An unpleasant run-in

DiscussieCombiners!

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

An unpleasant run-in

1gabriel
okt 30, 2020, 1:45 pm

What to do? If anything?

I was making some author divisions, and a prolific combiner took it upon him/herself to firstly, undo some assignments I had made and then make an obnoxious (and bolded) note in the disambiguation notice.

On another author division, he/she took one of the books, forced the author to another (also divided) author, then undid the division (which eliminated a useful disambiguation notice I had added).

I posted a note on his/her wall, and I've been blocked, but is there anything else that can or should be done?

2lilithcat
okt 30, 2020, 1:57 pm

You can tell us which authors, and we'll try to help fix it.

3gabriel
Bewerkt: okt 30, 2020, 2:54 pm

>2 lilithcat:

Thankfully, neither was a very large author, so I was able to fix them both without taking too long about it.

I just don't know why this particular editor was obviously monitoring the helpers log, then jumped in with less knowledge, an extremely dubious approach, and an offensive message; and I don't know if there's anything that can be done to dissuade such conduct in future.

4Collectorator
okt 30, 2020, 3:05 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

5gilroy
okt 30, 2020, 3:12 pm

>1 gabriel: If this is the usual culprit of these types of complaints, we really do need to start involving LT staff to deal with the person.

6abbottthomas
okt 30, 2020, 4:05 pm

7r.orrison
okt 30, 2020, 5:26 pm

>4 Collectorator: LOOK AT THE EDITIONS

5 copies listed as C. A. Campbell
2 copies listed as Charles Campbell
1 copy listed as Charles Arthur Campbell
1 copy listed as C Campbell

And for what it's worth, the one cover with a legible author shows C. A. Campbell

8bernsad
okt 30, 2020, 7:18 pm

9gabriel
nov 2, 2020, 2:44 pm

Well, Collectorator, despite this conversation, again reversed my work on C. A. Campbell. I wasn't going to escalate this further, but this changes my mind.

What is the best way to go about asking for administrator intervention?

10lilithcat
nov 2, 2020, 3:03 pm

>9 gabriel:

Contact info for staff is here: http://www.librarything.com/contact

112wonderY
Bewerkt: nov 2, 2020, 3:16 pm

kristilabrie is the one who has heard this before.

12timspalding
nov 3, 2020, 3:39 pm

>4 Collectorator:

Collectorator. We have repeatedly asked you to respond to us. I understand that many of the edits you have made are valid, and we thank you for your help. But some are not, and when asked to discuss them, you ignore us. We have emailed you. I have emailed you.

I'm afraid you're going to have to talk to us, or we will lock your account. Your right to use this site is conditional on abiding by the rules. Please talk to us.

13Collectorator
nov 3, 2020, 4:02 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

14jjwilson61
nov 3, 2020, 5:39 pm

>13 Collectorator: What in that message was against the TOS?

15sneuper
nov 4, 2020, 4:22 am

>5 gilroy: Ah, I'm actually relieved to read this. After a rude comment a year ago I basically lost the joy of participating in LT combining. I fail to understand what I did wrong and why it was such a big offense. Every time I combine something now, I fear another rude comment. But knowing I'm not alone in this and having the possibility to block someone is helpful.

16abbottthomas
nov 4, 2020, 6:29 am

>15 sneuper: Glad you are feeling better. If you are ever in the same situation again, do raise the topic with the Combiners! Group where you will find almost everyone willing to offer friendly and constructive advice and support.

LibraryThing has, thank goodness, very, very few constitutionally unpleasant members, unlike much of social media. Thinking about that, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that very, very few members post gratuitously offensive comments.

17kristilabrie
Bewerkt: nov 4, 2020, 1:16 pm

>13 Collectorator: You've actually blocked both timspalding and myself from being able to post to your profile. So, an email was necessary, and in lieu of that a post on a Talk thread.

Since you're active on LibraryThing, making some of the very edits that we (LT staff) need to ask you about to unearth the situation, on the same dates we're trying to contact you, I don't think expecting a response when you're active on LibraryThing is completely out of reason.

(ETA: I should note for the record here that we can reply to you when you post a message to us, but we can't message you directly on your profile. That being said, I'm not sure why you still have us blocked if that's the case.)

18SandraArdnas
nov 4, 2020, 3:22 pm

>17 kristilabrie: It is possible to block staff? Why?

19bernsad
nov 4, 2020, 4:46 pm

>18 SandraArdnas: Good question, I would have thought the staff could blow right past that.

20lorax
nov 4, 2020, 5:09 pm

SandraArdnas (#18):

I vaguely recall seeing Tim say something about staff being able to override comment blocks years ago, but many things have changed in the code base since then, and it's possible that kristilabrie, not being technical, doesn't know about it if it is possible.

kristilabrie has a much-expressed preference for communicating via email rather than profile comments as well, so it's also possible that she just found it easier to email than to figure out the way around a block - at that point either method is going to be an intrusion against the member's preferences, so it's reasonable for her to pick the one that's easier for her.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, can I say that I always have to retype your username, since my fingers want to make the capitalization and not just the spelling palindromic?

21SandraArdnas
nov 4, 2020, 5:19 pm

>20 lorax: RE spelling palindromic, it's supposed to be a kind of mirror image palindrome (SandraardnaS) but google capitalized it the way it wants and it carries over

22kristilabrie
nov 5, 2020, 11:02 am

>20 lorax: I think you have me mixed up with a previous staff member that expressed a strong preference for email over other modes of contact. I try to stick to the communication routes that members use to reach out to me, unless there's more in-depth conversations that need to be held for support purposes, in which case I recommend that email might be easier for me to assist (I can search my emails much easier for conversation history, etc.).

That said, you are right in that I don't know of a technical way to bypass profile blocks, other than being able to reply to a comment that the member/s in question have sent to me directly. I'll look into that...

23kristilabrie
nov 5, 2020, 11:04 am

Personally—not representing LT with my opinion here—I don't think staff should be block-able: on one hand, if we're behaving in a way that warrants blocking we probably shouldn't be working for the company and on the other hand, someone blocking staff seems like working at a store and one of the customers places a restraining order on you but keeps coming to the store. (That might be an exaggerated example.) Staff need to be able to do their job and that includes reaching out to members as needed.

24Collectorator
nov 5, 2020, 11:42 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

25aspirit
nov 5, 2020, 1:54 pm

>24 Collectorator: here, if you need a reminder: go to the member's profile page, look to the bottom of right-side menu for the little Blocking section, and click on "Unblock member (BLOCKED)". The process is easier than author combinations.

26lorax
nov 5, 2020, 1:58 pm

I'm so sorry, kristi! I believe in owning my mistakes, so I'm not going to edit my post to pretend it never happened, but please accept my apology.

27kristilabrie
nov 5, 2020, 2:06 pm

>26 lorax: An honest mistake! No worries.

28timspalding
nov 5, 2020, 5:55 pm

>19 bernsad: >18 SandraArdnas: SandraArdnas: Good question, I would have thought the staff could blow right past that.

We can, if we need to. In general, members who have comments off may ignore them if they come. Email is your final point of contact.

29bernsad
nov 6, 2020, 2:18 am

>20 lorax: Figured that would be the case.

31gabriel
Bewerkt: nov 9, 2020, 12:47 pm

>30 I-_-I:

Unbelievable.

