackets but not always).

I have seen several messages and even threads about the links at the top right not working, but after a while when issues are ignored, people give up.

I am always for alpha order it makes whatever you are looking for easier to skim and find.

I want to go to the book page from the links at the top, so I can find out about the book.

Okay, but PLEEEEEASE can we talk about the touchstones on the right side of the page--the dedicated section.

What do you want from THAT? Nothing? Something different? What?

Last 3 paragraphs of my post.

I don't want anything fancy, I just want them to work, and to be easy to use.

Lastly, the links now don't function. They SHOULD offer you two choices--to see the messages in question or jump to the work/author. That their non-functioning isn't mentioning makes me wonder if anyone gives a damn about the touchstones column anyway.

Actually, the non-functioning has been mentioned periodically. Are you trying to say that we should nag more? ;)

Heh.

> 1, 9

Moreover, this topic analyzes exactly how they are broken and proposes the simple fix of not using the same CSS class name to mean two different things.

My basic take is that the current simple design is just what is needed and I would be happy if it worked. (Which means that the author link works similarly, too.)

If you're looking for something new and buzz-worthy to do with that area, then how about taking the whole set (weighed inversely by overall occurrence or something) and finding similar topics and linking to them there?

In the right hand panel, author and title together alphabetically by author.
Hyperlink to the first post that uses the touchstone.*
(Touchstones within posts link to author or work page as appropriate)

Coloured checkmarks beside the titles you have in the right hand panel? (Checkmarks work well elsewhere on the site, members should be familiar with their meaning and it keeps the rest of the UI clean)

Currently I often don't see who or what is mentioned as I tend to use the "jump to unread" feature.

*Though I'd like to link to several posts, that would be a nightmare to code and I can just use the browser search function.
I can understand if its felt inappropriate to link to posts from the panel, and to pages from within posts - dual functions make a confusing UI. In which case link to author/work as above.

They links have been broken so long I'd pretty much forgotten they were meant to do anything. If they work, I will be happy.

Beyond that, I'm not fussed - although I have a very slight preference for keeping works and authors in separate lists, and using alphabetical order.

11> Check that topic again. You might be surprised. Or not.

On another aspect that no one has brought up - does anyone find that they need the space the touchstone area takes up? I've wondered if those who use smaller screen widths (especially on devices like an iphone) would want to see the touchstone box be a toggleable expand/contract thingy.

And I just have to say this about broken touchstones: author touchstones are FAR less reliable. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Marcel Proust. I'm just saying.

Ahem. Sorry. Trying to stay on topic. This is much better than the original several paragraph post about how touchstones are broken in ways that aren't a figment of our imagination or a failure of us to understand how they work as claimed in #3.

1. Mixing works and authors together.
I'd rather you didn't.
2. Should touchstones be in order-in-topic or alphabetical?
I'd vote for alphabetical. Easier to find things. It seems that currently, authors are alphabetical and titles are order of occurrence. I think it would be better to be consistent.
3. Should the works you have be put first, to entice you more, or even have the ones you don't have hidden by default, to reduce clutter?
I think the check-marks would make it sufficiently easy to spot the ones I own; grouping them at the beginning wouldn't particularly "entice" me; I'd rather stick with alphabetical for ease of use. I hope you will add check-marks here - they make me happy!
Definitely don't hide the ones I don't have; the thing I would want to do most is click on a link to find out what someone said about books I am *not* familiar with.

Are the links in the list supposed to take you to the book page or to the post mentioning them? Since they don't work, I don't know the answer to that. I think I'd prefer locating the post, since the link in the post takes you to the book page.

Are the links in the list supposed to take you to the book page or to the post mentioning them

Both.

What's the procedure for getting one or the other? When I click on one, all that happens is that an empty line shows directly under it.

I prefer the work to include both title and author, and in that case there's no need to mix it up with the author-only list.

Alphabetical is preferable to order posted.

Checkmarks mean we don't need our own works listed first. And it's better to have all books appear -- that's one way to find new things.

Since the touchstone within the post will take you to the book page, it's probably best for the link in the touchstone list to take you to the post.

it's probably best for the link in the touchstone list to take you to the post

Well, it can't, because it might be multiples. So it needs to pop down a list of posts, I think.

1. Mixing works and authors together.

Please don’t do that. I’d rather that these two stay separated.

2. Should touchstones be in order-in-topic or alphabetical?

I prefer alphabetical.

3. Should the works you have be put first, to entice you more, or even have the ones you don't have hidden by default, to reduce clutter?

Either would work fine for me.

I like the check-marks. As long as I’ve been a member I’ve never seen the "touchstones" section on the right of the topic pages work. I would be happy if they did.

I really don't know. Mixing authors and titles would be so much simpler. LT too often ends up looking like a Timex watch. That would simplify at almost no cost.

You could also possibly mix in some javascript effects where it expands to give more information but normally is in a more compact list format otherwise. Like it just lists titles, but hovering over them lists the authors, too. Maybe even expands into a full entry, with a thumbnail book cover, number of copies, some CK info like publication date, etc. if filled out.

Of course, as I've recently discovered on the iPad, hover is useless for those iP* devices.

That their non-functioning isn't mentioning makes me wonder if anyone gives a damn about the touchstones column anyway.

While it's true that in this case I don't particularly give a damn, I don't think this reasoning is valid more generally. There are plenty of bugs that bother me fairly regularly but that I just don't bother mentioning because the chance of the bug report actually making a difference seems so slim.

