removing common knowledge

Entries for some series have been removed from the English common knowledge page.
I have fixed some of these series a couple of times.
For example: the series "Anita Blake Vampire Hunter" has only some of the short stories. The novels have been moved to: An Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter Novel. I see that on my stats/memes series page. (Even though the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series shows most
(maybe all) the novels maybe because they are listed in other languages common knowledge?) Book 1, Guilty Pleasures shows in the German common knowledge as in the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series, but not in the English common knowledge.

Now, I have no problem with there being a separate series that lists only the novels, and I haven't been deleting that entry from the English common knowledge, but I have been adding back the entries for the original series (in English common knowledge). I have done it twice now, and I am getting tired of replacing these entries.

This is happening in other series too, for example:
novels moved from Southern Vampire Mysteries to A Sookie Stackhouse Novel

I think there are others, and I will look if people want more examples.

My question is: Is this just a bug? Or is someone doing it on purpose? How can I find out who might be doing it?, and will they please stop?

Does anyone have any advice?

Click on the history button under the field (in edit mode) to see who changed it - it can be a bit tricky if they did not save after removal but just changed it but it is there. For example: https://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php?item=4873693&type... or clearer: https://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/changelog.php?item=2101504&type...

Not a bug - someone deliberately changed the series name.

PS: And looking at the history, that someone had done that to a lot of series!

Yes, I've encountered the same thing with Sue Grafton's Alphabet series, of which there are at least three iterations: The Alphabet Mysteries, Kinsey Millhone, and (following the pattern mentioned in this thread) A Kinsey Millhone Novel. It's quite frustrating but I don't know any solution short of getting into an editing war.

There isn't any way to "combine" series, is there?

>4 rosalita:

Nope - no way to combine series.

I wonder if the people editing the series descriptor to "A .... novel" are doing that because it appears that way on the physical copy they have, or on the book record they have just added (from Amazon).

It appears on quite a few covers. seems a publisher's thing or something.

you can always send a note to the person doing the editing, asking them to come discuss the naming of the series here on Talk.

That's really frustrating. Now the Southern Vampire mysteries in my catalogue are all coming up as 'A ... Novel' :-(

>4 rosalita:

In the instance you mention, though, there is a difference between "The Alphabet Mysteries" and "A Kinsey Millhone Novel" on the one hand, and "Kinsey Millhone" on the other, as Grafton wrote short stories featuring her detective. So Kinsey and Me is not part of the Alphabet Mystery series, nor is it a novel. That's a not uncommon situation with mystery writers.

A ... Novel is not a series name. Has anyone tried to contact the guilty party, so to speak, and tried to come to an accommodation?

>8 lilithcat: I agree there's a difference between the "Alphabet Mysteries" and "Kinsey Millhone", taking your point that the latter also includes the short stories -- that's why I prefer the "Kinsey Millhone" series for my own books, because I'd like to see all the works related to the series together. But the "A ... Novel" variation seems superfluous to requirements, regardless.

I wonder if the central misunderstanding is that this edit affects everyone's copies, not just the users. The user may simply think that's how they want their copy / series to appear, without any intention of forcing it on others.

>11 elenchus: They've been here since 2007 and have done this to a TON of books. :|

>12 .Monkey.:

Which does not make it impossible that they do not understand how the system works and that the change effects everyone. Of course, it may be just someone unhappy with the fact that stories are added to series...

>13 AnnieMod: In that case "... Novels" would make a reasonable series name and could exist alongside the more inclusive series.

>14 jjwilson61:

I absolutely agree. Someone wants to send a message to the user that is doing this?

There are several names all over the Sookie series. Is NatalieD the one doing it to the Anita series? I can leave message on that profile.

>16 al.vick:

Yep. And a few more series - Eve Duncan, Anita Blake, Repairman Jack, Lucas Davenport... and the list can continue.

I left a note on her profile.

Maybe these users are unaware that a book can belong to more than one series. It's not necessary to delete every other series name.

I've fixed the Anita Blake and the Southern Vampire Mysteries/Sookie Steakhouse series. I left the series with just the novels alone, and just made sure that all the novels were also in the "full" original series. I fixed some other series that I have books in, but I haven't touched any of the other series that were altered. I don't have any of those books, so I don't really know what the situation should be.

I didn't see any reply last night, so we will see how long these changes last

So if anyone wants other series changed, they will need to do so themselves.