32timspalding
nov 9, 2020, 12:49 pm

>30 I-_-I:

Okay, you need to spell it out to me. Is the argument that in your library the author is C. A. Campbell, because, on a work level, none of those works are ascribed to C. A. Campbell.

33gabriel
Bewerkt: nov 9, 2020, 1:22 pm

>32 timspalding:

The reason none of the works are currently ascribed to C. A. Campbell is because Collectorator forced at the authorship of at least one of the works to Charles Arthur Campbell, when the calculated name was/would be C. A. Campbell. That was the case with In Defense of Free Will.

34I-_-I
nov 9, 2020, 1:28 pm

>32 timspalding: timspalding

>32 timspalding:

This author's canonical name was very clearly C. A. Campbell; most, if not all, of his works appear to have been published under that name. The OP correctly identified that there were at least two authors with works under that name and split the page, aliasing author 1 to Charles Arthur Campbell.

Problem 1 here is that in their zeal to crush aliasing, this LT helper is overwriting author names. In the edited work Philosophy now : an introductory reader, the chapter by this author is credited to C. A. Campbell. That's how he appeared in the book's contributor list - until it was very recently changed to the author's full name (which, again, he didn't use!) and the C. A. Campbell was again undivided. Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on edition layers and such. But it seems very silly to me that LT would have an undivided page for C. A. Campbell that features none of the works by the main writer who used that name. The only reason that's the case is that someone took it upon themselves to overwrite the author's name on the works that were previously ascribed to C. A. Campbell.

Problem 2 was also described by the OP: an unwillingness to meaningfully discuss the reasoning behind these alias takedowns. We've all had these unpleasant run-ins where we make an edit, it gets reversed, we ask the member for clarification, and instead we get told we're wrong and stupid and we get blocked. We're all hostage to this one person's idiosyncratic notions of LT Right and Wrong.

35bernsad
nov 10, 2020, 10:17 pm

>34 I-_-I: That's the bit that gets me, when work that you've done, are in the middle of doing, gets altered without discussion, consultation or reason. If any reason is given the usual response is essentially "you're doing it wrong, and I don't have time to explain."

36MarthaJeanne
Bewerkt: nov 11, 2020, 3:17 am

But beware if YOU inadvertently change anything left in an unfinished state without any note that it is in process.

37I-_-I
nov 12, 2020, 11:13 am

This has been going on for *years*. Wholesale deletions and reversions without any explanation beyond "you're wrong and stupid and not worth my time." I'd like to see LT staff extract some show of good faith from this member, but failing that, i really hope they'll follow up on Tim's warning that the account may be locked.

38Collectorator
nov 12, 2020, 11:35 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

39I-_-I
nov 12, 2020, 11:44 am

More obfuscation. Round and round we go.

40susanbooks
Bewerkt: nov 13, 2020, 4:27 pm

Thank you to everyone posting about their experiences. I had my own run-in & it scared me off combining for quite a while. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only one. Perhaps >38 Collectorator: if you take a little more time with your messages you can avoid all of this hassle. I'm sure we could all benefit from your knowledge if it was just offered more collegially

41Collectorator
nov 13, 2020, 4:42 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

42susanbooks
nov 13, 2020, 5:42 pm

I would but you deleted our exchange

43booksaplenty1949
nov 13, 2020, 5:47 pm

Blocked this member years ago. LTer from Hell.

44I-_-I
nov 13, 2020, 7:54 pm

>41 Collectorator:
https://www.librarything.com/topic/323450#7243707
I cited one here. I’ll post a screenshot if you want.

45DuncanHill
nov 23, 2020, 4:23 am

The editor in question has been following me around for years, forcing their own preferred version of authors' names onto books in my library, with no regard whatsoever for what it actually says on title pages or lists of contributors. I've just read their claim in a disambiguation field that an author does not exist. The author does exist (or did, he is long dead), and is listed on the contents page of the book I have a copy of. But someone who has never even seen the book, never, before now, known anything about the author (who was active in a field in which I am something of a specialist) knows better and thinks that posting bollocks on an split-author page is the way to go.

Is a block from dividing and aliasing possible for the editor? It might be beneficial to the site as a whole.

46Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 4:39 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

47DuncanHill
nov 23, 2020, 4:48 am

"It doesn't matter what your book says. It matters what the USER ENTERED. We are cataloging what the USER ENTERED. We are making combinations of works based on what the USER ENTERED. We are combining authors based on what the USER ENTERED."

I was the user who entered the author. Nobody had entered the author name in the form you forced onto the work.

48karenb
nov 23, 2020, 4:58 am

>47 DuncanHill:

Was this name the primary author on your book? Because changing that on someone else's book is (AIUI) a no-no on LT.

49DuncanHill
nov 23, 2020, 5:07 am

>48 karenb: No, a contributor. The editor in question did change "author" to blank for the two main authors on another work of which I have the only copy on LT, and which I added at about the same time. It's pretty much routine when I add books.

50Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 7:07 am

>46 Collectorator: I'm puzzled about how this rhymes with the example given in >7 r.orrison: and your own list in >4 Collectorator:. It's obvious that ONLY SOME USERS entered the book that way.

51Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:15 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

52Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:21 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

53Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 8:26 am

Zero copy author pages happen a lot after work combining. It doesn't mean the entry is faulty.

Just a wild guess: the author page for William Shakespeare (but name translated into Mandarin Chinese) will usually be empty after proper work combining.

54Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 8:34 am

Also I don't care about full author names. I enter the name as featured on my copy of a work. For example: I know the Anne Clark who wrote some of my books on Lewis Carroll is also known as Anne Clark Amor. (Heck, as a fellow Carrollian I met her a few times). But my books say Anne Clark is the author and that's how I (a user) entered them.

55Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:36 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

56Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 8:38 am

>52 Collectorator: I think you have to come to understand that SOME users doesn't mean THE user or ALL users.

57Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:42 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

58Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:45 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

59Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 8:46 am

>55 Collectorator: Again: zero-copy author pages only exist because some USER entered something that way, and then it got (hopefully correctly) gobbled up by a work. That does NOT make the zero-copy author page invalid.

60Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 8:59 am

>58 Collectorator: You keep using: USER ENTERED. I am a user. What's so hard to understand?

61Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 8:48 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

62Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 8:54 am

>61 Collectorator: It seems you fail to understand the difference between temporarily empty author sub-pages and invalid entries.

63Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 9:02 am

Don't get me wrong Collectorator. I know we have had our run-ins, but generally I appreciate your hard work. It's just that I think you sometimes have a tendency to over-correct things.

64Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 9:07 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

65SandraArdnas
nov 23, 2020, 10:01 am

>64 Collectorator: For pity's sake, take a deep breath and stop. It's like a kindergarten with all the I'm right - you're wrong and my dad is stronger than you dad. Surely someone who spends considerable time on a book database is able to muster patience to actually communicate. >7 r.orrison: is just one example of you completely ignoring someone's argument. It's not supposed to be a squabble but a discussion. So pretty please with cherry on top do the rest of us a courtesy of having the patience to discuss and when needed explain

66Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 10:55 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

67Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 1:16 pm

>64 Collectorator: Oh for dogs sake. Whatever. Just one example: You undoing a mother/daughter split on the Lewis Carroll legacy library I did (they had the same initials and worked on the same book, but were obviously not the same person - mom wrote, daughter illustrated). You unsplit, and then you proceeded to flag the daughter's author picture. (Mom was full name, daughter was initials, if I remember correctly. It could be the other way around.)

