Testing new author-link system

I'm testing the conversion of author links to the new link system.

There are some 330,000 of them. And it's a complex process, with different data formats. So it needs considerable testing.

1. Go ahead and test it, if you see it.
2. Edits to the new links area won't be saved. I will probably load and reload it a number of times.
3. Let me know what problems you see.

At present, there's no way to confirm links.

I just tested all the links on Francine Prose's author page, and they work fine. The only glitch I see is that I could not navigate back to her author page from the Facebook link. I could from all the others. That may be an FB "thing" and not an LT "thing"?

Currently pulled back. But it will go on and off.

The pop-up box has a check box with the text Includes a full listing.

What does this mean?

>4 lilithcat:

Good. Thanks. That only applies to series and awards. Removed.

Stand by while it repopulates.

Removed link section while it populates. Because it's going to take a few hours, and I don't want people making edits while it's halfway there.

Section is down for the night. The conversion process is simply slow, and I've concluded I can't make it any faster.

>8 timspalding: I spend time every single morning, cleaning up random authors, adding links, testing odd looking ones to see if they still lead to what they did originally, and so on.

You are now making me very sad...more than you can know.

>9 Lyndatrue:

No, this is going to be better for you. Way better. For starters, everything will be tracked--so you won't have to wonder who did what, or where your work went!

Send along other suggestions for linking, btw. This is the time.

Not directly related, but in the helpers log edited links are shown as being "editted."

And? ;)

I checked it out yesterday. At first it looked a bit disturbing. But what I especially like is the language option.

>1 timspalding: pardon me, but I am lost. Which author links are being converted, exactly?

Coming back soon.

Okay. Author linking is fully transferred.

When I click "edit link" for a functional link, all of the fields are blank:

Sorry about that. Should be fixed.

It's the Luddite guy again. What is this all about and where does one go to see it function? If I add a book will this function pop up when I add the author?

It works well.

What I miss is the 'academic' sites among the art of the link. Like Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz or the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. Would be a good idea I think to have an art for biographical lexica and such.

Please consider returning the previous list of types of links. Facebook is only appropriate to a tiny minority of authors, and academic sites are very common. I loathe your new interface, which is non-intuitive, and annoying. It isn't an improvement, sir.

Also, how it displays the links appears changed. Before a Wikipedia link was listed as such and then I would have display text indicate if it was an author or series wiki etc. Now the Wikipedia label is gone. Can we get it back?

Replies coming. In a meeting.

>23 timspalding: I am very sad to see that many of the links I spent HOURS tracking down are just gone. I just now replaced the SF Encyclopedia link for Frederic Brown (one of my favorite authors), and I wonder what else is missing. :-{

Please put BACK the other types of sites. Academic sites are important. I don't want to see Yale links equivalenced to IMDb.

Languages: This is a feature I like. But it has a tiny problem: Author Gion Peder Thöni's wikipedia page is designated as English, but rm is actually Rumantsch/Raeto-Romanian

>25 paulstalder: Can't you simply change it? Someone linked to it from the English-language site, presumably.

>26 anglemark: It's a new feature, and Rumantsch is not listed as one of the languages to chose from. I changed the Lithuanian entry, but I am not sure if I should already go and change things before the new feature is fully running.

>27 paulstalder: I think it is up and running now, but if Rumantsch is not available from the drop-down there's a problem, yes.

I am very sad to see that many of the links I spent HOURS tracking down are just gone. I just now replaced the SF Encyclopedia link for Frederic Brown (one of my favorite authors), and I wonder what else is missing.

I'm sorry to say, but that isn't the case. There was no such link on his page--at least not on https://www.librarything.com/author/brownfredric .

To allay any fears I have re-added the old section--for your eyes, and mine, only. So you can see what has changed. The original data is the original data. It hasn't been changed a bit. The new system is completely independent of the old system--it imported the old data.



Please put BACK the other types of sites. Academic sites are important. I don't want to see Yale links equivalenced to IMDb.

I've now adding back the academic ones, reassigning them to the right place. That leaves only one--"fan site." I'd rather cluster this under "other," since the boundary is porous and the term can be understood pejoritatively.