I'm working down the list of the havoc she's caused, by separating series books from their omnibuses. Could use a fair bit of help.

>21 Noisy:

the havoc she's caused, by separating series books from their omnibuses

Surely you don't actually mean that you're combining books with the omnibuses that contain them!

>22 lorax: No - I had the comma in the incorrect place, but I wasn't clear, anyway. When she changed the series names of the individual books, she did not change the series names of the omnibuses as well, so the omnibuses were just left sitting in the original series on their own.

A Common practice is to include omnibuses in the main series, at the end.

>24 JerryMmm:
Yes. The problem is that when the "A ... Novel" series were created, they had only the novels - so all short stories and omnibuses were left in the original series and separated from the novels :) This is what Noisy refers to. :)

>25 AnnieMod:

I think that was exactly the point, but the novels should not have been *removed* from the original series - there should be a series for just the novels, and one for everything including short stories and omnibi.

But standard practice for all series has been to include short stories and omnibi. If we're going to start creating new series with just the books then it is going to create a lot of new series.

>27 jjwilson61:

I have no problem with anyone creating a novels-only series and will not delete one if I see it, as long as the novels aren't removed from the "main" series, but I also won't go around creating them myself.

>26 lorax:

We are all saying the same thing here. Noone minds a novels only series as long as the bigger one with all pieces is still there and contains the novels as well..

>30 Collectorator: *sigh*

That member has now disabled comments.

Is this something that staff refuses to touch? Will they get involved to make someone stop screwing things up? Especially now that authors are being screwed with as well?

I think if they continue to screw around after we have asked them not to, AND have disabled comments then it is probably best to escalate to LT staff.

Their behaviour shows that they know what they are doing is annoying a lot of people and is not an innocent misunderstanding.

Hello, I just received a link to this post, along with an offensive message, so yes, I disabled comments as I do not need to hear that kind of language.
First of all, I have been a (paying) member of LT since 2007, but have not been active until recently. The only reason I have been updating my library now is because of the time I now have on my hands due to my recent breast cancer diagnosis. With chemotherapy, I have been all but bedridden.
When I first joined LT, series weren't even a thing. When I started editing series, I thought that only my library would be changed; I certainly did not mean to upset the above users. You all have been coming to your own conclusions. I'm not purposely "screwing" with things.
That being said, with over 2 million members with editing capability, I'm sure I'm not the first to change anything. And who's to say who is right & who is wrong when it comes to what the name of the series should be? I was simply editing them to match the cover.
Now knowing that this aggravates people so much, I'm no longer going to edit anything. Again, I thought only my library was affected. So before you start talking negatively about people, give them a chance to explain. Much of this thread reads like gossipy school children posting rather than intelligent bibliophiles.
And once again, though I will no longer edit in common knowledge (except in rare instances), every single member of the LT community has a right to edit, whether or not you agree with it.
Please do not send me nasty messages or posts, as we are all adults here.

No problem collectorator, whatever you say.

Okay, first off, we have no need to be rude to people who are making changes to the data. Cursing and offensive language just breeds more hostility. We're supposed to be adults here.

Second, They change something. This is NOT the end of the world. Just add the proper stuff back in. Geez. You make it sound like WWIII because someone changed the name of a series.

Breathe people.

Not "a" series, a lot of series, which involves going through a ton of books to fix things back, not to mention all the authors, and there's no way to know the extent of what was done since the log only shows recent things. Is it the end of the world? No. But it's a lot of work that has been undone that a lot of people spent time doing in the first place and a lot more will have to spend time redoing now. People have a right to be irritated, and no, no one has "made it sound like WWIII."

To ".monkey.", please read the post I left earlier.

Yes, I saw it, you made an error, it happens, etc. Which doesn't change that things need fixing or negate my previous post in any way.

My point was that with over 2 million members, who is to say what is right, what needs fixing, etc. We ALL have the right to edit, not just the few people on this thread. With all the bad happening in the world, bullying someone because they have a different opinion is just sad. You sound like a very angry person and I hope you find peace. I'm leaving this thread now.

>44 NatalieD: Calling someone who doesn't agree with you a bully isn't helping either.

>44 NatalieD: You seem to be the one not aware of how many people use this site. It is not fair to undo the series that other people have set up just because you don't want to see them. I see several people saying that they can see arguements for having both series, but that you didn't just add the way you wanted it, but destroyed the way others wanted it. According to the OP you did that several times.

And undoing an author split is just destructive. What possible purpose can there be in that?