The picture was correct, the unsplitting wasn't. You make mistakes, just like anybody else. In itself, that's okay. But give it a rest

p.s.: I'm not going to redo that split - I would have to delve into the archives again and it would take me hours or days. That's the kind of damage you do.

68Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 12:50 pm

>66 Collectorator: 2>1 doesn't mean 1 is by definition not correct. It's as simple as that.

69Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 1:10 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

70Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 1:12 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

71aspirit
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 1:19 pm

This is a common problem. (ETA: I've had a block in place since seeing the behavior soon after joining the site.) Why does this one member do it? Out of spite for LT? Because of a belief that data can not possibly be correct if they don't recognize its veracity? Who knows; explanations are usually a mix of insults and denial about what the data represents, making it all look like nothing reasonable.

>67 Nicole_VanK: I think that's the most frustrating part. We can each spend hours confirming the accuracy of edits, then the one member will within minutes delete the confirmed entries. The corrosion is faster than the corrections.

72Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 1:21 pm

>69 Collectorator: Yeah, but that's still no reason to deny that some people will have entered it as 1

73Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 1:25 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

74Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 23, 2020, 1:26 pm

Dit bericht is door zijn auteur gewist.

75Nicole_VanK
nov 23, 2020, 1:28 pm

>69 Collectorator: (this is meant to refer to #68, but LT won't let me): I don't take random homework assignments. You did it, you look it up.

76Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 1:41 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

77Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 1:42 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

78I-_-I
nov 23, 2020, 3:06 pm

>77 Collectorator:
We're always all-caps WRONG to you. When we provide proof, you ignore it. You demanded proof of something in message 41, received it in 44, and failed to acknowledge.
Nicole's story is corroborated here in this thread by accounts from multiple users about similar actions and communication from you. And this is not the only such thread! So yeah... we are most definitely not wrong.

79Collectorator
nov 23, 2020, 3:20 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

80I-_-I
nov 23, 2020, 5:12 pm

Amazing. The case for banning this user is right here, conveniently condensed into one toxic little post.

81lorax
nov 24, 2020, 9:11 am

Collectorator.

Over the years you've done a lot of good work for LT. You've also become convinced that the count of "helping" actions, in particular CK edits, is the sole arbiter of whether someone is correct. Everyone's under a great deal of stress right now. I don't know what particular stress you're under, but this level of sniping is unlike you - we disagree frequently but you're not usually cruel.

Take a break. From LT if you want, but please from editing things, and certainly from this thread. Red-X it if you can't keep yourself away otherwise.

I know you don't want to get staff involved, but at the rate you're going in this thread they're going to have to step in. So please, just take a pause.

82Collectorator
nov 24, 2020, 9:33 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

832wonderY
nov 24, 2020, 11:14 am

Not sure why “small” is a perjorative.

84aspirit
nov 24, 2020, 11:23 am

>83 2wonderY: same here with "common". Maybe it's a cultural issue.

85cpg
nov 24, 2020, 11:47 am

>83 2wonderY:

See the definitions in section A.IV. of the entry for "small" in the OED.

86Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 24, 2020, 2:06 pm

>79 Collectorator: Oh, for heavens sake. This you call an accusation? People make errors - I do, so do you. I'm not suggesting you do so out of malice.

You really want a hard example? Okay then. As you know full well, you kept "correcting" MY name on MY author page. And I am an obscure author - nobody else seems to have any of my publications. Believe me: I do know my own name. What you did is called over-correcting. Just because I previously published under another name didn't make it a correct decision.

87Collectorator
nov 24, 2020, 2:05 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

88Nicole_VanK
nov 24, 2020, 2:07 pm

The link to my author page is on my profile page.

89I-_-I
nov 24, 2020, 2:46 pm

It's right there in the CK. There was also a thread about it. I won't link to it because it's not my story, but it's there for all to see.

90susanbooks
nov 24, 2020, 5:51 pm

Collectorator, you're smart & very good at librarything data. Wouldn't it be less frustrating for you to share your knowledge w/less vitriol? We're all part of the same project & we can learn a lot from you. But the best teachers admit their mistakes and are patient with their explanations.

91Collectorator
Bewerkt: nov 24, 2020, 7:11 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

92Collectorator
nov 24, 2020, 7:26 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

93Collectorator
nov 24, 2020, 7:35 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

94SandraArdnas
nov 24, 2020, 8:52 pm

>93 Collectorator: It didn't occur to you the author personally knows better? You're still going to maintain it was the correct thing to do because otherwise, God forbid, you'd have to admit to a mistake?

In the particular case of this thread too you'll still insist I'M RIGHT!I'M RIGHT! I'M RIGHT! even though >7 r.orrison: shows 5>2>1? You'll just flat out refuse to comment >7 r.orrison:?

95SatanasAdversarius
nov 24, 2020, 9:23 pm

O may this splendid conflict continue!

96Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 8:42 am

>93 Collectorator: Shrug. You asked for a clear example, and I gave you one I recollect well. Yes, it was 3 years ago. So? But see >7 r.orrison: if you think my example is not valid.

I will generally not be engaging in editing wars (with you, or anybody else). For what it's worth (not a whole lot, I understand that) I didn't flag any of your comments on this thread either.

97timspalding
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 9:19 am

Okay, does anyone have a suggestion for me?

For example:

* Some sort of "I declare a disagreement" that causes an issue to be frozen until settled by more than one person?
* Clarify certain principles--what's allowed and what's off-limits.

I'm open to ideas here.

test. so they added it back. they took my ability to post away and now it's back. whatever.

Nobody took anything away from you. You probably hit a server hiccup. We're not persecuting you.

98Collectorator
nov 25, 2020, 9:24 am

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

99I-_-I
nov 25, 2020, 9:41 am

>97 timspalding:
I know you're asking about rules around editing, and that's obviously important. But my suggestion would be to first enforce the terms of service as they pertain to personal attacks. There are several examples on this page alone, and many more of them spread across the site, in various threads and on many walls. I don't understand why that hasn't been addressed, and until it is, I'm pretty sure you'll be having this conversation with a smaller and smaller group. (If you think I'm exaggerating, take a closer look at what people have said in this thread and others: this member's vandalism and invective have already made some helpers pull back from the site.)

Before we discuss how to solve disagreements between helpers operating in good faith, please address these repeated and ongoing violations of the terms of service.

100timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 10:32 am

Okay, a member was reported for abuse of the TOS. I think they're right about two messages, >79 Collectorator: and >82 Collectorator:. We have generally not suspended people for going after me, at least insofar as I'm speaking for the site, but it's not an official rule, it's just a recognition that when people get into fights with staff it's best not to feed the argument; they just get worse. Going after another member is different.

So I'm suspending the member until Friday, and warning them that further personal attacks will not be tolerated. We cannot monitor everywhere, so if members see other attacks, please report them.

The trick is that the problem remains. Members can be plenty disagreeable, and make edits that people hate, without every explicitly engaging in a personal attack. So I'm still looking for solutions.

101gilroy
nov 25, 2020, 10:48 am

I'd ask for two things:

1) Make most recent helper logs more obvious and/or easier to find. Not everyone knows where to look for the helper logs. While not encouraged, this might allow people to ASK QUESTIONS before they just tear apart another's work willy-nilly. Not that some people ask questions, but that's another topic for another day.