Languages: This is a feature I like. But it has a tiny problem: Author Gion Peder Thöni's wikipedia page is designated as English, but rm is actually Rumantsch/Raeto-Romanian

Language is not automatically assigned. Everything went to English when we switched. But I shall go ahead and do the Wikipedia ones, because I can know their language from the URL alone.

>30 timspalding:

Okay, 18,000 non-US Wikipedia links have had their languages assigned.

It's a new feature, and Rumantsch is not listed as one of the languages to chose from.

Ah, okay, you need Rumantsch?

Would it be possible to make "Obituary" one of the standard link types? I'd find it useful.

Also, how it displays the links appears changed. Before a Wikipedia link was listed as such and then I would have display text indicate if it was an author or series wiki etc. Now the Wikipedia label is gone. Can we get it back?

Can you give me an example?

>34 timspalding:

It is true that it used to say "Wikipedia author page." It has been changed to "Wikipedia." But anything you put in the link text will replace that. I think it's better to be simpler. Links on author pages should be about the author; 95% or more are to author pages on Wikipedia.

I have made the old links visible to anyone in the group "Board for Extreme Thing Advances" too. So you can see what changes there are.

If you want random authors, bookmark http://www.librarything.com/random.php?type=author

>29 timspalding: thanks for the academia

>31 timspalding: thank you for reassignig them. That s great

>32 timspalding: need? Well not much. But for this author I only found the Rumantsch site. Msybe 'other languages' would do for such minorities.

thank you for reassignig them. That s great

The problem is that many will now say "Wikipedia (French) (French)" or whatever. Because people often put the language into the description. Of course, not always or in a way I can reliably eliminate.

BTW: This is the order:

Official home page
Author blog
Wikipedia
Academic
Publisher author page
Interview
Press
Twitter
Facebook
Other social media
Other

The old one was:

Official home page
Author blog
Publisher author page
Wikipedia author page
Interview
Press
Academic site
Fan site
Other

>38 timspalding: The old one had a separate link for Twitter, also (but at the bottom of the list). Could we just have "Social Media" and not Facebook on its own? Thanks very much for putting Academic back in.

I haven't yet looked at any authors where there'd been multiple Wikipedia pages, since my own preferred format was pretty random. I either used "Wikipedia (FR)" or "Wikipedia (France)" or even "Wikipedia (French)" and then would *always* add the corresponding modification to the English one, such as "Wikipedia (EN)" (it seemed more polite, somehow).

May I assume that your own preferred modification is "Wikipedia (French)"? If so, I'll just use that one.

The old one had a separate link for Twitter, also (but at the bottom of the list). Could we just have "Social Media" and not Facebook on its own? Thanks very much for putting Academic back in.

I think Twitter and Facebook belong on their own. Having them there means that someone can paste the URL and not bother to type out "Facebook" or "Facebook author page" or whatever. Rather than kill Facebook, I think there's an argument for adding Instagram, Snapchat, Goodreads and others. But I'm being minimalistic.

Wikipedia (French)

No, so if you just pull down Wikipedia you don't need to type anything. Set the language and it will say "Wikipedia (French)" for you.

>34 timspalding: & >35 timspalding: This changed on the series pages, too. When I added Wikipedia links for The Southern Reach Trilogy last night they read "Wikipedia: Series — full list," "Wikipedia: Annihilation," "Wikipedia: Authority" and "Wikipedia: Acceptance"; now it's just "Series — full list" and the titles, which I don't think is an improvement.

That's what I was getting at in post 22, amanda4242

>41 amanda4242:

Ah. Okay. Give me a sec.

>41 amanda4242:

Fixed. There's a different "type" for Wikipedia in series. I much prefer the way it's done on series. But all the old data in the author system meant I had to do it differently.

I'm pleased we're cleaning this up, despite the growing pains it seems I missed over the weekend. I could also see arguments for things like Instagram and Goodreads getting their own labels. Perhaps if we were to add a nested sub-menu for "other social media"?

Currently, it's showing both the new linking system, and the old one. If I use the interface on the old one to add a link, will it replicate to the new one automagickally, or should I add it in both places? This is a question out of curiosity, since I am currently not adding anything anymore.

