Using GoodReads more than I like

I love LT and log in regularily, although I rarely post. Lately I find myself turning to GoodReads more than I would like - their ads annoy me and I just feel the overall site quality is not there. BUT they have a great list feature. GR reading lists are simple and plentiful. Whether I agree or not, I easily get ideas to read and can submit new books to lists or vote for existing books.

Here on LT I did accidentally come across a list of "111 Science Fictions Books to Read Before a Supernova Kills Us All." on the Green Dragon Site. Are there others?

I have looked for updates on a list feature here at LT and apologize if I am missing it. Anyone know if lists on on Tim's radar?

I don't usually look at lists, but maybe one (or several) of these groups could help?
http://www.librarything.com/groups/tag/books

k4k

No, we need a "Lists" feature. On some of the recent "top desired features" discussions, a "list" feature has been near the top of features, and, if I recall correctly, possibly the TOP "new" feature.

In the meantime, have you looked at your recommendations page?
http://www.librarything.com/profile/KC9333/recommendations

I agree. We need a lists feature. I think it's one of those "what's next" features--ways people can contribute after they've done the basic stuff.

It's on my short list of things to add.

Tim

It's on my short list of things to add.

So, two weeks then?

You know, I don't think it's going to take very long to do. I'd like to figure out some way to make it more than just copying.

I think lists are a great idea - but we need more than simple lists.

We need both lists which are personally created and lists which the creator can choose to be collaborative (ie let others add items to). Each item should be able to have a short description added. Do we want optional (allowed by the creator) user comments on lists and/or items?

Lists should be viewable as straight text, or text with images (covers). When items are added the appropriate cover should be able to be chosen rather than just the default cover for the work.

A work should list all the "lists" it is on, but I think we will need a new area where Lists are given more prominence. Where we would could see lists ordered by creation date, modification date, and popularity (thumbs). This may mean another tab (which isn't good - we arguably have too many already) or a reorganisation on the tab bar - maybe grouping the social stuff into one tab.

Open questions? Do we need lists of authors? Mixed book/author lists?

That's probably more than 'two weeks'.

Yes, but I think it would be possible for it to be broken down and there could be staged releases.

Oh and one more thing I didn't mention on my original - is that it should be possible to order the items on a list at creation time (not just input order).

Sooo Tim, just how long is that short list? And, what else might be on it?

The short list is not a simple list.

It is collaborative, and is viewable in different configurations and in different global time zones. It can be added to and reordered by both the creator and other users. Each item has a description, and said description contains both text and images (optional). The creator of the list (Tim) does not allow other users to opt out of the list without admin approval. Unless they go and have a baby or something like that.

So it takes a bit of time--coupla weeks maybe?--to get the short list ready for public release.

With apologies to #8 :-)

I like it when features come out in a simple form RIGHT AWAY and then are improved. (-; Ahem. I could spin out lots of UI/design gabble about why, but really I just want lists ... any lists. Please ...?

I'm with lquilter on liking things that come out in a simple form quickly and then get improvements. I recognize that it's harder to do than it sounds, though, so I won't complain (much) if I don't get what I want.

#13

Sure - as long as the improvements come along.

Also it is usually best to get all the requirements up front if you are doing incremental development - lest your original data structures and design don't support the end point. For example the authors subsystem had some sub-optimal (in my view) design at the very start of LT which still has effects today - multiple authors with the same name, different names that form the same URL, books with multiple authors etc.

15: That's a problem with the underlying data more than the structure.

16> I suppose but they're problems that are very difficult to fix now because of the underlying structure (the basic problem was using a mangled form of the name as the id instead of assigning an arbitrary number).

It just want an LT equivalent of BoardGameGeek's GeekLists.

There have been so many discussions of lists, and there are so many different ways one could do it. I would like both community lists and personal ones, as well as ways to adopt lists others have made so I can track my reading. Goodreads lists seem to be aggregations of member votes or something like that. That's fine as one kind of list, but it doesn't exhaust the possibilities. I'd love to see something here similar to ListsofBests but that would leverage the works system.

Oh, and since I usually bring this up: some thought might be given to whether lists will always be public or whether there would be any value in having the option of private lists as well - so that someone could track certain books (shopping list, reading list) personally, but not necessarily share them. Anyway, it would be worth hashing out some suggestions and having some more discussion about this.