_Zoe_ is exactly right in #24 -- I don't bother to mention old bugs much anymore, because I figure if they're known about and haven't been fixed yet one more mention won't do anything. I'll mention new bugs of course, but harping on old ones seems to be a waste of time.

Just to try to assuage your doubt that no one noticed the issue, I figured I mentioned I also reported this problem, although for some reason the first time I complained about it I mentioned it in Recommended Site Improvements instead of Bug Collectors. I also came up with a fix for it using a custom stylesheet, so for me at least it works: see my Hacking LibraryThing thread.

I'd agree with _Zoe_ in 24 though. Lately I haven't bothered to file bugs for stuff I notice because one of the following frequently happens a) I search the forums and find it has been mentioned, but no responses from LT folks, b) it seems I haven't seen a lot of responses to other bug posts or action on them and c) many times I get rather negative reaction from various LibraryThing members who seem to insist many things are by design and not bugs. I've been meaning instead to try to find at least some workarounds to issues and post when I have an issue and workaround. The theory is then even if things like having to select a selection before you search in "add books" is a purposeful design, people like me that are bothered by it can fix it themselves. For example, in the add pages I'd like it any time I change a collection that clicking on the list on the right would add it to that collection and I wouldn't have to do another search.

As for your questions:

Some ideas I've been kicking around:

1. Mixing works and authors together.
Please no. That will instantly double the size of the list. I'm also afraid it could add all sorts of confusion as far as biographies and the like. I'd rather see one list and different ways to sort. (And show both the title and the author in one "entry" but both be different links).

2. Should touchstones be in order-in-topic or alphabetical?
alphabetical probably. Especially if you can get the highlighting to work. I'm not sure I really feel strongly one way or the other though.

3. Should the works you have be put first, to entice you more, or even have the ones you don't have hidden by default, to reduce clutter?

No, that seems to be even more confusing. Would the list indicate when the books you own end? And why would I want the books I don't own to be hidden? They're the touchstones I'm most likely to want to follow since I'm going to want to know more about them. Like many folks, I use the talk discussions to find books I might want to read.

24/25> I agree, up to a point. Where I differ is in the questions of new users. Along with most other new users who become active in talk, I re-reported several long-standing bugs and feature requests. Sometimes even when I did find an old thread about it (attempting to make it "bubble"). I didn't notice that clicking on a book in the touchstones column was buggy for over a month. And even then, it wasn't because I was really wanting to click on one but because someone mentioned something about the box and so I went to try it out.

So personally, I'm dubious of the actually usefulness of that box in general. That's not to argue for getting rid of it, though. Just a personal observation. Many people use LT a bit differently, though, so I have no way of telling how atypical I might be on the subject.

This is where it would be handy if HTML/javascript was easier to profile/audit. Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many people ever clicked on those links? (Especially if they were working properly.)

Definetly don't mix authors and works. that would be silly.

I like alphabetical - but by order first mentioned is sometimes useful. So both, with a sort header toggle.

Links - given these work in the actual post, I really don't care about the sidebar links. Make sure they do link to the first post, and highlight all the others.

FIX AUTHOR TOUCHSTONES.

And for the Ponies:
Use tripple brackets for series links.
ANd instigate the book forum idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by mixing authors and works. If you mean something like listing each author in alphabetical order with each author's works following that author and before the next author, I think that can work. It only makes sense, though, in threads with lots of works. The works should also be distinguished from the authors somehow, perhaps by being indented.

It would be wonderful if they worked again. I'd given up on complaining about this one.

I think works and authors separate with each alphabetical would work best.

I'm not sure that separating the ones owned and not owned makes sense. I would want to see both.

I really liked being able to use touchstones to highlight the mentions in a thread of a particular title. If the links actually worked I would use them from time to time. The current design works for me, that is, if it was working!

1.> I care, and I'd like the links to work as they are supposed to work. I would not want works I do not own hidden because it is through touchstones that I sometimes find interesting books. If anything must be hidden, hide those works I already own. Alphabetical touchstones would be nice and neat, but perhaps not a useful as having them in topic order... but either way is good. Even if LT changes how the touchstones are supposed to work, I want them working as they are supposed to work after the changes are implemented.

5.> Yes, there ARE some genuinely broken touchstones. I don't type fragments of titles, I type entire titles, including the sub-title if it contains more useful information than "A Novel" (or, okay, I'll admit, somtimes I bring in the information via copy/paste, but that should not matter), and sometimes, even though I grabbed the specific book I meant, the touchstone WILL NOT link to the book I want... and worse yet, it WILL sometimes link to the wrong book, despite the choices I made. The broken touchstone thing happens even moreso with the author touchstones. Some author touchstones just WILL NOT link to the correct author page, no matter what I do.

I'll respond to the parts of this thread that I understand:

I would like the work touchstones to link to the work page reliably and to not have to be re-selected upon editing my post (which I think is what Tim fixed) - linking to the message they are mentioned in would be a bonus but I can work around it with the "Find" function of my browser. I would like these works to be in alphabetical order by title and have a colored check by them as they do in other lists to indicate their status in my catalogue.

I would like the author touchstones to link to the author page and the touchstones to be in alphabetical order by author last name.

It would be useful to me if the touchstones that worked were a different color (right now they are both black - so I didn't realize, precisely, that the works were links and the authors were not - this may be browser dependent.)

I WOULD love "triple bracket"-ing to touchstone series pages but I think this may be a pony...(and Tim has given me so many ponies this year that I have to move to the country so I can build a stable...)

I'd like the touchstones alphabetical, and grouped by author (alphabetical by surname), as described by jj in post 29.

I don't use the touchstone list much, if at all, but I'd be more interested in the works I don't own than those I do.