2) Disambiguation notices should be easier to find/more obvious as well. In some cases, they get stashed or buried "below the fold" where people don't look before doing work.

102aspirit
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 11:26 am

>100 timspalding: I asked a question in an email to info@librarything.com in January,

"Collectorator frequently deletes without explanation others' contributions soon after entry and has been doing this for years.

"Why? Is there something the one member knows that more of us should?"

When one member is frequently in opposition to many other members' edits, I think what first needs to be looked at is, Who's correct? Are members not using the fields and features as intended, and if so, why? That matters, because there might be a disagreement about how data should be entered that can be smoothed out by making the goals of the site or the intention of specific features more clear.

However, ten months after I brought up my question, I no longer believe that one member cares why anyone else contributes anything on this site or what the LT team says.

At this point, I think the rest of us want to know what you, Tim, want from site helpers. If this is primarily a collaborative site for book-related data on which members are expected to talk through problems-- like what I thought it is from reading About, Help, and Talk pages-- then why is a member who consistently responds to concern about edits with hostility allowed to dominate the site? I'm sure we've lost helpers because of this conflict, which is frustrating.

I believe ten people with diverse experiences with literature can contribute more than one self-assured person can. We lose the insight that makes for better data when people give up after seeing their work deleted without any reasonable explanation.

My proposed solution is for the LT team to follow up messages, emails, and maybe a certain amount of Common Knowledge deletions to answer questions and suggest more agreeable contributions when needed. When a member responds with hostility to staff and fellow members, then they need to go.

If you're extremely averse to closing accounts for anything but commercial spam, then maybe design a way to restrict members to their own catalogues, with no access to CK edits or messaging. I have doubts that could be created without causing problems in the system, because look at the unaddressed technical problems we have now (seriously, please look); still, it's possible.

edited to add links

103Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 12:44 pm

>98 Collectorator: I fail to see how that is a response to what was brought up in >7 r.orrison:.

But since I see you've now been suspended until Friday, I'm not pursuing this any further. (Also I'm getting bored by this even being an issue).

104r.orrison
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 12:15 pm

>100 timspalding: So I'm still looking for solutions.

My thoughts: Make rules and expectations more clear, so that users are less likely to make offensive edits. Also, the system should handle user entered data better, so there would be less need for fixing and less conflicting ideas about how to fix it.

1) Make "Edit Book" more obvious so that users are led to editing their own book instead of making changes in Other Authors or Common Knowledge. Edits to an individual's book should automatically trigger recalculation of work data. People often don't realize that their book cannot be edited by others users, and that changes they make on the work page (Other Authors and Common Knowledge) affect everyone.

2) Using Other Author to change the primary author on a work should only be done if the system selected author's name is incorrect. Not to satisfy any individual preference, or to match an individual's book, or to move a book off a split author page. There should be a message on the top of the "Edit other authors" popup. This links back to 1) above - if work data more accurately tracks what users have entered, there will be less need to go into Other Authors.

3) It should be more clear that entering Canonical Title should only be done when the system selected title is incorrect. Again, this links back to 1). I believe that people often enter Canonical Titles because the source they used had bogus or messy data and the Canonical Title is easier to get to than the user's own book data. Even if they do fix their book, the system doesn't update the work level data so yet again a Canonical Title gets entered (instead of just recalculating the title/author). And then some people enter Canonical Titles for no obvious reason - even when it matches the most popular title in the system - which leads to people deleting Canonical Titles and other people getting upset that it was deleted.

4) Fix problems handling special characters so issues like Ernest / Ernesto / Ernestó don't happen in the first place (an author named Ernestó could be imported as Ernest, Ernesto, Ernestó, or even Ernestoacute). And going back to 1) - if the user entering a book with the author Ernestó were led to correct their copy and that updated the work, another need for Other Authors would be eliminated.

105lilithcat
nov 25, 2020, 12:17 pm

>104 r.orrison:

RE: 3 -

People enter Canonical Titles because the site tells them to.

Go to any book's CK, click on the CT edit button, and you will see the following: "Authoritative title for a work in the language of the site you are on".

Why would anyone think they shouldn't enter a canonical title? People expect that fields are there to be filled in.

106r.orrison
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 12:36 pm

>105 lilithcat: And that's exactly why I said "Make rules and expectations more clear". Hiding that on the CK help page that nobody reads isn't good enough. (But it is there.)

107Settings
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 1:01 pm

Noting that I've been using Librarything heavily for 8 years and have no idea how I'd go about doing any of this combining / work related stuff. Do not know where to find rules and common practices either. Would not have been able to find this Combiners group easily, either. Did just realize the editing related groups are at the bottom of the Group pages under "Community Projects" with Hobnob with Authors and Name that Book.

Also probably still do not properly understand the difference between user entry and canonical title. As late as this year I posted to this group because the titles and authors on the Add Book title I added were wrong. :\ Pretty much always want works in my catalog to have the same details as the Librarything Canonical Works - unfortunately Add Books doesn't always get me that.

Edit: Also noting that when I go to main page for my titles with the messy data (for example Daybreak -- 2250 A.D. (first published as Star Man's Son)), I see a page with Daybreak -- 2250 A.D. (first published as Star Man's Son) at the top. This makes it seem like the messy data is a Librarything problem and I need someone to edit the Librarything page so that the title in my catalog becomes the nicer Daybreak, 2250 A.D..

108spiphany
nov 25, 2020, 12:47 pm

Genuine question, because I don't know the answer, but I can't imagine LT is the first website to grapple with the issue:

How do other sites that rely on crowdsourcing of data prevent individual users from wreaking havoc -- i.e., limiting the amount of damage that can be done by people who don't follow conventions, engage in edit wars, maliciously enter incorrect data, or other things that regularly lead to conflict with other data editors?

What mechanisms does, for example, Wikipedia have in place? Are they things that could be adapted for LibraryThing?

109casaloma
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 7:22 pm

>108 spiphany:
On Goodreads, you must request the privilege to edit.

110Nicole_VanK
nov 25, 2020, 1:20 pm

>109 casaloma: On Goodreads, you must request the privilege to edit.

As I understand it, LT deliberately chose not to go that way.

112gilroy
nov 25, 2020, 1:37 pm

>104 r.orrison: There's a problem with your #3.

Some people believe that the title includes all the miscellany that appears on the cover. So they'd include the series name, title, subtitle, and author, even a blurb if they could fit it all in.

Others believe the title is just that, the title and it's subtitle.
Some would argue that "A Novel" is not part of the title, while some do.

Which means at any one moment -- that title is incorrect for SOMEONE. To say only use it when incorrect is not really a clear rule.
We'd need to establish what does correct mean. Make it very obvious what does and does not belong.

And encourage people to realize there's a Work Page and a page for the book you entered, as melded into the work. (This may be part of the issue being noted in >107 Settings:.)

113DuncanHill
nov 25, 2020, 2:33 pm

>108 spiphany: "What mechanisms does, for example, Wikipedia have in place? Are they things that could be adapted for LibraryThing?"

Wikipedia has easily findable policies and procedures. LT doesn't.

Wikipedia has clear edit histories. LT doesn't.

Wikipedia has admins chosen by editors. Admins can restrict a person's ability to make edits, and block them from making any edits anywhere for varying lengths of time. LT doesn't.