Calling us bullies because we want you to stop breaking things is a bit much.

It's funny because I just read thru this thread, and NatalieD mentioned the millions of users, so it sounds like she is aware of how many people use it. She also stated that she didn't know that her edits were ruining other users libraries. Yet everyone keeps ragging on her about it. Sounds like bullying, even though none of us wants to hear it. We all need to get a life & move on from it. Let it be over. Geez, people.

>48 easyreader2000:

As someone who just joined the site today, you might want to spend a bit more time here before ragging on people who have spent a lot of time here, and a lot of time trying to ensure that CK and series info is accurate. They are understandably upset when someone trashes that work.

My point was, this person has already stated that they didn't realize that they were annoying others and has promised to stop...maybe you should reread the post. Yet you all continue to shame her for making a mistake. Anyone who wants to edit is allowed to, yet you all HAVE bullied & shamed this person into disabling comments & from editing. I just joined this site (thanks for taking the time to check, btw) and came to this thread to learn about editing, but what I read here is pathetic. Everyone joining in together in a sort of mob mentality to keep berating someone repeatedly over what they have already expressed regret for. THAT is bullying, and for those who have children, I hope you don't pass these behaviors down to them.
And before you reply in anger, think about what you're doing...everyone picking on someone for ruining their "hard work"....really?? Go try some real work and see how that feels, and stop picking on a physically ill person who probably feels bad enough already. After seeing what kind of people come on this site, I'm already going to delete my account.
Shame on you!

>35 NatalieD: May I be the first, apparently, to say how sorry I am to hear of your illness, and to wish you all the best with the chemotherapy.

PS...I'm understandably upset about what happened in Paris, and about the kid who was just killed down the street from me. This??? This is nothing to get "upset" over! Pathetic!!!
And to johnthefireman, thank you for reminding everyone what humanity is. Nice to know there are still people who feel compassion and not hate.

I have just read the posts back. Up to >33 .Monkey.: everyone is just slightly annoyed and wondering about the motifs.

>34 andyl: is a reaction to disabling comments, an action explained less than an hour later in >35 NatalieD:. We can't check what comment offended her so much that she reacted that way, it's gone now.

The rest is acceptance of the apology, but there is no 'no harm done' after it, because some harm was done.
Also, I believe that comparing harms is never constructive, just insulting.

>41 .Monkey.: The same thing happens on jobs all the time. People do work. Someone undoes it. It gets redone.
Why are you making such a big deal of it?

Yes, she made a mistake. And admitted she didn't know. Now things can be adjusted accordingly.

There is too much "This is my way and no one else has a say" in this thread from long time members. (Yeah, I'm also a long time member, so don't say I am not including myself in this.)
When this first began, we had lots of fun and lots of arguments on how to do certain things. And those not part of talk frequently CHANGED what we came to agree on. So we fixed them. No big deal.

Now it comes across as someone wanting to take their ball and go home, rather than play with someone who has a different idea of what should be the goal.
I admit, there are parts of CK that bug me because things I think don't belong are there. Some, I remove because they are just bad data. Others, I adjust to conform. This misunderstanding, which apparently didn't get caught fast enough to save everyone the heartburn, is just that. A misunderstanding.

So again I say : BREATHE!

Don't let something that just needs to be redone as a stress in your life. It isn't worth the pain.
And if it bugs you that much, create the new series that YOU want to see and move on. That's basically the way the field is set up anyway.

The only people who seem to be so ridiculously aggravated are those of you who keep trying to insist we should let it drop. The rest of us posted about a problem and how to attempt to resolve it. I've only seen 3 people throwing a fit here, and they've all come into the thread at the end.

Ah, no. People trying to be the voice of reason are saying drop it.

ETA: It honestly became a dog pile about post >20 al.vick:. Once people started denoting worse names than just mistake (havoc) everyone's internet mob mentality came out.

Rather than debating, please assist in reverting to the original series names which many different people had a hand in contributing to.

I have none of the books in question and can be of no assistance beyond making things worse. Why do you think I've not tried to fix anything?

Here's the thing I think that is getting lost in all this noise. Those who are telling the members who this is going to fall on to fix are basically telling them that their time is worth nothing. 'What's the big deal, just fix it', or implying that 'it's not Paris so it's nothing'. That's mildly insulting to the people who literally have now seen hours, and hours, and hours of their work destroyed, and are now being told to 'Suck it up and stop bullying'.

