Improve editing of Work Relationships
DiscussieRecommend Site Improvements
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
1lorax
Currently, "Work-to-work relationships" sorts everything within the same 'relatedness' category by time of entry. (Take a look at https://www.librarything.com/work/19863645/book/165404735 ) as an example to see what I mean. There's no way to rearrange the order (short of deleting and re-entering everything) or to choose a different sort.
If a single person enters all related works in one sitting, following some sort of coherent order (like order of stories in an anthology, or alphabetically by author's name), this is fine. But the longstanding prohibition against entering short stories for the purpose of using this feature means that there are many gaps - someone will create relationships for all stories already entered, but be explicitly forbidden from finishing the project. (Perfumes? Go right ahead! Short stories for this purpose? Tim went out of his way to tell us not to enter them.)
So, if someone later enters the remaining short stories for an accepted purpose - like wanting to keep track of their short fiction - and then either they or someone else wants to add the work relationships, the order is apparently entirely arbitrary. Letting us re-arrange the order of the list, or sorting by author name instead (since LT can do that without additional information) would make these long lists so much friendlier.
If a single person enters all related works in one sitting, following some sort of coherent order (like order of stories in an anthology, or alphabetically by author's name), this is fine. But the longstanding prohibition against entering short stories for the purpose of using this feature means that there are many gaps - someone will create relationships for all stories already entered, but be explicitly forbidden from finishing the project. (Perfumes? Go right ahead! Short stories for this purpose? Tim went out of his way to tell us not to enter them.)
So, if someone later enters the remaining short stories for an accepted purpose - like wanting to keep track of their short fiction - and then either they or someone else wants to add the work relationships, the order is apparently entirely arbitrary. Letting us re-arrange the order of the list, or sorting by author name instead (since LT can do that without additional information) would make these long lists so much friendlier.
2elenchus
I support this.
It would also be nice if there were a suggested order indicated so that it's easier to identify a specific relationship within a long-ish list, especially when hopping from work to work. Not saying the suggested order is imposed, but new users of the function often don't have a preference and could very well welcome the suggested format / sequence.
It would also be nice if there were a suggested order indicated so that it's easier to identify a specific relationship within a long-ish list, especially when hopping from work to work. Not saying the suggested order is imposed, but new users of the function often don't have a preference and could very well welcome the suggested format / sequence.
4lorax
Bump. I was working on the work relationships for one of my anthologies the other day - where I have cataloged the contents on the entirely permitted "tracking my short fiction reading" grounds - and someone had previously added a work-to-work relationship for a single story, which was neither the first in the anthology nor alphabetically the first by author. I ended up deleting and re-adding the relationship, but if they'd entered, say, all but one - which I've seen in the past - re-ordering things sure would have helped.
5Nevov
Specifically regarding "Contains" relationships:
Sometimes a work has its contents presented in different orders across the editions. For example an anthology of A,B,C in one edition, C,A,B in another, which correctly are combined.
I appreciate that currently the ordering does not allow for any nuance in this regard and there is nothing stopping two determined helpers switching the order back and forth with deleting and re-adding relationships. But if a reorder tool is added, enabling this type of edit to be done easily, is it worth thinking of a way to handle variations? A simple answer could be a toggle/checkbox to mark that the listed order is/isn't applicable to all editions. A complex answer could be allowing multiple orders via a + button and letting owners choose which one for their book (if they have a book); the most popular calculating to be the order displayed on the work page. Etc.
Though you may consider the above to be a unicorn when we only want a pony, no offence if so! But wanted to throw it out there.
Regarding "Is contained in" relationship, and probably most other relationships:
It always seems most logical for me, that "Is contained in" should display in original publication date. So when a work is eg. anthologised three times, the earliest anthology would be listed first. Similar for adaptations, inspirations,... So I'd like it if that was possible to auto-set (arrange in publication date), or to manually re-arrange easier than the current delete and re-add, which in fact for "Is contained in" if you try to get into doing that at present you will screw up the "Contains" at the other end of the relationship, unless you perform an extremely intricate ballet of deletion and re-adding.
Sometimes a work has its contents presented in different orders across the editions. For example an anthology of A,B,C in one edition, C,A,B in another, which correctly are combined.
I appreciate that currently the ordering does not allow for any nuance in this regard and there is nothing stopping two determined helpers switching the order back and forth with deleting and re-adding relationships. But if a reorder tool is added, enabling this type of edit to be done easily, is it worth thinking of a way to handle variations? A simple answer could be a toggle/checkbox to mark that the listed order is/isn't applicable to all editions. A complex answer could be allowing multiple orders via a + button and letting owners choose which one for their book (if they have a book); the most popular calculating to be the order displayed on the work page. Etc.
Though you may consider the above to be a unicorn when we only want a pony, no offence if so! But wanted to throw it out there.
Regarding "Is contained in" relationship, and probably most other relationships:
It always seems most logical for me, that "Is contained in" should display in original publication date. So when a work is eg. anthologised three times, the earliest anthology would be listed first. Similar for adaptations, inspirations,... So I'd like it if that was possible to auto-set (arrange in publication date), or to manually re-arrange easier than the current delete and re-add, which in fact for "Is contained in" if you try to get into doing that at present you will screw up the "Contains" at the other end of the relationship, unless you perform an extremely intricate ballet of deletion and re-adding.
6lorax
Bump.
I've basically given up. When I see one of my anthologies has half or so of the stories added as relationships, I despair about trying to add the rest (when I know perfectly well they all have associated works on LT, because I have them in my short fiction account, which is a 100% legitimate use-case for adding short fiction) - do I really need to erase and re-add everything?
I've basically given up. When I see one of my anthologies has half or so of the stories added as relationships, I despair about trying to add the rest (when I know perfectly well they all have associated works on LT, because I have them in my short fiction account, which is a 100% legitimate use-case for adding short fiction) - do I really need to erase and re-add everything?