Wikipedia doesn't allow stalking. LT does.

Wikipedia would have banned the editor in question years ago, regardless of their prolificity. LT ...

114karenb
nov 25, 2020, 2:37 pm

>113 DuncanHill: Good points.

I see Wikipedia as a comparison, yes, but not necessarily a good example. Wikipedia has big problems where some editors resist change, succeeding mainly due to their experience and persistence. Alas, this is not a feature.

115timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 3:16 pm

>113 DuncanHill:

It's best to add policies and features when they are needed. So, as noted, I am open to discussing them. But I think we're going to do better making suggestions than bad comparisons, for example that "Wikipedia doesn't allow stalking. LT does."

116aspirit
nov 25, 2020, 3:18 pm

>113 DuncanHill: In my experience, what we're talking about now for LT is exactly what has given Wikipedia a bad reputation.

I receive Wikipedia fundraising emails, and they really seem to be struggling this year. I perhaps harshly think they deserve to struggle after refusing to deal with aggressive but prolific editors who delete articles to try to maintain a site that supports their personal biases. Wikipedia has been called out for it for years, many of us going to more public conversations only after asking questions and providing feedback more quietly. After a while, editors realize that volunteering to try to sway biases supported by the leadership is a waste of time.

117DuncanHill
nov 25, 2020, 3:21 pm

>115 timspalding: The editor's behaviour clearly involves stalking, as has been said many times over the years by many editors. As far as I can see nothing has been done to stop it. When I find books being edited while I am still entering the data, books that only I have a copy of, repeatedly, by one editor and one editor only, it's hard to describe it as anything other than stalking. That nothing is ever done about it suggests it is allowed.

If we had clear edit histories it would be easier to give the evidence to staff. So clear edit histories would make it easier to deal with problematic behaviour.

118lilithcat
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 3:25 pm

>117 DuncanHill:

it's hard to describe it as anything other than stalking.

Honestly, I don't agree. To me, "stalking" implies an intentional following of a person. As someone who often edits recent changes, I can say that I do so not because I'm following a person, but because I frequently look at the Helpers Log. If I see something that seems odd, I check into it, but it's nothing to do with who made the edit (except in those few cases where I know from experience that the person makes frequent errors).

I do agree, though, that clearer edit histories could be useful.

119DuncanHill
nov 25, 2020, 3:27 pm

>118 lilithcat: Your behaviour has never struck me as anything like stalking. That of one other editor has. That is the problem, not the great majority of editors who look at recent changes.

120timspalding
Bewerkt: nov 25, 2020, 3:32 pm

>117 DuncanHill:

The system shows the edits that happen. The point of the system is to allow members to follow the edits people are making, and to approve, extend or reverse them. I don't see any way to talk about this that doesn't involve asking "Are the edits good?" If the edits aren't good, we need a way to deal with that.

If we had clear edit histories it would be easier to give the evidence to staff. So clear edit histories would make it easier to deal with problematic behaviour.

Are we talking about CK?

>118 lilithcat: lilithcat: Your behaviour has never struck me as anything like stalking. That of one other editor has. That is the problem, not the great majority of editors who look at recent changes.

Right. I don't think we can say that making lots of corrects is stalking. Or making a lot of corrections of edits made by one member, because, well, if the edits are all good edits, the system is working as intended.

Rudeness and worse is a different issue. The TOS has rules against that. And if a member were stalking someone as commonly understood, that's also in there.

121lilithcat
nov 25, 2020, 3:37 pm

>119 DuncanHill:

Thanks for that.

I sometimes let people know why I've made an edit, particularly if I think it's something likely to recur, and I occasionally worry that someone might interpret that wrongly.

122timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 3:40 pm

>121 lilithcat:

I think it might be helpful if there were a better way to mark this.

One thing to add to the conversation: LT has many things under the helpers umbrella. There are a number of systems in play. We should figure out which are the most problematic—CK? Author aliasing? etc.

123DuncanHill
nov 25, 2020, 3:40 pm

>120 timspalding: I don't say the system shouldn't allow members to follow edits, I say that one editor following specific individuals and systematically undoing them for no apparent reason other than "SHOUTY YOU ARE STUPID I AM ALWAYS RIGHT" is something that needs to be stopped.

Helpers log. The system shows some of the edits that happen, sometimes in different orders, and sometimes with a long delay. It doesn't show author separations as far as I can see, and one can't see author unaliasing.

CK would benefit from users being able to see diffs - that is the actual change, especially in author disambiguation notices.

Having CK and helpers log in different spaces also makes it harder.

124timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 4:26 pm

>123 DuncanHill:

Right, it seems to me the problem is the edits and "SHOUTY YOU ARE STUPID I AM ALWAYS RIGHT."

125timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 4:36 pm

The member in question is still editing works. Does a suspension just restrict the ability to comment on TALK?

We've changed how suspension works, so it now kicks them out on every page.

1262wonderY
nov 25, 2020, 4:47 pm

I’d keep an eye out for a new member picking up the same pattern of edits.

127timspalding
nov 25, 2020, 4:51 pm

>126 2wonderY:

That would be a very serious violation, as the suspension-message indicates.

I'd also be interested in past messages members feel violate the terms. If they are serious enough, more action can be taken.

128Carmen.et.Error
nov 25, 2020, 4:52 pm

>126 2wonderY: Was about to ask whether or not a permanent ban would even work because of that. I know IP addresses can be banned, but I'm pretty sure they can also be changed.

129Crypto-Willobie
nov 25, 2020, 4:53 pm

>125 timspalding:

But I suspect Trump will pardon that member for the holidays, while he can...

130abbottthomas
nov 25, 2020, 6:04 pm

1312wonderY
nov 26, 2020, 7:57 am

Okay, I finally had time to go back and find the most irritating re-edit.

See https://www.librarything.com/author/coateschristopher

Notice the two different author photos? That’s because I split the author, adding CK for both and a disambig note:

1) Fiction writer, resides in Michigan (2) (1899-1973) Aquarist, director of the NY Aquarium at Coney Island, NY; full name Christopher William Coates"

Both myself and Krista added it back several times, but it has again been undone. I consider it vandalism.

132Crypto-Willobie
Bewerkt: nov 26, 2020, 10:51 am

>131 2wonderY:

Perhaps because Christopher W. Coates (the aquarium guy) already has his own page w/ photo. http://www.librarything.com/author/coateschristopherw

Shouldn't #2 just be aliased into that?

133lilithcat
nov 26, 2020, 9:56 am

>132 Crypto-Willobie:

That's not a reason to undo the split, though. If the person had left the split, and then aliased (2) into Christopher W. Coates, I'm sure no one would be objecting. But that's not what happened.

By undoing the split and deleting the disambiguation notice, s/he made it appear that there is only one person represented on the page. Leaving the notice might have led someone to check further for a "Christopher William" or a "Christopher W.", and then have done the aliasing, and s/he effectively eliminated that possibility.

1342wonderY
nov 26, 2020, 10:24 am

I believe I did the aliasing as well. This was in January.

135I-_-I
nov 26, 2020, 12:52 pm

>131 2wonderY:
That's essentially what happened to the OP. I consider it vandalism too. And that's why when Tim calls the member "one of the most constant and prolific editors," I think he doesn't quite get what they're up to. A huge chunk of their edits consist of these wholesale reversions and deletions. Some are correct. Many, many are wrong.