Here's a scenario. So. A person works, 100 hours on a painting. Another person comes along and puts two swipes of permanent paint across the whole thing. The Artist is pissed off because their piece of art was just destroyed. The destroyer of the painting tells the artist that they should chill out, that the artist can just do it again, his friends, people who are new to the art world say the same thing. That the artist is bullying the destroyer, that the artist should know that there are seven billion people in the world, and that it's everyone's world, so why is the artist getting so pissed off that the destroyer changed the piece of art. That the artist should just go make another piece of art.

In that scenario would any of us here defend the destroyer of the art? Of course not. Even if that destroyer claimed that they 'didn't know' what he or she was doing was wrong? Of course we wouldn't. We put value on the fact that this person took 100 hours out of their life and made this beautiful piece of art.

So, why is it suddenly bullying if people who take equal amounts of time out of their lives to make this place a better place for ALL of us are a little ticked off that someone, without apparently consulting anyone (and it seems to me with no remorse, which is between them and their chosen diety) decided to change and destroy quite a bit of work that took 100s of hours to get into the right place in the first place?

I've been through this whole thread. I saw no bullying, and except for those telling the people who try and make this a better place, a place where sucky, sucky, sucky (maybe I should have used an F instead of an S there) Amazon Data and wonky as all hell imports, I thought that this thread was pretty much a normal LT thread with debating and back and forth between people who care what happens to this site.

So, >50 easyreader2000:, I know that you're trying to help. You think that you're coming to the aid of some person who you think is being, what, abused by some ruling majority or something, but you're not. Please stick around the site a bit, learn something about the frequent posters/combiners/fixers (of which I used to be *sniff, sniff* the bad part of a full time job) who (even though I disagree with them sometimes *cough Collectorator cough* ;)) are truly giving their time and effort for free so that this site can be better. And then we can all debate (somewhere) the philosophical of the serieses, publisher serieses, titles, authors, combining, etc. etc.

>59 DanieXJ:

I am not "trying to help". If you read my post, I made no comment whatsoever about the substance or tone of any of the posts on this thread, so please do not try to second guess my intentions. I saw that an LT member is ill and I expressed my feelings about that illness, as I would do on any other thread where I saw that an LT member was ill.

Incidentally, I have been a member of LT for just shy of ten years (twice as long as you, in fact, although to me that is not relevant - you are the one who implies that the length of my membership is significant), and a regular poster since LT Talk began, so I'm not sure what you mean by, "Please stick around the site a bit, learn something about the frequent posters..."

I apologize to you >60 John5918:. I will amend my previous message to reflect that.

From your tone, as well as the tone of Easy Reader it seemed as though as most of the people who were defending the destruction of the CK info were newbies.

So, the stick around the site a bit was to >50 easyreader2000: who apparently decided that being a member for a day means that he knows more than the rest of us combined.

As for the illness part. Honestly, I don't understand what it has to do with anything. Of course I hope that the poster gets better, that chemo or whatever solution for the sickness is successful. But I still don't understand what that has to do with going in and undoing things that others have spent hours (and will spend hours again) putting together and putting right.

>61 DanieXJ: Thanks, DanielXJ. Apology accepted and much appreciated.

>62 Collectorator: And I hope very much that it no longer includes me either!

>59 DanieXJ:

Subtle. VERY subtle.

To tell you the truth, no I would not support either the artist or the destroyer.

As an artist, I've had my works verbally shredded and literally changed by others to suit their needs. A True Artist learns to examine the change, determine if it was a good or bad change from their stand point, then move to the next project. They don't continue to stand and whine. Unless they're a self published author who can't take criticism. Are they allowed to be a little miffed? For 5 minutes. That's all.

Now, all that said, no one here seems to care what anyone is saying other than those who support their position, I'm going to just shut up.

I don't see any bullying on this thread before the Natalie posted claiming she was bullied and I really doubt that al.vick did so in his post to her wall. So the whole basis of this argument seems to be moot.

I agree that NatalieD over-reacted, and she wasn't actually "bullied", however...

For a couple dozen posts before she appeared folks were talking about her as if she was some 'other' person, a trouble-maker, rather than a member of our community.
And with
"the havoc she's caused"
and
"Will they get involved to make someone stop screwing things up?"
I can see how she might have felt she was in an 'us vs them' situation, a bit ganged up on. Can't we see this?

But then it didn't help that her sensitivity morphed into overreaction... and here we are.

