How do I search the overlap between two collections?
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
Specifically, I've got a "Home" collection and a "To read" collection. I'd love to see a list of the books in my house I have yet to read.
Thanks in advance.
http://www.librarything.com/profile/MEMBERNAME/stats/collections (you get there from your Profile, via "Statistics/Memes" > "Collections"; Collections is way down at the bottom of the left sidebar on your Statistics page).
There you'll see the Collections Overlap data; for each collection, it will tell you how many books are in each other collection as well, and have a link to the overlap. So you'd find your "Home" collection there and click on the link to "To read", and get the display of the overlapping books.
Not really complaining. It's wonderful that we have any of the sets. But I wish there was some (easy, not heavy-developer-time) way of getting at all the unions and intersections...
I use tags for genres/subjects, specifically so I can put it in more than one (Childrens and SF, for instance). My CDO won't let me tag a book only one thing when it's really two or three...
I love the way everyone uses LT differently!
(A few clicks later …). only two?! More abominations please!
Huh. You didn't like A World Lit Only By Fire? I'll have to look at your review - that's on my TBR pile. Not very high on the pile, but it's there...
Joannasephine, the criterion is whether the book makes me want to throw it against the wall! Not too many books have come my way that elicit that reaction, fortunately.
I used AWLOBF as the poster child for a bad resource in a lecture course I gave on research techniques a few years ago.
Basically, it's a lot easier to get rid of unread books when I know that my chances of reading them are slim to nil.
You should though. With the exclusion of his free composition on the topic of the Middle Ages, he is a very knowledgeable historian.
It is very readable and very inaccurate... If one does not know the era, they might fall for it. But anyone that had ever been in a history class or read another book....
At 3.64, I wouldn't hesitate for very long before dumping it unread.
Wow. For me, 3.5 is an above-average rating - something I couldn't finish would be 0.5 or 1. I hate to think that anything I enjoyed but didn't think was spectacular is contributing to a negative opinion of the book in your eyes!
At least, when I see a 3-3.75 average rating, that's how I interpret it. I also look at the tags and reviews to decide if it's still an interesting enough topic/theme/whatever to try it.
But when there's a lot of books on your TBR, sometimes it's easier to have a slightly higher cut-off.
More generally, I do think 3.5 is below average for the site as a whole, though I don't think any individual rater does any harm: for everyone like lorax who uses 3.5 as above-average, there are probably two people who give pretty much everything 4 stars or higher. Tim has said repeatedly that the average is 4, anyway.
So if people read books they're predisposed to like, and a particular book is below average for site-wide ratings, doesn't that mean it's less likely to be a particularly good read?
Some of us account for that in our ratings. I like something that I rate a 3.
There could also be a difference between the average rating across all ratings, and the average rating across all books: the better books might end up becoming more popular and having more influence on the average ratings, although there does come a point when that starts to work the other way as books become so popular that they get read even by people who don't generally like that genre.
I consider 3 readable, 3.5 enjoyable and likely to be reread, 4 as very good, 4.5 as excellent, and 5 as a rare wonderful book. I have ratings at every level, though only one .5 star.
And I look at my own ratings (and sometimes adjust them - 'it wasn't _that_ bad' or (more commonly) 'I must have been in a bad mood that day'. Or 'it wasn't _that_ good'!) and pretty much ignore sitewide ratings. I will look at the ratings of someone else who shares my taste in books - or I would, if I found such a person (who actually rated their books).
I know what you mean. Plenty of times I've tried to find out what someone who seems to share my taste thinks about a book I'm considering, only to find they haven't bothered to rate it or review it. In many ways it's a failing of the site that ratings aren't really treated seriously. But five stars is hard to use in a meaningful way (even though being able to use half stars effectively doubles the range). Maybe Tim should adopt some other sort of scale? Mine is the Park Bench scale, based on how many blocks I would be willing to retrace if I had inadvertantly left the book on a park bench somewhere.
It's partly chicken-and-egg - if the site made more use of ratings, there would be more ratings - but also, as you say, ratings are somewhat less than meaningful by themselves. I just did SantaThing, observed my Santee's ratings...and had no clue what s/he thought of the books. I had to look at the (many fewer) reviews s/he'd written to get a feel for what 2, 3, 4 stars meant.
I put my star ratings on my profile - not so much for other people, but for me, to keep my ratings consistent. I keep wobbling up and down, where a 3 means barely adequate one day (week/month/year) and a fun read another time. The profile list lets me recalibrate.
Not necessarily. I give stars to things once in a great while, but really, I hate rating or ranking things. Having the site use rating more would make not a whit of difference to me. I doubt if I am the only person who feels this way.
I know ratings are important to many people, but they are equally unimportant to many others. I might look at a rating if it's there, but unless I know who's rating and what their taste is, it's not something I particularly trust. It's like the stars that movie reviewers give: some reviewers love stuff I hate, and some reviewers' opinions mean a lot to me.
And even if we did, the reviews are saying why... and help a lot more than a number.
For example, I don't that much care for Romeo and Juliet within the Shakespeare canon, but I 5***** rated and reviewed a recent Early Review edition from Demitra Papadinis based on the quality of its annotations. I gave 4½**** to the first edition of Juliet Barker's biography of the The Brontes but 5***** to the second edition in Kindle format. I gave 4**** (and this may be generous) to the Library of America edition of Sarah Orne Jewett, one of my favorite American writers, based on the relative incompleteness of the LoA edition.
Now, granted, you won't find that kind of edition-based reviewing for most contemporary works, but the quality of an edition can make a lot of difference for classics. And of course, despite the quality of the original work, a Norton Critical Edition will almost always be rated on the basis of its annotations and its supplementary materials -- as, for example, I did in my review of the NCE Oliver Twist.
Ratings are interesting in and of themselves, but an individual rating only has power insofar as you know the person doing the rating and understand what they're expressing with it. Aggregate ratings - as AnnieMod mentions - actually carry more information. And for that matter, on Amazon and to a lesser extent here what I'll do first is look at the most negative reviews, to see if what bothered them would be a problem for me.
On Amazon, I don't think you can rate without reviewing. I don't think LT should do that, but I wish Tim would get inspired to make a meme about rating. Think of how much CK data, of dry and (to me) largely irrelevant type, was added when he created Dead or Alive and Male or Female! And how Nationality has languished because the statistics about it are messed up - Other Authors too, a lot has been added but with them not showing up in search fewer people are inspired to spend the time. A meme that used rating data could get a lot more people interested - not the hardcore dislike group, like PhaedraB, but the people who don't bother because there's not much point to it, like me with gender or death dates for authors. I did enter quite a few, when the meme was new.