136I-_-I
nov 26, 2020, 1:12 pm

I want to acknowledge that I've had some positive interactions with the member before. We once had an exchange about the occasional need to use the canonical name field for names with accented letters. In the process, I learned that some author names that appear incorrectly (e.g. with odd characters in place of accents) can be fixed through recalculation rather than adding a canonical name.

However. In my experience, the exchanges only remained positive as long as I was basically acceding to the member's way of doing things. Challenging them meant getting insulted and blocked.

Over the years I've had interactions with several of you about editing. Lilithcat for example has sometimes gently tapped my shoulder (so to speak) to let me know of an issue with my edits. She did so respectfully; in one case I was straight-up wrong, and in another we hashed out what had happened and figured it out. Simple!

So yes, it makes sense to have rules and procedures to resolve editing disagreements. But the overarching problem isn't a lack of rules; it's *one* member who solves those disagreements through unilateral (often objectively wrong!) actions and personal attacks.

1372wonderY
nov 26, 2020, 1:45 pm

>132 Crypto-Willobie:. And it now has the wrong photo and the correct photo has disappeared again.

138lilithcat
nov 26, 2020, 2:03 pm

>137 2wonderY:

Okay, I think things are straightened out now.

I aliased CC (2) to CWC, added the correct image to CWC and flagged the wrong one.

Let me know if it's okay or not!

1392wonderY
nov 26, 2020, 2:08 pm

>138 lilithcat:. Perfect. Now I can add back the CK.

1402wonderY
nov 26, 2020, 2:46 pm

>85 cpg: I’m just enjoying an ode to small written by Janis Ian - Size Matters, in Ender’s World.

141Earthling1
nov 26, 2020, 10:38 pm

Dit lid is geschorst van de site.

142timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 1:06 am

It does seem to me that we need some clarity on the best way to alias and split authors. Consensus seems to have settled firmly on methods that, frankly, I disagree with. (My prefrence is combine-then-split, not split-then-alias-away.) But there are complexities here that members get into disagreements about.

I think it might make sense to look at some concrete cases, especially cases that aren't yet done.

This is, of course, separate from impolite (or worse) behavior. But I think it's a factor.

143gabriel
Bewerkt: nov 27, 2020, 2:39 pm

>142 timspalding:

I agree a clearer policy on splitting and aliasing authors would be good (...and making it easier to find... I think a link to a policy from the author split pages would help).

But I'm not sure I understand what the distinction you're trying to make between the existing process and your preferred process actually is. Do you want to combine works before aliasing so that some aliases (and divisions) aren't necessary?

If actually writing up combining policies isn't what you want to spend your time doing, I'd suggest asking specific willing and active combiners to work up detailed draft policy in specific areas that can then be discussed (and hopefully approved).

edit: I will note that Collectorator's splitting and aliasing edits regularly ran counter to the existing aliasing policy:
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Reasons_not_to_use_%22Other_Authors%22,_...

144timspalding
Bewerkt: nov 27, 2020, 2:54 pm

>143 gabriel:

I think we need to hash through the disagreement and come up with a solution. Collectorator has strong opinions about how it ought to be done. We should figure out if they are erroneous or not. If they are, we need to declare them so, in which case continued malpractice is a TOS violation. If they are not, we need to figure from what the difference arises.

This is all secondary to how members behave. If I need to shut down a member for violations of the TOS, I will. But I don't think this is only that.

1452wonderY
nov 27, 2020, 3:09 pm

And Collectorator is back at it, using the posts here to reverse again what’s been done in their absence.

https://www.librarything.com/author_split.php?author=coateschristopher&page=...

146timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 3:19 pm

Okay, that one is already done. But see https://www.librarything.com/topic/326689 . Let's see if this can be solved.

147lilithcat
nov 27, 2020, 3:29 pm

>143 gabriel:

I'm sure he'll correct me if I misstate his position, but my understanding is this:

Tim: If the author page for "John Jones" also contains works by "John B. Jones" and "John C. Jones", then all three pages should be combined into "John Jones" and that page should be split.

Many of us: If the author page for "John Jones" also contains works by "John B. Jones" and "John C. Jones", then the "John Jones" page should be split, and the works by "John B. Jones" and "John C. Jones" aliased to their respective separate author pages.

148davidgn
nov 27, 2020, 3:55 pm

>147 lilithcat: I was pretty solid on the latter as the agreed standard. Most of my author combining work has been low-hanging fruit -- across alphabets, multiple renderings of character accents, pre- and postnomials, etc -- and not archival-based, so I've been mostly indifferent when Collectorator has gone after what I've done and haven't followed closely. What is Collectorator's interpretation, and how does it differ?

149casvelyn
nov 27, 2020, 5:00 pm

>147 lilithcat: Ooooh, thank you for that explanation! I've never understood the point of/process behind aliasing. The first procedure you mention is the one that made sense to my brain, so whenever people talk about the second procedure, I've always been like "But how? And why?" This makes sense. Although I still think the first method is far more logical.

(Aside: One aspect of aliasing/combining/canonical names have always annoyed me. I always catalog from the title page of my book. That's what appears in my catalog, no problems there. But then in Stats, the "group-approved" version of the author's name appears in the lists under Gender, Dead or Alive, and possibly others. I don't really care what the author's legal name is, or if he's changed his name, or whatever. What I enter should be what appears in all my data everywhere, because I'm pulling it from my literal copy.)

150timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 5:08 pm

FWIW, I prefer the former method. The things I want to avoid, however, is authors stuck under "John P. Smith" when they never or almost never use the P. That is a very libraryish way of disambiguating--to force everything to sit under unique names, even the names they use aren't unique.

151SandraArdnas
nov 27, 2020, 5:20 pm

>150 timspalding: But we use library sources, it's bound to be librarysh. My understanding, however, is that most people prefer to have author names as they appear in the book, so there's more splitting and aliasing than doing it the library way

152timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 5:23 pm

Well, see the other thread. I'm trying to surface some real example where members disagree, and then come to some sort of conclusion about it. I find it unproductive to talk about this without an example.

153gabriel
nov 27, 2020, 6:13 pm

>147 lilithcat:
>150 timspalding:

I'd be happy with either policy. I think without a clear and unambiguous policy in Tim's preferred direction, the natural tendency will be to use the distinguishing middle names, etc. After all, there are plenty of authors who do sometimes use their middle names and sometimes not. It's natural to alias in those cases. An example is the Canadian political philosophy George Parkin Grant who often went as simply George Grant. Editors will simply get used to aliasing to the more particular name.

154lilithcat
nov 27, 2020, 6:22 pm

>153 gabriel:

Editors will simply get used to aliasing to the more particular name.

Yes, that's what most of us do now.

But Tim wants to combine the particular name with the less specific one.

155gabriel
nov 27, 2020, 7:04 pm

>154 lilithcat:

I mean, I see Tim's point: it would be odd to have the author page for George Eliot to be at Mary Ann Evans merely because there happened to be another George Eliot and no other Mary Ann Evans. That thankfully doesn't seem to be the case, although I'm surprised no other George Eliots have become authors.

But there are difficulties too: it's hard to know for obscure authors what their actual usage of middle names or initials was. And if an author uses the simple form 75% of the time, is that enough that we shouldn't alias to the particular name? 95%? What if she uses the simple form for writing, but went by the particular name for her day job?