ETA: I see in >45 lorannen: that there is another mention for Instagram and Goodreads. Y'all read different authors than I do. Instagram is not in my vocabulary. :-{

>46 Lyndatrue: The old link section says "Do not change the old links" so if you want to add a new link add it only to the new link section.
I believe Tim only made the old link section visible so that people can confirm that there was no loss of links when switching between the old system and the new one.

>46 Lyndatrue: Y'all read different authors than I do.

Well, that's a surprisingly condescending comment. There are some well-respected authors who use Twitter and Instagram. I can totally understand choosing not to use it, but disparaging something you don't use and don't understand seems awfully petty.

>48 rosalita: My comment was actually directed for lorannen (and Tim, as well). It wouldn't take much scanning of my library to see that most of the things I read are by people who are long gone. I'm old, and while there may indeed be authors that I read who use Twitter, I'm fairly sure that they don't use Instagram.

Condescending or not, I prefer the links that are for the written word, and Instagram doesn't fill the bill. It's one thing to add it in, when it's useful to do so, but quite another to suggest that it ought to have its own slot in the list of types.

I dunno. I'm beginning to wonder if I've somehow aged out of LT, or perhaps it's just gone on without me, while I wasn't paying attention.

>49 Lyndatrue: Well, we can agree at least in questioning whether Instagram is worthy of its own link type. That's a conversation worth having, no question.

>49 Lyndatrue: I was simply pulling examples mentioned by Tim in >40 timspalding:. I can appreciate your position on this point, but I was more advocating for a catch-all sub-menu for non-Twitter and -Facebook social media links. I think there's value in adding them, if folks want to do so, but agree that they shouldn't be at the top-level like Official home page, Wikipedia, or even Twitter.

Currently, it's showing both the new linking system, and the old one. If I use the interface on the old one to add a link, will it replicate to the new one automagickally, or should I add it in both places? This is a question out of curiosity, since I am currently not adding anything anymore.


Yes. I said above (>29 timspalding:) that I had made it visible to you, so you could see that--in fact--the links you thought had disappeared were never there.

As it stands, you and all people in the Board for Thing Advances see it. The rest don't.

>52 timspalding: Then I'm grateful that I'm on this board, and I admit to using the old link system before seeing the message that the links need to be on the new one.

As an interesting side note, I recently saw a page where I'd added (or at least altered) the Wikipedia pages, using the (EN) and (FR), and was strangely happy to see that although (French) had been added to the (FR) link, both Wikipedia pages retained the original edit.

Of course, I'm a bit sad to think that Mr. Brown didn't have his proper SF Encyclopedia link, which is due to my lack of care, since I remember editing the page.

As a complete aside, do you test links as they are updated? I often see a link on an author page that leads to a link farm, or is simply broken. Time passes by for these things, and I always try to test, but there are only certain authors I check on each day.

I had seen the note in >29 timspalding:, but was not aware then that I was in the subgroup that could see them, and I had been going out of my way to *not* look at author pages.

Thanks for your responses. I appreciate having answers.

At first I was dismayed because the new interface seemed so different than what I was used to. But now I like it. Thanks!

>52 timspalding: Okay, I'm back to adding information to authors, and I only added it to the new version, and let the old version be. Does your new version show history, somehow, in the way that regular CK does? It'd be nice, if it did (even though it will expose me for being deeply compulsive on proper ordering of links).

Ah, well. I used to be valuable for being deeply focused, and caring about details. I suppose it's a trait that I'll take with me to the grave.

I'm getting used to the new system, and I suppose I won't disappear in a huff, or even a minute and a huff (I always loved Groucho).

>55 Lyndatrue: The helper log for links is here: http://www.librarything.com/log_helpers.php?view=links

I've found a bug:
Add a link to an author page using the new system
Combine that page with another author page such that the link is on the losing page
There's no message on the winning author page

For example:
I added a link to https://www.librarything.com/author/sobiloffhy
Then combined that page with https://www.librarything.com/author/sobiloffhymanj
The sobiloffhymanj page won, but there's no message that there's a link hidden on the other page.

I have for now separated those two author pages so you can see the link on sobiloffhy and combine them again to reproduce the bug.

>57 r.orrison: Good catch! I'd expect on combinations we'd want any/all links to appear on the resulting combined page, except duplicated links, right?

