Problem with the numbering of automatic recommendations

I've had a quick look through the bug threads, and I don't think this one is listed.

I've noticed that the actual numbering of the automatic recommendations is a little strange. For a while, I'd noticed that the first page would have 101 listed books (rather than the expected 100), but when I looked at the actual list, a lot of the numbers I know and love, such as 6, 8, 12, and 16, are missing. I'm also missing 18, 27, 31, 41, 46, 52, 83, 92, and 93. After a refresh, I'm missing the same numbers, but I haven't checked if I'm consistently missing the same numbers over a longer term.

(I'm glad to see that a lot of the bugs with the recommendations have been fixed--a while ago, LT kept recommending diet books to me, and I was all "LibraryThing just called me fat!". Then I clicked on "Why", and it said "I don't know, how about just because?". LT totally called me fat! I can't see anything in my collection that would be connected to diet books, but apparently I own fat people books. Glad to see you've taught it some manners.)

*giggle* I'm inordinately fond of 16, myself, EIM.

Edited: giggling too hard to watch my fingers.

I think 16 is over-rated and just a fad. I am fond of a good 27 from time to time though. 92 and 93 are only for real aficionados.

ps. This is somewhat covered in this thread

I clicked over looking for a discussion on number-fondness and fadness.

*head/desk*

Sorry 'bout that, Chief!

The link in #3 is, in fact, a discussion of recommendations.

I've had a look at my recommendations again, and now I'm missing 5, 12, 14,15, 22, 36, 45, 46, 49, 60, 61, and 84. (Oh no! Not 61!) But at least I have 16. Phew. I was worried the number was gone for good. (In my case, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. @MerryMary, what's your 16th recommendation? Have you had a look at Curious and Interesting Numbers? It has lots of numbers in it. But not 43.)

I've had a glance at the link in #3, and it's probably a related bug, but doesn't seem to be the quite the same as any of the bugs listed there.

*gasp* I have no 16! Seriously. 16 is MIA! Now what?

Told you it was a passing fad! ;)

Sigh of relief. I have a 16. You got me worried.

9>

A 16 without an 83 is pointless.

So true. My whole life went downhill after my 83 left me. *sniff* I miss you, darling 83!

On a lighter note, a 14, a 7, a 9 and lychees is not a bad feed!

16 has come home. This gives me solace because 15, my sweet 15 is now missing. Will this never end???

#1: I think if you hit No Thanks! on a work, it will still grab a number when it comes up in recommendations, it just won't be displayed.

In general, missing numbers do migrate to the top of the list as numbers preceding them are "No Thanks!"ed (and the page is refreshed). I say "in general", because this doesn't always happen, as I went from having 49, 60, 65, and 93 missing to having 55, 83, and 96 missing after deleting 11 through 20. (Thus, 65 and 93 migrated upward, but the 49 and 60 gaps were filled in.)

Also, deleting items doesn't always create new gaps. I got:

a new gap at 96 when I deleted 11 through 15,
a new gap at 98 when I deleted 2, 4, and 7,
a new gap at 93 when I deleted 11 through 20, and
a new gap at 96 when I deleted 11 through 20 again .

But other times I've repeated some of these deletion patterns (11-15 and 2,4,7), and no new gaps have been created.

Go figure.

I haven't actually said No Thanks to anything (I just can't bring myself to do something with that much finality), so there's clearly something else going on. This time I'm missing 6, 7, 11, and a bunch more. But I have 16 and 83 (Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman and The Other End of the Leash respectively), so I guess that's all that really matters. If they just gave me a two-item list with 16 and 83, maybe that would be alright. And since 16 is just a passing fad, they can drop that once it's run its course and just give us 83.