156SandraArdnas
nov 27, 2020, 7:05 pm

>154 lilithcat: But Tim wants to combine the particular name with the less specific one.

I sincerely hope this will not become the policy. It would just mean proliferation of works needing assigning and more authors that stats would claim are of unknown gender or living/dead status

157jjwilson61
nov 27, 2020, 9:46 pm

>149 casvelyn: What if you have two books by the same author that use different forms of his or her name on each book? What do you think should be used in the Author Gender list in that case?

158timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 11:09 pm

But there are difficulties too: it's hard to know for obscure authors what their actual usage of middle names or initials was. And if an author uses the simple form 75% of the time, is that enough that we shouldn't alias to the particular name? 95%? What if she uses the simple form for writing, but went by the particular name for her day job?

So, look, I'm open to discussion here—really. I'm just giving you my view. If the author is generally known as George Smith, he needs to be George Smith (12) or whatever, not George Pickney Bibsy Smith. Aliasing splits should only be done when the aliased split is less numerous than where it's going. Moving a mountain to a molehill doesn't make as much sense.

although I'm surprised no other George Eliots

That is a puzzle!

159lilithcat
nov 27, 2020, 11:17 pm

>158 timspalding:

There are a couple, but they can't spell.

George Elliott

George P. Elliott

160timspalding
nov 27, 2020, 11:25 pm

>159 lilithcat:

I suspect that, if your name is George Elliott, you make sure that your pen name includes your initials. Looking at George P. Elliot's books, it looks like that's how it went.

161casvelyn
Bewerkt: nov 27, 2020, 11:53 pm

>157 jjwilson61: Yeah, that's where things really fall apart. I'd say at that point it doesn't matter to me personally, but if I had to pick, I'd go with whichever name they've published more books under. Or whichever name I own more books under.

But if I've cataloged five books by "J. A. Smith," there's absolutely no reason for "Jessica Ann Smith-Jones" to show up in my lists.

ETA: Aliasing also messes up the stats pages. If you're on Gender or Dead or Alive and you click on an author that's been aliased, instead of taking you to "George Eliot (3)" {to borrow the example from above}, it takes you to a zero-work author page with a statement "These works have been aliased into George Pickney Bibsy Smith." The author links on the stats pages should always go to the final author page, not some intermediate landing page, unless it truly needs to go to a disambiguation page because the correct "George Eliot" isn't clear.

Of course I can't find an example of this when I want it, but I've done a bunch of edits on the gender and date of death fields over the years, working off of the Gender and Dead or Alive pages of other users who have a large number of obscure authors (don't ask, I'm a sucker for weird self-imposed projects), and this has been a huge issue that prevents the author links on stats pages from working correctly.

162timspalding
nov 28, 2020, 12:26 am

But if I've cataloged five books by "J. A. Smith," there's absolutely no reason for "Jessica Ann Smith-Jones" to show up in my lists.

So, which lists? Whatever you have in your catalog is one thing. That never changes. But things get complicated. A list of authors in your library gets tricky if we can't use the system names for them. It's doable, but tricky.

163WeeTurtle
Bewerkt: nov 28, 2020, 4:16 am

>158 timspalding: For a view from the other window, this method (if I'm interpreting it correctly) seems to make the most sense to me. Assuming I know no other name for an author but the name printed on my book, it would be most useful for me to find that author (or a way to get to that specific author) on the page that the site search directs me to when I search that name.

If I'm looking for an author named John Smith, I think it's more helpful for me to find a John Smith page and learn that there are several of them. Then, I can go into secondary details (initials, book titles, genres, etc.) to find the right one.

164Nicole_VanK
Bewerkt: nov 28, 2020, 11:13 am

I admit I've been massaging the system a couple of times.

For example: there are two Dutch illustrators / cartoonists named Albert Hahn. Senior (1877–1918) - who as far as I'm aware never actually used "sr" while still alive, and his stepson (1894–1953) who called himself Alfred Hahn, jr. Junior edited some of the works of stepdad after the former died. So both are valid for those works.

ETA: I could live with not having it so, but I think it would be a shame to lose that info.

http://www.librarything.com/author/hahnalbertsr
http://www.librarything.com/author/hahnjra

165Edward
Bewerkt: nov 28, 2020, 6:24 am

>147 lilithcat: I've been following the second approach (split-then-alias), which I had taken to be a community consensus. I'll move to combine-then-split if that's actually what people prefer, but I can imagine this causing significant problems, as in these made-up examples:

1) There's a combined "John Jones" page that includes "John B. Jones" and "John C. Jones". However, John B. Jones later has a bestseller published using his middle initial, and "John B. Jones" becomes a more popular name than "John Jones". LT recalculates the combined author page to make "John B. Jones" its primary name, even though the page still includes books by John C. Jones.

2) There's a combined "John Jones" page that includes "John B. Jones" and "John C. Jones". A well-intentioned LT user discovers a separate "John D. Jones" page and combines it with "John Jones". Unfortunately, "John D. Jones" is a more popular name than "John Jones", so the result is a "John D. Jones" author page that includes works by John B. Jones and John C. Jones.

The examples above show the problem with instructions like "combine John B. Jones into John Jones". Unless there's a feature I haven't noticed, we can't actually decide to make John Jones the primary name of the combined page, so all we can do is "combine John B. Jones with John Jones" and allow an algorithm to decide which is the primary name. The result of the algorithm could change over time (as in example 1), and I don't know what rules it uses even at a single time.

Another advantage of split-then-alias is that books entered as by "John B. Jones" will automatically appear in the correct place, while under combine-then-split they'll appear under "John Jones" and have to be assigned manually to the correct split. But this is only mildly annoying compared with the potential for wrong-primary-name problems.

166SandraArdnas
nov 28, 2020, 6:24 am

>163 WeeTurtle: You get to John Smith page either way if that's how you've entered it. However, combining say John M. Smith with all the John Smiths would mean that those who have that as the name would also arrive at the split page, not at the John M. Smith one. Also, every new work by John M. Smith would have to be manually assigned to a proper split.

167casvelyn
nov 28, 2020, 7:43 am

>162 timspalding: The lists are “Dead or Alive?” and “Author Gender” under Stats/Memes. Although there may be other places too.

I totally get the system mechanics that cause it to work this way, and this is probably an edge case anyway. But there have definitely been quite a few times where I’m looking through my stats and I see an author I absolutely don’t recognize and know I’ve never read, until I click through and see it’s actually so-and-so, but the system recognizes them under a different name than I do. It’s better than it used to be though.

168lilithcat
nov 28, 2020, 8:46 am

>166 SandraArdnas:

Exactly!

If the John Smith page is split and aliased, then someone who has entered "John B. Smith"'s book as by "John Smith" will get to that page, and see that their author also uses "John B."

But if the pages are combined and then split, someone who has entered the book as by "John B" will be led to the wrong page.

169r.orrison
nov 28, 2020, 9:29 am

170Stevil2001
nov 28, 2020, 10:25 am

I think Tara Samms is a case where something un-intuitive has happened with aliasing.