I would like it if lists were private but some were integrated. For example: a bunch of people might have their own personal list of "best non-fiction books ever". But then all of that data could be gathered together in a page that has a list for everyone's "best non-fiction books ever". Kind of like how the wishlist and currently reading collections (are supposed to) work with the modules on the home page.

Nooooooooooo .....

Let's have contains/contains in finished first (delete function, anyone?) and then at least a start on the author separation, or perhaps fixing the black hole works, or preventing combinations when any combination of CK or contains/contained in already exists on the works. Really, there are sooooo many things to do before lists.

Isn't a personal list already in effect? Its a collection.
At least that is one way of looking at a collection.

>24 gilroy:
Absolutely agree. I was asked to put together a list of books for a couple of people and that's how I organized the stuff. It's easy for them to see it, they could track what they've read (in Comments) and it doesn't get in the way of anything else I do. Nor does it break any other use I make of collections.
Of course "Personal" is not the same as "Private".

I'd like touchstones to work first. I might use lists, but I'm already using touchstones, and they are frustrating.

Robert

Well not exactly.

Some people may prefer to make lists of books they don't own AND do not want to see books they don't own in their "All Collections".

In case folks haven't seen the Wiki that was put together (not by me, I just admire the organization):

http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Lists_%28recommended_feature%29

> 27 Then open a 2nd account and make it private. Problem solved.

Of course, with all this discussion of needing private and hidden lists being needed as an alternative to collections, it does bring up a pretty interesting point. Lists are "cataloging lite" if you think about it - you get a book and a title which is more than enough for a number of individuals. I'm pretty sure Tim's going to have to consider either limiting the free accounts to a maximum of (200 - their current my books count) for list creation or to simply make list creation a paid member feature only. Making random lists of books (private or not) like "Joe's Books in the Basement" or even "Jane's Books read in 2010" is a fine way to skirt the 200-book limit for an LT free account. Of course, list adoption would remain open to any account...

#28

Good point and one that passed me by - being a paid member.

The thing with Lists is that they wouldn't have any of the functionality that your normal LT catalog has. Sure, someone could use them to get around the 200-book limit if they reeeeally wanted to, but they'd also be missing out on all the reasons you'd want to use LT for cataloging anyway.

Besides which, I'm of the opinion that Lists should just be Cover, Title, maybe Author(s), and a Comments field.

30> Good point. You could use facebook to keep a Note and list as many books on LT as you wanted by just pasting in the links. You create a list on your blog that pulls LT data. There's plenty of other ways.

I am with #23, I think there are many more important things to be doing than lists.

Tag Watch is still MIA and then there was some kind of Add Books Page redo that took the place of Tag Watch work and that too has faded out.

I wouldn't mind if there were small quick things that could be tweaked, but it seems that its always something new. The new thing is never completed and then it becomes part of the stuff that gets ignored.

I feel like that kid in the banking commercial who asks for ice cream and the man (bad Bank) says no its only for new people and then a new kid runs in and gets ice cream and the other kid who has been there gets nothing.

Don't forget the Contains relationship that was partially implemented and forgotten.

Or the new spam killing system that doesn't work properly so that legitimate works are marked as spam.

v

So.... does anyone know what "new thing" Tim is working on now? Anyone wanna nudge him into here so we can remind him about all the unfinished things? (I really feel like I bug him enough, lol)

>35 Heather19: Tim said in another thread that it (a new look for the work page, I think) will debut on Monday. ConceptDawg's Friday tweet does not sound optimistic, though: "Definitely the worst week of my life so far, and it's not looking to get much better in the short term."

Regarding all features, LT suffers from the gift puppy problem. Receiving a puppy is a joy, providing it with care and food is a chore. Since Tim shifted all developer resources to the wholesale LTFL operations, feature maintenance is simply not done/of low priority (apart from Tim's occasional firefighting), resulting in a "broken windows/NYC in the early 80s" kind of flair.

36: I certainly understand the "gift puppy" problem, since a lot of my favorite features have gone by the wayside that way over the years. But I also feel VERY strongly that Tim should, at the very least, focus on a feature until it is DONE, rather then leaving it half-finished. (My *pony* would be for Tim and co to re-evaluate priorities altogether, shut down for good the half-done features that they realistically know they won't finish, and buckle down to do the work/features/maintaining that they always promise.)