As a complete aside, do you test links as they are updated? I often see a link on an author page that leads to a link farm, or is simply broken. Time passes by for these things, and I always try to test, but there are only certain authors I check on each day.

No. It's possible to catch SOME errors—the worst ones. But it's tricky. And with 330,000 links, it's quite a job. I'll look into it soon, because I want to do something similar--test when series links change. But I don't know how far I'll get.

At first I was dismayed because the new interface seemed so different than what I was used to. But now I like it. Thanks!

Yeah. That's the way it goes. :)

Does your new version show history, somehow, in the way that regular CK does? It'd be nice, if it did (even though it will expose me for being deeply compulsive on proper ordering of links).

No, except for on the Helpers page. But give me a day or two. It was the next thing for me.

Combine that page with another author page such that the link is on the losing page
There's no message on the winning author page

Yeah, what SHOULD happen? Straight-up combine everything?

>59 timspalding: Yeah, what SHOULD happen? Straight-up combine everything?

Would they separate back out to the original pages if the author pages were separated again? (For example, after an accidental combination.)

If not, then what used to happen with the old system, and what still happens with CK would be fine: Just show a message. In the old system, it was in the Improve this author box and said "There are links stranded on: Hy Sobiloff" where the author's name was a link to the original page (https://www.librarything.com/author/sobiloffhy&norefer=2) with the ability to copy and delete the links from there.

I've added the link to https://www.librarything.com/author/sobiloffhy using the old system as well, so you can see the message when you combine them.

>59 timspalding: I believe it would be easy to set up something that tests for brokenness (on old links), but things like "goes somewhere it ought not to" are almost certainly something that requires human intervention.

>59 timspalding: I've been carefully NOT editing the old-style links, and only updating (and adding to) the new ones. I've noticed something I find disconcerting at best, and am hoping that it's something you'll reconsider.

There seems to be something that runs daily that causes the links to be alphabetized (within their categories). Since many of the links I add fall into the "Other" category, I am fairly compulsive on how their listed, and don't like knowing that you're going to toss it away each day without a care in the world, causing me to weep bitter tears, and dress in sackcloth and ashes. Okay, okay, maybe that's overstating it, but I'd like to not see things alphabetized. I'm going to start adding a pointless leading X or Y or Z...

Okay, I won't, but I really *want* to. I'd also like to see the return of the "Fan Site" category. I miss it more than I'd expected to. When someone creates a page or site for an author, and it isn't official, then it's ... a Fan Site. Right now, I'm putting them under Press, but that bothers me. I'm not going to put them in Other, since they'll be part of the alphabet conspiracy.

You can find me over at the obsessive-compulsive meeting. :-}

I don't know if there's any connection with the new linking system, but an issue with author links has been reported here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/298383#6621035

>62 Lyndatrue:

The links are not alphabetized, still less on any schedule of changes. Can you give me a link to something that concerns you? Most authors don't have enough links. I can't really do anything with vague reports--I need a solid thing.

FWIW, the sorting in the new system is the following cascade:

Flagged links down
Canonical (complete series) links up
Order of types (e.g., Wikipedia higher; see >38 timspalding: for the one for series)
Foreign language (to your site) down
Edited recently up
Originally-created down

This order means that if you have two links that aren't flagged, are equally canonical, are of the same type and both in the language of the current site, then their order will depend upon last edit.

Of course, that's rare, but it can happen. Frankly, I think there's a case for changing this to an alphabetical presentation, or perhaps just an arbitrary order (e.g., by a hash of their URL). What do you think that final sort should be by?

When someone creates a page or site for an author, and it isn't official, then it's ... a Fan Site. Right now, I'm putting them under Press, but that bothers me. I'm not going to put them in Other, since they'll be part of the alphabet conspiracy.

What?! You're asserting fan sites are press, not "other"? May I suggest that your links are changing because people see you putting fan sites into "press" and they're correcting them?

>64 timspalding: It may be that things are only alphabetized initially, from the conversion (i.e. from the old system to the new one). I am begging you not to alphabetize the links in "Other" (or anywhere else). If you could see my face right now, then I would be at my most abject. I'd claim tears, but that would be dishonest.