>66 Crypto-Willobie: Yep, I do believe that what just happened could basically be next to the definition of the Internet these days.

Shoot it's so much easier when you can see the other person's face/expressions/etc.

>67 DanieXJ: Not just the internet. There seems to be a culture-wide phenomenon where apologizing is seen as showing weakness. I blame the lawyers.

Well, I hope my message was polite, I was just trying to get information on what was happening, and sure hope I didn't spark the ruffled feathers.

May I make a suggestion? There is, for every series, a sometimes underused field - the Series Description. The original Anita Blake Vampire Hunter series does show a brief description of the character and the books: might it not also be more specific as to the criteria for that series? Like disambiguation notices, I believe that someone editing CK in an idiosyncratic way is less likely* to delete existing data if there is a clear justification for its presence. No reason to refrain from providing additional data, of course.

*assuming always that they are reasonable people ;-)

>70 abbottthomas: NatalieD only said that she was editing the name of the series to match the cover of her books. It apparently had nothing to do with whether there were extra short stories included so I don't think adding that to the series description would have helped.

>71 jjwilson61: Wasn't it the removal of works from the earlier series that was upsetting people? I suppose it would depend on the message left in the series description......and if anyone bothered to read it ;-(

>72 abbottthomas:

But if someone is changing the information inside of their own catalog or from the work page, they won't read what the series page is saying. You need to be on the series page to actually see it - and you get there either because you are fixing a series or because you clicked to see what is inside. If you are correcting data, you most likely do not get there...

Wasn't there at one point a pop-up when you edited CK from the catalogue that said "you are about to change CK for everyone who has this book" or something?

(It sounds to me like she was editing from the work page, however.)

It says that if you try to change it from your catalog listing. But there is no warning for editing it from the work page.

>74 keristars:

There is. Once you accept it though, it does not show up anymore. So you can forget easily about it...

Can one (or more) of you more experienced series creators/editors help me understand what I need to do so that I can have my books in what I think is the "correct" series without destroying what other people want for their own books?

In my case, it's the Sue Grafton mysteries featuring Kinsey Millhone. I prefer the series that is simply called "Kinsey Millhone" but every single one of my books shows "A Kinsey Millhone Novel" in the CK field in my catalog. BUT, if I navigate to the "Kinsey Millhone" series from outside of my catalog, there are colored checkmarks next to each of the books indicating which ones I own, have read, etc. And yet, that series name is NOT showing up in my catalog.

I'm hopelessly muddled trying to explain this to myself, so I hope it's at least somewhat clear to some of you, who can tell me what to do so my catalog reflects the "proper" series.

Many thanks in advance!

>77 rosalita: Really, the only thing that you can do is go to every work page and edit the series names in CK. Of course, that's what started this whole brouhaha to begin with.

However, you could add "Kinsey Millhone" to the series field in addition to the other series name (on a separate line, of course). Then you'll have both in your catalog. Not sure if that helps :-(

77> It's also possible that the works are attached to a series under a different language setting. A is for Alibi, for example, is currently in the "Kinsey Millhone" series under ENG but for GER it's "The Alphabet Mysteries".

The regular 'Kinsey Millhone' series name is also a Spanish series, so if the English series CK hadn't been changed back yet (it looks like it has been now), you would have seen your books with checkmarks by going to that, even though it doesn't show on your English-set catalogue. (If the series title were blank on the English CK, it would show a series title carried over from a different language CK, I believe. At least, it does on the work page. For example, the OPD in German is blank, so you see "Information from the English Common Knowledge. Edit to localize it to your language." then the English CK filled in.)

Incidentally, the Spanish series CK has A is for Alibi numbered "01" but the English CK has it numbered "1". I wonder how it's decided which order to use/display? has anyone tested that over the years?

The English-language series had been entitled 'The Alphabet Mysteries' since 2011, and that's where all the omnibus editions live. That series needs to be reconstituted.

ETA some clarification, because I wrote the message on a phone.

>78 PhaedraB: Thanks, Phaedra. That was pretty much what I thought but hoped there was something I was missing.

>79 keristars: Ah, I never even though about the various language versions of LT! That makes a great deal of sense now that you mention it. Can you tell which language site the series is on via the URL when you are on the page?

>81 rosalita:

Nope. But you can if you look at the history of the field. :) There is a language code there that tells you which site the series value is hiding on.

>82 AnnieMod: Oh, how clever! I would never have guessed to look there.