>36 jcbrunner:

I can assure you that Chris' tweet was not about LibraryThing features, or LibraryThing in any way. Either he'll talk about it or he won't, but it ain't about work.

LibraryThing development is obviously something everyone has an opinion about. Some members' must-do is other members' so-what. Believe it or not, rational thinking is behind what gets worked on and what doesn't. But it isn't a straightforward hill to climb. Features depend upon staff available, staff skills at any time, upon unexpected needs, upon unexpected opportunities, and upon the inherent order that things need to go in to be well-designed.

There is, of course, a need to fix all bugs. But I think users have a tendency to declare things useless when they are in fact merely partially done and slightly flawed.

Has the spam system flagged some legitimate works as spam? Yes, a but a very small number. Does it affect anyone's catalog directly? No. Does the number or importance of the works reverse the gains won with the feature--tens of thousands of junk works? No. Is the situation going to hell in a handbasket such that it must be fixed before everything else? Sorry, but no.

Is the contains relationship "partially implemented and forgotten"? No. I am working the problem of search as we speak. But, if I may remind you, members told me in no uncertain terms not to introduce it without everything else in place--a full system for short stories, essays, poems and so forth--drawing on new search sources, tables of contents and a new wiki-fied, collaborative cataloging system. That a lot of work and no, that's not done yet.

I have to do things bird by bird. The next feature, which relates to publishers, but includes a new way of displaying books also, is to be released Monday. It is a bird I'm glad is done. It was supposed to be done by someone else, but as sometimes happens, I had to step in and do it myself. After finishing it, I will return to the Add books page, and to the cataloging improvements generally. (There's a whole line, queued up and needing my attention.) I had to take a few months where I did about 50% LTFL, but that time is now over.

Meanwhile, Mike will be freed up to work on stage two of Facebook, Twitter and email friend-sharing.

Casey is unfortunately stuck to LTFL for now. I can't take him off more than I have in redoing some elements of the Add books interface. At his next opportunity, however, he's going to tackle the LT-page search interface again, which also runs touchstones.

Thank you for responding, Tim, and this may just be my opinion, but if you guys would give us progress reports like that more often we might not have to whine about "unfinished" features that we don't know are actually being worked on.

What about Tag Watch? And Author Seperation? Are they on the radar at all? Especially Author Seperation, since that's been half-done FOREVER and actually does hinder many users (Combiner's Group, anyone?).

Hey, I think it's all awesome with a capital "A". If I provide more flattery, and maybe some chocolate chip cookies, can we have some incomplete, buggy, and primitive version of Lists? by tomorrow, please?

i'm serious. i'd be delighted with anything.

>40 lquilter:

I hear you.

>38 timspalding: I am both relieved that conceptDawg's tweet isn't about LT and concerned about its content. I wish him all the best.

"Rational" is overrated and usually means "according to my preferences" (If you are 100% certain that you can fly, it is rational to jump out of a window. Robots gone berserk stories constitute their own sf genre.).

GR often feels smoother, e.g. compare changing the reading status from "currently reading" to "read" in LT and GR, and I've yet to encounter a broken feature there, I fear that a LT list feature would be the ugly love child of the Add Book page with the Collections feature. Anyway, I still prefer LT by a thousand miles, warts and all (LT is losing the total numbers game, though).

I just like to point out that your development outline allocates little capacity to fixing and polishing existing features (not necessarily improving features beyond their old spec).

#42: you said: "LT is losing the total numbers game, though."

It depends upon whose data you think is stronger & more accurate.

and more believable.

and those things are a matter of opinion.

Over the long term, I'm optimistic. LibraryThing is a real business. We've managed create rapidly growing revenue for real services, and are safely insulated from the need to flip the company. I'm in it for the long-haul, and see no reason we can't get better and better. Goodreads is a VC-funded falling rock, with no realistic profit potential and with an investor timeline that must close soon. They're main value is in leveraging their user base which inevitably means more ads or creepy exploitation. (Like Facebook, their users aren't customers, they're the product.)

Anyway, no more for today. I'm too busy working to make it better to talk about it :)

You know, I don't think it's going to take very long to do. I'd like to figure out some way to make it more than just copying.

I don't really see the need to reinvent the wheel. LT members will make LT's lists better than those of other sites; you just need to provide the basic infrastructure.