I doubt anyone's changing a link that I've put in so quickly. I have only put in Fan sites as Press today, and just the one. I will use Michael Crichton as an example for some of this (he's perfect, because there were a ton of links before, and then I added some). That's the place where I used Press, with some guilt, but will leave it until you've responded, so that you can see it.

http://www.librarything.com/author/crichtonmichael

I'm the one who had last edited the page (you'll note the EN and FR have been removed from the new links, since they're redundant, and I really like the automatic French that shows up). When I first looked at the new links, the last three were in alphabetical order, with IMDb, then Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and SF Encyclopedia last. I had just worked on that page (his birthdate is 10/23), and the old links are ones I'd done.

I often start the morning with the Anniversary links provided by SF Encyclopedia, matched up with the On This Day by LT, and work outward from there.

http://sf-encyclopedia.uk/today.php

Crichton's page matches the old one now, because I'm compulsive (except that I added the fan site, and an obituary).

I can live without the Fan site thing, but alphabetization would make me really sad.

I can live without the Fan site thing, but alphabetization would make me really sad.

What should the links within the groups be sorted by?

not? order of entry?

I think it should be alphabetical, all things being equal. Of course, canonical status, type and language should come first.

Order of entry is pretty random. Why would that be better than alphabetical?

>69 jjwilson61:

Right. It's not actually order of entry, it's primary id, but that amounts to the same thing. It's a way of having it not bounce around, but rather stay stable over time. Alphabetical would do that too.

It sounds like Lyndatrue wants to be able to set the order for herself. Is there a way to do that or do you think she's using the order of entry to do it. If so, its a poor way to do it since the next time something is added that you think should go in the middle you'd have to delete and re-add everything.

>70 timspalding: I believe that order of entry is fine, myself. When people see links, they see prioritization, whether or not they should. If they're alphabetized, then IMDb appears to have more value than Internet Speculative Fiction Database, which is almost never accurate (unless the "author" is actually someone from the media, such as Andy Rooney, which I worked on very recently).

I'm happy to see that the Wikipedia in English always stays at the top of Wikipedia links, and really like your language in parentheses for the others. As I revisit authors I've worked on, I am removing my own modifiers, since yours is trustworthy.

You commented on the alphabetization, but not on the Fan Site type. Should I expect that silence is a comment?

>71 jjwilson61: I care about order of entry on very few things, but the things I care about are things I care about a lot. It's actually pretty easy to reorder items in the list, and I do it without conscious effort for the most part. I just don't want there to be the alphabetization on it. I really really don't.

Not all links are equal. Some are really useful and interesting, and some are just there because they provide a coda (such as obituaries).

Personally, I'd prefer alphabetization, just because then the nature of the ordering is obvious; order of entry is invisible to the end user and thus apparently arbitrary. (I'm of course assuming a scenario where multiple people make changes and entries at different times, rather than what Lyndatrue appears to be assuming which is that one person makes the entries at one point after which they are forever fixed).

>74 lorax: I don't expect them to be forever fixed, and there are plenty of links added that I have checked for veracity (there are people who add links that seem sensible, but lead to link farms and worse), and then ignored.

90% of the author pages I add links to are for obscure authors who may be of interest to only a small percentage of LT users. Michael Crichton got used as an example because he's well-known, and easy.

My preference would be alphabetized, as well, because it's obvious and prevents edit wars. (Maybe an exception for foreign-to-your-site language and flagged links)

I've never seen an author with more than 10-ish links so I don't think it's particularly helpful to have more "important" links toward the top.

In my defense, the only area I'm speaking of is the "Other" classification, and I doubt I'm putting my case forward in any way that makes sense. I don't know that I think of the links I'm speaking of as Important so much as Useful. I wish now I'd just left a message on Tim's profile, because it's proceeded far beyond anything I'd have expected it to.

Ah well. Off to the day.

>75 Lyndatrue: (there are people who add links that seem sensible, but lead to link farms and worse)
Those could have been valid when added but the website simply may not exist anymore. It's good to check any link over time.

You commented on the alphabetization, but not on the Fan Site type. Should I expect that silence is a comment?

I'd be interested what others think. My feeling is that "fan site" is pejorative and subjective. What really qualifies? It also feels very early internet--as it would, considering the date. Way back in the time of the dinosaurs, most authors weren't online, but some fan sites had sprung up. That day is over and we should try to avoid recapitulating its assumptions.