The author Stephen Cole mostly publishes under that name, which is an author split here: https://www.librarything.com/author/colestephen-1

He publishes his YA fiction, however, as Steve Cole, which is an author split here: https://www.librarything.com/author/colesteve-1

But he also published nine short stories and one novella under the alias "Tara Samms." Because of how split-and-alias has been deployed, the only place you can find all of his works listed-- of which he has over 200-- is on the page for Tara Samms, a name he has used for 5% of his output.

171SandraArdnas
nov 28, 2020, 10:44 am

>170 Stevil2001: There are other cases like that, usually with one split and the pseudonym. Even after some discussion, no one came up with a good solution. It is either aliased or unlinked, just with pseudonym under alt names. Since the first is indeed odd, some opt for second option.

172Stevil2001
nov 28, 2020, 11:57 am

>171 SandraArdnas: I guess the alternative I see as possible (and I think Tim is promoting? though I see why some don't like it) is to merge Tara Samms into Stephen Cole.

173lilithcat
Bewerkt: nov 28, 2020, 12:08 pm

>172 Stevil2001:

If you do that, then you are messing with all the other Stephen Coles. (And those who are looking for Tara Samms, and don't know it's a pseudonym, will be very confused.)

174r.orrison
nov 28, 2020, 12:26 pm

It's not currently possible, but it would be helpful if you could combine an author with a specific split.

175mart1n
nov 28, 2020, 12:47 pm

>174 r.orrison: Very much so. Fancy writing it up as an RSI? Frankly this whole area confuses me.

176gabriel
nov 28, 2020, 1:47 pm

>158 timspalding:
>165 Edward:
>170 Stevil2001:

Honestly, I don't think either approach is going to avoid some pitfalls. The question is what approach works better generally.

Except for well-known authors, few are going to care about whether the author page is a particularized name or a common name. I don't really care whether Charles Arthur Campbell went by Charles Campbell or C. A. Campbell during his life, but having the particular name as the core author page is useful. When you get to the George Eliots, we need to try to avoid absurdities, so I don't think we should be inflexible about this kind of thing - although I realize that undermines the desire for clear and consistent rules.

My other sense is that it's a lot easier to do the work of combining with the particularized names: you can combine a particularized authorial name, i.e., the many versions of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon and leave the mess that is sometimes the undifferentiated name (Edward Hyde isn't that bad, but there are more complex examples) for another time or another editor.

177Bettesbooks
nov 29, 2020, 3:18 am

>129 Crypto-Willobie:, >125 timspalding: Why is politics invading this site? I thought this site was about books!

178gilroy
nov 29, 2020, 7:27 am

>177 Bettesbooks: It's like the forever creeping blob that it is. You either ban it, or it gets out of its box and makes a mess of everything.

179Stevil2001
nov 29, 2020, 8:21 am

>173 lilithcat: I mean, I know it's not perfect, but it only "messes" with them to the extent that at the top of the main Stephen/Steve Cole page it will say "Includes the name: Tara Samms" in tiny, faded print... I don't really think that's that bad an outcome.

180SandraArdnas
nov 29, 2020, 9:05 am

>179 Stevil2001: Personally, I think it's better to leave them unlinked then and just note all the author names in all places. Having Tara Samms as author and arriving by clicking it on the split Stephen Cole page is just too weird and confusing. There isn't even the notice like with aliasing, so unless the work is assigned already to a proper split, they'll end up on main split page with no idea why.

181gabriel
nov 29, 2020, 3:17 pm

>179 Stevil2001:
>180 SandraArdnas:

Honestly, I think the only adequate solution would be to find out if Stephen Cole has a middle name, create a distinct name and alias everything into that name (and combine Tara Samms into that name). He might not go by Stephen H. Cole (or whatever), but that's better than having three author pages, or having all his works under a pseudonym he rarely uses. Of course, it doesn't seem like anyone knows his middle name, and perhaps he doesn't have one anyway...

The only other way you could put all his works together under a "Stephen Cole" name would be to combine Tara Samms, Steve Cole and Stephen Cole together, and then split the author. Maybe that would be the solution Tim favours, but I see problems with that kind of precedent. For one, the pseudonym might itself be a split author, and then you'd end up with a split author including real people with completely different names.

182gabriel
nov 29, 2020, 5:20 pm

Another question: what should we do when a divided author can be eliminated by combining some works, so that the all the works under the author name are from one actual author? Works could still bubble up, but maybe the balance is to keep as a single author, and combine as necessary?

My understanding is that we should make it a single author when it's a full name (i.e. "James Shank") and leave it as a split author when there's no first name, only initials (i.e. J. Anderson).

I would think inherently ambiguous names - i.e. "Saint Catherine", should be treated like the J. Andersons of the world. Even if you can make it so all the works belong to a single St. Catherine, I think that author page should remain separate and divided.

183SandraArdnas
nov 29, 2020, 5:37 pm

>182 gabriel: J. Anderson example or just last names I've often seen a DN saying 'if your work appears here consider editing the author name to full one ...' which I think is an excellent practice

184gabriel
nov 29, 2020, 5:43 pm

>184 gabriel:

Sure it's helpful, but I think the majority of LTers simply put their information in and never venture to see where the author (as they've entered it) ends up, and so will never see such a note.

185SandraArdnas
nov 29, 2020, 5:55 pm

>184 gabriel: Yes, probably in majority of cases, but it's still good practice. Most of the time, works that end there are either combined into proper work with full author name, or remain there because too obscure to identify without proper author name.

186abbottthomas
nov 30, 2020, 1:42 pm

Generally speaking I'd rather pour oil on troubled waters than petrol but I feel compelled to go back to >1 gabriel: where this recent discussion started. This topic and the two others that have arisen from it are becoming preoccupied with the minutiae of splitting and combining without getting very far in dealing with the root cause.

I wonder if this is the first time in internet history when the founder and part-owner of a big, established, international web site with 2.5 million members, many of whom have participated - to the tune of over 45 million 'helper actions' - in improving the data held on the site, has paused to set up a topic - https://www.librarything.com/topic/326689#n7329253 - offering the opportunity for a single named member to explain their actions to him, particularly when that member has a long history of causing upset and offence to many others?

I have always appreciated Tim's frequent personal involvement with concerns expressed on Talk but this feels like rewarding bad behaviour rather than discouraging it.

187timspalding
nov 30, 2020, 3:47 pm

>186 abbottthomas:

I'm not offering help, I'm requiring them to explain and defend everything they want to do, before they do anything. This has stopped them from making destructive changes as well as being obnoxious about them. I will continue it until I am satisfied they understand what is and is not appropriate to do.

As I have indicated, I'm happy to suspend or remove the member if they engage in violations of the TOS. Send them to me. But indeed I do believe something can be achieved by figuring out what drives them, and then removing what's destructive from the table of options.

188abbottthomas
nov 30, 2020, 4:56 pm

>187 timspalding: You are a better and kinder man than me. I have a darker view of human nature which pleases me not one bit. I sincerely hope you prove to be right.

189Crypto-Willobie
nov 30, 2020, 5:56 pm

>188 abbottthomas:

James the Just teaches the value of 'good works'...

190abbottthomas
dec 2, 2020, 6:28 am

https://www.librarything.com/topic/326689#7331310

Has Tim bitten off more than he can chew? ;-)

191timspalding
dec 5, 2020, 1:30 am

>190 abbottthomas:

Took me a while to chew.

192abbottthomas
dec 5, 2020, 9:53 am

I can't help hearing Ol' Blue Eyes in my mind's ear...

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.