I don't see anything recommending it, really.

Others?

>79 timspalding: Maybe it's just me, but the first type of fan site that comes to mind is stuff like various fandom wikia sites, which are actually quite useful, like the Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings sites.

timspalding (79):

My feeling is that "fan site" is pejorative and subjective.

I know of at least one published author who relies on the fan site for his books for the occasional continuity check or reminder of what he named that character seven books ago. They may no longer be the only game in town as they were in the days of the dinosaurs, but any "perjorative" that you read into the name is what you're putting there yourself.

>80 lorannen: Absolutely! I've found fandom wikis amazingly helpful in sorting out various Doctor Who series.

>79 timspalding: I have a very different perception of "Fan" than you, I suspect. There are any number of people out there who love a particular author, and in some cases, are far more frequently updated and richer in detail than the author's site. I admire them, and appreciate the work that goes into them.

>79 timspalding: We're not talking pop groupies here, but often knowledgeable lay people who put a lot of research into publishing large amounts of facts and sometimes analyses about books and authors. If you want to find some other term to denote them, fine, but listing them in their own category doesn't seem like an outdated idea. Fan site isn't pejorative to me.

Found a bug, reported in detail here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/298386#6623057. In short, if I add a link to an author division, other authors with the same division number get the same link added to their pages.

Okay, I'll add it back--should the words "Fan site" always be printed with it, or is it being a category sufficient?

Just the category is perfect. Thank you very much.

I have added link history, echoing the helpers page, on the edit-links lightbox on each author page.

The log has created a mayhem in the translation system. The page with untranslated strings just had about 1,400 new strings added, all of which seem to be mixtures of English and a local language, for the link logging.

Ah. Thanks. Fixing.

>88 timspalding: How interesting that history is. One of the things I noticed right away is that anyone adding what I'd call (to be as kind as possible) inappropriate links stands out like a sore thumb. It also points out that I'm even more obsessive than I'd thought, but I suppose that's to be expected.

When will the "Fan site" entry show up? Do I need to log off and then log on again?

What is the length of time on the History log? Is it number of entries retained, or is it time-related?

>91 Lyndatrue:

Sorry. Fan site coming. Haven't gotten to it.

History is permanent.

Okay, "fan site" is back.

>93 timspalding: Can we get fan site for series links, too?

I'm getting used to the new interface for adding links, and wanted to say that I really like the Languages pull down menu, where I can point out the language of a link, and it will then just magically show. I'm even doing my very best to get used to the idea that I don't need to type "Wikipedia" where it's identified as Wikipedia already.

I don't love everything about the new interface, but there's no longer anything that I think needs fixing, and the history is genuinely fascinating, including those early entries where it's noted that a link was added (or deleted, or modified) by *blank*, because that was from a time when you weren't keeping that information.

On the whole, I think this improvement is actually an improvement, and thank you.

>95 Lyndatrue: Thanks for the feedback! Glad to hear it's working well for you. :)

Suggestion:

The helpers log (https://www.librarything.com/log_helpers.php?view=links) shows the link, and who added the link - but it should also show which author page it was added to. Perhaps just add "to author name" at the end of the current text.

It would be extremely helpful if the "Links" box on the Author page had "add" either in addition to or instead of the "edit" pencil. It is not clear that clicking the pencil icon is how you add a link, particularly as those of us familiar with the previous linking system were used to clicking "Add" to add a new link.

If it was instead of, it would be misleading because it takes you to an Edit box for the links collection, not to an Add box. Given that the pencil is all there is, I don't think this is a problem. Anyone who is unsure of how to proceed will click the only icon there is in the box.

>99 anglemark:

It is a problem, because right now one has the impression that that is how you edit links already added. People shouldn't have to wonder and randomly click to find the correct way to add new links.

It should be clear. It isn't.

>100 lilithcat: I just don't understand how one could randomly click around when there is only one thing to click, and it is, in fact, how you edit the list of links. But we don't seem to agree on this one. Suffice it to say that I think it is very clear as it is, and I'll leave it at that.

Has enough time passed that you could remove the "old link system" box for users in the BETA group? I find it somewhere between confusing and annoying. Confoying?